Yea also so do the Rhemish Translators read it in the Imperative Are they also decived then how shall we be ascertained of the sense of Scripture by Rhemish Interpreters So Ferus also upon the place expounds it to be a direction to the Jews of searching the Scriptures out of a greedinesse to know the truth And again upon the latter words They are they which bear witnesse of me he says that Christ cites no place but speaks in generall tam ut ad quaerendum incitet both that he might incite them to seek And so also Stapleton reads it in his Principia Doctrinalia in the Imperative And also besides not so often do we find a verb of the Indicative mood to begin a sentence But then also fourthly the reason concludes it a duty and the duty concludes a command It concludes a duty thus that which bears witnesse of Christ being in doubt we are bound to search and they bear witnesse of Christ and were then in doubt therefore for that our Saviour should not affirm it but upon their opinion in that he saith for in them ye think to have eternall life is no materiall scruple because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in other Authors so in Scripture is used by way of elegancie and then our Saviour says himself that they bear witnesse of him and therefore we have in them eternall life Doctrinally And so St. Austin in his 45. serm de verbis Domini says as expounding the place queritis me et non invenietis quare quia non scrutamini Scripturas quae testimonium perhibent de me yee seek me but shall not find me why because you do not search the Scriptures which bear witnesse of me Therefore may we conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is to be taken in the Imperative And therefore his exception that it follows not because they testifie clearly this one point whereof he spake therefore the Scriptures testifie cleerly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation that exception falls down before my argument as Dagon before the Ark because it is not only grounded upon this that the Scriptures bear witnesse of him but also in that you think to have in them eternall life And this proposition if there were need we might prove by what was said before that which is able to make us wise unto salvation hath in it eternall life the Scriptures of the old Testament were able to make wise unto salvation therefore they have in them eternall life and by consequent they contain all things necessary to salvation And therefore though this excluded not the hearing of John or Christs Miracles as he would inferr as upon duty yet it excludes them as upon simple necessity to salvation Otherwise those who dyed before Christ and John could not have been saved The force of his ratiocination comes to as much as this as if because one had a great estate he could not live of lesse or as if because he can live of lesse he ought not to follow his calling whereby he may get more This is not the question whether we ought to hear whatsoever God says for this we affirm but this is the question whether it be said because it is necessary or necessary to be heard because it was said the former we deny The necessity was not antecedent to the diction but hearing hath it self to the diction as a necessary consequent So this text is yet good against him Onely he urgeth me with St. Cyrill's opinion of the mood and also Beza's I had thought he would have made no mention any more of any Father of the Church because he says I do not allow infallibility to their testimony It seems their authority must yet be good against us though not for us To Beza's judgement we will oppose quoad hominem the interpretation of the Rhemists and Ferus as before To St. Cyrill's authority we say we can confront it with St. Chrysostom's and yet we do not build upon the mood for the reason binds us Yet because he seems to have his mind turned in better affection to the Fathers it will be reasonable to set down St. Crysostom's words hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sends them to the Scriptures And again also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we therefore when we are to fight with Hereticks and are armed against them are strengthned from henee namely from the Scriptures for so it follows in him as a reason for all Scripture is given by inspiration c. Num. 12. Your fourth text is You err not knowing the Scriptures And from hence he demands a Contradictory Conclusion shall it be this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Or rather this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture For this is the far stronger consequence Ans Indeed he seemed to love rather to baffle his Adversary than to answer him For here again he dislocates my answer that where it was proper it might not be answered and where it is not formally contradictory it may not seem opposite Doth this become men that would lead us the right way by truth to happinesse The citation of this text comes in to give him satisfaction unto his argument that if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge in all Controversies he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so To this I said we answer Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures in that he saith ye err not knowing the Scriptures and also adding the other text to Timothy All Scripture is given by inspiration and also 2. Ep. Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy thus I said and also allowed him the use of externall Judges without necessity of infallibility and also I retorted his argument If Christ had intended the Church should have been the infallible Judge it importing so exceedingly he would have told us so clearly which he hath not done c. Now if all my texts be able to give a full account of our being obliged to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge externall it is enough for me and my purpose to which I used them but he cunningly draws that text from the proper use and shews it here not to be fit for a contradiction to that which formally is another question than that to which it was applyed but let these tricks go I will now take the texts together and from thence conclude contradictorily to the present question Whether all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in Scripture thus If we be referred to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge then the Scripture doth plainly set down
obtruding upon old Christians ancienter than Tertullian's Prescriptions therefore it is too much curtesie to take any notice of what he saies about the faith brought into England by S. Austin and yet we can make use of it too for if it be so as he saies that the faith brought into England by St. Austin was the same faith which was abolished by our reformation then we have abolished none but the Roman faith and the Christian faith in the general principles of it we had before And this might be enough for the virtue of miracles but that he saies miracles are called a testimony greater than John the Baptist Are they so then we take leave to shew what his words in two places will come to even in the same page 72. before in the same p. he had said that a miracle doth not make a thing so prudently credible as universal tradition here he saies that a miracle is a greater testimony than John the Baptist whence we argue thus That which is greater than that which is greater is greater than that which is less miracles are here said to be greater testimony than John the Baptist and John the Baptist's testimony was greater than of Universal Tradition then miracles are a greater testimony than of universal Tradition But let this pass And now we shall touch upon what he saies about Tradition saving that we must smile at what he saies about the truth of their miracles that there is as little to be said against them as against the miracles of the Prophets and Apostles This is not to be answered until the miracles of the Maid of Kent may be compared with those of Elijah and S. Peter and until their Doctrine which they would have confirmed by their miracles be found as good and authentick as that of the Apostles which was confirmed by their miracles But to Tradition we come Thus was the first age assured of God's word by the oral tradition of the first Pastors of the Church who had received it in the name of God from the Apostles who gave their Writings to them Ans This is not much to their purpose For first unless oral tradition did exclude the divine testimony of Gods Spirit they cannot say that the first Age was assured by this and not by that And this testimony is not excluded neither by oral tradition nor by miracles simply for Gods Spirit might assure them of the truth of each and then the last ground of faith is the testimony of the Spirit Secondly let orall tradition be restrained as to object of thing or let it equally be proved of the new points forementioned otherwise they have not by orall tradition sufficient benefit Thirdly notwithstanding the Apostles own preachings which were more than oral tradition and notwithstanding all miracles done by the Apostles which both equally had themselves to al then hearers of the one or spectators of the other yet as many as were ordained to eternal life believed Acts 13.48 So that the belief did effectually follow upon the efficacy of the Spirit of God applying the means of faith home to their Consciences It is not said as many as did believe were ordained to eternall life as if the belief foreseen had it self antecedenter to the ordination but as many as were ordained to eternall life believed Fourthly as for the Jews and Proselytes they had also who lived in the time of Christ for the means of their assurance Moses and the Prophets who had prophesied of Christ and Christian Doctrine And as for that which follows that the first Pastors besides their oral tradition did assure them that the Spirit of God would abide with the Church teaching her all truth c. We answer first if the first Pastors did teach any thing they could teach nothing but what they received from the Apostles who gave their writings to them as before and why then may not we take it better from the writings of the Apostles than from their teaching for primum in suo genere est mensura reliquorum But secondly where have they sufficient inducement of belief either by orall tradition or miracles or whatsoever prudential motives that this respects the Church under the formality of a Representative Yea thirdly therefore if so how was it made true to the Church in those Centuries wherein there was no formall Representative namely for 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church as himself says in this Paragraph Fourthly if this promise attended the Church under the account of a Representative yet of the whole Church and what is this to the Roman Church which is but a part even in St. Jeroms judgement in his Epistle to Evagrius Yea also fifthly that promise was not spoken by the Apostles to the Church but by Christ to the Apostles and therefore can it not be drawn down in a parallel line to all the ages of the Church and therefore that which follows in the 71 p. is without any foundation Debile fundamentum fallit opus But he reinforceth the power of universal tradition Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible than universall tradition and so he prefers it to a miracle Ans And have they vouched universal tradition by universall tradition they may be cast for they cannot find universall tradition for their supernumerary points and there was universal tradition for some points which they have cast off as before namely the millenary point and infant baptism So then by their own argument they are unprovided of such a proof than which nothing can make a thing more prudently credible Secondly if he means by the terms prudently credible precisely such then he derogates from infallibility and so all this discourse comes short of the state of the question which respects infallible assurance If he means it subordinatly to that which makes infallible assurance then why doth he insist upon this as the primum mobile of all faith and then let them tell us what that is which doth absolutely fix belief and determines doubting And surely the terms he useth per se do seem to be termini diminuentes that which is urg'd as prudently credible abstracts necessarily from that which is infallibly credible for they are sub diverso genere And so when all comes to all upon the whole matter and at the foot of the account all faith goes no higher than a prudentiall assent Then thirdly therefore as to the force of the Argument he hath no Adversary for we can say so to Nothing can make any thing more prudently credible than universall tradition and we can make use of this motive as well as the Roman yea somewhat better because he will shrink the whole Church into one City of Rome But fourthly suppose nothing in the kind of that which is prudently credible as such were above universall tradition yet this concludes not rightly that absolutely
whereas there is but one sense of Scripture principally intended which is expressed sometimes properly sometimes improperly As for the mystical Divinity you know it is not argumentative but where it is declared in Scripture And as for the setting out of things Spiritual in way of Translation from things Temporal you may consider it is necessary if you will believe your Angelical Doctor because since our Knowledge comes here by sense we cannot for this state understand them but by compare to things of sense so that there must upon this account be Metaphors and what are Allegories but Metaphors continued And as for the Tropological sense which respects institution of life that is not difficultly found in more clear precepts Again if by impropriety of speech we should conclude an absolute need of an Infallible Judge then how should we Infallibly be guided by the opinion of the Fathers since so many of them especially Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen who were of the antientest of them are so full of this obscurity And as for your Objection that both Precepts and Councils are delivered in the Mood Imperative you cannot reasonably conceive that we should be so ignorant and credulous as to think that we should swallow down without chewing this your supposition that there are Counsells of Perfection above things of Command for when we have done all we must say that we are unprofitable Servants we have done what we ought to do St. Luke the 17. and 10. Unprofitable not onely to God as your men distinguish but also unprofitable to our selves because we have done but our duty if we did as much as we could which none does and yet if we did as much as we could we should not do so much as we should since the Commands of God are given to us according to the tenour of our ability in Adam which we lost by our own fault Our obedience therefore by it selfe cannot be profitable Another default you will finde or make in Scripture that it doth no where set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals But do you think in earnest that this is a cogent argument for your cause The Scripture doth not set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals therefore it is not to be the Judge of Controversies To your Antecedent we say that the Scripture doth give us every particular point which is necessary to be believed although it doth not give out the Number thereof formall and material how many and which they are Secondly It doth not onely afford that which is simply necessary but doth furnish us with many other particulars so that it is an abundant directory for our use And therefore is there no defect of Wisdome in this Law-maker when he gives us such a Law that Infallibly contains all necessaries and more and when those necessaries are not onely plainly delivered but also what is not plainly delivered is thereby signified not to be necessary Thirdly Again we admit humane dijudications of doubts emergent in some points and they have their use with us without Infallibility Fourthly Either the Scripture yet notwithstanding this is it whereby we must be determined in points of Religion or else the Church but the Church by the same argument is not the Judge because it doth not define whatsoever may be necessary to be held by a full Catholique in your sense Whether the Pope hath Temporal power or not is not this necessary to be determined if it be determined how came your Heart to deny it then whether he hath power Temporal directly as the Canonists or indirectly as others is this determined then how came Bellarmin to go against his Conscience on one side or other for he varied herein as your Widdrington speaks of him And Widdrington he is another against his power in his Apology for the right and Soveraignty of temporal Princes And why is not the question decided whether the Pope be Superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiasticall which the Sorbonists deny Are not there high points which are of weight to move an Infallible Conclusion Not to speak of Gods predetermination or whether the Virgin Mary was Conceived without Original sin How is then the Church the Infallible Judge of Controversies If you say that the Church determines as much as is necessary well then and so hath the Scripture which you acknowledge is Infallible but are not the former points necessary what can you instance in which is more necessary and not determined in Scripture If our Salvation as you hold be in jeopardy for not submitting to the Infallible Judge what can be of more concernment then to know Infallibly who he is and what power he hath which yet your prudent Religion will never make a determination of After this you taxe our Doctrine to be contrary to Scripture and first in the matter of Extream Unction by Saint James We say if you say right that it is clear against us by Scripture then the Scripture hath decided this question then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies And yet at the beginning hereof you speak very warily and discreetly it seems If by this term you would have us believe that it is not evidently declared against us in Scripture then we need say no more as to this case If it be manifest by Scripture against us and you mean your word seems as Aristotle and others use it in way of Elegance or of course then it doth not abate the tenure of the affirmative and then what need we any other Judge so are you held by this Dilemma Secondly That command of Saint James imports no Sacrament as you would have it but doth relate to the gift of Healing in those times Another example of our difference from Scripture you presse the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be in our sense We answer first You say the words of Institution are clear in this Sacrament in which any wise Man would speak clearly and yet afterwards you say this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide How far are these from a contradiction if clear then either is decided or needs none but it is for your turn that it should be clear and not decided clear against us not decided for you VVell here again you incur the former inconvenience which I will let passe Secondly The words indeed are clear for the nature of a Sacrament which under a visible signe represents a spiritual thing and so therefore for the condition of a Sacrament any wise man could not speak more conveniently then in a figurative sense because it is symbolical to the Sacrament For if the real presence as you mean be corporal then is the property of the Sacrament destroyed because the signe is turned into that which is signified And you are in more capacity to yeild a figurative sense here because elsewhere you do object too much of it and here too little Indeed if Scripture had no other handling but yours it would after it more need an Infallible
pretend that to be necessary which you will say the next moment is unnecessary 58. But to shew you further that the Scripture is not clear in all points necessary to Salvation with such claritie as is necessary to put an end effectually to all controversies I take a point or two set down with full as great clarity as divers other points can be shew'd to be set down which other points you do affirme both to be necessary to Salvation and also to be set down clear enough to decide the Controversie for you though they be set down with no greater claritie then those points which I will specifie and which you will say be not set down clear enough to decide the Controversie for us whence the inconsequence of your proceedings will be made evident whilest all shall see that you will pretend such a degree of clarity in the Texts which you use to alledge for such points to be sufficient to decide them for you and by and by they shall see again a higher degree of clarity rejected by you as unsufficient to decide a point against you To prove this the first point I specifie is of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction The text in your own Bible speaketh thus James 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders Priests of the Church And let them pray over him anointing him with oyle in the name of our Lord. And the prayer of the faithfull shall save the sick And the Lord shall rais him up And if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him What imports a dying man more then to have that applied to him in due manner by which he may be secured upon the word of a God that if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him And yet you cry superstition superstition If a Priest be called for to pray over a sick man and to anoint him with oile which is that Visible Act to which invisible grace justifiing from sinne is promised in those words And if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him How clear this place is appeares by the very letter in which we have all we desire to make a Sacrament A Visible signe of invisible grace You will say this clarity is not in a degree sufficient to make a man believe with divine faith that this Unction of anointing is a Sacrament or a Visible signe of invisible Grace And so soon as I shall ask you will tell me that your grand fundamental and Capital point All things necessarie to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture is a point delivered in Scripture by Texts having a sufficient degree of clarity to make it an Article to be believed with a divine faith I call for those Texts and you do give them as well as you can as I suppose I examine them all in this Chapter from my eighth Number to my fifteenth and I dare Venture my life that no wise conscionable man will say that any one of those texts or all put together doe with as great a degree of claritie affirm All things necessarie to Salvation to be plainly set down in Scripture alone as this text I alledged affirmeth this Sacrament of Anointing But this you say is not affirmed with a degree of Clarity sufficient to decide the Controversie for us and to ground an infallible belief of this point Therefore that degree of Clarity is not sufficient to decide in your behalf that capital Controversie and to ground an infallible beliefe of it And yet for many other points which I specified in the beginning of this Chapter you have not so much Scripture as you have for this prime point though I did chuse this for my instance because I had examined all your texts You give two answers to this Objection The first is that if the Scripture hath decided this point for us then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies But Sir doth it hence follow that it can end all necessary Controversies because it can end this one Controversie Again is this Controversie by this Text ended Doe not you still stand out in the contrarie opinion This Text indeed might as I said seem in the impartial judgement of a prudent man to say evidently that this anointing is a Sacrament and sure I am that it saith it clearer then any Scripture you can bring for many points which you say are clearly decided by Scripture yet we see by the experience which we have of you and yours that even this great degree of claritie in this Text will not serve to convince your judgments whence it is manifestly inferred that a lesse degree of claritie which notwithstanding is the highest which can be found in many Texts that be the clearest alledgeable for many points necessary to salvation will not effectually end the controversies about those points And therefore there must be some other means to end them Your Second Answer is flatly against the Text for you say these words do only relate to the guift of healing in those daies and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the Soul If he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him I pray what Scripture have you to prove that the Elders in those daies did commonly cure all sick anointing them with oile I am sure you can alledge nothing but some uncertain conjecture I asked you also if you had one place of Scripture half as clear against this Sacrament of anointing as the Text I brought was clear for it But you neither did nor could give me any 59. The second point which I did chuse to prove that such Texts of Scripture as are clearer then those Texts which you can alledge for many necessarie points for example clearer then any Text for the Sunday or baptizing children is notwithstanding this greater degree of claritie rejected by you as not sufficient to decide the controversie against you Therefore I say you most inconsequently proceed when you affirm far lesse clearer Texts sufficient to decide all Controversies The Text brought by me and rejected thus by you was This is my Body Words expressed by four several Writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken Figuratively And if you confer this place with the sixth of Saint Iohn he hath these words The bread that I will give is my flesh and then as it were purposely to shew he spoke not Figuratively he added My Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Notwithstanding these so clear Texts you hold that the Scripture decideth this point against us with a decision sufficient to end the controversie And yet for the contrarie all the Texts you can bring have not that degree of claritie which these Texts have against you But you deny that these Texts decide against you Therefore to speak with tolerable consequence you should acknowledge that lesse clear Texts cannot decide against us yet being by your owne main principle bound
the premises which we do not in their propriety affirme as namely that they are to take the Scripture for the sole and onely Judge in all necessary controversies we say properly and formally Scripture is not the judge but as the Law and rule by which judgement is to be given in controversies necessary 2. We do not allow him to make a review of what is decreed in a Generall Councell as in order to any other but onely for himself He hath no autoritative judgement respecting others but a rationall judgement respecting himself So you say that of us which we do not say And then again you will not say of us that which we do say which should spoyle the Argumentation for though we say he may not for he cannot submit his judgement to a Generall Councell unlesse he sees what is determined thereby to be true yet may he submit his person unto censure and so not oppose the Church Representative Again 3. In this your Argument you do not conclude home for you conclude this is but to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding the word of God and falling into heresie So then upon the whole matter this argumentation of yours is not good because somewhat in it nay much is denied and somewhat not by you allowed as it should be and then it concludes but accidentally if probably not necessarily if necessarily not demonstratively if demonstratively not a priori for it doth not by way of a certain efficient cause induce the conclusion of heresie nor is heresie the finall cause of our intending this liberty to the people Therfore be not so forward in high termes of your ratiocination Yea if this allowance to the people did certainly and by way of Emanation produce heresie it would not of it self produce any more than materiall heresie in points of necessary faith which need not be brought into question not heresie formal which imports opposition to the Church And this respect of heresie you do surely bend the bow against Indeed every opposition doth import discent but every discent which is more generall doth not actually import an opposition So your long sillogisme a priori is but lanke nor doth your reasoning a posteriori thrive thus In those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow I still meane when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleadged on all sides these and only these sects have multiplied and do multiply beyond measure Ans If the Scripture be allowed to every ones use for the knowledge of things necessary to salvation it is no prostitution of it Bellarmin as before in his 1. b. c. 1. de Verbo Dei affirms it to be our rule then a rule to all then it is necessary by necessity of precept and by necessity of mean too upon the account of a rule if you speak of a prostitution of it to every ones interpretation according to his own fansy This is not intended by us But what power hath the Church to hinder them of their right If they abuse their liberty it is upon their own perill They wrest the Scripture to their own destruction as St. Peter said of some that they wrested some things in St. Paul's Epistles which are hard to be understood And as Dominion Civill is not grounded in grace speciall so neither is the religious right of Scripture grounded in speciall knowledge And if they be more ignorant they have more need of it 2. The parenthesis you adde to strengthen your argument or to qualifie the state of your question makes nothing for you For if you understand the words I still meane when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleadged on all sides as to strengthen your Argument it surely weakens it For if they heare or see what is alleadged on all sides they are not like to follow their own conceit but what appears to be more reasonable For your argument supposeth that after they have heard or seen all that can be said on all sides yet they have liberty from us to interpret according to their own pleasure which is more unlikely they would do though they had our allowance after they had heard or seen all that could be alleadged on all sides If you intend those words to qualify the state of the question then it seems before they do hear or see what is alleadged on all sides they may not passe any judgement of the point for themselves and if they must first heare or see all that can be alleadged on all sides before they take that sense that is agreeable to plain places of Scripture then surely they must be blind as to this point for when shall they be able probably to know whether they have heard or seen all that can be alleadged on all sides in such a matter This is such a yoke which the Pharisees if we may say so lay upon us which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear But 3. Whereas you say these and only these sects have multiplied do multiply beyond measure it is false on both parts not these always which you must mean for why then did the ancient Fathers exhort the people so much to the study of the Scripture as Cyrill of Jerusalem and S. Chrysostom the former in his Catechism the later in his Comments and also in homilies And then not only there for then you might propose a convenient way to take away all the differences amongst the Jesuites and Dominicans and those that divide from the court of Rome namely by taking away all use of Scripture You see not only by ignorant and profane men there are bred differences where the Bible is in liberty but amongst the learned men also So that not always these nor only these these are sects But 4. The multiplying of sects and beyond measure is not as hath been said the effect of the use thereof because not necessary And doth not your argument follow by consequence only then not by necessity of consequent And therefore is not this a demonstration a posteriori Thus you have argued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us now see how happy you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in refutation of my answers This we have in the third par Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of heresie and bad life which followeth heresie Ans Here we see you intended a full demonstration from the cause But whereas you say none of my arguments do prove the contrary you may remember that I had no arguments but in way of answer It is not my office to dispute but answer Whereas you say bâ—d life followeth heresy that you meane inseparably do you not If you do not it is inconsequent if you do it is false How many Hereticks have been more strict in their lives then orthodox Christians that they
know that de officio this is the way of constituting and so of distinguishing the Church and de facto this is the way that S. Austin and also some of their owne Divines do prove the Church by yea this is the way which my Adversaries must take and do And thirdly neither do we say that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit but to those who do professe the beliefe of the Scripture to be the word of God And therefore are we even with them in this kinde for as they deale with Heathens as to the proofe of Scripture by the Church so do we also as the Fathers were wont by the Church universal And I can use the authority of the Church as an inducement unto the Heathen although the Pontificians cannot use the authority of the Chnrch to me as the determinative of faith So then if they can prove the authority of the Church infallibly to be infallible without dependence upon the Scripture they shall indeed speak to the purpose Otherwise they are shut up in a circle out of which they can never move their foot The thirty second number hath in it much and little longae Num. 32. Ambages sed summa sequor fastigia rerum The intendment of it is to fix the wheel by assuring the Church to be infallible without running to the Scripture In the beginning of it it would prove their faith good because they believed those who delivered it had Commission from God But this satisfieth not because the question rebounds upon them why they believed that those who delivered it had Commission from God If they say they had assurance thereof by the Spirit then they come to our kind of assurance Therefore they determine this belief upon two motives one comming from the Doctrine in order to God change of life the other from God in order to the Doctrine in miracles and there he amplifies in two leaves which might have been dispatched in three words Indeed the first he says not much of for it is no concluding argument For first it doth not distinguish Doctrines for thus the Jew the Arrian the Socinian the Sectary might prove his Doctrine infallible Secondly the good life if it were a result of Doctrine yet not from the points of difference but the generall fundamentalls of Christian faith wherein the Controversies lie not Yea thirdly if this new life did proceed by way of emanation or absolute connexion from the points of difference we might join issue with them and have the better Yea fourthly Judas had a right Commission and yet no good life Yea fifthly the manners are rather to be proved good by the practicall Doctrine than speculative Doctrine if any Doctrine ultimately be such proved good by manners Therefore good life is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine Doctrine nor yet of a Divine Commission Yea sixthly Dato non concesso that we mighr know the Church and Doctrine of it to be infallible by good life yet this is not conformable to their postulate that God should teach us all verity by the mouth of the Church as Stapleton speaks Then as to the other motive of faith in the true Church namely miracles we can say severall things first in thesi miracles are no certain distinctive of a Divine Commission because the man of sin may deceive by lying wonders as St. Paul speaks 2 Thes 2.9 And also Moses Deut. 13.1 2. Then this is no infallible motive for the believing of a Commission from God because we may be deceived in it And although upon supposition of a true miracle we might conclude a Commission from God yet this is not the way infallible because we may be deceived in the truth of the miracle whether it be such or not since the miracle cannot fidem facere de se as the testimony of the Spirit can Secondly the gift of miracles was a gift common to those who were not all Prophets as to penning of the Scripture and also not common for ought we know to some who did as St. Mark and S. Luke therefore this is not sufficient to resolve our faith in their Commission because not given Omni nor soli for whatsoever doth distinguish must have it self per modum differentiae Thirdly therefore since we must have faith to believe the miracles to be true we ask how we come to this faith if by the operation of the Spirit then faith ultimately is fixed upon our foundation namely the testimony of the Spirit by which we may as well be assured that the Scripture is the true word of God as that miracles are true Fourthly the gift of miracles was temporary and accomodated for that season of the Church And therefore cannot we prove by miracles new Doctrines as Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Communion in one kinde Transubstantiation Supremacy of the Roman Bishop therefore if miracles did infallibly ascertain the divine Commission of the Prophets and Apostles to speak and write yet are not we satisfied by them in the question of new Doctrines which the Scripture gives us no account of but therefore he comes to Oral tradition For as for his reasoning in form thus in hypothesi The Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles therefore the Doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For first not to carp at the form of his syllogism we say to the proposition that if they preached the Doctrine of the Roman Church as differently from the whole Church they preached what they ought not to preach and so the minor proposition is false If they did preach the same doctrine which the whole Church received in Scripture from the Apostles then we grant the minor and the conclusion too as much as doctrine can be confirmed by miracles but we distinguish of the time when the miracles were wrought namely in the time of the Apostles and by them For as for miracles done by S. Austin to confirm the same faith which we abolished in our reformation we say that Bede and Gregory and Brierly whom he quotes for testimony hereof are not to us surely of sufficient authority in their own cause Nay secondly they had best not add the testimony of the learned Magdeburgians lest they be ashamed to slight them in other matters but also chiefly upon this consideration because if the points of difference were confirmed by many miracles which he refers us to Brierly in his Index for then by the Argument before those points of difference were new for as miracles have themselves to faith so new miracles to new faith And if it was a new faith then it was not received by oral tradition from the Apostles successively and then they are undone Therefore let them speak no more to us of the miracles of S. Austin the Monk who shewed nothing so much wonderful as his pride in
definitions of Councils to be prophetical If they be concluded by discourse then are they fallible if their conclusions be prophetical then by revelation But also these terms to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed are somewhat obscurely proposed Doth he mean it of the sense of Scripture Then where was it formerly revealed if it was clearely revealed what need of a Council to see that which others may see if not how was the sense revealed to them infallibly without a revelation If he meanes what was formerly revealed of Traditions those are beside the word of God and therefore these do not belong to interpreting of Scripture And yet also the Church hath not been so faithful in proposing these as hath been noted before Or doth he mean it of traditive interpretations as they are called but where are these to be found who gives us their number formal and material Let them then take home to their own Tents those that claim full assurance by the spirit in any point We differ from them much first because we doe not pretend any such necessity of ful assurance in every point but the Roman must otherwise what need of an infallible living Judge 2. We pretend not to any praerogative above other Churches as to the knowing the sense of Scripture they do Therefore they urge that of St. Cyprian in allusion to what St. Paul said of the Church of the Romans then for their Church now that perfidiousness cannot have accesse to them not considering besides what hath been said to it before what Nilus comments upon it that the Apostle spoke it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the time that was past not of the future And thirdly we do use meanes towards the finding out the true sense but they must have it by an extraordinary assistance of the Spirit which needs not means if they will have it by infallible assistance in places of controversie Therefore Stapleton thinks rationally that conclusions from discourse cannot be infallble and therefore he will have them to be Prophetical and that will be by revelation This number receives again my reinforcements of my answer to that Text forenamed about the Church the pillar and ground of truth as we ordinarily read it I said it respects the office of the Church according to the rule of the School-man He saies again No it respects the Authority And here he does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he offers no reason why it should be taken in his way For as to that which he urgeth here that it is called the ground of truth it is not solidly objected for the term in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is to keep firm and stable the prop the support and this fairly imports an act ex officio to keep up and uphold the truth He saies also it suits well with his sense to give order to Timothy to carry himself well that the Church might be thought to be infallible so as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church Ans The strength of this Argument himself destroies He is afraid to make good life an Argument of infallibility because he saies it is a pitiful argument since Solomon the Idolaters was assisted with infallibility Well But let them first take my sense with the rule of the School-men and so compare them with his reason which is but a pitiful argument and then judge whether it be not best to take my account upon the place Secondly If badness of life be a prejudice to infallibility then since they cannot deny that some of their chief Pastours have been in life scandalous their infallibility will be scandalized and so cannot be such a way as that fools cannot erre as he urged before Thirdly If this satisfies the multitude that those who are to instruct them are of unblamable life yet this though it be enough ad faciendum populum yet this is not enough to judicious men who look for satisfaction upon solid principles nor can this make Faith unto the people of their infallibility but a better opinion thereof Fourthly As for Bishops and Deacons which he saies should be so qualified by the order of St Paul to and for the credit of such a Church he does not there find in St. Pauls Epistle any Cardinal Bishop or Cardinal Presbyter or Cardinal Deacon in whom the power of infallibility according to them should chieflly consist and therefore that Text doth not positively serve their turn Fiftly I had thought infallibility could have defended it self without the credit of a good life since the grace of gifts and the gift of grace are two things I said moreover what need of such instructions which St. Paul gives to Timothy if the Church were infallible since infallible assistance is immediate He answers here this is a strange consequence the Church is infallible in defending points in a general Council Ergo no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour Ans But first the instructions he gives to Timothy were such as respected him in his place for the ordering of the Church in rebus fidei in matters of Faith as appears by the summe of Christian Doctrine which he gave him Great is the mystery of godliness c. Secondly By my Adversaries opinion there was no such need of instructions for a private life since it is a pitiful argument to derogate from infallibility by a bad life Thirdly Neither was Timothy I hope in their account a private man After this he hath two questions in the clouds Was it so for the first two thousand yeares before the Scripture was written Ans This is imediately subjoyned to the other before and therefore should seeme to be univocal to it And then we say two things first he supposeth that which is to be proved that the Church in that space was absolutely infallible 2. much less was it infallible in Councils as he now pretends which then were not as he now would have them Therefore from hence it should follow that if the Church be infallible it may be infallible without Councils and this is against him Another question is this Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediately Ans He speakes gravely as antient men were wont with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he notes in his Rhetoriques But why should he think we think he doe For the Church by him might be thought to be infallible though Timothy was not because according to him infallibility is in a representative And though Timothy might have been President of a Council yet was he not to be according to my Adversary personally infallible but as Head of the Council Yea he could not be Head of a Council then for this was according to my adversaries reserved for St. Peter And yet infallible assistance was communicated to every of