I cannot perceiue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer hereafter open your mouth in defence of it I answere it seemes to me that your reasons are already sufficiently prooued to be fallacyes since from them either nothing can be deduced for your purpose or else you must acknowledge your selfe to haue no certainty that there is a God that vertue is to be imbraced or that Christian Fayth is euen probable 7. And yet I adde that you must in another respect also solue your owne obiections Remember these your words (zz) Pag. 36.37 Yet all This I say not as if I doubted that the spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence And elswhere (a) Pag. 112. Gods spirit if he please may work more a certainty of adherence beyond certainty of euidence Now you caÌ„not deny but that these men may be tempted against their Fayth by inuoluntary doubting that they may increase in it that they may commit some deliberat sinne and may make daily progresse in Charity and good workes euen by the greater increase of their Fayth and yet you graunt them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence And so in this case your selfe must answere your owne arguments and confesse them to be but fallacies Euen your maine reason that Christian Fayth can be endued with no stronger certainty then the probable motiues on which it relyes by this selfe same instance is proued a Sopbisme For now you grant a certainty of Fayth not without probable arguments of credibility yet not for them it being more certaine then they are and therefore you are still put vpon a necessity of answering your owne arguments And whereas pag. 330. you make a shew of answering this particuler obiection really you do not answere but plainly contradict your self labouring to prooue that it is impossible that there should be a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of euidence as the Reader may cleerly see and shall be demonstrated in due time 8. One thing more I must not let passe and it is That whereas you say We would fayne haue Christian Fayth belieued to be infallible that there might be some necessity of our Churches infallibility it seemes you are apt inough to yield infallibility to Gods Church if once it be granted that Christian Fayth is infallible And with good reason For seeing you teach that vniuersall Tradition and other arguments of credibility cannot produce an infallible beliefe of holy Scripture and of the mysteries belieued by Christians it must follow that some other infallible meanes must be found out for the propounding to vs the holy Scriptures which other infallible meanes euen according to your persuasion being not Scripture it selfe nor euery mans priuate spirit there remaynes only the authority of the Catholicke Church which as an instrument of the holy Ghost may be an infallible propounder both of Scripture and all diuine verities Wherein there is a large difference betweene the Church and other Iudges These in their sentences or determinations intend not to deliuer points of infallible Fayth as the Church must intend and do it if once it be granted that from her we must receiue holy Scriptures and belieue them with a certaine and infallible assent of Christian Fayth The second Doctrine Chap. 3. That the assurance which we haue of Scriptures is but morall CHAP. III. 1. THis man magnifies holy Scriptures in many places as the only thing on which he relyes his Saluation but whosoeuer shall walke along with him from place to place marke well his wayes will find that they lead to the quite contrary and shew that he neither doth value them to their right worth nor doth lay any other grounds but such as are more apt to breed disesteeme then esteeme of them This may be seene in that he teacheth (b) Pag. 141. 62. That our assurance that the Scripture hath been preserued from any materiall alteration and that any other booke of any profance writer is incorrupted is of the same kind and condition both morall assurances 2. If this may be allowed it must necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of Scripture must in degree be much inferiour to the assurance which we haue of such bookes of prophane Authors as haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men to wit Atheists Pagans Iewes Turkes Christians wheras the bookes holy Scripture are either vnknowne or impugned by all except ChristiaÌ„s by some also who would beare of Christians and consequently the morall assurance of them and of the incorruptednesse of them is the much the lesse and of lesse morall credit And by so same reason whosoeuer builds vpoÌ„ this mans grouÌ„ds cannot haue so great assurance that there was a Iesus Christ that he had disciples and much lesse that he wrought wonderous things and lesse then this that those wonders were true miracles as that there was a Coesar Alexander Pompey c. or that they fought such battailes and the like For these things descend to vs by a more vniuersall tradition then the former (c) Pag. 116. Do not your selfe speake thus We haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the Eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue said we haue greater reason to belieue it if we consult humane inducements only and consequently if Christian Fayth be not absolutely infallible euen aboue the motiues of credibility we are more certaine that there was a King Henry then a Iesus Christ A thing which no true Christian can heare without detestation 3. That which followes out of the same 116. page is of the like nature laying a ground for vn wary people to reiect Scripture For hauing spoken of some barbarous Nations that belieued the doctrine of Christ and yet belieued not the Scripture to be the word of God (d) Pag. 116. for they neuer heard of it and Fayth comes by hearing you adde these words Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had byn proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before receiued and had been doubted of or euen reiected by thâ—se barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contained 4. If this be granted why might not any Church haue reiected the Scriptures being proposed by other parts of the Church And why may not we do so at this day Nay seeing de facto we know the verities of Christian Fayth by Scripture only according to your doctrine we cannot be obliged to belieue the Scriptures
because the verities therein contained are necessary to be belieued for this very necessity you cannot belieue but by belieuing aforehand the Scripture but contrarily you may reiect the verities themselues if you be not preobliged to belieue the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contained 5. Againe you say that Scripture is the only Rule of Christian Fayth (e) Cap. 2 per totum yet it is not necessary to Saluation to belieue it to be a rule of Fayth no nor to be the Word of God The first part of this doctrine is the scope of your whole second Chapter The second is taught purposely and at large in the same Chapter (f) Pag. 116. pag. 116. n. 159. Ioyne these two assertions and the Conclusion will be That we are not obliged to receiue that which is the only ordinary meanes of attayning Christian Fayth namely the Scriptures And therefore in the ordinary way we cannot be bound to imbrace Christian Fayth seeing it cannot be compassed without the meanes to attaine to it For how can one be obliged to attayne an end and yet be left free to reiect the only meanes of atchieuing that end I am the freer to make this question because you concurre with me in the answere when you say (g) Pag. 16. It was necessary that God by his prouidence should preserue the Scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowne otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be knowne the only meanes of continuing the Knowledge of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one whether the Scripture haue perished or whether it be preserued if in the meane time we be not bound to belieue that it is the Rule of Fayth and word of God Nay seeing as things now stand we may find the verityes contayned in Scripture sufficiently expressed in innumerable other bookes we may at this present in conformity to your doctrine reiect all the holy Scripture contenting our selues with the contents thereof taken from other Authors and not from the writers of the Bible 6. The Doctrine which he carryeth through his whole Booke but particularly insisteth vpon in his third Chapter that we cannot learne from Scripture it selfe that it is Canonicall but only from Tradition of men deliuering it from hand to hand is no lesse iniurious and derogatiue to holy Scripture then the former speaking of men in his sense that is not as endued with any infallible assistance of the holy Ghost which Catholicks belieue of the Church but only as wise or many men or for the like human qualifications for to this effect he sayth (h) Pag. 72. n. 51. Tradition is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason not praper to Christians but common to all men This is certainly the right course to blast the Authority of holy Scripture not to maintaine it For besides that which I haue touched already that by this meanes we are not so certaine of Scripture as of profane bookes he must come at length to resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the Tradition or Authority of Pagans Iewes Turkes or condemned Hereticks as well as of true Christiās For seeing errours against fayth or Heresies cannot in his principles be discerned but by Scriptures before they be receaued the testimony of one man concerning the admittance of them must weigh as much as of another and be considered only as prooceeding from a number of men be they faythfull or Infidels true Christians or condemned Hereticks 7. And further according to the same principles he must acknowledge that he belieueth some parts of Canonicall Scripture with a more firme assent then others to wit as they haue been deliuered with more or lesse generall consent or haue been more or lesse once questioned which is to depriue Canonical Scripture of all Authority For if once we giue way to more or lesse in the behalfe of Gods word we shall end in nothing And this hath the more force in this mans doctrine who professeth that the greatest certainty which he hath of any part of Scripture is within the compasse of probability What certainty then shall those Scriptures haue which participate of that probability in a lesse and lesse degree according as they haue been deliuered with different tradition and consent How this doctrine will sound in the eares of all true Christians I leaue to be considered contenting my selfe to oppose your Assertion with the discourse of D. King afterward Bishop of London in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Ionas where amongst other things he sayes Comparisons betwixt Scripture and Scripture are both odious and daungerous The Apostles names are euenly placed in the writings of the holy foundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from time to time receiued reuerenced imbraced the whole volume of Scriptures You on the other side speake in a different strayne and say thus (i) Pag. 67. n. 36. I may belieue euen those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as of those bookes which were neuer questioned And elswhere The Canon of Scripture (k) Pag. 69. n. 45. as we receiue it is built vpon vniuersall Tradition For we do not professe our selues so absolutly and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Bookes which haue byn doubted as of those which neuer haue By this meanes what will become of the Epistle of S. Iames the second Epistle of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps of S. Iohn And what part of Scripture hath not been questioned by some and those some so many as would haue made vs doubt of the works of Tully or Liuy c. if they had affirmed them not to haue been written by such Authours And the only doubting of Erasmus or some such other about the workes of some Fathers hath caused them to be questioned by diuers vpon much weaker grounds as difference of stiles or the like 8. In another place you tell vs (l) Pag. 68. n. 43. that to receiue a Booke for Canonicall it is inough to haue had attestation though not vniuersall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receiue them for Canonicall which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to preuaile against the contrary suffrages Obserue vpon what inextricable passages and lesse degrees of probability this man doth put vs in our beliefe of holy Scripture First we must settle our Fayth on men then on considering men though the consent be not vniuersall thirdly vpon the greater and more preualent number and authority of suffrages as if the greater number alone without infallible assistance of the holy Ghost were a sufficient ground for Christian Fayth You deny pag.
68. n. 42. that the Controuersy about Scripture is to be tryed by most voyces and yet what is your greater number but most voyces And as for greater Authority what can you meane thereby except perhaps greater learning or some such quality nothing proportionable to that Authority on which Christian Fayth must relye The third Doctrine That the Apostles were not infallible in their writings but erred with the whole Church of their time CHAP. IIII. 1. IT can be no wonder that he should speake meanly of the necessity and infallibility of holy Scripture since he labours to fasten errour vpon the Canonicall writers and deliuerers thereof the Apostles themselues and the whole Church of their time Chap. 4. And this coÌ„cerning an Article of Fayth of highest consequence and most frequently reuealed in holy Scripture the deniall whereof had byn most derogatory from the glory of our Sauiour and from the abundant fruit of his sacred Passion to wit that the Ghospell was to be preached to all nations You shall receiue it in his owne words (m) Pag. 1â—7 n. 21. The Church may ignorantly disbelieue a Reuelation which by errour she thinkes to be no Reuelation That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth reuealed before our Sauiours Ascension in these words Goe and teach all nations Math. 29.19 Yet through preiudice or inaduertence or some other cause the Church disbelieued it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chapter of the Acts vntill the conuersion of Cornelius And that the Apostles themselues were inuolued in this supposed errour of the most primitiue Church he deliuers without ceremony in another place (n) Pag. 144. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were and through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a reuealed Truth it is as I haue already noted vnanswerably euident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles Is not this to ouerthrow all Christianity If the Blessed Apostles on whom Christians are builded as vpon their foundation Ephes 2. were obnoxious to inaduertence to preiudice to other causes of errour what certainty can we now haue The Apostles might haue written what they belieued and so we cannot be sure but what they haue written may contain some errour proceeding from inaduertence preiudice or some other cause If they euen after the receiuing of the holy Ghost and with them the whole Church of that time could either forget or transgresse so fresh a Commaund imposed by our Sauiour Christ for his last farewell at his Ascension it will be obuious for aduersaries of Christian Religion to obiect that perhaps they haue byn left to themselues to obliuion inaduertence and other humane defects in penning the Scripture If they erred in their first thoughts why not in their second With the assistance of the holy Ghost they can erre in neither without it in both 2. The Obiection which he brings is not hard to solue S. Peter himselfe neuer doubted That vision was shewed to him and he declared it to the conuerted Iewes for their satisfaction as it happened in the Councell held by the Apostles about the obseruation of the law of Moyses which some Christians conuerted from Iudaisme did much vrge But neither the Apostles nor the other Christians had any doubt in that matter as likewise in our present case not all the Church but only some Zealous for the Iewes did oppose themselues to S. Peter For before the conuersion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians as (o) Com. in Act. cap. 10. post vers 48 Cornelius à Lapide with others affirmes proues For which respect the text expressely declares (p) Act. c. 11. v. 2. that they who were offended with S. Peter were of the circumcision that is Iewes made Christians 3. He goes on in this conceit and addes a point no lesse daungerous then the former The Apostles Doctrine sayth he (q) Pag. 144. n. 31. was confirmed by miracles therefore it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertain I say in no part which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth and which had the attestation of diuine miracles Thus you see he couertly calls in question all the Apostles writings and layes grouÌ„ds to except against them For if once we giue way to such distinctions and say that the Apostles are to be credited only in what they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine Truth we may reiect in a manner all Scripture which scarce euer declares whether or no the writers thereof did deliuer any thing as a certaine diuine Truth and much lesse that they remained constant in what they deliuered by writing Or if it should expresse these particulars yet we could not be obliged to belieue it if once we come to deny to the Apostles an vniuersall infallibility For what reason can this man giue according to these grounds of his why they might not haue erred in that particular declaration 4. And besides will he not oblige vs to belieue with certainty any thing deliuered by the Apostles which had not the attestation of diuine miracles It seeemes he will not and thereby in effect takes away the beliefe of very many mysteries of Christian Fayth and verities contayned in holy Scripture For that miracles were wrought in confirmation of euery particular passage of Scripture we cannot affirme neither out of holy Scripture it selfe nor any other credible argument rather the contrary is certaine there being innumerable verityes of the Bible which were neuer seuerally confirmed in that manner and yet it were damnable sinne to deny them And moreouer where or when did the Apostles particularly prooue by miracle that their writings were the word of God Thus you see into what plunges he brings all Christians by his owne Inconstancy from which certainly ariseth this itching desire of his to put conceites into mens heades as if the Apostles also might haue byn various in their writings and not constant 5. I cannot omit another distinction preiudiciall to the infallibility of the Apostles of their writings which he deliuereth in these words (r) Pag. 144. n. 32. For those things which the Apostles professed to deliuer as the Dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine Reuelations why should we take them as diuine Reuelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himselfe Therefore when S. Paul sayes in the 1. Epist to the Corinth 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord. And againe Concerning virgins I haue no commaundment of the Lord but I deliuer my iudgment If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his iudgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote which mooued him to write as in other places diuine Reuclations which he certainly
man loue God though he erre in the doctrine concerning Christ deliuered in Scripture so it will not be necessary to belieue that the Apostles were infallible in penning the Scripture but only in articlesd absolutely necessary to loue God and to haue a generall sorrow for all our sinnes And since to loue God haue contrition for our sinnes a probable beliefe will serue according to your (y) Pag. 327. Principles what need we any infallible Scripture at all but only some motiues sufficient to produce a probable assent that there is a God whether it be by Scripture belieued to be only a probable writing or by naturall discourse or any other meanes as you teach that one is not bound to belieue the Scripture to be the word of God but may be saued if by other meanes for example preaching he attaine the knowledge of the verityes contayned in Scripture (z) Pag. 116. And thus you see to what hauock these things lead not only touching Christianity but of all Religion The fourth Doctrine Iniurious to the miracles of our Sauiour and of his Apostles CHAP. V. 1. THE Disciple is not aboue his Mayster we may not wonder that a man should be free with the Apostles if he spare not Christ himselfe To the end that the entrance might be proportionable to the building which he was raising he plants in his Preface a Tenet which cannot but be as strange to all considerate Christians as it is dangerous to the weake It seemes he was not able to deny that true miracles haue been wrought by members of our Catholicke Church He comes therefore to this desperate euasion and giues vs these wordes in print (a) Pref. 〈◊〉 43. It seemes to me no strange thing that God in his Iustice should permit some true miracles to be wrought to delude them who haue forged so many as apparently the Professours of the Roman doctrine haue to abuse the world I shall wrong the Readers vnderstanding if for his sake I shall stand to dilate vpon that which is very cleer that by this meanes the miracles of our Blessed Sauiour and his Apostles cannot be knowne to be inducements to truth but may haue been snares to entrap the behoulders in pernicious errours To what end then doth S. Paul prooue his mission by miracles (b) 2. Cor. 12.12 Signa Apostolatus meifacta sunt supervos in omni prudentia in signis prodigijs virtutibus To what end did our Blessed Sauiour assigne miracles to confirme the preaching of his Apostles Signa autem eos qui crediderint hae sequentur In nomine meo daemonia eijcient c. (c) Mare vlt. v. 17. To what purpose did he send this message to S. Iohn Baptist Caecivident claudi ambulant (d) Mat. II. To what end did he say (e) Ioan. 15.24 si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit peccatum non haberent 2. Many other texts might be alledged These will satisfy euery good Christian that belieues the Scriptures But I confesse neither these or any other places of Scripture can prooue any thing with this man who by affirming that true miracles may be wrought to delude men doth depriue the Apostles of all authority which they could gayne by working miracles and consequently leaues men free from any obligation to belieue that their writings were infallible And then to what purpose doth he tel vs in the same place that the Bible hath byn confirmed with those miracles which were wrought by our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles since those very miracles might by the same ground be delusions rather then confirmations If true miracles may now be wrought in punishment of Christians for forging false miracles as you pretend what certainty can you giue a man that our Sauiour his Apostles did not the like Chap. 5. in punishment of the Iewes and Gentils for Idolatry Irreligiousnesse and other grieuous sinnes which are neuer wanting in the world and may be punished in the manner you speake of if once this assertion be admitted that True miracles may be wrought to delude men 3. But though by this impiety you depriue Scripture of all authority and cannot consequently be persuaded to any thing by Scripture yet there remaines one powerfull authority to conuince you euen in this your tenet It is your selfe For thus you speake to vs vpon another occasion (f) Pag. 144. n. 31. Yf you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayth S. Marke and preached euery where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles doctrine was thus confirmed therefore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Is it not cleere by these words that since the Doctrine of the Roman Church hath byn confirmed by true miracles as you affirmed in your Motiue and for ought I can perceiue deny it not in your answere she must be the true Church For euen against your selfe when you speake not in opposition to the Roman Church you confesse that the eternall Truth cannot confirme a falshood with true miracles Or if in opposition to our Church you will recall what you deliuer in your Booke and be constāt to that which you say in your Preface in answere to your Motiue I must still be enforced to affirme that you prepare a way to the ouerthrow of Christianity by euacuating the efficacy of miracles wrought by Christ our Lord his Apostles and all holy men in confirmation of Christian Religion 4. And to the end the Reader may not thinke I am too rigorous in pressing you vpon this one passage vpon which you were thrust by a hard necessity of answering your owne motiues I challenge you vpon this other wherein you say (g) Pag. 69. n. 47. For my part I professe that if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountaine of goodnesse as the miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar of my Fayth and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Catholickes are most certaine that the doctrine of the Scripture is as good as the miracles by which it was confirmed were great But this certainty we do not ground vpon our owne Knowledge or Iudgment framed by considering the Doctrines in themselues as if we should be staggered if we could not find them to be such independently of miracles but because they are confirmed by miracles or otherwise testifyed to be good by them to whom we must submit whereas your way of beliefe leaues a man in a disposition to be perpetually altering opinions accordingly as the same things may