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
for all those that obey Christ Iesus may be able to sway our will to Obedience and encounter with all those temptations which flesh and bloud can suggest to auert vs from it Ioine these two doctrines togeather the issue will be that any probable beliefe of Christian verities or euen of a God must suffice to saluation as enabling vs to worke by loue Now it is cleere that your graine of mustardseed your any probable persuasion or hope are verified in any low degree of probability of fayth in Christ or God and yet they do not exclude equal or greater probability in behalfe of the contrary part for example that Christ is not the Sauiour of the world or that there is not a God whence it followes that a man may attayne saluation though he belieue with equall or greater probability that Christ is not the Sauiour of the world or that there is not a God then is that wherewith he belieues the same and all other mysteries of Christian Fayth Whether this tend not to Iudaisme Turcisme Paganisme or Atheisme and to the ouerthrow of all Christianity I need not say 7. Moreouer who can oblige any vnderstanding man to dye for auerring the Truth of that Fayth wherof he proclaymes himselfe to haue no certainty And you O glorious Martyrs of Christ our Lord did rather spill then shed your bloud if you were so prodigall therof for a truth not certainly belieued to be such This is the very same argument which mellifluous S. Bernard brings against Petrus Abailardus a Progenitour of the Socinians who in those dayes taught that Christian Fayth was but opinion and not infallibly certaine (p) Epist. 190. Stulti ergo Martyres nostri sayth this Saint sustinentes tam acerba propter incerta nec dubitantes sub dubio remunerationis proemio durum per exitum diuturnum inire exilium S. Paul sayth (q) Rom. 5.7 Scarce for a iust man doth any dye And we may say who will giue his life for a Truth and most of all who will not only giue his life but thinke himselfe bound vnder paine of eternall damnation to lay it downe in testimony of that which for ought he certainly knowes may prooue to be an vniust and vntrue thing Was the precious bloud of Christ our Lord which by infinite degrees excelled that of Martyrs shed in such abundance for purchasing probabilities or for the impetration of Grace to enable his seruants to dye for the truth of things which in fine they esteemed but probable 8. Far be it from the harts of Christians to belieue and their tongues to professe that a God of infinite wisedome and goodnesse would oblige himselfe to reward men with euerlasting happines for imbracing the mysteries of Christian Fayth which may once proue false and to adiudge men to endles torments for adhering to the contrary which in the end may be found true if Christian Fayth can possibly be false as false it may be if it be but probable 9. Neuer could any doctrine be offered to the sonnes of Adam more plausible then that our beliefe of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion in it selfe and no way certayne concerning things of another world whereas worldly pleasures are in present possession and certaine If the greatest certainty wherewith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their fayth to abound hath not byn able to stay the cariere of mens licenciousnesse what shall we now expect but that flattered by this doctrine they who before did runne will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodies obiects of delight 10. No lesse liberty doth this doctrine affoard for belieuing then it doth for liuing giuing scope to Apostasyes and endlesse changes of Religions as this man 's fourefold alteration makes manifest if all be true which is reported of him In which inconstancy notwithstanding he seemes to glory stiling it (r) Prefa n. 5. his Constancy in following that way to heauen which for the present seemes to him the most probable But of this more hereafter 11. I will doe him the fauour to suppose that he holds no Religion more certainly true then that of Christians which yet to him being not certaine what remaines in his persuasion and doctrine but that for matters of fayth and Religion God hath prouided no certainty on earth which is not only of very ill consequence as I haue said amōgst Christians themselues but exposeth Christian Religion to contempt among the enemies thereof and disbelieuers of it which this man it seemes doth not value a hayre but measuring euery body by himselfe taxeth Christians generally to be of the like weakenes vngroundednes vnsetlednes in their beliefe For sayth (s) Pag. 327. n. 5. he men may talke their pleasure of an absolute most infallible certainty but did men generally belieue that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity but as firmely and vndoubtedly as that there is such a Citty as Constantinople but as much as Caesars Commentaries or the history of Salust I belieue the liues of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better then they are I leaue the Censure of this Doctrine to others I only note first how poore a conceit this man himselfe hath endeauoureth to instill into others of the ground or adhesion which Christians vndoubtedly haue in their beliefe making it no more solid or firme then the beliefe of Caesars Commentaries c. And secōdly that it may perchance be his fortune to be really forbidden to write any more bookes if he can make no better consequences then to conclude the want of Fayth or firmenesse of Fayth in Christians from the faults in their liues seeing there may be in a manner infinite other causes why they do not liue as they most firmely belieue they should 12. This therefore you see is his doctrine concerning Christian Fayth that it is weake and weakely grounded that it is resolued into the authority of men as the beliefe of Constantinople Chap. 2. and Caesars Commentaries that a Christian may really and deliberatly doubt of the points of his fayth and yet be a Christian that is faythfull But that which doth most manifestly discouer the impiety of this doctrine and of this his manner of arguing is that the reasons by which he pretends to maintayne it induce plaine Atheisme that is they conclude as well that men can haue no certaine beliefe knowledge or assent that there is a God or that we are certaine that Christian Fayth is euen so much as probable which now I am going to shew The Grounds of this Doctrine leade to Atheisme CHAP. II. 1. I Said in the former Chapter that if a Christian be not certaine that his beliefe is true he may according to this mans owne cōfession doubt whether it be not false I pleaded his Confession vpon an Argument of his which perhaps seemed to him a great subtilty and hard to be
should subiugate their vnderstandings to the beliefe of contradictions which yet as I said before he iudgeth either impossible or at least vnreasonable (d) Ibid. And who I pray can vndertake against a cauilling wit to answere all arguments obiected against the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and other sublime verityes of Christian Fayth and compose all seeming repugnances after an intelligible manner Deuines are not ignorant what inexplicable difficulties offer themselues euen concerning the Deity it selfe for example his Immutability Freedom of will voluntary decrees knowledge of creatures and the like Must we then deny them because we are not able to compose all repugnances after an intelligible manner It may seeme that you are of opinion that we must to which persuasion if you adde another Doctrine of yours That there is no Christian Church assisted with Infallibility fit to teach any man euen such articles as are fundamentall or necessary to saluation but that euery one may and must follow the Dictates of his owne reason be he otherwise neuer so vnlearned what wil follow but a miserable freedome or rather necessity for men to reiect the highest and most diuine misteries of Christian Fayth vnlesse you can either compose all repugnances after a manner euen intelligible to euery ignorant and simple person which I hope you will confesse to be impossible or els say it is reasonable for men to belieue contradictions at the same time which by your confession were very vnreasonable 5. And here I appeale to your owne Conscience whether in true Philosophy the obiections which may be made against the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God be not incomparably more difficult then any which can be brought against Trāsubstantiation Some one whom you know could say in some company where there was occasion of arguing Either deny the Trinity or admit of Transubstantiation and it was answered We will rather admit this then deny that And with good reason For if we respect human discourse there are more difficult obiections against that mistery then against this And if we regard Reuelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall presence and Transubstantiation then for the mystery of the Blessed Trinity But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Fayth to the weight of naturall reason are well content vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Fayth For which cause I haue some reason as I touched before (d) Chap. 6. n. 6. not to be satisfyed that this man for all his bragges of belieuing Scripture doth make that account of it which Christians doe and ought to doe but deludes the Reader with specious words as for example when speaking of the holy Scripture he sayes (e) Pag. 376. Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to human reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so Therefore it is true These are glorious words but contrary to his owne principles For resoluing Fayth into Reason he cannot belieue that which to his reason seemes contradictory but must thinke that the Motiues for which he receiues Scripture being but probable and subiect to falshood must of necessity yield to arguments more then probable and demonstratiue to human reason And how then can he subscribe to Mysteryes incomprehensible to human reason and capable of obiections which cannot alwayes be answered after a manner intelligible as he requires And consequently he must to vse his owne words giue me leaue to belieue that either he doth not belieue those misteryes or els that he subiugates his vnderstanding to the beliefe of seeming contradictions which he acknowledges to be vnreasonable and a thing which men should not doe according to his owne words (f) Pag. 217. And the Reader had need to take heed that he be not taken also with that protestation of his (g) Pag. 376. I know no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so Therefore it is true since he teaches that he knowes not that God hath said so otherwise then by probable inducements and only by a probable assent So that in fine this must be his strong demonstration Whatsoeuer God speakes or reueales is most certainly true But I am not certaine that God speakes in the Scripture Therefore I am certaine that whatsoeuer is in Scripture is true Behold his demonstration that is a very false Syllogisme according to his owne discourse in another place where he not only graunts but endeauours to prooue that the minor of this Demonstration exceedes not probability and consequently cannot inferre a conclusion more them probable Somewhat like to this is an other cunning speach of his (h) Pag. 225. n. 5. That he hartily belieues the Articles of our Fayth be in themselues Truths as certaine and infallible as the very common principles of Geometry or Metaphysicke Which being vnderstood of the Obiects or Truths of Christian Fayth in themselues is no priuiledge at all For euery Truth is in it selfe as certaine as the Principles of Geometry it being absolutely impossible that a Truth can be falshood But the point is that he does not certainely know or belieue these Truths as he does the Principles of Metaphysicke but onely with a probable assent and so to him the Truths cannot be certaine The like art also he vses pag. 357. saying in these wordes I doe belieue the Gospell of Christ as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing for all this florish signifies only that he is certaine he belieues the Gospel of Christ with probable assent As for the argument it deserues no answere For who knowes not that contradictories inuolue two propositions but he who captiuates his vnderstanding assents to one part only Chap. 10. and therefore is sure inough not to belieue contradictories at the same time as he pretends All which considered the Reader will easily see that his Doctrines vndermine the chiefest mysteries of Christian Fayth and ouerthrow Christianity The ninth Doctrine Layes grounds to be constant in no Religion CHAP. X. I. I Said in the beginning that as we could not know the way vnlesse we first be told whither we goe so it could litle auayle vs to be put in a way if by following it we might be misled But suppose the end of our iourney be knowne and the right way found what better shall we be if withall we be continually harkning to some suggestions which neuer let vs rest till we haue abandoned that path by following other crosse-wayes as we chance to fall vpon them This is the case of the man with whome we haue to deale I will not build vpon his deeds I meane his changes first from Protestant to
68. n. 42. that the Controuersy about Scripture is to be tryed by most voyces and yet what is your greater number but most voyces And as for greater Authority what can you meane thereby except perhaps greater learning or some such quality nothing proportionable to that Authority on which Christian Fayth must relye The third Doctrine That the Apostles were not infallible in their writings but erred with the whole Church of their time CHAP. IIII. 1. IT can be no wonder that he should speake meanly of the necessity and infallibility of holy Scripture since he labours to fasten errour vpon the Canonicall writers and deliuerers thereof the Apostles themselues and the whole Church of their time Chap. 4. And this coÌ„cerning an Article of Fayth of highest consequence and most frequently reuealed in holy Scripture the deniall whereof had byn most derogatory from the glory of our Sauiour and from the abundant fruit of his sacred Passion to wit that the Ghospell was to be preached to all nations You shall receiue it in his owne words (m) Pag. 1â—7 n. 21. The Church may ignorantly disbelieue a Reuelation which by errour she thinkes to be no Reuelation That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth reuealed before our Sauiours Ascension in these words Goe and teach all nations Math. 29.19 Yet through preiudice or inaduertence or some other cause the Church disbelieued it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chapter of the Acts vntill the conuersion of Cornelius And that the Apostles themselues were inuolued in this supposed errour of the most primitiue Church he deliuers without ceremony in another place (n) Pag. 144. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were and through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a reuealed Truth it is as I haue already noted vnanswerably euident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles Is not this to ouerthrow all Christianity If the Blessed Apostles on whom Christians are builded as vpon their foundation Ephes 2. were obnoxious to inaduertence to preiudice to other causes of errour what certainty can we now haue The Apostles might haue written what they belieued and so we cannot be sure but what they haue written may contain some errour proceeding from inaduertence preiudice or some other cause If they euen after the receiuing of the holy Ghost and with them the whole Church of that time could either forget or transgresse so fresh a Commaund imposed by our Sauiour Christ for his last farewell at his Ascension it will be obuious for aduersaries of Christian Religion to obiect that perhaps they haue byn left to themselues to obliuion inaduertence and other humane defects in penning the Scripture If they erred in their first thoughts why not in their second With the assistance of the holy Ghost they can erre in neither without it in both 2. The Obiection which he brings is not hard to solue S. Peter himselfe neuer doubted That vision was shewed to him and he declared it to the conuerted Iewes for their satisfaction as it happened in the Councell held by the Apostles about the obseruation of the law of Moyses which some Christians conuerted from Iudaisme did much vrge But neither the Apostles nor the other Christians had any doubt in that matter as likewise in our present case not all the Church but only some Zealous for the Iewes did oppose themselues to S. Peter For before the conuersion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians as (o) Com. in Act. cap. 10. post vers 48 Cornelius à Lapide with others affirmes proues For which respect the text expressely declares (p) Act. c. 11. v. 2. that they who were offended with S. Peter were of the circumcision that is Iewes made Christians 3. He goes on in this conceit and addes a point no lesse daungerous then the former The Apostles Doctrine sayth he (q) Pag. 144. n. 31. was confirmed by miracles therefore it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertain I say in no part which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth and which had the attestation of diuine miracles Thus you see he couertly calls in question all the Apostles writings and layes grouÌ„ds to except against them For if once we giue way to such distinctions and say that the Apostles are to be credited only in what they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine Truth we may reiect in a manner all Scripture which scarce euer declares whether or no the writers thereof did deliuer any thing as a certaine diuine Truth and much lesse that they remained constant in what they deliuered by writing Or if it should expresse these particulars yet we could not be obliged to belieue it if once we come to deny to the Apostles an vniuersall infallibility For what reason can this man giue according to these grounds of his why they might not haue erred in that particular declaration 4. And besides will he not oblige vs to belieue with certainty any thing deliuered by the Apostles which had not the attestation of diuine miracles It seeemes he will not and thereby in effect takes away the beliefe of very many mysteries of Christian Fayth and verities contayned in holy Scripture For that miracles were wrought in confirmation of euery particular passage of Scripture we cannot affirme neither out of holy Scripture it selfe nor any other credible argument rather the contrary is certaine there being innumerable verityes of the Bible which were neuer seuerally confirmed in that manner and yet it were damnable sinne to deny them And moreouer where or when did the Apostles particularly prooue by miracle that their writings were the word of God Thus you see into what plunges he brings all Christians by his owne Inconstancy from which certainly ariseth this itching desire of his to put conceites into mens heades as if the Apostles also might haue byn various in their writings and not constant 5. I cannot omit another distinction preiudiciall to the infallibility of the Apostles of their writings which he deliuereth in these words (r) Pag. 144. n. 32. For those things which the Apostles professed to deliuer as the Dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine Reuelations why should we take them as diuine Reuelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himselfe Therefore when S. Paul sayes in the 1. Epist to the Corinth 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord. And againe Concerning virgins I haue no commaundment of the Lord but I deliuer my iudgment If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his iudgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote which mooued him to write as in other places diuine Reuclations which he certainly