aggregate of Iewes Manicheans Arians and other condemned sects which all good Christians ought to detest I hartily with their Conuersion yet if they will obstinately resist in despite of their inuentions the words of the Apostle will be verified Iesus Christ yesterday and to day Hebr. 13. â— the same also for euer And they shall giue a fearefull account for their contempt of al Churches and errours against Christian Fayth when repentance will nothing auaile Euen at that day when as S. Ambrose grauely sayth Lib. 5. de fide c. 7. The Iew shall perforce acknowledge whom he crucified when the Manichean shall adore whom he belieued not to haue come in flesh when the Arian shall confesse him to be omnipotent whom he denied And I may adde when all good Christians shall ioyfully behold him whose Fayth they laboured to Maintaine The Doctrines confuted in the ensuing Treatise THe first Doctrine That Fayth necessary to Saluation is not infallible Chap. 1. The grounds of this Doctrine lead to Atheisme Chap. 2. The second Doctrine That the assurance which we haue of Scriptures is but morall Chap. 3. The third Doctrine That the Apostles were not infallible in their Writings but erred with the whole Church of their tyme. Chap. 4. The fourth Doctrine Iniurious to the miracles of our Sauiour and of his Apostles Chap. 5. The fifth Doctrine By resoluing Fayth into Reason he destroyes the nature of Fayth and Beliefe of all Christian Verities Chap. 6. The sixt Doctrine Destructiue of the Theologicall Vertues of Christian Hope and Charity Chap. 7. The seauenth Doctrine Takes away the grounds of Rationall Discourse Chap. 8. The eight Doctrine Opens a way to deny the B. Trinity and other high mysteries of Christian Fayth Chap. 9. The ninth Doctrine Layes grounds to be Constant in no Religion Chap. 10. The tenth Doctrine Prouides for the impunity and preseruation of whatsoeuer damnable Errour against Christian Fayth Chap. 11. The Conclusion CHRISTIANITY MAINTAINED OR The discouery of sundry Doctrines tending to the Ouerthrow of Christian Religion The first Doctrine That Fayth necessary to Saluation is not Infallible CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN Fayth being the foundation of Hope the eye of Charity the lesser light appointed for the night of this world the Way to Heauen if this Foundation be faulty this Eye deceitfull this Light an Eclypse to it selfe this way erroneous our Hope Charity Light Happinesse and all Christianity must end Chap. 1. in worse then nothing in euerlasting vnhappines For as S. Thomas said to our Sauiour (a) Io. 14.5 We know not whither thou goest and how can we know the way So what will it auaile vs to know whither we goe if we follow a misleading way the Direction of a Fayth weake waueriug and subiect to Errour such is Christian Fayth in this man's iudgment deliuered in the Doctrine with which I thought fit to begin in regard it is the substance and summe of that which he deliuers and labours to prooue through his whole booke and is persuaded that it is of great and singular vse and demonstrable by vnanswerable arguments 2. I must confesse it is of great vse to ground Socinianisme which as the (b) Cap. 1. p. 7. Direction fortold reiecteth infallible supernaturall infused Fayth from being necessary to saluation and maketh our Christian Fayth of the Gospell and of Christ Iesus our Lord and Sauiour to be a meere human opinion resolued into the authority of men of no greater certainty then other human Traditions and Histories knowne by report Hence the saying in Charity Maintayned that an absolute certainty of Fayth is necessary to Saluation he taxeth deeply as (c) Pag. 328. most pernicious and vncharitable and els where (d) Pag. 325. n. 3. as a great errour of daungerous pernicious consequence yea pag. 37. thus he writeth Men being possessed with this false principle that Infallible Fayth is necessary and that it is in vaine to belieue the Gospell of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yield to other matter of Tradition and finding that their Fayth of it is to them indiscernable from the beliefe they giue to the truth of other stories are in daunger not to belieue at all c. It is true that pag. 36. n. 8. he sayth We cannot ordinarily haue any rationall and acquired assent more then morall founded vpon credibilities wherby some may conceiue that besides human and rationall Fayth he supposes and requires Diuine Fayth which is a pure sincere firme adhesion to Gods word not caused by reason and discourse but infused by the Holy Ghost's inspiration into a belieuing soule But in truth he disclaimes from any necessity of Diuine Fayth or any diuine light aboue the light of meere reason and will haue men to be saued by the natiue forces of human rationall and fallible Fayth Men sayth he (f) Vbi supra pa. 36. n. 8. are vnreasonable God requires not any thing but reason They pretend that heauenly things cannot be seene to any purpose but by the midday-light but God will be satisfyed if we receiue any degree of Light which makes vs leaue the works of darknesses They exact a certainty of Fayth aboue that of sense and science God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as the premisses deserue wherof in rationall Fayth one is euer weake credible and not infallible And againe pag. 112. n. 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duety to giue a greater assent to the mysteries of our Fayth then the motiues of credibility which are fallible deserue This is his doctrine which he deliuers often makes vse thereof to reiect the infallible Authority of Gods Church so prophane impious vnchristian as I wonder that a man professing himselfe a Christian durst venture to vent the same in print in a Christian country For is the certainty of the Fayth which Christians yield to the truth of the Gospell to the life of Christ Iesus our Lord and Sauiour to the histories of holy Scripture of no greater discernable certainty then the beliefe we yield to humane traditions I appeale to the conscience of euery true Christian whether he do not most cleerely discerne his assent to the Truths of holy Scripture to be superiour and incomparably more firme then his beliefe of meere humane storyes That the Serpent spake vnto Eue and persuaded her to eat of the forbidden tree that our first Parents were naked and did not perceiue it till they had eaten of the forbidden apple these storyes other the like would any Christian belieue them yea would they not laugh at them as they doe at Aesops Fables were they not of more credit with them then Caesars Commentaries or Salusts histories as this man * Pag. 327. n. 5. saith they are not That God requires not any thing of vs but only reason That he exacts no more then that we belieue the misteries of Christian Fayth with
a human fallible assent That diuine illumination aboue the reach of the light of reason is not necessary that men may belieue as they ought to please and satisfy God That God is satisfied with any degree of light with the meere light of naturall Reason and with the weake and wauering Fayth which reason standing vpon probabilities can ground These be strange and dismall positions and such as ouerthrow Christianity as is euident by many reasons I will point at a few 3. First it is against holy Scripture Fayth sayth S. Paul is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing (g) Heb. M. v. 1. or as the translation receiued in England hath it the euidence or ground or confidence of things not seene All which signify a firme certaine and as I may say substantiall Fayth much different from whatsoeuer assent if it be only probable For as S. Bernard disputing against Abailardus who likewise taught that Fayth was but Opinion sayth touching this definition of S. Paul By the name of Substance we are determined to some certaine and setled thing Fayth is not Opinion but Certainty Audis (h) Epist. 190. sayth this Saint Substantiam Non licet tibi in fide putare vel disputare pro libitu non hac illacque vagari per inania opinionum per denia errorum Substantiae nomine aliquid tibi certum fixumque praefigitur Certis clauderis finibus certis limitibus coarctaris Non est enim fides aestimatio sed certitudo Doest thou heare the name of Substance It is not lawfull for thee in Fayth to thinke or to dispute at thy pleasure nor to wander hither and thither through the emptines of opinions or straying errour By the name of substance some certaine and setled thing is appointed thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine For Fayth is not an opinion but a certainty This is also prooued by the words of the same Apostle (i) Gal. 1. v. 8. Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized to you be he anathema and where he sayth (k) Heb. 6. v. 8. That by two things vnmooueable whereby it is impossible for God to lye we may haue a most strong comfort For how can it be most strong if it be groūded only vpon probabilities as this man sayth our Fayth and comfort is The falshood whereof is yet further declared by the same Apostle Ep. 1. ad Thessal cap. 2. v. 12. When you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God And S. Bernard Ep. 190. alleageth S. Paul to the same purpose in this manner Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus 1. Tim. 1. tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius But this Truth being certainly belieued by all Christians it will be needlesse to alleadge more texts of Scripture in confirmation of it D. Potter in whose behalfe you stept forth doth euidently contradict your doctrine when he teacheth (l) Pag. 143. that the chiefe ground of Christian Fayth is diuine Reuelation and that nothing but this can erect an act of supernaturall Fayth which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine and that without this Fayth is but opinion or persuasion or at the most an acquired human beliefe And Doctour Hooker whom you alleadge pag. 325. for your opinion in his Ecclesiasticall Policy pag. 117. writes most expressely in these words The greatest assurance generally with all men is that we haue by plaine aspect and intuitiue beholding c. Scripture with Christian men being receiued as the word of God that for which we haue probable yea that which we haue necessary reason for yea that which we see with our eyes is not thought so sure as that which the Scripture of God teacheth because we hold that his speach reuealeth there what himself seeth and therefore the strongest proofe of all and the most necessary assented vnto by vs which doe thus receiue the Scripture is the Scripture 4. If we haue recourse to reason grounded on principles which no Christian denyes this doctrine likewise cannot be tolerated For if a Christian be not certaine that his beliefe is true he may according to your owne confession doubt whether it be not false According to your owne confession I say seeing your selfe goe about to prooue (m) Pag. 326. n. 4. that Christian Fayth cannot be absolutly certaine because if it were so it would follow that any least doubting though resisted and inuoluntary would destroy it which manifestly declares that doubting can well consist with that sort of vncertaine Christian Fayth which you goe about to vent If once way be giuen for Christians to fall vpon doubting of their Fayth why may not they put themselues vpon an examination in good earnest and as doubting of the grounds thereof And if this kind of examination be lawfull who can discommend an alteration if they chance to find cause as it is very possible they may if their first assent was not infallible How then could S. Paul so absolutely say Although we Gal. 1.8 or an Angell from Heauen should euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he anathema 5. But let vs goe a step further This Assertion giues way to belieue that the contrary to Christian Fayth retaines some probability in regard that no high degree of probability can of it selfe wholy deuest the opposite part of all probability this being excluded by certainty alone Mistake me not as if I meant that the probability of one side were sufficient to bestow probability on the other This only I say that whosoeuer belieues any point only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no present disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability for the contrary side And if Christians must be of this disposition in their beliefe they can haue no setled or firme resolution neuer to imbrace the contrary of that which for the present is their beliefe which ought notwithstanding to be the resolution of euery true Christian belieuer 6. This is not all If we follow this doctrine this other vnchristian Consequence cannot be auoided That one may be saued though he belieue some sect contrary to Christian Religion as Iudaisme Turcisme Paganisme or Atheisme with as great or greater probability then he belieues the articles of Christian Fayth For proofe I need alleadg nothing beside what your selfe suggest In one place you tell vs that (n) Pag. 37. any fayth if it be but a graine of mustardseed if it worke by loue shall certainly auaile with God and be accepted of him In another (o) Pag. 327. you endeauour to prooue that a probable persuasion and hope of infinite and eternall happinesse prouided
68. n. 42. that the Controuersy about Scripture is to be tryed by most voyces and yet what is your greater number but most voyces And as for greater Authority what can you meane thereby except perhaps greater learning or some such quality nothing proportionable to that Authority on which Christian Fayth must relye The third Doctrine That the Apostles were not infallible in their writings but erred with the whole Church of their time CHAP. IIII. 1. IT can be no wonder that he should speake meanly of the necessity and infallibility of holy Scripture since he labours to fasten errour vpon the Canonicall writers and deliuerers thereof the Apostles themselues and the whole Church of their time Chap. 4. And this coÌ„cerning an Article of Fayth of highest consequence and most frequently reuealed in holy Scripture the deniall whereof had byn most derogatory from the glory of our Sauiour and from the abundant fruit of his sacred Passion to wit that the Ghospell was to be preached to all nations You shall receiue it in his owne words (m) Pag. 1â—7 n. 21. The Church may ignorantly disbelieue a Reuelation which by errour she thinkes to be no Reuelation That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth reuealed before our Sauiours Ascension in these words Goe and teach all nations Math. 29.19 Yet through preiudice or inaduertence or some other cause the Church disbelieued it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chapter of the Acts vntill the conuersion of Cornelius And that the Apostles themselues were inuolued in this supposed errour of the most primitiue Church he deliuers without ceremony in another place (n) Pag. 144. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were and through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a reuealed Truth it is as I haue already noted vnanswerably euident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles Is not this to ouerthrow all Christianity If the Blessed Apostles on whom Christians are builded as vpon their foundation Ephes 2. were obnoxious to inaduertence to preiudice to other causes of errour what certainty can we now haue The Apostles might haue written what they belieued and so we cannot be sure but what they haue written may contain some errour proceeding from inaduertence preiudice or some other cause If they euen after the receiuing of the holy Ghost and with them the whole Church of that time could either forget or transgresse so fresh a Commaund imposed by our Sauiour Christ for his last farewell at his Ascension it will be obuious for aduersaries of Christian Religion to obiect that perhaps they haue byn left to themselues to obliuion inaduertence and other humane defects in penning the Scripture If they erred in their first thoughts why not in their second With the assistance of the holy Ghost they can erre in neither without it in both 2. The Obiection which he brings is not hard to solue S. Peter himselfe neuer doubted That vision was shewed to him and he declared it to the conuerted Iewes for their satisfaction as it happened in the Councell held by the Apostles about the obseruation of the law of Moyses which some Christians conuerted from Iudaisme did much vrge But neither the Apostles nor the other Christians had any doubt in that matter as likewise in our present case not all the Church but only some Zealous for the Iewes did oppose themselues to S. Peter For before the conuersion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians as (o) Com. in Act. cap. 10. post vers 48 Cornelius à Lapide with others affirmes proues For which respect the text expressely declares (p) Act. c. 11. v. 2. that they who were offended with S. Peter were of the circumcision that is Iewes made Christians 3. He goes on in this conceit and addes a point no lesse daungerous then the former The Apostles Doctrine sayth he (q) Pag. 144. n. 31. was confirmed by miracles therefore it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertain I say in no part which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth and which had the attestation of diuine miracles Thus you see he couertly calls in question all the Apostles writings and layes grouÌ„ds to except against them For if once we giue way to such distinctions and say that the Apostles are to be credited only in what they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine Truth we may reiect in a manner all Scripture which scarce euer declares whether or no the writers thereof did deliuer any thing as a certaine diuine Truth and much lesse that they remained constant in what they deliuered by writing Or if it should expresse these particulars yet we could not be obliged to belieue it if once we come to deny to the Apostles an vniuersall infallibility For what reason can this man giue according to these grounds of his why they might not haue erred in that particular declaration 4. And besides will he not oblige vs to belieue with certainty any thing deliuered by the Apostles which had not the attestation of diuine miracles It seeemes he will not and thereby in effect takes away the beliefe of very many mysteries of Christian Fayth and verities contayned in holy Scripture For that miracles were wrought in confirmation of euery particular passage of Scripture we cannot affirme neither out of holy Scripture it selfe nor any other credible argument rather the contrary is certaine there being innumerable verityes of the Bible which were neuer seuerally confirmed in that manner and yet it were damnable sinne to deny them And moreouer where or when did the Apostles particularly prooue by miracle that their writings were the word of God Thus you see into what plunges he brings all Christians by his owne Inconstancy from which certainly ariseth this itching desire of his to put conceites into mens heades as if the Apostles also might haue byn various in their writings and not constant 5. I cannot omit another distinction preiudiciall to the infallibility of the Apostles of their writings which he deliuereth in these words (r) Pag. 144. n. 32. For those things which the Apostles professed to deliuer as the Dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine Reuelations why should we take them as diuine Reuelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himselfe Therefore when S. Paul sayes in the 1. Epist to the Corinth 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord. And againe Concerning virgins I haue no commaundment of the Lord but I deliuer my iudgment If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his iudgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote which mooued him to write as in other places diuine Reuclations which he certainly
knew to be such so in this place his owne Iudgment touching some things which God had not particularly reuealed vnto him This doctrine is subiect to the same iust exceptions which were alleadged against the former For if once we deny vniuersall infallibility to the Apostles we cannot belieue them with infallibility in any one thing but still we may be doubting whether they speake out of their owne spirit and not by diuine Reuelation though they should euen declare in what sort they intend to speake because we may feare they are deceiued in those very declarations And as you will perhaps say they write Diuine Reuelations except in things which they professe to deliuer as the Dictates of human human reason and prudence another will say that they must or may be vnderstood to deliuer the dictats of human reason and prudence whensoeuer they do not in expresse rearmes professe to deliuer diuine Reuelations which is very seldome the ordinary custome of holy Scripture being to deliuer verityes without any such qualifying of them And if S. Paul when in the Epistle and Chapter by you cited v. 40. sayes of himselfe I thinke that I also haue the spirit of God might be deceiued in that thought of his we may also say he might be deceiued euen when he affirmes that he writes by the spirit of God and much more may we doubt when he expresses no such thing as commonly neither he nor any other Canonicall writers doe 6. In the words which you cite To the rest speake I not the Lord S. Paul treates of a very important matter that is of the wiues departing from her husband or the husbands from his wife Wherein if S. Paul were subiect to errour he might chance to haue taught a point of great Iniustice against the commaund of our Sauiour declaring the very Law of nature What God hath ioyned togeather let not man separate (s) Mat. 19.6 And as for the words you alleadge in the second place Concerning virgins I haue no commandment of our Lord but I deliuer my Iudgment the Apostle afterwards within the compasse of the selfe same discourse sayes that a man sinnes not if he marry wherin if S. Paul may be deceiued as speaking out of his owne spirit as you say he doth in some precedent words you will not only want this text to prooue with certainty that marriage is lawfull but whensoeuer marriage is allowed in any other place of Scripture as Hebr. 13. v. 4. Marriage is honourable in all you haue put into the mouthes of the old and moderne heretiques who impugned the lawfullnes of marriage a ready answere that those texts of Scripture were but the Dictats of human reason and prudence wherein the writers of Canonicall Scripture might be deceiued 7. The other words Speake I not the Lord shew only that our Sauiour left power for the Apostles and his Church to aduise counsaile ordaine or commaund some things as occasion might require which himselfe had not commaunded or determined in particular which truth if you hold to be only a Dictate of human reason you open a way for refractary spirits to oppose the ordinances of their Superiours and Prelats in things not expressely commaunded by our Lord. 8. The last Words v. 25. Concerniug virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord but I deliuer my Iudgment which we translate but I giue counsaile prooue indeed our Catholicke Doctrine concerning workes of supererogation or Counsayles in regard that the Apostle in this place persuades virginity as the better but commaunds it not as necessary Yet they do in no wise imply any doubtfulnesse or fallibility in the Apostles neuer any hitherto besides your selfe offering to answere our argumeÌ„t by saying the Apostle wrote only the dictate of human reason or prudence and so might be deceiued Which answere had been very obuious if they had presumed to be so bold as you are with the Apostles and therefore it is a signe that no man besides your selfe durst deliuer this doctrine 9. Certainly if the Apostles did sometimes write by the motion of the holy Ghost and at other times out of their owne priuate Iudgment or spirit though it were granted that themselues could discerne the diuersity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniuersall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleere that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diuersity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although ech mans priuate spirit were admitted for direction of himselfe yet it were not vsefull for teaching others Thus you say pag. 141. A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of Scripture may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme (t) Pag. 62. that bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliuer diuine Reuelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliuer not such Reuelations though they say nothing thereof if once we deny their vniuersall infallibility 10. Now I beseech the good Reader to reflect vpon this mans endeauours to ouerthrow the holy Scriptures and Christianity and to what at last he tends by these degrees First he sayth our beliefe that Scripture is the word of God exceedes not probability 2. Amongst those Bookes which we belieue to be the word of God we belieue some with lesse probability then others Thirdly we may be saued though we neither belieue that Scripture is the Rule of Fayth nor that it is the word of God Fourthly our assurance that Scripture or any other Booke is corrupted is of the same kind and condition both only morall assurances Fifthly the writers of holy Scripture might erre in things which they deliuered not constantly or not as diuine Reuelations but dictates of human reason or if they deliuered any doctrine not confirmed by miracles Sixtly vpon the same ground he might say that the Apostles were infallible only when they deliuered things belonging to Fayth Piety or Religion not when they wrote things meerely indifferent or of no great moment in themselues as some Socinians (u) Volkel l. 5. c. 5. Dom. Lopez de Authorit sac Script eyther grant or care not much to deny And then further it will be left to euery mans iudgement what is to be accounted a matter of moment And soone after it will be said that to search whether the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity for example be contained in Scripture or no is not much necessary since a man without knowledge of that speculatiue doctrine may belieue and loue God as a chiefe Socinian teaches (w) Iren. Philâ—leth dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae and your selfe affirme (x) Pag. 37. that any Fayth if it worke by loue shall certainly auaile with God and be accepted of him And then will some say Why may not a
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