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 [Page 14]end,Chap. 1. in worse then nothing, in euerlasting vnhappines. For as S. Thomas said to our Sauiour,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 theCap. 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 asPag. 328. most pernicious and vncharitable; and els wherePag. 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 [Page 15]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)Ʋbi 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 [Page 16]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 manPag. 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 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: 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, [Page 17]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 Epist. 190. (sayth this Saint) Substantiam? Non licet tibi in fide putare, vel disputare pro libitu, non hac illac (que) vagari per inania opinionum, per denia errorum. Substantiae nomine, aliquid tibi certum, fixum (que) 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: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,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, [Page 18]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 teachethPag. 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 [Page 19]According to your owne confession, I say, seeing your selfe goe about to proouePag. 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 [Page 20]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, thatPag. 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 anotherPag. 327. you endeauour to prooue, that a pro­bable persuasion, and hope of infinite and eternall happi­nesse, prouided for all those that obey Christ Iesus, may be able to sway our will to Obedience, and encounter with all those temptations, which flesh and bloud can suggest to auert vs from it. Ioine these two doctrines togeather, & the issue will be; that any probable beliefe of Christian verities, or euen of a God, must suffice to saluation, as enabling vs to worke by loue. Now it is cleere that your graine of mustardseed, your any probable persuasion or hope, are verified in any low degree of probability of fayth in Christ, or God; and yet they do not ex­clude equal or greater probability in behalfe of the contrary part (for example that Christ is not the Sauiour of the world, or that there is not a God:) whence it followes that a man may attayne salua­tion, though he belieue with equall or greater proba­bility, that Christ is not the Sauiour of the world, or that there is not a God, then is that wherewith he be­lieues [Page 21]the same, and all other mysteries of Christian Fayth. Whether this tend not to Iudaisme, Turcisme, Paganisme, or Atheisme, and to the ouerthrow of all Christianity, I need not say.

7. Moreouer, who can oblige any vnderstanding man, to dye for auerring the Truth of that Fayth, wherof he proclaymes himselfe to haue no certain­ty? And you, O glorious Martyrs of Christ our Lord, did rather spill, then shed your bloud, if you were so prodigall therof, for a truth not certainly belieued to be such. This is the very same argument, which melli­fluous S. Bernard brings against Petrus Abailardus, a Progenitour of the Socinians, who in those dayes taught, that Christian Fayth was but opinion, and not infallibly certaine:Epist. 190. Stulti ergo Martyres nostri (sayth this Saint) sustinentes tam acerba propter incerta, nec du­bitantes sub dubio remunerationis proemio durum per exi­tum diuturnum inire exilium. S. Paul sayth,Rom. 5.7. Scarce for a iust man doth any dye. And we may say, who will giue his life for a Truth? and most of all, who will not on­ly giue his life, but thinke himselfe bound vnder paine of eternall damnation to lay it downe in testimony of that, which for ought he certainly knowes, may prooue to be an vniust, and vntrue thing? Was the precious bloud of Christ our Lord, which by infinite degrees excelled that of Martyrs, shed in such abun­dance for purchasing probabilities? or for the impe­tration of Grace, to enable his seruants to dye for the truth of things, which in fine they esteemed but pro­bable?

8. Far be it from the harts of Christians to belieue, and their tongues to professe, that a God of infinite [Page 22]wisedome and goodnesse, would oblige himselfe to reward men with euerlasting happines, for imbra­cing the mysteries of Christian Fayth, which may once proue false, and to adiudge men to endles tor­ments, for adhering to the contrary, which in the end may be found true, if Christian Fayth can possi­bly be false, as false it may be, if it be but probable.

9. Neuer could any doctrine be offered to the son­nes of Adam more plausible, then that our beliefe of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion in it selfe, and no way certayne, concerning things of another world; whereas worldly pleasures, are in present possession and certaine. If the greatest certainty wherewith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their fayth to a­bound, hath not byn able to stay the cariere of mens licenciousnesse; what shall we now expect, but, that flattered by this doctrine, they, who before did runne, will now fly, after the Idols of whatsoeuer may ap­peare to their soules or bodies, obiects of delight?

10. No lesse liberty doth this doctrine affoard for belieuing, then it doth for liuing, giuing scope to A­postasyes, and endlesse changes of Religions, as this man's fourefold alteration makes manifest, if all be true which is reported of him. In which inconstancy notwithstanding he seemes to glory, stiling itPrefa. n. 5. his Constancy in following that way to heauen, which for the present seemes to him the most probable. But of this more hereafter.

11. I will doe him the fauour to suppose that he holds no Religion more certainly true then that of Christians, which yet to him being not certaine, what remaines in his persuasion and doctrine, but that [Page 23]for matters of fayth and Religion, God hath prouided no certainty on earth? which is not only of very ill consequence, as I haue said, amōgst Christians them­selues, but exposeth Christian Religion to contempt among the enemies thereof, and disbelieuers of it: which this man it seemes doth not value a hayre; but measuring euery body by himselfe, taxeth Christians generally to be of the like weakenes, vngrounded­nes, & vnsetlednes in their beliefe: For, saythPag. 327. n. 5. he, men may talke their pleasure of an absolute & most infalli­ble certainty, but did men generally belieue, that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity, but as firmely and vndoubtedly, as that there is such a Citty as Constantinople, but as much as Caesars Commentaries or the history of Salust, I belieue the liues of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better then they are. I leaue the Censure of this Doctrine to others: I only note, first how poore a conceit this man himselfe hath, & en­deauoureth to instill into others of the ground or ad­hesion, which Christians vndoubtedly haue in their beliefe, making it no more solid or firme, then the be­liefe of Caesars Commentaries &c. And secōdly that it may perchance be his fortune to be really forbid­den to write any more bookes, if he can make no bet­ter consequences, then to conclude the want of Fayth, or firmenesse of Fayth in Christians, from the faults in their liues, seeing there may be in a manner infinite other causes, why they do not liue, as they most fir­mely belieue they should.

12. This therefore, you see is his doctrine concerning Christian Fayth; that it is weake, and weakely groun­ded; that it is resolued into the authority of men, as [Page 24]the beliefe of Constantinople,Chap. 2. and Caesars Commen­taries; that a Christian may really and deliberatly doubt of the points of his fayth, and yet be a Chri­stian (that is) faythfull. But that which doth most manifestly discouer the impiety of this doctrine, and of this his manner of arguing, is, that the reasons by which he pretends to maintayne it, induce plaine A­theisme, that is, they conclude as well, that men can haue no certaine beliefe, knowledge, or assent that there is a God, or that we are certaine, that Christian Fayth is euen so much as probable; which now I am going to shew.

The Grounds of this Doctrine leade to Atheisme.
CHAP. II.

1. I Said in the former Chapter that if a Christian be not certaine that his beliefe is true, he may according to this mans owne cōfession doubt whether it be not false. I pleaded his Confession, vpon an Argument of his which perhaps seemed to him a great subtilty, and hard to be 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 hePag. 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. [Page 25]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 himPag. 368. a vaine and groundlesse fancy.

3. An other argument to prooue the fallibility of [Page 26]Christian Fayth, in effect is this: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,Pag. 326. our Fayth is the victory which ouercomes the world; if our [Page 27]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,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, [Page 28]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: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 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 [Page 29]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: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:Pag. 112. Gods spirit if he please may work more, a certainty of ad­herence beyond certainty of euidence. Now you cānot 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 [Page 30]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,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 [Page 32]Christiās, & 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 vpō this mans groūds, 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.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,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 th [...]se [Page 33]barbarous nations, but still by the bare beliefe, and practise of Christianity they might be saued, God requiring of vs vn­der paine of damnation, only to belieue the verities therein contained, and not the diuine authority of the bookes where­in they are contained.

4. If this be granted, why might not any Church haue reiected the Scriptures being proposed by other parts of the Church? And why may not we do so at this day? Nay seeing de facto we know the verities of Christian Fayth by Scripture only, according to your doctrine; we cannot be obliged to belieue the Scrip­tures, because the verities therein contained are ne­cessary to be belieued, (for this very necessity you cannot belieue, but by belieuing aforehand the Scrip­ture) but contrarily you may reiect the verities them­selues, if you be not preobliged to belieue the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contained.

5. Againe, you say that Scripture is the only Rule of Christian Fayth,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 ChapterPag. 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 [Page 34]freer to make this question, because you concurre with me in the answere, when you say: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: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, [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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: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,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 vsPag. 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 [Page 37]sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and au­thority was not so great, as to preuaile against the contrary suffrages. Obserue vpon what inextricable passages, and lesse degrees of probability this man doth put vs in our beliefe of holy Scripture. First we must settle our Fayth on men; then on considering men, though the consent be not vniuersall; thirdly vpon the grea­ter and more preualent number and authority of suf­frages, as if the greater number alone, without in­fallible assistance of the holy Ghost, were a sufficient ground for Christian Fayth. You deny (pag. 68. n. 42.) that the Controuersy about Scripture is to be tryed by most voyces, and yet what is your greater number, but most voyces? And as for greater Autho­rity, what can you meane thereby, except perhaps greater learning, or some such quality, nothing pro­portionable to that Authority, on which Christian Fayth must relye?

The third Doctrine. That the Apostles were not infallible in their writings, but erred with the whole Church of their time.
CHAP. IIII.

1. IT can be no wonder that he should speake meanly of the necessity, and infallibility of holy Scripture, since he labours to fasten er­rour vpon the Canonicall writers, and deliuerers thereof the Apostles themselues, and the whole Church [Page 38]of their time.Chap. 4. 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:Pag. 1 [...]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: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 [Page 39]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, asCom. in Act. cap. 10. post vers. 48, Cornelius à Lapide with others affirmes & proues. For which respect the text expressely declares,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,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. [Page 40]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 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 [Page 41]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: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 [Page 42]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 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 [Page 43]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 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 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 affirmePag. 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 [Page 45]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 Ʋol­kel. 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 teachesIren. Phil [...]leth. disserta­tione de Pace Ec­clesiae. and your selfe affirmePag. 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 yourPag. 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 [Page 46]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 ScripturePag. 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: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. [Page 47]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?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. Mare. vlt. v. 17.. To what purpose did he send this message to S. Iohn Baptist, Caecivident, claudi ambulant Mat. II.? To what end did he sayIoan. 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; [Page 48]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: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 [Page 49]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: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: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 [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 vsPrae­fat. 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 [Page 53]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, [Page 54]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, euery one doth now expect, that both for these and other manifest errours mentioned in that litle Booke of Direction, you openly declare your selfe: it being not sufficient to say, as you do, in a generall confused manner,Pref. n. 28. Whosoeuer teaches, or holdes them, let him be Anathema. For this vniuersality or collection of errours, in a confused sort, leaues an euasion to make good your speach, if you reiect but any one of those errours, through withall you imbrace the rest. And therefore to acquit your credit, and to take away scandal, it were your part to renounce ech one in particular. For if in any occasion, certain­ly in this, silence ought to be interpreted a confession of the said errours. S. Hierome is of this mind, when he sayes,Ep. 75. adu. Vigilan­tium. Nolo in suspicione Haereseos quemquam esse pa­tientem, ne apud eos, qui ignorant innocentiam eius, dis [...]i­mulatio conscientia iudicetur, si taceat. It you be not guil­ty, I do you a singular fauour, in giuing you this fayre and sit occasion, to wipe of that publicke staine which report hath cast on you, and wherof you haue not only giuen too great occasion by your owne words in frequent Conferences, but now by your writings, which being published after the Direction, demonstrates how deeply Socinian errours are rooted both in your iudgment & affection, which could not be abated, either by priuate aduise, or publicke ad­monition.

6. But to returne from this necessary digression; This your resoluing Fayth into naturall Reason gi­ues occasion for others at least, if your selfe be guilt­lesse, to deny the Diuinity of our Sauiour Christ, and consequently to deny that he redeemed mankind by his Death; which if he be not true God, had beene (O blasphemy!) not a price for our Redemption, but a punishment rather of his either vsurping the name of the true Sonne of God, or at least for giuing men cause to belieue he did so. These I grant are harsh in­ferences, and yet you cannot auoyd them, so long as you limit Christian Fayth to probabilities, and re­solue solue these into naturall discourse, as the conclusion into the premises. And giue me leaue to say, you do but dissemble to circumuent an vnwary Reader, when you say,Pref. n. 12. that you submit all other reasons to this one. God hath sai so: Therefore it is true. For you con­ceale the maine point, which is, that you cannot know, that God hath said so, except by motiues of cre­dibility, which can produce only a probable assent; and this must yield to the contrary, if it seeme eui­dent by conuincing arguments, as Socinians conceiue their reasons against the Blessed Trinity, and the Dei­ty of our Sauiour Christ, to be. The like I say of other high misteryes of Christian Fayth; and still must conclude, that vnder colour of vphoulding your cause you ouerthrow Christianity.

The sixth Doctrine. Chap. 7. Destructiue of the Theologicall Vertues of Christian Hope, and Charity.
CHAP. VII.

1. THe grounds which he hath layd for the o­uerthrow of Christian Fayth, doe by conse­quence ouerthrowe also Christian Hope, and Charity, and bring them downe to the ranke of ordinary Morall vertues. But not content with this, he hath other passages, in which he strikes more neere the roote, and deliuers doctrines which tend imme­diatly to the destruction of them. It is, sayth he,Pag. 368. against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sinne, the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated. Rea­son and experience are his Guides, you see, in all the most supernaturall businesses of our soules. Reason and experience, as it seemes, do tell him, that euen when he is committing a mortal sinne, that is, in­fringing the commaundment of God in a matter of weight and moment, and in effect saying, I will not serue him; he is not withstanding in Christian Charity with him, and his humble seruant. Christian Charity, as all Christians are taught, is a supernaturall infused Habit, whereby we doe loue and preferre God before all things, and are habitually inclined to it. When we do not preferre him before all things, but turne our selues to Creatures by some ouerweeing affe­ction [Page 57]to them, that act of commission or omission, if it be as I said Mortall, is not only to be considered as an Act, but as an Act killing the soule, and bereauing it of the life thereof, that is of Charity, whereby only we liue in God: and consequently the Infused Habit of Charity ceaseth in vs: howsoeuer we may find by experience some inclination still to loue God, either by some repetition of former acts of our owne, or raysed by some consideration represented to vs.

2. This is the doctrine receiued amōgst Christians, which I do not now vndertake to dispute, and de­clare at large, but reserue it for a larger worke; my in­tent in this being only to point out the heades from whence very ill consequences must needes follow, that people may take heed of them, and not be too greedy of such nouelties, least togeather with them they sucke their euerlasting bane. For to goe no fur­ther, to what passe would this one doctrine bring a Commonwealth or Kingdome if it were receaued? Certainly to all licentiousnesse and liberty. For if deadly sinne may consist with the Habit of Charity, much more with the Habit of Fayth and Hope. And it being certain amōg Christians, that God will damne no man in whose soule he beholds the precious gem­mes of these three Theologicall vertues Fayth, Hope, and Charity; it will be concluded, that deadly sinne vnrepented cannot exclude a man from Heauen. An errour most pernicious, and to be banished the thoughts of euery Christian Man.

3. For the vertue of Hope, if I vnderstand him right, he sometimes destroyes it by Presumption with ouer­much largenesse, and sometimes turnes it to Despera­tion [Page 58]by denying sinners a possibility to be saued, euen with the best repentāce that they can haue. In proofe of too much largenesse it will be sufficient to allead­ge words, wherin he speakes thus to Catholicks:Pag. 32. This pretense of yours, that Contrition will serue without actuall Confession, but Attrition will not, is a nicety, or phansy, or rather, to giue it the true name, a deuise of your owne to serue ends and purposes; God hauing no where decla­red himselfe, but that wheresoeuer he will accept of that re­pentance which you are pleased to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition. For though he like best the bright-flaming Holocaust of Loue, yet he reiects not the smoaking flame of that repentance (if it be true and ef­fectuall) which proceeds from Hope and Feare. Heere he is very large, and against all good Diuinity will nee­des haue an Act proceeding from Hope or Feare, to be a sufficient and proportionable disposition to the noblest of the three Theologicall vertues Charity. A­mong Protestant Deuines there want not some who are so farre from belieuing, that sorrow arising from Feare of Hell, is sufficient for remission of sinnes, that they hold it rather to be a sinnefull Act.

4. But neither in this doe I intend for the present to enter into long disputation, and therefore goe for­ward to shew that in other places of his Booke, he is as strict. For he callsPag. 292. it a doctrine of Licentiousnesse, that though a man liue and dye without the practise of Chri­stian vertues, and with the Habits of many damnable sinnes vnmortified, yet, if he in the last moment of his life, haue any sorrow for his sinnes, and ioyne confession with it, cer­tainly he shall be saued. I see not how this agrees with his former doctrine, that Attrition, and not only Con­trition, [Page 59]is sufficient for remission of sinnes. It is his part to reconcile and vindicate from contradiction his owne assertions. For me it is sufficient that euery body may be apt inough to inferre from hence, that by this meanes a poore sinner must despayre, though he haue euen Contrition of his sinnes. For in those cir­cumstances, he hath no tyme for the practise of Chri­stian vertues, nor for the mortifying the habits of many damnable sinnes, if he meane the acquired physicall ha­bits of vice, produced by former vicious acts, as he must vnderstand if he meane to say any thing. For if by Habits of vice he vnderstand Habituall sinnes, or sinnes remayning not sufficiently retracted by sor­row, it is to beg the question, as if he should say such repentance is insufficient for pardon of our sinnes, because it takes not away our sinnes.

5. But he does more cleerly declare himselfe, and cast men vpon desperation, by what he sayes of vs in another place:Pag: 392. That although we pretēd to be rigid defenders, and stout Champions for the necessity of Good workes, yet indeed we doe it, to make our owne fun­ctions necessary, but obedience to God vnnecessary: which will appeare (sayth he) to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes vpon all men of effe­ctuall mortification of the Habits of all vices, and effectuall conuersion to newnes of life, and vniuersall obedience; and withall remembers, that an Act of Attrition, which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to saluation, is not mor­tification, which being a worke of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant, and therefore neither Attri­tion, nor Contrition, which signifieth the most perfect kind of repentance will serue at such an exigent. It is [Page 60]strange, Attrition alone should suffice for pardon of our sinnes, and that it should be insufficient when it is ioyned with absolution, which I hope you will not say, is ill, though you hold it not necessary. Or if you meane, that Attrition is sufficient only when there re­maines further time for mortification of vicious ha­bits, this answere seemes repugnant to your owne words, where speaking of some kind of men, you say,Pag. 32. That notwithstanding their errours, they may dye with Contrition, or if not with Cōtrition, yet with Attrition, which, you say, God will accept. Which supposition of yours seemes either to speake of dying men, or at least to comprehend them. And (pag. 133.) you teach that for those men that haue meanes to find the Truth and will not vse them, though their case be daunge­rous, yet if they dye with a generall repentance for all their sinnes knowne and vnknowne, their Saluation is not desperate. Where you seeme also to speake of men at the houre of their Death, when yet they haue not time to mortify the habits of vice. And indeed it is repugnant to Reason, that by Attrition a mans sinnes should be forgiuen, and yet this forgiuenesse depend on the future performance of mortification, which you say requires time Howsoeuer, for my purpose it is sufficient, that by denying possibility of forgiue­nesse to a repentant sinner, at the last instant of his life, you vncharitably cast men on desperation, and destroy the Hope, yea and Fayth of Christians, which assures vs, that forgiuenesse is neuer denied to any that repents.

6. But there remaines yet a more daungerours er­rour, that one may be saued with a generall repen­tance [Page 61]for his sinnes, euen while he actually continues in them. This, vnlesse I mistake, is implyed in the words which I cited euen nowPag. 133. that for those who haue meanes to find the truth and will not vse them, if they dye with a generall repentance for all their sinnes knowne and vnknown, their saluation is not desperate. Where you suppose, that a man remaines in a culpable errour, & yet that a generall repentance may obtaine pardon without actuall dereliction of it. For if he forsake his errour, he is out of your case, which speakes of men that haue meanes to find the Truth, and will not vse them. A very easy pillow if it could be sowed vnder any vnderstanding eare. For if such a generall repentan­ce would suffice at the houre of death, it would also be sufficient at other times, and consequently one might haue pardon of his sinnes whilst he is actually committing them. Or if this be not the meaning of that passage, it wil notwithstanding be true, that ei­ther sorrow is sufficient to obtaine pardon for sinnes, when there remaines no time to mortify the habits of vice, which is against your Tenet; or else that a sinner cannot obtaine pardon at the hower of his Death, euen with repentance.

The seauenth Doctrine. Chap. 8. Takes away the grounds of rationall discourse.
CHAP. VIII.

1. IT may seeme strange, that a man should resol­ue Christian Fayth into naturall Reason, and yet fall vpon a way which destroyes all discourse of Reason. But to these exigents human Vnderstan­ding is brought, when it forsakes the ground of Chri­stianity. He teacheth, and endeauoureth to proouePag. 215. & 217. n. 47. by no fewer then seauen reasons, that it is possible to assent to contradictions at the selfe same time. If a man wil speake in this to the purpose, he must vnder­stand of formall and direct contradictions; for exam­ple, Christ is the Sauiour of the world: Christ is not the Sauiour of the world. Whereof to haue put thee in mind, good Reader, shall suffice at this present, ac­cording to the breuity which in this discourse I haue proposed to my selfe, not doubting but thou wilt v­pon this reflection and thyne owne examination find that all his seauen arguments, are very weake, and so farre from proouing his Assertion, that all of them, not one excepted, shew directly the contrary of that which he intended, notwithstāding that as it seemes of purpose he tooke this subiect in taske to shew some straine of wit, and to purchase some opinion of knowledge in Metaphysicke.

2. How it hath thriued in his hand, tyme may shew [Page 63]in some other treatise. Where also perhaps some other subtiltyes or quircks will be sifted: to wit, first, Whe­ther Fayth be properly Knowledge or Apprehension Pag. 325. n. 2., for he mightily mistakes in Philosophy. Secondly, Whether obscure and euident be affections not of our as­sent, but of the obiect of it Pag. 328.; which were a strange kind of Philosophy, as if we should say, God in him­selfe is obscure and euident, because some vnderstand him with an obscure, and others with a cleere or euident assent. Thirdly, his discourse (pag. 69. n. 48.) about the eye, obiect, and act of Seeing, with the propor­tion which he would make betweene them, and the obiect and act of Fayth, which must fall vpon an he­resy condemned in the Pelagians, besides some mista­kes in Philosophy. Fourthly, another subtilty about the essence of Habits, and formall motiue, to any Act &c. whereof he speakes pag. 138. n. 24. and does after his manner mistake. Then also it shalbe shewed with how little reason he despisesPag. 195. n. 11. the distinction of being obliged not to disbelieue, and of not being obliged explicitly to belieue; and with as litle declai­mes bitterly (pag. 391. n. 8.) against the doctrine that some things are necessary because they are com­maunded, and others commaunded because they are necessary. And finally, the Reader must not be depri­ued at that time of the recreation he will receiue by a speciall subtilty indeed, about a saying in Charity maintayned, That the Creed was an abridgment Pag. 227. n. 65.. Ma­ny more of the like nature will be then brought to the touchstone, and layd as flat, as now perhaps to some partiall men they may haue seemed lofty and learned. My purpose here is only to giue the Reader [Page 64]warning,Chap. 9. that there be in the current of his discourse such shelues, as by crossing the general receiued prin­ciples among Christians, destroy Fayth, and recipro­cally by the ouerthrow of Fayth, come at length to ouerwhelme Reason it selfe.

The eight Doctrine. Opens a way to deny the B. Trinity, and other high misteryes of Christian Fayth.
CHAP. IX.

1. I Cannot omit notwithstanding here to shew, that one of the Reasons which he brings to prooue, that one may at the selfe same tyme, yield assent to contradictories, must be ranked a­mongst the rest of his Doctrins, which do cleerly tend to the ouer throw of Christianity. It is the third rea­son wherin he argues thus:Pag. 215. They which do capti­uate their vnderstandings to the beliefe of those things, which to their vnderstandings seeme irreconciliable con­tradictions, may as well belieue reall contradictions (for the difficulty of belieuing arises not from their being repugnāt, but from their seeming to be so.) But you (he speakes to vs Catholicks) do captiuate your vnderstandings to the beliefe of those things, which seeme to your vnderstandings irreconciliable contradictions. Therefore it is as possible, & easy for you to belieue those that indeed are so. Change but a word, and insteed of Catholicks, put Christians, and the Conclusion will be: Therefore it is as possi­ble, [Page 65]and easy for Christians to belieue contradictions that indeed are so, as to belieue those which to their vn­derstanding seeme so. And seeing it is the common conceit of men, that one cannot at the same time be­lieue contradictions; and he himselfe acknowledges in the same place,Pag. 217. n. 47. that men should not do so, and that to do so, is both vnreasonable and very difficult; what will follow but that to belieue the highest my­steryes of Christian Fayth, is, if not impossible, at least very difficult, and vnreasonable, and a thing that men should not doe.

2. Now that Christians belieue mysteries which to human reason seeme to imply contradiction, he him­selfe will not deny. For though all the mysteryes of Christian Fayth be in themselues most sacred & true, yet to the weake eye of human reason some of them seeme to be against the Goodnesse of God: as that, Many are called, and few elected, it being in his power to haue elected, and preuented with congruous & ef­ficacious Grace, as well those many, as these few. And our vnderstāding is apt to be the more staggard with the depth of this mystery, by considering that Christ our Lord dyed for the saluation of all; and that euery thought, word, or worke of his was superabundant­ly sufficient for the Redemption of infinite millions of worlds. Other points of Christian Fayth appeare contrary to Gods infinite Mercy, and Iustice. Such is our beliefe, that for euery deadly sinne committed in a moment, and perhaps in a matter seeming but a trifle, as the eating of an apple, he should inflict an eternity of torments, if it be not repented. Or, that Infants can be iustly depriued of Beatitude in punish­ment [Page 66]of Originall sinne, to which they neuer concur­red by any Act properly theirs. And it might haue been to good purpose, if this man had declared him­selfe directly in these two points, seeing he was not without good ground directed to doe so.

3. But I goe on with the difficulty of Christian verities. For as the former may seeme harsh and rigo­rous, so others may seeme, as it were, silly, & vnreaso­nable if Fayth be resolued, as this man will haue it, in­to human Reason. Others beare a shew of repugnance to the most receiued Principles of Philosophy, and Metaphysicke, as the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity. Others in appearance derogate from the su­preme respect we owe to God, as the mystery of the Incarnation and Death of the sonne of God. Where I cannot but obserue, that this man speakes so irreli­giously sometimes, that it may giue iust occasion for men to enquire what he belieues concerning the Di­uinity of our Sauiour Christ, as when he sayth;Pref. n. 8. that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may bring a great many others, as well, as himselfe to Auerroes his resolu­tion: Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis: seeing Christians adore what they eate, my soule be with the Philosophers. Is this matter of eating our Sauiour such a pill to your vnderstan­ding, that rather then disgest it you will turne Turke or Infidell? If you belieued indeed that our Sauiour Christ is truly God, you would not be scandalized that Christians adore Him, who would and could be eaten, no more then Him who stood in need of eating, and whom the Iewes were able to wound and mur­der, and might haue eaten (euen in a Capharnaiti­call [Page 67]sauage manner, farre different from the man­ner we receiue him in the B. Sacrament) if it had beene his will to permit it. Perhaps for these reasons, hauing subiected Fayth to Reason, you wish with Auerroes, a professed enemy of Christians, My soule be with the Philosophers.

4. He giues another suspicion of it in the passage following. For hauing alleadged diuers seeming con­tradictions in our Doctrine concerning the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, he concludes,Pag. 216. 217. that if I (that is the Author of Charity Maintayned) cannot compose the repugnance, and that after an intelligible man­ner, then I must giue him leaue to belieue, that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation, or els that it is no contradi­ction, that men should subiugate their vnderstandings to the beliefe of contradictions; which yet, as I said before, he iudgeth either impossible, or at least vnreasonable 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, [Page 68]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 [Page 69]which cause I haue some reason, as I touched before,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: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 wordsPag. 217.. And the Reader had need to take heed that he be not taken also with that protestation of his: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 [Page 70]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: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 [Page 71]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 Catholique, then from Catholique to Protestant, & then about againe to Catholique, till at last he be come to that passe, that it is hard to say, What he is, neyther Precisian, nor Subscriber to the 39. Articles, nor confessed Socinian, nor right Christian according to the grounds which he hath layd. If you will be­lieue himselfe, for matters of Religion, he is constant in nothing, but in following that way to heauen which [Page 72]for the present seemes to him the most probable. He fol­lowes that which at the present seemes most probable: A poore comfort in matters of Fayth, wherin errour is of so great consequence. And yet this cold comfort is vpon the point of being lost; for the probability is li­mited to the present.

2. Would any man thinke that in matters of this nature, and after so much profession that he is now satisfied, he shouldPref. n. 2. professe himselfe, still to haue a Trauellers indifferency, most willing to be led by reason to any way, or from it? And accordingly to tell vs,Pref. n. 1. That had there been represented to his vnderstan­ding such Reasons for our Doctrine, as would haue made our Religion more credible then the contrary, certainly he should haue despised the shame of one more alteration, & with both armes, and all his hart most readily haue imbraced it. Such was the preparation which he brought to the reading of that Booke, comming with such a mind to the reading of it, as S. Austin before he was a setled Catholique, brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee. Did S. Austin af­ter he was a setled Catholicke come with the like dis­position to conference with any Heretique or mis be­lieuer? To what purpose then doth this man bring S. Austin here, but to shew the difference betwixt the Fayth of one that is a Catholicke, and of one that is not; the difference I say in point of adhesion to his Fayth, the Catholicke belieuing so assuredly that he may say with the Apostle, If we, or an Angell from heauen euan­gelize Gal. 1. [...]. to you besides that which we haue euangelized to you, be he Anathema. Others not being able euer to be certaine of what they belieue because they build vpon grounds which by their owne confession are not [Page 73]certaine and infallible.

3. In which respect also it may be iustly wondred with what sense this man taking vpon him to be a guide to others, and to leade them a sofe way to hea­uen, professeth himselfe not to be setled in his way, and stil to haue not only aProf. n. 2. Trauellers, but an Ig­norant Trauellers Indifferency, willing to be led to any way, or from it, because he knowes not whether he be right or wrong; otherwise if he know himselfe to be right, certainly it were not his part to be so willing to be led to any way, or from it: which giues me hope, that no man of iudgment, and timorous conscience, will aduenture the eternall saluation of his soule, v­pon the writings or Doctrine of one, who is so vn­setled, & whom he either knowes not where to find, or how long to keep in any one opinion or profes­sion; to whom the words of S. Bernard Ep. 193. concerning Petrus Abailardus (who taught that Fayth was but opi­nion) may be applyed: Homo sibi dissimilis est, totus am­biguus. He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe, who­lely composed of doubtings. I leaue out his middle words, intus Herodes, foris Ioannes.

4. One thing certainly people would be very glad to know, that whereas he maintaines, that his Altera­tions were the most satisfactory actions to himselfe Pag. 303. that euer he did, and the greatest victories that euer he obtained ouer himselfe: Men, I say, would be glad to know vpon what new and great Motiues, these most satisfactory actions, & greatest victoryes were ouer throwne againe, and frequent changes grounded. For his first being Catholicke, we haue Motiues in writing vnder his owne hand, and now in print. But what new reasons [Page 74]mooued him to forsake vs, this would people willin­gly know. If he had no better reasons, then be the ans­wers to his owne Motiues, I scarcely belieue, that any iudicious Protestant will allow the alteration to haue been good, diuers of them being against Protestants themselues, and some repugnant to all Christianity, as may be well seene by the effects, which they haue wrought in him, to wit, so much vnsetlednesse in be­liefe and Religion, that he knowes not to this day, what he would be at. But we may well suppose that as he willingly leaues all men to their liberty, prouided that they improue it not to a Tyranny ouer others; so he re­serues the like liberty to himselfe, and is in fine re­solued to belieue whatsoeuer for the present doth seeme most probable to him: and so liuing in perpetuall Indif­ferency, be an example to others to be constant in no profession, which is as good as to be of no Religion.

The tenth Doctrine. Prouides for the impunity & preseruation of what­soeuer damnable errour against Christian Fayth.
CHAP. XI.

1. HE is no lesse prouidēt to conserue then in­dustrious to beget Vnchristian errours & Atheismes. Suppose an Orthodoxe Belie­uer fall first into damnable Heresies, then to Turcisme or Iudaisme, afterward to Paganisme, and finally to Atheisme. Let him freely speake his mind to the lear­ned, [Page 75]and vnlearned, to high and low, to the Laity and Clergy, to all sorts of persons: Let him haue swarmes of followers, let Circumcision be reduced, the Satur­day obserued for Sunday with Iewes, or Friday with the Turkes, and in confirmation of these sacrileges, let Bookes be written. What remedy? Must these things be tolerated in a Christian Common wealth, or Kingdome? with resentment of a Christian Prince? in despite of Christian Prelates? vnder the eyes of Christian Deuines? in the midst of Christian people? They must be suffered, if we belieue this mans do­ctrine,Pag. 297. that no man ought to be punished for his opinions in Religion. We are willing (sayth he) to leaue all men to their liberty, prouided they will not improue it to a Tyrāny ouer others Pag. 179. n. 81., a good meanes to preserue euery one in his liberty without feare of punishment. And the contrary persuasion and practise, what is it? It well be­comes them who haue their portions in this life, who serue no higher state then that of England, or Spayne, or France, who thinke of no other happinesse but the preseruation of their owne fortunes, and tranquillity in this world, who thinke of no other meanes to preserue States, but human power & Ma­chiauillian Policy. How daungerous to Church, & euen to State this pernicious errour is, and what encoura­gement it giues for vnquiet persons to oppose Autho­rity, and how deepely it taxes England & other Pro­testant Churches of Machiauillian Policy, and to be men who haue their portions in this life, who serue no higher State then that of England, or Spayne, or France, who thinke of no other Happines, but the preseruation of their owne fortunes in this world, for hauing punished Heretiques euen with death, I leaue to be considered by higher Powers.

2.Chap. 11. I grant he would seeme to mitigate his doctrine, and confine it within certaine limits, but such, that his exception is worse then his generall Rule, vnlesse I mistake his meaning, & therefore present his words as they lye to the Readers iudgment. There is, saith he, no daunger to any State from any mans opinion, vnlesse it be such an opinion, by which disobedience to Authority, or im­piety is taught, or licenced; which sort I confesse may iustly be punished, as well as other faults: or vnlesse this sanguinary doctrine be ioyned with it, That its lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it. Thus he. As for his first limitation, it either destroyes all that he said before, or els it is but a verball glosse for his owne security. For if he grant that euery Heresy is impiety, and brings with it disobedience to Authority (as certainly it does, if it be professed against the lawes of the Kingdome, or Decrees and Commaunds of the Church, State, & Prelats where the contrary is maintained:) If, I say, his meaning be this, then his former generall Do­ctrine vanisheth into nothing; & it will still remaine true, that men may be punished for their opinions & heresyes. But if his meaning be, that no opinion is to be punished, except such as implyes disobedience to Authority, or licenseth Impiety in things which be­long meerely to Temporall affayres, and concerne only the ciuill comportment of one man to another, as theft, murther, and the like; then he still leaues a freedome for men to belieue, and professe what they please for matters of Religion. And so, if they iudge a thing to be vnlawfull, which their Superiours af­firme to be indifferent, yet they may hold their opi­nion, and disobey their Prelates, and may be able to [Page 77]tel them from this mans doctrine, that to enforce any man in points of this kind, is vnlawfull Machiauil­lian Policy.

3. His second limitation seemes to goe further, telling vs, that a mās opinion may be punished, if this sanguinary doctrine be ioyned with it, That it is lawfull for him by human violence to enforce others to it. Frō when­ce, for ought I can perceiue, it cleerly followes, that if any Church prescribe some forme of Beliefe, and punish others for belieuing and professing the con­trary, the Prelats or others of that Church, who cō ­curre to enforce by punishment such contrary belie­uers, may themselues be iustly punished. As if for example, an Arian be punished with Death in any Kingdome, the Prelats, or other Persons of autho­rity in that State, may according to his doctrine be lawfully punished, as holding it lawfull to enforce men against their conscience, which he calles a san­guinary Doctrine. How daungerous a position this might prooue, if Arians, or Socinians, or any other sect, or vnquiet spirit could preuaile in any Kingdome or Commonwealth where Hereticks are punished, it is not fit for me to exaggerate; being sufficient for my intention, to haue made it cleere, that the enemy of mankind could neuer haue inuented a more effectual meanes then this freedome of opinion, and encou­ragement by impunity, for the enlarging of his infer­nall Kingdome by Heresy, Paganisme, Atheisme, and in a word, by destroying whatsoeuer belongs to Christianity.

4. As for punishing Heretiks with Excommuni­cation, in words he grants it may be done; but I haue [Page 78]reason to suspect what his meaning is indeed, & whe­ther he speake thus only for some respects. For I know that a great Socinian hath printed the contrary.Iren. Phi­lal. disp. de Pace Eccles. And if no man can be punished with temporall punishmēt for imbracing that which his Conscience persuades him to be Truth, how can he be lawfully punished by Excommunication, for doing that which to his vnderstanding he is obliged to do? For not acknow­ledging any authority of Church, or Prelats indued with infallibility, he is still left to his owne reason. Besides one effect of excommunication is to exclude the Person so censured, from the ciuill conuersation with others; other temporall punishments in all Courts being also consequent to it. Seeing then he de­nyes that men are to be punished for their opinions by Temporall punishments, he cannot with cohe­rence affirme, that they may lawfully be excommu­nicated: This certainly being a greater enforcement then death it selfe, to such as vnderstand the spiritu­all benefits, and aduantages, of which men are de­priued by that Censure.