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.
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
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
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
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
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
sometimes appeare true and other times false which diuersity of iudgments you must according to this your doctrine follow euen against any point confirmed by miracles if it chance to seeme not true to your vnderstanding which is the part and proper disposition of a Socinian The fifth Doctrine Chap. 6. By resoluing Fayth into Reason he destroyes the nature of Fayth and beliefe of all Christian verityes CHAP. VI. 1. THe source whence all the aforesaid and innumerable other pernicious sequels do follow Gentle Reader is that according to this mans doctrine Christian Fayth must be resolued into the euidence of naturall reason not as preparing or inducing vs to belieue but as the maine ground strongest pillar of our Fayth and in a word as the conclusion depends on the premises And to this purpose he builds much vpon this axiome (h) Pag. 36. n. 8. We cannot possibly be more certaine of the conclusion then of the weaker of the premises as a riuer will not rise higher then the fountaine from which it flowes Hence in the same place he deduceth that the certainty of Christian Fayth can be but morall and not absolutely infallible With this principle is connexed another vnlesse you will call it the same more expressely declared and applyed And it is this If vpon reasons seeming to my vnderstanding very good I haue made choyce of a Guide or Rule for my direction in matters of Fayth when afterward I discouer that this Guide or Rule leades me to belieue one or more points which in the best iudgment that I can frame I haue stronger reasons to reiect then I had to accept my former Rule I may and ought to forsake that Rule as false erroneous otherwise I should be conuinced not to follow reason but some setled resolution to hold fast whatsoeuer I had once apprehended What followes from this vast principle but that if holy Scripture for example propound things seeming more euidently cōtrary to reason or my opinion more plainly contradicting one another then the inducements which first mooued me to belieue Scripture were strong conuincing I must reiect the Scripture as an erroneous Rule and adhere to my owne Reason and discourse as my last and safest guide This certainly doth follow Especially if we remember another principle that the motiues for which we belieue holy Scripture are only probable for so they must in all equity giue place to reasons seeming demonstratiue conuincing as there will not want many such against the high misteries of Christian Fayth if once we professe that our assent to them must be resolued into naturall discourse How farre dissonant this is from the receiued persuasion and tenet of all Christians that their Fayth is not resolued into Reason but Authority it is easy to see by the effects For why do Socinians and such like deny the misteryes of the Blessed Trinity the Deity of our Blessed Sauiour and diuers other verityes of Christian Fayth but because they seeme manifestly repugnant to reason 2. It cannot be doubted but that any one to whom the saluation of his owne soule is deare will be wary in admitting doctrines deliuered in a Booke if with Truth it may be affirmed that the Author in point of beliefe is certainly no good Christian as one who denyes the Diuinity of Christ our Lord and the most Blessed Trinity which are misteryes most proper to Christian Fayth and most hatefull to Iewes and Turkes For what authority can he challenge with any iudicious Christian in matters concerning Fayth who confessedly erres in the prime articles of Christian Fayth as we feare euen a sound man if we thinke he come from the pest-house and none will trust the Diuell though transfigured into an Angell of light For which cause spirituall men bid vs examine not only what motions we find in our soule but also from what roote they proceed 3. I wil not take vpō me to say what you are or what you are not but in matters cōcerning articles of fayth we ought to speak plainly You tell vs (i) Praefat n. 5. that you belieue the Doctrine of the Trinity the Deity of our Sauiour and all other supernaturall verityes reuealed in Scripture The question is not whether you belieue some kind of Trinity nor whether our Sauiour be God in some sense by participation as Dauid sayes I haue said you are Gods Psal 81.6 and in that sense that they are contayned in Scripture But the question is whether you belieue those misteryes as they are generally belieued by Christians and expressed euen in the 39. Articles of the English Church or whether you belieue that in this sense they are reuealed in Scripture Be pleased then to declare your selfe whether you belieue that in the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance Power and Eternity the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost as is taught in the first article And then whether you belieue the second Article wherein is said The Sonne which is the word of the Father the very and eternall God of one substance with the Father tooke mans nature in the wombe of the Blessed Virgin of her substance So that two whole and perfect natures that is to say the Godhead and Manhood were ioyned togeather in one Person neuer to be deuided whereof is one Christ very God and very Man Thirdly whether you firmely belieue the contents of the fifth Article The holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the sonne is of one substance Maiesty and Glory with the Father and the sonne very eternall God If these demaunds seeme harsh blame your selfe who were forewarned euen before that which they call the Direction was published when it was in your power to haue freed your selfe from this trouble and secured others from the scandall which your Booke may giue Neither are these questions from the matter but consequent to principles deliuered in your Booke 4. And let no man wonder that I desire plaine dealing For I haue seene a Socinian Catechisme in print which at first grants that Christ is God but then to the question whether he haue the diuine Nature it answers No because forsooth that is a thing repugnant both to Scripture and Reason It is apparent that the Socinians agree with the Manicheans that Fayth is resolued into Reason and that the Manicheans maintained a most strict brotherhood with the Priscillianists who taught that it is lawfull to dissemble a mans Fayth euen by oath For their saying was Iura periura secretum prodere noli And Arius who denied the Diuinity of our Sauiour Christ made no bones to forsweare himselfe by a profession of Fayth contrary to his internall beliefe And whether any one who is esteemed a Socinian do not hold it lawfull to deny or speake ambiguously against what he belieues that so in a very peruerse sense he may with the Apostle become all to all it is likely you know better then another can tell you 5. Howsoeuer
should subiugate their vnderstandings to the beliefe of contradictions which yet as I said before he iudgeth either impossible or at least vnreasonable (d) Ibid. And who I pray can vndertake against a cauilling wit to answere all arguments obiected against the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and other sublime verityes of Christian Fayth and compose all seeming repugnances after an intelligible manner Deuines are not ignorant what inexplicable difficulties offer themselues euen concerning the Deity it selfe for example his Immutability Freedom of will voluntary decrees knowledge of creatures and the like Must we then deny them because we are not able to compose all repugnances after an intelligible manner It may seeme that you are of opinion that we must to which persuasion if you adde another Doctrine of yours That there is no Christian Church assisted with Infallibility fit to teach any man euen such articles as are fundamentall or necessary to saluation but that euery one may and must follow the Dictates of his owne reason be he otherwise neuer so vnlearned what wil follow but a miserable freedome or rather necessity for men to reiect the highest and most diuine misteries of Christian Fayth vnlesse you can either compose all repugnances after a manner euen intelligible to euery ignorant and simple person which I hope you will confesse to be impossible or els say it is reasonable for men to belieue contradictions at the same time which by your confession were very vnreasonable 5. And here I appeale to your owne Conscience whether in true Philosophy the obiections which may be made against the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God be not incomparably more difficult then any which can be brought against Trāsubstantiation Some one whom you know could say in some company where there was occasion of arguing Either deny the Trinity or admit of Transubstantiation and it was answered We will rather admit this then deny that And with good reason For if we respect human discourse there are more difficult obiections against that mistery then against this And if we regard Reuelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall presence and Transubstantiation then for the mystery of the Blessed Trinity But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Fayth to the weight of naturall reason are well content vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Fayth For which cause I haue some reason as I touched before (d) Chap. 6. n. 6. not to be satisfyed that this man for all his bragges of belieuing Scripture doth make that account of it which Christians doe and ought to doe but deludes the Reader with specious words as for example when speaking of the holy Scripture he sayes (e) Pag. 376. Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to human reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so Therefore it is true These are glorious words but contrary to his owne principles For resoluing Fayth into Reason he cannot belieue that which to his reason seemes contradictory but must thinke that the Motiues for which he receiues Scripture being but probable and subiect to falshood must of necessity yield to arguments more then probable and demonstratiue to human reason And how then can he subscribe to Mysteryes incomprehensible to human reason and capable of obiections which cannot alwayes be answered after a manner intelligible as he requires And consequently he must to vse his owne words giue me leaue to belieue that either he doth not belieue those misteryes or els that he subiugates his vnderstanding to the beliefe of seeming contradictions which he acknowledges to be vnreasonable and a thing which men should not doe according to his owne words (f) Pag. 217. And the Reader had need to take heed that he be not taken also with that protestation of his (g) Pag. 376. I know no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so Therefore it is true since he teaches that he knowes not that God hath said so otherwise then by probable inducements and only by a probable assent So that in fine this must be his strong demonstration Whatsoeuer God speakes or reueales is most certainly true But I am not certaine that God speakes in the Scripture Therefore I am certaine that whatsoeuer is in Scripture is true Behold his demonstration that is a very false Syllogisme according to his owne discourse in another place where he not only graunts but endeauours to prooue that the minor of this Demonstration exceedes not probability and consequently cannot inferre a conclusion more them probable Somewhat like to this is an other cunning speach of his (h) Pag. 225. n. 5. That he hartily belieues the Articles of our Fayth be in themselues Truths as certaine and infallible as the very common principles of Geometry or Metaphysicke Which being vnderstood of the Obiects or Truths of Christian Fayth in themselues is no priuiledge at all For euery Truth is in it selfe as certaine as the Principles of Geometry it being absolutely impossible that a Truth can be falshood But the point is that he does not certainely know or belieue these Truths as he does the Principles of Metaphysicke but onely with a probable assent and so to him the Truths cannot be certaine The like art also he vses pag. 357. saying in these wordes I doe belieue the Gospell of Christ as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing for all this florish signifies only that he is certaine he belieues the Gospel of Christ with probable assent As for the argument it deserues no answere For who knowes not that contradictories inuolue two propositions but he who captiuates his vnderstanding assents to one part only Chap. 10. and therefore is sure inough not to belieue contradictories at the same time as he pretends All which considered the Reader will easily see that his Doctrines vndermine the chiefest mysteries of Christian Fayth and ouerthrow Christianity The ninth Doctrine Layes grounds to be constant in no Religion CHAP. X. I. I Said in the beginning that as we could not know the way vnlesse we first be told whither we goe so it could litle auayle vs to be put in a way if by following it we might be misled But suppose the end of our iourney be knowne and the right way found what better shall we be if withall we be continually harkning to some suggestions which neuer let vs rest till we haue abandoned that path by following other crosse-wayes as we chance to fall vpon them This is the case of the man with whome we haue to deale I will not build vpon his deeds I meane his changes first from Protestant to