I cannot perceiue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer hereafter open your mouth in defence of it I answere it seemes to me that your reasons are already sufficiently prooued to be fallacyes since from them either nothing can be deduced for your purpose or else you must acknowledge your selfe to haue no certainty that there is a God that vertue is to be imbraced or that Christian Fayth is euen probable 7. And yet I adde that you must in another respect also solue your owne obiections Remember these your words (zz) Pag. 36.37 Yet all This I say not as if I doubted that the spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence And elswhere (a) Pag. 112. Gods spirit if he please may work more a certainty of adherence beyond certainty of euidence Now you caÌ„not deny but that these men may be tempted against their Fayth by inuoluntary doubting that they may increase in it that they may commit some deliberat sinne and may make daily progresse in Charity and good workes euen by the greater increase of their Fayth and yet you graunt them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence And so in this case your selfe must answere your owne arguments and confesse them to be but fallacies Euen your maine reason that Christian Fayth can be endued with no stronger certainty then the probable motiues on which it relyes by this selfe same instance is proued a Sopbisme For now you grant a certainty of Fayth not without probable arguments of credibility yet not for them it being more certaine then they are and therefore you are still put vpon a necessity of answering your owne arguments And whereas pag. 330. you make a shew of answering this particuler obiection really you do not answere but plainly contradict your self labouring to prooue that it is impossible that there should be a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of euidence as the Reader may cleerly see and shall be demonstrated in due time 8. One thing more I must not let passe and it is That whereas you say We would fayne haue Christian Fayth belieued to be infallible that there might be some necessity of our Churches infallibility it seemes you are apt inough to yield infallibility to Gods Church if once it be granted that Christian Fayth is infallible And with good reason For seeing you teach that vniuersall Tradition and other arguments of credibility cannot produce an infallible beliefe of holy Scripture and of the mysteries belieued by Christians it must follow that some other infallible meanes must be found out for the propounding to vs the holy Scriptures which other infallible meanes euen according to your persuasion being not Scripture it selfe nor euery mans priuate spirit there remaynes only the authority of the Catholicke Church which as an instrument of the holy Ghost may be an infallible propounder both of Scripture and all diuine verities Wherein there is a large difference betweene the Church and other Iudges These in their sentences or determinations intend not to deliuer points of infallible Fayth as the Church must intend and do it if once it be granted that from her we must receiue holy Scriptures and belieue them with a certaine and infallible assent of Christian Fayth The second Doctrine Chap. 3. That the assurance which we haue of Scriptures is but morall CHAP. III. 1. THis man magnifies holy Scriptures in many places as the only thing on which he relyes his Saluation but whosoeuer shall walke along with him from place to place marke well his wayes will find that they lead to the quite contrary and shew that he neither doth value them to their right worth nor doth lay any other grounds but such as are more apt to breed disesteeme then esteeme of them This may be seene in that he teacheth (b) Pag. 141. 62. That our assurance that the Scripture hath been preserued from any materiall alteration and that any other booke of any profance writer is incorrupted is of the same kind and condition both morall assurances 2. If this may be allowed it must necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of Scripture must in degree be much inferiour to the assurance which we haue of such bookes of prophane Authors as haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men to wit Atheists Pagans Iewes Turkes Christians wheras the bookes holy Scripture are either vnknowne or impugned by all except ChristiaÌ„s by some also who would beare of Christians and consequently the morall assurance of them and of the incorruptednesse of them is the much the lesse and of lesse morall credit And by so same reason whosoeuer builds vpoÌ„ this mans grouÌ„ds cannot haue so great assurance that there was a Iesus Christ that he had disciples and much lesse that he wrought wonderous things and lesse then this that those wonders were true miracles as that there was a Coesar Alexander Pompey c. or that they fought such battailes and the like For these things descend to vs by a more vniuersall tradition then the former (c) Pag. 116. Do not your selfe speake thus We haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the Eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue said we haue greater reason to belieue it if we consult humane inducements only and consequently if Christian Fayth be not absolutely infallible euen aboue the motiues of credibility we are more certaine that there was a King Henry then a Iesus Christ A thing which no true Christian can heare without detestation 3. That which followes out of the same 116. page is of the like nature laying a ground for vn wary people to reiect Scripture For hauing spoken of some barbarous Nations that belieued the doctrine of Christ and yet belieued not the Scripture to be the word of God (d) Pag. 116. for they neuer heard of it and Fayth comes by hearing you adde these words Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had byn proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before receiued and had been doubted of or euen reiected by thâ—se barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contained 4. If this be granted why might not any Church haue reiected the Scriptures being proposed by other parts of the Church And why may not we do so at this day Nay seeing de facto we know the verities of Christian Fayth by Scripture only according to your doctrine we cannot be obliged to belieue the Scriptures
answered but is indeed a meere toye and if it prooue any thing it prooues the Title of this Chapter to be true If sayth he (t) Pag. 326. this Doctrine of the absolute certainty of Christian Fayth were true then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in any matter of Fayth though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolutly destructiue so long as it lasts of all true and sauing Fayth Doth not this Sophisme tend also to prooue that if one be tempted with inuoluntary doubts against the Truths I spake of he must forfeit his certainty that there is a God or that Christian Fayth is certainly probable and so either incurre damnation without his owne fault which is impossible or attaine heauen without any certaine beliefe or knowledge that there is a God or that Christian Fayth is certainly probable 2. As for the argument it selfe it is of no moment It doth not distinguish betwixt the Habit of Fayth whereby Christians are permanently denominated Faithfull and which remaines euen when we are a sleepe and the Act or exercise thereof which may be hindred by many good employments as study or serious attention to any businesse without the least preiudice to the Habit of which we are depriued only by Voluntary errours or doubts against it not by those which are inuoluntary and resisted If this answere giue not satisfaction let him either afford a better against his owne obiection or else professe that he doth not certainly belieue there is a God or that he is not certaine that Christian Fayth and Religion is so much as probable And by the way me thinks he should reflect that if he thinke euery Act destroyes the cōtrary habit and in that respect no doubting may consist with the habit of infallible fayth then the Doctrine of Catholicke Diuines that euery voluntary Act of Heresy or Infidelity is destructiue of the habit of Fayth should not in reason and true consequence be tearmed by him (v) Pag. 368. a vaine and groundlesse fancy 3. An other argument to prooue the fallibility of Christian Fayth in effect is this (w) Pag. 326. We pray for the increase and strengthning of our Fayth Therefore our Fayth is not infallible You might as well argue We may pray for a high degree of happines in heauen Therefore euery Saint in heauen is not perfectly happy Do you not know that there may be intension of degrees euen in qualities which haue no mixture of the contrary No light includes darknes yet one light may be greater then another Thus the most imperfect acte of fayth is most certaine in the most perfect kind of certainty though not most certaine in the most perfect degree of certainty and we may well belieue that the least degree of Christian Fayth is incompatible with any deliberate and not resisted doubt or vncertainty and yet pray for the increase thereof If you deny this then tell me whether you may not pray for the increase of your beliefe of a God and his Attributes and for the strengthning of it against all temptations rising either from the suggestions of the enemy or from the weakenesse of mans vnderstanding in order to so high misteryes as also of your certainty that Christian Religion is probable in the higest degree of probability and when you haue granted that you may as I hope you will then you will haue answered your owne argument vnlesse you will acknowledge your selfe not to be certaine that there is a God or that Christian Religion is probable 4. A third reason wherby he endeauours to prooue that Christian Fayth is not absolutely certaine is this in substance That seeing as S. Iohn assures vs (x) Pag. 326. our Fayth is the victory which ouercomes the world if our Fayth be a certaine infallible knowledge our victory ouer the world must of necessity be perfect and it should be impossible for any true belieuer to commit any deliberate sinne How this doth follow I cannot perceiue no more then one can inferre that Christians cannot commit as grieuous sinnes as men that reiect Christianity because the beliefe of Christians is true and the beliefe of others is false The Angels in heauen and Adam in Paradise were indued with infallible Fayth yea and with Euidence in the opinion of diuers good Diuines and yet the Angels and Adam sinned deliberatly and damnably Fayth doth direct but not necessitate the will which still remayning free may choose good or euill If he will still maintayne the argument for good then he must be conuinced to say that he doth not with certainty belieue a God or that vertue is to be imbraced because he can doubtlesse commit deliberate sinnes against God and vertue 5. Not vnlike to this is another reason (y) Ibid. That Charity being the effect of Fayth if our Fayth were perfect Charity would be perfect so no man could possibly make any progresse in it Giue me leaue to speake to your selfe do you not see that by this reason if you belieue in God with certainty your loue of God must be perfect without possibility to make any progresse in it which because it is false it must follow by force of your Argument that you do not with certainty belieue a God But as for the reason in it selfe because it concernes more then your selfe I must tell you that it doth falsly suppose that Charity is both an immediate and necessary effect of Fayth without interuention of Freewill which may refuse to follow the direction of Fayth and either wholy cease to loue God or loue him now more now lesse And therefore no wonder if vpon a false supposall that follow which is also false 6. This is not a time to enter into long discourses how you confound certainty with perfection as if because Fayth is absolutely certaine but yet obscure it must be also absolutely perfect which is a great mistake for it wants the perfection of euidence hath a possibility annexed to it that it may be both resisted and reiected But it will not be vnpleasant notwithstanding nor vntimely to stand a while and see how excessiuely confident you are of the strength and force of the foresaid Arguments and the contentment which you take in them Thus you speake of them (z) Pag. 326. 327. These you see are strange and portentous consequences and yet the deduction of them is cleere and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours you meane our doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Fayth which you would faine haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and piety and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progresse in Fayth or Charity And therefore I must intreat and adiure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witnesse
68. n. 42. that the Controuersy about Scripture is to be tryed by most voyces and yet what is your greater number but most voyces And as for greater Authority what can you meane thereby except perhaps greater learning or some such quality nothing proportionable to that Authority on which Christian Fayth must relye The third Doctrine That the Apostles were not infallible in their writings but erred with the whole Church of their time CHAP. IIII. 1. IT can be no wonder that he should speake meanly of the necessity and infallibility of holy Scripture since he labours to fasten errour vpon the Canonicall writers and deliuerers thereof the Apostles themselues and the whole Church of their time Chap. 4. And this coÌ„cerning an Article of Fayth of highest consequence and most frequently reuealed in holy Scripture the deniall whereof had byn most derogatory from the glory of our Sauiour and from the abundant fruit of his sacred Passion to wit that the Ghospell was to be preached to all nations You shall receiue it in his owne words (m) Pag. 1â—7 n. 21. The Church may ignorantly disbelieue a Reuelation which by errour she thinkes to be no Reuelation That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth reuealed before our Sauiours Ascension in these words Goe and teach all nations Math. 29.19 Yet through preiudice or inaduertence or some other cause the Church disbelieued it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chapter of the Acts vntill the conuersion of Cornelius And that the Apostles themselues were inuolued in this supposed errour of the most primitiue Church he deliuers without ceremony in another place (n) Pag. 144. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were and through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a reuealed Truth it is as I haue already noted vnanswerably euident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles Is not this to ouerthrow all Christianity If the Blessed Apostles on whom Christians are builded as vpon their foundation Ephes 2. were obnoxious to inaduertence to preiudice to other causes of errour what certainty can we now haue The Apostles might haue written what they belieued and so we cannot be sure but what they haue written may contain some errour proceeding from inaduertence preiudice or some other cause If they euen after the receiuing of the holy Ghost and with them the whole Church of that time could either forget or transgresse so fresh a Commaund imposed by our Sauiour Christ for his last farewell at his Ascension it will be obuious for aduersaries of Christian Religion to obiect that perhaps they haue byn left to themselues to obliuion inaduertence and other humane defects in penning the Scripture If they erred in their first thoughts why not in their second With the assistance of the holy Ghost they can erre in neither without it in both 2. The Obiection which he brings is not hard to solue S. Peter himselfe neuer doubted That vision was shewed to him and he declared it to the conuerted Iewes for their satisfaction as it happened in the Councell held by the Apostles about the obseruation of the law of Moyses which some Christians conuerted from Iudaisme did much vrge But neither the Apostles nor the other Christians had any doubt in that matter as likewise in our present case not all the Church but only some Zealous for the Iewes did oppose themselues to S. Peter For before the conuersion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians as (o) Com. in Act. cap. 10. post vers 48 Cornelius à Lapide with others affirmes proues For which respect the text expressely declares (p) Act. c. 11. v. 2. that they who were offended with S. Peter were of the circumcision that is Iewes made Christians 3. He goes on in this conceit and addes a point no lesse daungerous then the former The Apostles Doctrine sayth he (q) Pag. 144. n. 31. was confirmed by miracles therefore it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertain I say in no part which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth and which had the attestation of diuine miracles Thus you see he couertly calls in question all the Apostles writings and layes grouÌ„ds to except against them For if once we giue way to such distinctions and say that the Apostles are to be credited only in what they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine Truth we may reiect in a manner all Scripture which scarce euer declares whether or no the writers thereof did deliuer any thing as a certaine diuine Truth and much lesse that they remained constant in what they deliuered by writing Or if it should expresse these particulars yet we could not be obliged to belieue it if once we come to deny to the Apostles an vniuersall infallibility For what reason can this man giue according to these grounds of his why they might not haue erred in that particular declaration 4. And besides will he not oblige vs to belieue with certainty any thing deliuered by the Apostles which had not the attestation of diuine miracles It seeemes he will not and thereby in effect takes away the beliefe of very many mysteries of Christian Fayth and verities contayned in holy Scripture For that miracles were wrought in confirmation of euery particular passage of Scripture we cannot affirme neither out of holy Scripture it selfe nor any other credible argument rather the contrary is certaine there being innumerable verityes of the Bible which were neuer seuerally confirmed in that manner and yet it were damnable sinne to deny them And moreouer where or when did the Apostles particularly prooue by miracle that their writings were the word of God Thus you see into what plunges he brings all Christians by his owne Inconstancy from which certainly ariseth this itching desire of his to put conceites into mens heades as if the Apostles also might haue byn various in their writings and not constant 5. I cannot omit another distinction preiudiciall to the infallibility of the Apostles of their writings which he deliuereth in these words (r) Pag. 144. n. 32. For those things which the Apostles professed to deliuer as the Dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine Reuelations why should we take them as diuine Reuelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himselfe Therefore when S. Paul sayes in the 1. Epist to the Corinth 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord. And againe Concerning virgins I haue no commaundment of the Lord but I deliuer my iudgment If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his iudgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote which mooued him to write as in other places diuine Reuclations which he certainly
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 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 maÌ„s 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 FroÌ„ 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 coÌ„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 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 punishmeÌ„t 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 The Conclusion 1. By that which hath been said in these few precedent Chapters it euidently appeares first how fitting it was for the good of our Country in these present circuÌ„stances that people should haue learned by some such Treatise as the Direction to beware of impious Doctrines such as were foreseene that this maÌ„ would vent vnder colour of defending the Protestant cause and answering Charity maintayned And that although nothing could be intended more disgracefull to Protestant Religion then to see a Champion a way chosen to defend it which openly destroyes all Religion yet Compassion could not but worke in a wel-wishing soule and mooue it to desire and to endeauour that such a way should not be taken which might make people more and more insensible of any Religion by blurring the common principles of Christianity and digging vp the foundation thereof to lay insteed of them the grounds of Atheisme 2. Secondly though this hath not taken the full effect which could haue been wished that notwithstaÌ„ding the warning giuen he hath interlacâ—d his whole booke with such stuffe as here you haue seene yet this we haue gotten further that it is discouered cleerly to the world how deeply Socinianisme is rooted in this man and as it is to be feared in many others with whome he must needes haue had much conference since his vndertaking the worke in regard that no timely aduise or Direction no force of reason no feare of shame or punishment no former impressions of Christianity could withdraw him from steeping his thoughts and pen in such vn-Christian inke nor the many Corrections endeauoured by the Approouers of his Booke blot out his errours though in respect of the alterations which haue been by report made in it by them it is quite another thing from the first platforme which he drew and put into their hands and consequently how iust reason the Directour had to suspect that his true intention was not to defend Protestantisme but couertly to vent Socinianisme 3. Now thirdly whether it be not high time that people should now at the least open their eyes vpon this second warning and take that order which may be conuenient to preuent the spreading of so pernicious a Sect I must leaue to the consideration of euery one whome it may concerne I do only for the present wish from my hart that the maintayning of that Blessed Title and State of Christianity of which our Countrey hath been for so many ages possessed may be the effect both of this mans wauering and wandering trauells and of these my labours FINIS Errata PRaesat pag. 10. lin 25. to our nation corrige of our nation Ibid. pag. 11. lin 26. with corrige with Pag. 32. lin 3. is the corrige is so Ibid. lin 4. by so corrige by the Pag. 53. lin 21. Christ is God lege is the Sonne of God In the margent pag. 11. ouer against S. Bernard eited line 3. put Bernard Epist. 87.
CHRISTIANITY MAINTAINED OR A Discouery of sundry Doctrines tending to the Ouerthrovve of Christian Religion Contayned in the Answere to a Booke entituled Mercy and Truth or Charity maintayned by Catholiques Bringing into captiuity all Vnderstanding vnto the Obedience of Christ 2. Cor. 10.5 What is more contrary to Fayth then not to belieue any thing to which Reason cannot reach S. Bernard Epist 190. Permissu Superiorum 1638. TO THE HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE CHARLES King of Great-Brittaine France and Ireland c. May it please your Most Excellent Maiesty MY Presumption vvere not easily excusable Most gracious Soueraigne in flying to the Sanctuary of your Maiesty for the protection of this poore Treatise if the great importance of the Cause vvherof I vvrite did not change my Feare into Hope and raise vp my Hope as high as Confidence that Christianity Maintayned by vvhat pen soeuer it be performed needeth not feare to find benigne acceptance from so Gracious and Great a King as you are vvho glory more in that most Sacred name of being a Christian then in that most ancient Stocke of Royall Progenitours vvhich so gloriously adornes the Diademe of your Sacred Maiesty For I do not in this occasion pretend to act either the Offensiue or Defensiue part of any one particular Religion honoured vvith the Name of Christianity but I only come in the generall Name of a Christian Church vvithout treating vvhether it be Latin or Greeke East or VVest of England or of Rome and therefore I cannot despayre of being graciously admitted by your Maiesty My Scope and VVorke as I am saying is only to maintaine the authority of Holy Scripture the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Deity of our Blessed Sauiour the infallibility of his Apostles the povver of his Miracles the necessity of his Grace and of the absolute Certainty of Christian Fayth against an Aduersary vvho seeketh to turne the diuine beliefe of Christians into humane Opinion (a) Pag. 36. 37. pag. 112. n. 154. Who teacheth that our assurance of holy Scripture of all the verityes contained therein is but (b) Ibid. probable and credible and consequently such as may vvell be false Who continually vrgeth (c) Pag. 112. lin 3. that God as sure as he is good neither doth nor can require of Christians an infallible and certainly vn-erring Beliefe of his vvord That men neither are bound nor can belieue diuine Reuelations (d) Pag. 330. lin 13.25.33 further then they are made apparent euident to them and that it sufficeth vnto Saluation to belieue the Gospell (e) Pag. 37. lin 20. sâ—qu as vve do other Stories as much as vve do (f) Pag. 327 n. 5. lin 28. Cesars Commentaries or the Hi story of Salust Who proclaimes (g) Pag. 144. n. 31. the Apostles vvith the vvhole Church of their time to haue erred in matters of fayth euen after they had receiued the Holy Ghost That after their Deaths (h) Pag. 292. infine 293. Initio the vvhole Church vvas presently infected vvith vniuersall Errour and that the vvhole Church of the (i) Pag. 338. lin 5. Gentils may fall avvay into Infidelity Who shutteth (k) Pag. 292. 393. the gates of Mercy against penitent sinners Finally vvho openeth an easy vvay for the deniall of all those maine points of Christianity aboue mentioned as it vvill appeare in this ensuing Treatise Vouchsafe therefore Most gracious Soueraigne to consider hovv Christianity is impugned by some euen in this your Kingdome and the incoueniences and dangers thereof and preuent both them and such others of the selfe same kind as may grovv greater if they be not preuented by your Zeale and Care I cannot doubt but that your Maiesty vvill do it euen for the Piety of the thing it selfe though my Aduersary vvho yet pretends that he is vvholy of your Maiesties Religion giues you a more particular offence by departing from the very doctrines vvhich you belieue For besides diuers other single differeÌ„ces he neither allovves the Nine and thirty Articles vvhich your Maiesty in your Royall Declaration affirmes to containe the true Doctrine of the Church of England nor holds he the Succession of Bishops to be necessary in Gods Church Pag. 356. sequ vvhich experience teaches to tend expresly to the confusion of the said Church and destruction of Monarchy And though God hath made your Maiesty most happy both in a Royall Consort of singular and rare endovvments both of Body and Mind vvith a plentifull and most hopefull Issue vvhich vvith my hart I begge may euen last to the very end of the vvorld and vvith an Obedient Loyall People and vvith povver both at land and sea and vvith times both of Plenty and Peace vvhilst almost all your Neighbours are in vvarre and vvant yet nothing vvill euer be more able to establish You in all these Felicityes nor to auert all disasters from your Maiesty then not to permit that there be any conniuence at such enormous Errours as these vvhich partly openly partly couertly are vented against Christ our Lord and all Christian Fayth The God of Heauen preserue your Maiesty in all Health and Happinesse to his greatest Glory your Maiestyes ovvne Felicity and to the ioy comfort of all your Kingdomes Your Maiesties most humble and most obedient loyall subiect I. H. To the Christian Reader WONDER not Christian Reader That I entitle this Little Treatise Christianity Maintained I giue it that Name because that is the thing which I endeauour heer to make good against one who ouerthrows Christianity not by remote Principles or strained Inferences but by direct assertions cleere deductioÌ„s naturally flowing from diuers of his doctrines which if it be made appeare I cannot but hope that all who take comfort in the glorious and most happy name of Christian will giue me the right hands of fellowship in this Common Cause Ancient Pacianus sayes (a) Epist ad Semprou of euery orthodoxe belieuer that Christian is his name Catholicke his Surname Catholicke cannot be conceiued without Christian But Christianity so long as it is maintained wil afford some common Principles of beliefe which may direct men to find that one Catholicke Church of Christians by meanes whereof our Lord hath decreed to giue Grace and Glory Let therfore neither preiudice auert nor priuat respects diuert the good Readers vnderstanding from weighing in an equal ballance that which is herce layd before it God forbid any Christian should exceed the desper are folly of the Iewes who would not depose their priuat quarells euen while they were circled with a hostile army of Romans or be losse aduised then the Romans who tooke occasion to make peace at home by the pronocations of the Enemy abroad indging it wifedome to be swayed with feare of greater euill especially when they could do it vnder the honourable title of a Common (c) Liu. lib. 2. good In which
because the verities therein contained are necessary to be belieued for this very necessity you cannot belieue but by belieuing aforehand the Scripture but contrarily you may reiect the verities themselues if you be not preobliged to belieue the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contained 5. Againe you say that Scripture is the only Rule of Christian Fayth (e) Cap. 2 per totum yet it is not necessary to Saluation to belieue it to be a rule of Fayth no nor to be the Word of God The first part of this doctrine is the scope of your whole second Chapter The second is taught purposely and at large in the same Chapter (f) Pag. 116. pag. 116. n. 159. Ioyne these two assertions and the Conclusion will be That we are not obliged to receiue that which is the only ordinary meanes of attayning Christian Fayth namely the Scriptures And therefore in the ordinary way we cannot be bound to imbrace Christian Fayth seeing it cannot be compassed without the meanes to attaine to it For how can one be obliged to attayne an end and yet be left free to reiect the only meanes of atchieuing that end I am the freer to make this question because you concurre with me in the answere when you say (g) Pag. 16. It was necessary that God by his prouidence should preserue the Scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowne otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be knowne the only meanes of continuing the Knowledge of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one whether the Scripture haue perished or whether it be preserued if in the meane time we be not bound to belieue that it is the Rule of Fayth and word of God Nay seeing as things now stand we may find the verityes contayned in Scripture sufficiently expressed in innumerable other bookes we may at this present in conformity to your doctrine reiect all the holy Scripture contenting our selues with the contents thereof taken from other Authors and not from the writers of the Bible 6. The Doctrine which he carryeth through his whole Booke but particularly insisteth vpon in his third Chapter that we cannot learne from Scripture it selfe that it is Canonicall but only from Tradition of men deliuering it from hand to hand is no lesse iniurious and derogatiue to holy Scripture then the former speaking of men in his sense that is not as endued with any infallible assistance of the holy Ghost which Catholicks belieue of the Church but only as wise or many men or for the like human qualifications for to this effect he sayth (h) Pag. 72. n. 51. Tradition is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason not praper to Christians but common to all men This is certainly the right course to blast the Authority of holy Scripture not to maintaine it For besides that which I haue touched already that by this meanes we are not so certaine of Scripture as of profane bookes he must come at length to resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the Tradition or Authority of Pagans Iewes Turkes or condemned Hereticks as well as of true Christiās For seeing errours against fayth or Heresies cannot in his principles be discerned but by Scriptures before they be receaued the testimony of one man concerning the admittance of them must weigh as much as of another and be considered only as prooceeding from a number of men be they faythfull or Infidels true Christians or condemned Hereticks 7. And further according to the same principles he must acknowledge that he belieueth some parts of Canonicall Scripture with a more firme assent then others to wit as they haue been deliuered with more or lesse generall consent or haue been more or lesse once questioned which is to depriue Canonical Scripture of all Authority For if once we giue way to more or lesse in the behalfe of Gods word we shall end in nothing And this hath the more force in this mans doctrine who professeth that the greatest certainty which he hath of any part of Scripture is within the compasse of probability What certainty then shall those Scriptures haue which participate of that probability in a lesse and lesse degree according as they haue been deliuered with different tradition and consent How this doctrine will sound in the eares of all true Christians I leaue to be considered contenting my selfe to oppose your Assertion with the discourse of D. King afterward Bishop of London in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Ionas where amongst other things he sayes Comparisons betwixt Scripture and Scripture are both odious and daungerous The Apostles names are euenly placed in the writings of the holy foundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from time to time receiued reuerenced imbraced the whole volume of Scriptures You on the other side speake in a different strayne and say thus (i) Pag. 67. n. 36. I may belieue euen those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as of those bookes which were neuer questioned And elswhere The Canon of Scripture (k) Pag. 69. n. 45. as we receiue it is built vpon vniuersall Tradition For we do not professe our selues so absolutly and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Bookes which haue byn doubted as of those which neuer haue By this meanes what will become of the Epistle of S. Iames the second Epistle of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps of S. Iohn And what part of Scripture hath not been questioned by some and those some so many as would haue made vs doubt of the works of Tully or Liuy c. if they had affirmed them not to haue been written by such Authours And the only doubting of Erasmus or some such other about the workes of some Fathers hath caused them to be questioned by diuers vpon much weaker grounds as difference of stiles or the like 8. In another place you tell vs (l) Pag. 68. n. 43. that to receiue a Booke for Canonicall it is inough to haue had attestation though not vniuersall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receiue them for Canonicall which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to preuaile against the contrary suffrages Obserue vpon what inextricable passages and lesse degrees of probability this man doth put vs in our beliefe of holy Scripture First we must settle our Fayth on men then on considering men though the consent be not vniuersall thirdly vpon the greater and more preualent number and authority of suffrages as if the greater number alone without infallible assistance of the holy Ghost were a sufficient ground for Christian Fayth You deny pag.
sometimes appeare true and other times false which diuersity of iudgments you must according to this your doctrine follow euen against any point confirmed by miracles if it chance to seeme not true to your vnderstanding which is the part and proper disposition of a Socinian The fifth Doctrine Chap. 6. By resoluing Fayth into Reason he destroyes the nature of Fayth and beliefe of all Christian verityes CHAP. VI. 1. THe source whence all the aforesaid and innumerable other pernicious sequels do follow Gentle Reader is that according to this mans doctrine Christian Fayth must be resolued into the euidence of naturall reason not as preparing or inducing vs to belieue but as the maine ground strongest pillar of our Fayth and in a word as the conclusion depends on the premises And to this purpose he builds much vpon this axiome (h) Pag. 36. n. 8. We cannot possibly be more certaine of the conclusion then of the weaker of the premises as a riuer will not rise higher then the fountaine from which it flowes Hence in the same place he deduceth that the certainty of Christian Fayth can be but morall and not absolutely infallible With this principle is connexed another vnlesse you will call it the same more expressely declared and applyed And it is this If vpon reasons seeming to my vnderstanding very good I haue made choyce of a Guide or Rule for my direction in matters of Fayth when afterward I discouer that this Guide or Rule leades me to belieue one or more points which in the best iudgment that I can frame I haue stronger reasons to reiect then I had to accept my former Rule I may and ought to forsake that Rule as false erroneous otherwise I should be conuinced not to follow reason but some setled resolution to hold fast whatsoeuer I had once apprehended What followes from this vast principle but that if holy Scripture for example propound things seeming more euidently cōtrary to reason or my opinion more plainly contradicting one another then the inducements which first mooued me to belieue Scripture were strong conuincing I must reiect the Scripture as an erroneous Rule and adhere to my owne Reason and discourse as my last and safest guide This certainly doth follow Especially if we remember another principle that the motiues for which we belieue holy Scripture are only probable for so they must in all equity giue place to reasons seeming demonstratiue conuincing as there will not want many such against the high misteries of Christian Fayth if once we professe that our assent to them must be resolued into naturall discourse How farre dissonant this is from the receiued persuasion and tenet of all Christians that their Fayth is not resolued into Reason but Authority it is easy to see by the effects For why do Socinians and such like deny the misteryes of the Blessed Trinity the Deity of our Blessed Sauiour and diuers other verityes of Christian Fayth but because they seeme manifestly repugnant to reason 2. It cannot be doubted but that any one to whom the saluation of his owne soule is deare will be wary in admitting doctrines deliuered in a Booke if with Truth it may be affirmed that the Author in point of beliefe is certainly no good Christian as one who denyes the Diuinity of Christ our Lord and the most Blessed Trinity which are misteryes most proper to Christian Fayth and most hatefull to Iewes and Turkes For what authority can he challenge with any iudicious Christian in matters concerning Fayth who confessedly erres in the prime articles of Christian Fayth as we feare euen a sound man if we thinke he come from the pest-house and none will trust the Diuell though transfigured into an Angell of light For which cause spirituall men bid vs examine not only what motions we find in our soule but also from what roote they proceed 3. I wil not take vpō me to say what you are or what you are not but in matters cōcerning articles of fayth we ought to speak plainly You tell vs (i) Praefat n. 5. that you belieue the Doctrine of the Trinity the Deity of our Sauiour and all other supernaturall verityes reuealed in Scripture The question is not whether you belieue some kind of Trinity nor whether our Sauiour be God in some sense by participation as Dauid sayes I haue said you are Gods Psal 81.6 and in that sense that they are contayned in Scripture But the question is whether you belieue those misteryes as they are generally belieued by Christians and expressed euen in the 39. Articles of the English Church or whether you belieue that in this sense they are reuealed in Scripture Be pleased then to declare your selfe whether you belieue that in the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance Power and Eternity the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost as is taught in the first article And then whether you belieue the second Article wherein is said The Sonne which is the word of the Father the very and eternall God of one substance with the Father tooke mans nature in the wombe of the Blessed Virgin of her substance So that two whole and perfect natures that is to say the Godhead and Manhood were ioyned togeather in one Person neuer to be deuided whereof is one Christ very God and very Man Thirdly whether you firmely belieue the contents of the fifth Article The holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the sonne is of one substance Maiesty and Glory with the Father and the sonne very eternall God If these demaunds seeme harsh blame your selfe who were forewarned euen before that which they call the Direction was published when it was in your power to haue freed your selfe from this trouble and secured others from the scandall which your Booke may giue Neither are these questions from the matter but consequent to principles deliuered in your Booke 4. And let no man wonder that I desire plaine dealing For I haue seene a Socinian Catechisme in print which at first grants that Christ is God but then to the question whether he haue the diuine Nature it answers No because forsooth that is a thing repugnant both to Scripture and Reason It is apparent that the Socinians agree with the Manicheans that Fayth is resolued into Reason and that the Manicheans maintained a most strict brotherhood with the Priscillianists who taught that it is lawfull to dissemble a mans Fayth euen by oath For their saying was Iura periura secretum prodere noli And Arius who denied the Diuinity of our Sauiour Christ made no bones to forsweare himselfe by a profession of Fayth contrary to his internall beliefe And whether any one who is esteemed a Socinian do not hold it lawfull to deny or speake ambiguously against what he belieues that so in a very peruerse sense he may with the Apostle become all to all it is likely you know better then another can tell you 5. Howsoeuer
should subiugate their vnderstandings to the beliefe of contradictions which yet as I said before he iudgeth either impossible or at least vnreasonable (d) Ibid. And who I pray can vndertake against a cauilling wit to answere all arguments obiected against the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and other sublime verityes of Christian Fayth and compose all seeming repugnances after an intelligible manner Deuines are not ignorant what inexplicable difficulties offer themselues euen concerning the Deity it selfe for example his Immutability Freedom of will voluntary decrees knowledge of creatures and the like Must we then deny them because we are not able to compose all repugnances after an intelligible manner It may seeme that you are of opinion that we must to which persuasion if you adde another Doctrine of yours That there is no Christian Church assisted with Infallibility fit to teach any man euen such articles as are fundamentall or necessary to saluation but that euery one may and must follow the Dictates of his owne reason be he otherwise neuer so vnlearned what wil follow but a miserable freedome or rather necessity for men to reiect the highest and most diuine misteries of Christian Fayth vnlesse you can either compose all repugnances after a manner euen intelligible to euery ignorant and simple person which I hope you will confesse to be impossible or els say it is reasonable for men to belieue contradictions at the same time which by your confession were very vnreasonable 5. And here I appeale to your owne Conscience whether in true Philosophy the obiections which may be made against the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God be not incomparably more difficult then any which can be brought against Trāsubstantiation Some one whom you know could say in some company where there was occasion of arguing Either deny the Trinity or admit of Transubstantiation and it was answered We will rather admit this then deny that And with good reason For if we respect human discourse there are more difficult obiections against that mistery then against this And if we regard Reuelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall presence and Transubstantiation then for the mystery of the Blessed Trinity But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Fayth to the weight of naturall reason are well content vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Fayth For which cause I haue some reason as I touched before (d) Chap. 6. n. 6. not to be satisfyed that this man for all his bragges of belieuing Scripture doth make that account of it which Christians doe and ought to doe but deludes the Reader with specious words as for example when speaking of the holy Scripture he sayes (e) Pag. 376. Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to human reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so Therefore it is true These are glorious words but contrary to his owne principles For resoluing Fayth into Reason he cannot belieue that which to his reason seemes contradictory but must thinke that the Motiues for which he receiues Scripture being but probable and subiect to falshood must of necessity yield to arguments more then probable and demonstratiue to human reason And how then can he subscribe to Mysteryes incomprehensible to human reason and capable of obiections which cannot alwayes be answered after a manner intelligible as he requires And consequently he must to vse his owne words giue me leaue to belieue that either he doth not belieue those misteryes or els that he subiugates his vnderstanding to the beliefe of seeming contradictions which he acknowledges to be vnreasonable and a thing which men should not doe according to his owne words (f) Pag. 217. And the Reader had need to take heed that he be not taken also with that protestation of his (g) Pag. 376. I know no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so Therefore it is true since he teaches that he knowes not that God hath said so otherwise then by probable inducements and only by a probable assent So that in fine this must be his strong demonstration Whatsoeuer God speakes or reueales is most certainly true But I am not certaine that God speakes in the Scripture Therefore I am certaine that whatsoeuer is in Scripture is true Behold his demonstration that is a very false Syllogisme according to his owne discourse in another place where he not only graunts but endeauours to prooue that the minor of this Demonstration exceedes not probability and consequently cannot inferre a conclusion more them probable Somewhat like to this is an other cunning speach of his (h) Pag. 225. n. 5. That he hartily belieues the Articles of our Fayth be in themselues Truths as certaine and infallible as the very common principles of Geometry or Metaphysicke Which being vnderstood of the Obiects or Truths of Christian Fayth in themselues is no priuiledge at all For euery Truth is in it selfe as certaine as the Principles of Geometry it being absolutely impossible that a Truth can be falshood But the point is that he does not certainely know or belieue these Truths as he does the Principles of Metaphysicke but onely with a probable assent and so to him the Truths cannot be certaine The like art also he vses pag. 357. saying in these wordes I doe belieue the Gospell of Christ as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing for all this florish signifies only that he is certaine he belieues the Gospel of Christ with probable assent As for the argument it deserues no answere For who knowes not that contradictories inuolue two propositions but he who captiuates his vnderstanding assents to one part only Chap. 10. and therefore is sure inough not to belieue contradictories at the same time as he pretends All which considered the Reader will easily see that his Doctrines vndermine the chiefest mysteries of Christian Fayth and ouerthrow Christianity The ninth Doctrine Layes grounds to be constant in no Religion CHAP. X. I. I Said in the beginning that as we could not know the way vnlesse we first be told whither we goe so it could litle auayle vs to be put in a way if by following it we might be misled But suppose the end of our iourney be knowne and the right way found what better shall we be if withall we be continually harkning to some suggestions which neuer let vs rest till we haue abandoned that path by following other crosse-wayes as we chance to fall vpon them This is the case of the man with whome we haue to deale I will not build vpon his deeds I meane his changes first from Protestant to