a human fallible assent That diuine illumination aboue the reach of the light of reason is not necessary that men may belieue as they ought to please and satisfy God That God is satisfied with any degree of light with the meere light of naturall Reason and with the weake and wauering Fayth which reason standing vpon probabilities can ground These be strange and dismall positions and such as ouerthrow Christianity as is euident by many reasons I will point at a few 3. First it is against holy Scripture Fayth sayth S. Paul is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing (g) Heb. M. v. 1. or as the translation receiued in England hath it the euidence or ground or confidence of things not seene All which signify a firme certaine and as I may say substantiall Fayth much different from whatsoeuer assent if it be only probable For as S. Bernard disputing against Abailardus who likewise taught that Fayth was but Opinion sayth touching this definition of S. Paul By the name of Substance we are determined to some certaine and setled thing Fayth is not Opinion but Certainty Audis (h) Epist. 190. sayth this Saint Substantiam Non licet tibi in fide putare vel disputare pro libitu non hac illacque vagari per inania opinionum per denia errorum Substantiae nomine aliquid tibi certum fixumque praefigitur Certis clauderis finibus certis limitibus coarctaris Non est enim fides aestimatio sed certitudo Doest thou heare the name of Substance It is not lawfull for thee in Fayth to thinke or to dispute at thy pleasure nor to wander hither and thither through the emptines of opinions or straying errour By the name of substance some certaine and setled thing is appointed thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine For Fayth is not an opinion but a certainty This is also prooued by the words of the same Apostle (i) Gal. 1. v. 8. Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized to you be he anathema and where he sayth (k) Heb. 6. v. 8. That by two things vnmooueable whereby it is impossible for God to lye we may haue a most strong comfort For how can it be most strong if it be groūded only vpon probabilities as this man sayth our Fayth and comfort is The falshood whereof is yet further declared by the same Apostle Ep. 1. ad Thessal cap. 2. v. 12. When you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God And S. Bernard Ep. 190. alleageth S. Paul to the same purpose in this manner Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus 1. Tim. 1. tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius But this Truth being certainly belieued by all Christians it will be needlesse to alleadge more texts of Scripture in confirmation of it D. Potter in whose behalfe you stept forth doth euidently contradict your doctrine when he teacheth (l) Pag. 143. that the chiefe ground of Christian Fayth is diuine Reuelation and that nothing but this can erect an act of supernaturall Fayth which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine and that without this Fayth is but opinion or persuasion or at the most an acquired human beliefe And Doctour Hooker whom you alleadge pag. 325. for your opinion in his Ecclesiasticall Policy pag. 117. writes most expressely in these words The greatest assurance generally with all men is that we haue by plaine aspect and intuitiue beholding c. Scripture with Christian men being receiued as the word of God that for which we haue probable yea that which we haue necessary reason for yea that which we see with our eyes is not thought so sure as that which the Scripture of God teacheth because we hold that his speach reuealeth there what himself seeth and therefore the strongest proofe of all and the most necessary assented vnto by vs which doe thus receiue the Scripture is the Scripture 4. If we haue recourse to reason grounded on principles which no Christian denyes this doctrine likewise cannot be tolerated For if a Christian be not certaine that his beliefe is true he may according to your owne confession doubt whether it be not false According to your owne confession I say seeing your selfe goe about to prooue (m) Pag. 326. n. 4. that Christian Fayth cannot be absolutly certaine because if it were so it would follow that any least doubting though resisted and inuoluntary would destroy it which manifestly declares that doubting can well consist with that sort of vncertaine Christian Fayth which you goe about to vent If once way be giuen for Christians to fall vpon doubting of their Fayth why may not they put themselues vpon an examination in good earnest and as doubting of the grounds thereof And if this kind of examination be lawfull who can discommend an alteration if they chance to find cause as it is very possible they may if their first assent was not infallible How then could S. Paul so absolutely say Although we Gal. 1.8 or an Angell from Heauen should euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he anathema 5. But let vs goe a step further This Assertion giues way to belieue that the contrary to Christian Fayth retaines some probability in regard that no high degree of probability can of it selfe wholy deuest the opposite part of all probability this being excluded by certainty alone Mistake me not as if I meant that the probability of one side were sufficient to bestow probability on the other This only I say that whosoeuer belieues any point only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no present disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability for the contrary side And if Christians must be of this disposition in their beliefe they can haue no setled or firme resolution neuer to imbrace the contrary of that which for the present is their beliefe which ought notwithstanding to be the resolution of euery true Christian belieuer 6. This is not all If we follow this doctrine this other vnchristian Consequence cannot be auoided That one may be saued though he belieue some sect contrary to Christian Religion as Iudaisme Turcisme Paganisme or Atheisme with as great or greater probability then he belieues the articles of Christian Fayth For proofe I need alleadg nothing beside what your selfe suggest In one place you tell vs that (n) Pag. 37. any fayth if it be but a graine of mustardseed if it worke by loue shall certainly auaile with God and be accepted of him In another (o) Pag. 327. you endeauour to prooue that a probable persuasion and hope of infinite and eternall happinesse prouided
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
knew to be such so in this place his owne Iudgment touching some things which God had not particularly reuealed vnto him This doctrine is subiect to the same iust exceptions which were alleadged against the former For if once we deny vniuersall infallibility to the Apostles we cannot belieue them with infallibility in any one thing but still we may be doubting whether they speake out of their owne spirit and not by diuine Reuelation though they should euen declare in what sort they intend to speake because we may feare they are deceiued in those very declarations And as you will perhaps say they write Diuine Reuelations except in things which they professe to deliuer as the Dictates of human human reason and prudence another will say that they must or may be vnderstood to deliuer the dictats of human reason and prudence whensoeuer they do not in expresse rearmes professe to deliuer diuine Reuelations which is very seldome the ordinary custome of holy Scripture being to deliuer verityes without any such qualifying of them And if S. Paul when in the Epistle and Chapter by you cited v. 40. sayes of himselfe I thinke that I also haue the spirit of God might be deceiued in that thought of his we may also say he might be deceiued euen when he affirmes that he writes by the spirit of God and much more may we doubt when he expresses no such thing as commonly neither he nor any other Canonicall writers doe 6. In the words which you cite To the rest speake I not the Lord S. Paul treates of a very important matter that is of the wiues departing from her husband or the husbands from his wife Wherein if S. Paul were subiect to errour he might chance to haue taught a point of great Iniustice against the commaund of our Sauiour declaring the very Law of nature What God hath ioyned togeather let not man separate (s) Mat. 19.6 And as for the words you alleadge in the second place Concerning virgins I haue no commandment of our Lord but I deliuer my Iudgment the Apostle afterwards within the compasse of the selfe same discourse sayes that a man sinnes not if he marry wherin if S. Paul may be deceiued as speaking out of his owne spirit as you say he doth in some precedent words you will not only want this text to prooue with certainty that marriage is lawfull but whensoeuer marriage is allowed in any other place of Scripture as Hebr. 13. v. 4. Marriage is honourable in all you haue put into the mouthes of the old and moderne heretiques who impugned the lawfullnes of marriage a ready answere that those texts of Scripture were but the Dictats of human reason and prudence wherein the writers of Canonicall Scripture might be deceiued 7. The other words Speake I not the Lord shew only that our Sauiour left power for the Apostles and his Church to aduise counsaile ordaine or commaund some things as occasion might require which himselfe had not commaunded or determined in particular which truth if you hold to be only a Dictate of human reason you open a way for refractary spirits to oppose the ordinances of their Superiours and Prelats in things not expressely commaunded by our Lord. 8. The last Words v. 25. Concerniug virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord but I deliuer my Iudgment which we translate but I giue counsaile prooue indeed our Catholicke Doctrine concerning workes of supererogation or Counsayles in regard that the Apostle in this place persuades virginity as the better but commaunds it not as necessary Yet they do in no wise imply any doubtfulnesse or fallibility in the Apostles neuer any hitherto besides your selfe offering to answere our argumeÌ„t by saying the Apostle wrote only the dictate of human reason or prudence and so might be deceiued Which answere had been very obuious if they had presumed to be so bold as you are with the Apostles and therefore it is a signe that no man besides your selfe durst deliuer this doctrine 9. Certainly if the Apostles did sometimes write by the motion of the holy Ghost and at other times out of their owne priuate Iudgment or spirit though it were granted that themselues could discerne the diuersity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniuersall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleere that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diuersity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although ech mans priuate spirit were admitted for direction of himselfe yet it were not vsefull for teaching others Thus you say pag. 141. A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of Scripture may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme (t) Pag. 62. that bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliuer diuine Reuelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliuer not such Reuelations though they say nothing thereof if once we deny their vniuersall infallibility 10. Now I beseech the good Reader to reflect vpon this mans endeauours to ouerthrow the holy Scriptures and Christianity and to what at last he tends by these degrees First he sayth our beliefe that Scripture is the word of God exceedes not probability 2. Amongst those Bookes which we belieue to be the word of God we belieue some with lesse probability then others Thirdly we may be saued though we neither belieue that Scripture is the Rule of Fayth nor that it is the word of God Fourthly our assurance that Scripture or any other Booke is corrupted is of the same kind and condition both only morall assurances Fifthly the writers of holy Scripture might erre in things which they deliuered not constantly or not as diuine Reuelations but dictates of human reason or if they deliuered any doctrine not confirmed by miracles Sixtly vpon the same ground he might say that the Apostles were infallible only when they deliuered things belonging to Fayth Piety or Religion not when they wrote things meerely indifferent or of no great moment in themselues as some Socinians (u) Volkel l. 5. c. 5. Dom. Lopez de Authorit sac Script eyther grant or care not much to deny And then further it will be left to euery mans iudgement what is to be accounted a matter of moment And soone after it will be said that to search whether the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity for example be contained in Scripture or no is not much necessary since a man without knowledge of that speculatiue doctrine may belieue and loue God as a chiefe Socinian teaches (w) Iren. Philâ—leth dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae and your selfe affirme (x) Pag. 37. that any Fayth if it worke by loue shall certainly auaile with God and be accepted of him And then will some say Why may not a