This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
1. IT can be no wonder that he should speake meanly of the necessity, and infallibility of holy Scripture, since he labours to fasten er∣rour vpon the Canonicall writers, and deliuerers thereof the Apostles themselues, and the whole Church
of their time. And this cōcerning 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) The Church may ignorantly disbelieue a Reuelation, which by errour she thinkes to be no Reuelation. That the Gospell was to be prea∣ched to all Nations, was a Truth reuealed before our Sa∣uiours 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 conuer∣sion 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) That the Apostles themselues euen af∣ter the sending of the holy Ghost were, and through inaduer∣tence, or preiudice continued for a time, in an errour repug∣nant to a reuealed Truth, it is, as I haue already noted, vn∣answerably euident from the story of the Acts of the Apo∣stles. 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 con∣tain some errour proceeding from inaduertence, preiu∣dice, or some other cause. If they euen after the recei∣uing of the holy Ghost, and with them the whole
Church of that time, could either forget or transgres∣se 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 ob∣iect, 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 assistan∣ce of the holy Ghost they can erre in neither, with∣out 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 con∣uerted 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 op∣pose themselues to S. Peter. For before the conuersion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians, as(o) Cornelius à Lapide with others affirmes & proues. For which respect the text expressely declares,(p) 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 Do∣ctrine, sayth he,(q) 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 mira∣cles.
Thus you see he couertly calls in question all the Apostles writings, and layes groūds 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 vniuer∣sall 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 be∣liefe of very many mysteries of Christian Fayth and verities contayned in holy Scripture. For that mira∣cles were wrought in confirmation of euery parti∣cular 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 mi∣racle, 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 va∣rious 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) For those things which the Apostles professed to deliuer, as the Dictates of human reason, and prudence, and not as diuine Reuela∣tions, why should we take them as diuine Reuelations? I see no reason, nor how we can do so, and not contradict the Apo∣stles 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 com∣maundment 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 al∣leadged against the former. For if once we deny vni∣uersall 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 hu∣man
human reason and prudence; another will say that they must or may be vnderstood to deliuer the dictats of hu∣man reason and prudence, whensoeuer they do not in expresse rearmes professe to deliuer diuine Reuela∣tions, 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 him∣selfe, 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 common∣ly 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 mat∣ter, 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 com∣maund of our Sauiour declaring the very Law of nature, What God hath ioyned togeather let not man sepa∣rate(s). And as for the words you alleadge in the se∣cond place: Concerning virgins I haue no commandment of our Lord, but I deliuer my Iudgment, the Apostle after∣wards within the compasse of the selfe same dis∣course, sayes that a man sinnes not if he marry; wher∣in 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 when∣soeuer 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 mo∣derne heretiques, who impugned the lawfullnes of marriage, a ready answere that those texts of Scrip∣ture, were but the Dictats of human reason and pru∣dence, 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 him∣selfe had not commaunded, or determined in parti∣cular: 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 Pre∣lats, 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 su∣pererogation, or Counsayles, in regard that the Apo∣stle 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 A∣postles; neuer any hitherto besides your selfe, offering to answere our argumēt 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 di∣uersity of those motions or spirits (which one may easily deny, if their vniuersall infallibility be once im∣peached) 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 incor∣ruption of Scripture may be an assurance to ones selfe, but no argument to another. And as you affirme(t) 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 there∣of, if once we deny their vniuersall infallibility.
10. Now I beseech the good Reader to reflect vpon this mans endeauours to ouerthrow the holy Scrip∣tures and Christianity, and to what at last he tends by these degrees. First he sayth, our beliefe that Scrip∣ture 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 nei∣ther 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 assu∣rances. 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 de∣liuered things belonging to Fayth, Piety, or Religion, & not when they wrote things meerely indifferent, or of no great moment in themselues, as some Soci∣nians(u) eyther grant, or care not much to deny. And then further it will be left to euery mans iud∣gement, what is to be accounted a matter of mo∣ment: And soone after it will be said, that to search whether the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, for ex∣ample, 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) and your selfe affirme(x) 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 Apo∣stles were infallible in penning the Scripture, but on∣ly 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 proba∣ble beliefe will serue according to your(y) Principles, what need we any infallible Scripture at all, but on∣ly some motiues sufficient to produce a probable as∣sent that there is a God, whether it be by Scripture
belieued to be only a probable writing, or by natu∣rall 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). And thus you see to what hauock these things lead, not only touching Christianity, but of all Religion.
Chap. 4.
Pag. 1••7. n. 21.
Pag. 144. n. 31.
Com. in Act. cap. 10. post vers. 48,
Act. c. 11. v. 2.
Pag. 144. n. 31.
Pag. 144. n. 32.
Mat. 19.6.
Pag. 62.
Ʋol∣kel. l. 5. c. 5. Dom. Lopez. de Autho∣rit. sac. Script.
Iren. Phil••leth. disserta∣tione de Pace Ec∣clesiae.
Pag. 37.
Pag. 327.
Pag. 116.