aggregate of Iewes Manicheans Arians and other condemned sects which all good Christians ought to detest I hartily with their Conuersion yet if they will obstinately resist in despite of their inuentions the words of the Apostle will be verified Iesus Christ yesterday and to day Hebr. 13. â— the same also for euer And they shall giue a fearefull account for their contempt of al Churches and errours against Christian Fayth when repentance will nothing auaile Euen at that day when as S. Ambrose grauely sayth Lib. 5. de fide c. 7. The Iew shall perforce acknowledge whom he crucified when the Manichean shall adore whom he belieued not to haue come in flesh when the Arian shall confesse him to be omnipotent whom he denied And I may adde when all good Christians shall ioyfully behold him whose Fayth they laboured to Maintaine The Doctrines confuted in the ensuing Treatise THe first Doctrine That Fayth necessary to Saluation is not infallible Chap. 1. The grounds of this Doctrine lead to Atheisme Chap. 2. The second Doctrine That the assurance which we haue of Scriptures is but morall Chap. 3. The third Doctrine That the Apostles were not infallible in their Writings but erred with the whole Church of their tyme. Chap. 4. The fourth Doctrine Iniurious to the miracles of our Sauiour and of his Apostles Chap. 5. The fifth Doctrine By resoluing Fayth into Reason he destroyes the nature of Fayth and Beliefe of all Christian Verities Chap. 6. The sixt Doctrine Destructiue of the Theologicall Vertues of Christian Hope and Charity Chap. 7. The seauenth Doctrine Takes away the grounds of Rationall Discourse Chap. 8. The eight Doctrine Opens a way to deny the B. Trinity and other high mysteries of Christian Fayth Chap. 9. The ninth Doctrine Layes grounds to be Constant in no Religion Chap. 10. The tenth Doctrine Prouides for the impunity and preseruation of whatsoeuer damnable Errour against Christian Fayth Chap. 11. The Conclusion CHRISTIANITY MAINTAINED OR The discouery of sundry Doctrines tending to the Ouerthrow of Christian Religion The first Doctrine That Fayth necessary to Saluation is not Infallible CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN Fayth being the foundation of Hope the eye of Charity the lesser light appointed for the night of this world the Way to Heauen if this Foundation be faulty this Eye deceitfull this Light an Eclypse to it selfe this way erroneous our Hope Charity Light Happinesse and all Christianity must end Chap. 1. in worse then nothing in euerlasting vnhappines For as S. Thomas said to our Sauiour (a) Io. 14.5 We know not whither thou goest and how can we know the way So what will it auaile vs to know whither we goe if we follow a misleading way the Direction of a Fayth weake waueriug and subiect to Errour such is Christian Fayth in this man's iudgment deliuered in the Doctrine with which I thought fit to begin in regard it is the substance and summe of that which he deliuers and labours to prooue through his whole booke and is persuaded that it is of great and singular vse and demonstrable by vnanswerable arguments 2. I must confesse it is of great vse to ground Socinianisme which as the (b) Cap. 1. p. 7. Direction fortold reiecteth infallible supernaturall infused Fayth from being necessary to saluation and maketh our Christian Fayth of the Gospell and of Christ Iesus our Lord and Sauiour to be a meere human opinion resolued into the authority of men of no greater certainty then other human Traditions and Histories knowne by report Hence the saying in Charity Maintayned that an absolute certainty of Fayth is necessary to Saluation he taxeth deeply as (c) Pag. 328. most pernicious and vncharitable and els where (d) Pag. 325. n. 3. as a great errour of daungerous pernicious consequence yea pag. 37. thus he writeth Men being possessed with this false principle that Infallible Fayth is necessary and that it is in vaine to belieue the Gospell of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yield to other matter of Tradition and finding that their Fayth of it is to them indiscernable from the beliefe they giue to the truth of other stories are in daunger not to belieue at all c. It is true that pag. 36. n. 8. he sayth We cannot ordinarily haue any rationall and acquired assent more then morall founded vpon credibilities wherby some may conceiue that besides human and rationall Fayth he supposes and requires Diuine Fayth which is a pure sincere firme adhesion to Gods word not caused by reason and discourse but infused by the Holy Ghost's inspiration into a belieuing soule But in truth he disclaimes from any necessity of Diuine Fayth or any diuine light aboue the light of meere reason and will haue men to be saued by the natiue forces of human rationall and fallible Fayth Men sayth he (f) Vbi supra pa. 36. n. 8. are vnreasonable God requires not any thing but reason They pretend that heauenly things cannot be seene to any purpose but by the midday-light but God will be satisfyed if we receiue any degree of Light which makes vs leaue the works of darknesses They exact a certainty of Fayth aboue that of sense and science God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as the premisses deserue wherof in rationall Fayth one is euer weake credible and not infallible And againe pag. 112. n. 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duety to giue a greater assent to the mysteries of our Fayth then the motiues of credibility which are fallible deserue This is his doctrine which he deliuers often makes vse thereof to reiect the infallible Authority of Gods Church so prophane impious vnchristian as I wonder that a man professing himselfe a Christian durst venture to vent the same in print in a Christian country For is the certainty of the Fayth which Christians yield to the truth of the Gospell to the life of Christ Iesus our Lord and Sauiour to the histories of holy Scripture of no greater discernable certainty then the beliefe we yield to humane traditions I appeale to the conscience of euery true Christian whether he do not most cleerely discerne his assent to the Truths of holy Scripture to be superiour and incomparably more firme then his beliefe of meere humane storyes That the Serpent spake vnto Eue and persuaded her to eat of the forbidden tree that our first Parents were naked and did not perceiue it till they had eaten of the forbidden apple these storyes other the like would any Christian belieue them yea would they not laugh at them as they doe at Aesops Fables were they not of more credit with them then Caesars Commentaries or Salusts histories as this man * Pag. 327. n. 5. saith they are not That God requires not any thing of vs but only reason That he exacts no more then that we belieue the misteries of Christian Fayth with
answered but is indeed a meere toye and if it prooue any thing it prooues the Title of this Chapter to be true If sayth he (t) Pag. 326. this Doctrine of the absolute certainty of Christian Fayth were true then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in any matter of Fayth though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolutly destructiue so long as it lasts of all true and sauing Fayth Doth not this Sophisme tend also to prooue that if one be tempted with inuoluntary doubts against the Truths I spake of he must forfeit his certainty that there is a God or that Christian Fayth is certainly probable and so either incurre damnation without his owne fault which is impossible or attaine heauen without any certaine beliefe or knowledge that there is a God or that Christian Fayth is certainly probable 2. As for the argument it selfe it is of no moment It doth not distinguish betwixt the Habit of Fayth whereby Christians are permanently denominated Faithfull and which remaines euen when we are a sleepe and the Act or exercise thereof which may be hindred by many good employments as study or serious attention to any businesse without the least preiudice to the Habit of which we are depriued only by Voluntary errours or doubts against it not by those which are inuoluntary and resisted If this answere giue not satisfaction let him either afford a better against his owne obiection or else professe that he doth not certainly belieue there is a God or that he is not certaine that Christian Fayth and Religion is so much as probable And by the way me thinks he should reflect that if he thinke euery Act destroyes the cōtrary habit and in that respect no doubting may consist with the habit of infallible fayth then the Doctrine of Catholicke Diuines that euery voluntary Act of Heresy or Infidelity is destructiue of the habit of Fayth should not in reason and true consequence be tearmed by him (v) Pag. 368. a vaine and groundlesse fancy 3. An other argument to prooue the fallibility of Christian Fayth in effect is this (w) Pag. 326. We pray for the increase and strengthning of our Fayth Therefore our Fayth is not infallible You might as well argue We may pray for a high degree of happines in heauen Therefore euery Saint in heauen is not perfectly happy Do you not know that there may be intension of degrees euen in qualities which haue no mixture of the contrary No light includes darknes yet one light may be greater then another Thus the most imperfect acte of fayth is most certaine in the most perfect kind of certainty though not most certaine in the most perfect degree of certainty and we may well belieue that the least degree of Christian Fayth is incompatible with any deliberate and not resisted doubt or vncertainty and yet pray for the increase thereof If you deny this then tell me whether you may not pray for the increase of your beliefe of a God and his Attributes and for the strengthning of it against all temptations rising either from the suggestions of the enemy or from the weakenesse of mans vnderstanding in order to so high misteryes as also of your certainty that Christian Religion is probable in the higest degree of probability and when you haue granted that you may as I hope you will then you will haue answered your owne argument vnlesse you will acknowledge your selfe not to be certaine that there is a God or that Christian Religion is probable 4. A third reason wherby he endeauours to prooue that Christian Fayth is not absolutely certaine is this in substance That seeing as S. Iohn assures vs (x) Pag. 326. our Fayth is the victory which ouercomes the world if our Fayth be a certaine infallible knowledge our victory ouer the world must of necessity be perfect and it should be impossible for any true belieuer to commit any deliberate sinne How this doth follow I cannot perceiue no more then one can inferre that Christians cannot commit as grieuous sinnes as men that reiect Christianity because the beliefe of Christians is true and the beliefe of others is false The Angels in heauen and Adam in Paradise were indued with infallible Fayth yea and with Euidence in the opinion of diuers good Diuines and yet the Angels and Adam sinned deliberatly and damnably Fayth doth direct but not necessitate the will which still remayning free may choose good or euill If he will still maintayne the argument for good then he must be conuinced to say that he doth not with certainty belieue a God or that vertue is to be imbraced because he can doubtlesse commit deliberate sinnes against God and vertue 5. Not vnlike to this is another reason (y) Ibid. That Charity being the effect of Fayth if our Fayth were perfect Charity would be perfect so no man could possibly make any progresse in it Giue me leaue to speake to your selfe do you not see that by this reason if you belieue in God with certainty your loue of God must be perfect without possibility to make any progresse in it which because it is false it must follow by force of your Argument that you do not with certainty belieue a God But as for the reason in it selfe because it concernes more then your selfe I must tell you that it doth falsly suppose that Charity is both an immediate and necessary effect of Fayth without interuention of Freewill which may refuse to follow the direction of Fayth and either wholy cease to loue God or loue him now more now lesse And therefore no wonder if vpon a false supposall that follow which is also false 6. This is not a time to enter into long discourses how you confound certainty with perfection as if because Fayth is absolutely certaine but yet obscure it must be also absolutely perfect which is a great mistake for it wants the perfection of euidence hath a possibility annexed to it that it may be both resisted and reiected But it will not be vnpleasant notwithstanding nor vntimely to stand a while and see how excessiuely confident you are of the strength and force of the foresaid Arguments and the contentment which you take in them Thus you speake of them (z) Pag. 326. 327. These you see are strange and portentous consequences and yet the deduction of them is cleere and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours you meane our doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Fayth which you would faine haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and piety and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progresse in Fayth or Charity And therefore I must intreat and adiure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witnesse
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
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
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