CHRISTIANITY MAINTAINED. OR A Discovery of sundry Doctrines tending to the Overthrow of Christian Religion: Contained in the Answer to a Book entitled, Mercy and Truth, or, Charity maintained by Catholics.  
Bringing into captivity all Understanding unto the Obedience of Christ.  2. Cor. 10.5. 
What is more contrary to Faith, than not to believe 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, etc.  
May it please your Most Excellent Majesty,  
MY Presumption were not easily excusable (Most gracious Sovereign) in flying to the Sanctuary of your Majesty, for the protection of this poor Treatise, if the great importance of the Cause, whereof I write, did not change my Fear into Hope, and raise up my Hope as high as Confidence, that Christianity Maintained, by what pen soever it be performed, needeth not fear to find benign acceptance from so Gracious and Great a King as you are; who glory more in that most Sacred name of being a Christian, then in that most ancient Stock of Royal progenitors, which so gloriously adorns the Diadem of your Sacred Majesty. For I do not in this occasion pretend to act either the Offensive or Defensive part of any one particular Religion, honoured with the Name of Christianity; but I only come in the general Name of a Christian Church, without treating whether it be Latin or Greek, East or West, of England, or of Rome: and therefore I cannot despair of being graciously admitted by your Majesty.  
My Scope, and Work, as I am saying, is only to maintain the authority of Holy Scripture, the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, the Deity of our Blessed Saviour, the infallibility of his Apostles, the power of his Miracles, the necessity of his Grace, and of the absolute Certainty of Christian Faith; against an Adversary, who seeketh to turn the divine belief 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 well be false: Who continually urgeth, 
(c) Pag. 112. lin. 3.  that God, as sure, as he is good, neither doth, nor can require of Christians an infallible, and certainly un-erring Belief of his word; That men, neither are bound, nor can believe divine Revelations 
(d) Pag. 330. lin. 13.25.33.  further than they are made apparent & evident to them; and that it sufficeth unto Salvation to believe the Gospel 
(e) Pag. 37. lin. 20. & s●qu.  as we do other Stories; as much as we do 
(f) Pag. 327 n. 5. lin. 28.  Caesar's Commentaries, or the High story of Sallust: Who proclaims 
(g) Pag. 144. n. 31.  the Apostles, with the whole Church of their time, to have erred in matters of faith, even after they had received the Holy Ghost; That after their Deaths, 
(h) Pag. 292. infine & 293. Initio.  the whole Church was presently infected with universal Error; and that the whole Church of the 
(i) Pag. 338. lin. 5.  Gentiles may fall away into Infidelity: Who shutteth 
(k) Pag. 292. & 393.  the gates of Mercy against penitent sinners: Finally who openeth an easy way for the denial of all those main points of Christianity above mentioned, as it will appear in this ensuing Treatise.  
Vouchsafe therefore, Most gracious Sovereign, to consider how Christianity is impugned by some, even in this your Kingdom, and the incoveniences and dangers thereof; and prevent both them, and such others of the self same kind, as may grow greater if they be not prevented, by your Zeal and Care. I cannot doubt, but that your Majesty will do it even for the Piety of the thing itself, though my Adversary (who yet pretends that he is wholly of your Majesty's Religion) gives you a more particular offence, by departing from the very doctrines, which you believe. For beside diverse other single differences, he neither allows the Nine and thirty Articles, which your Majesty, in your Royal Declaration, affirms to contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England; nor holds he the Succession of Bishops to be necessary in God's Church; 
Pag. 356. & sequ.  which experience teaches to tend expressly to the confusion of the said Church, and destruction of Monarchy.  
And though God hath made your Majesty most happy, both in a Royal Consort, of singular and rare endowments both of Body and Mind, & with a plentiful and most hopeful Issue, (which with my hart I beg may even last to the very end of the world) and with an Obedient & Loyal People, and with power both at land and sea, and with times both of Plenty and Peace, whilst almost all your Neighbours are in war and want; yet nothing will ever be more able, to establish You in all these Felicities, nor to avert all disasters from your Majesty, than not to permit, that there be any connivance at such enormous Errors as these, which partly openly, & partly covertly, are vented against Christ our Lord, and all Christian Faith.  
The God of Heaven preserve your Majesty in all Health and Happiness, to his greatest Glory, your Majesties own Felicity, and to the joy & comfort of all your Kingdoms.  
Your Majesty's most humble, and most obedient loyal subject, I. H.   

To the Christian Reader.  
WONDER not (Christian Reader) That I entitle this Little Treatise, Christianity Maintained. I give it that Name, because that is the thing which I endeavour here to make good, against one who overthrows Christianity, not by remote Principles, or strained Inferences, but by direct assertions, & clear deductions, naturally flowing from diverse of his doctrines: which if it be made appear, I cannot but hope, that all who take comfort in the glorious, and most happy name of Christian, will give me the right hands of fellowship in this Common Cause. Ancient Pacianus says 
(a) Epist. ad Semprou.  of every orthodox believer, that Christian is his name, Catholic his Surname. Catholic cannot be conceived without Christian. But Christianity so long as it is maintained, will afford some common Principles of belief, which may direct men to find, that one Catholic Church of Christians, by means whereof our Lord hath decreed to give Grace and Glory. Let therefore neither prejudice avert, nor private respects divert the good Readers understanding from weighing in an equal balance that which is hearse laid before it. God forbidden any Christian should exceed the desper are folly of the jews, who would not depose their private quarrels, even while they were circled with a hostile army of Romans: or be loss advised then the Romans, who took occasion to make peace at home, by the pronocations of the Enemy abroad, indging it wifedome to be swayed with fear of greater evil, especially when they could do it, under the honourable title of a Common 
(c) Liu. lib. 2.  good. In which respect, I lay asde, and as it were forget at this present, the Surname of Catholic, while my scope is to maintain Christianity.  
1. But I must notwithstanding by the way desire thee, by example of this Man whose errors I undertake to discover, that thou wilt be pleased, to reflect upon the misery into which they do bring themselves, who forsaking in truth that glorious Surname, content themselves with the only name of Christians. For consequently having lost the Gift, and Light of supernatural and infused Faith, which in their Christendom they received, they lie so open to all manner of deceits, that though they be warned of them, they run unawares into them: because not regarding, or not esteeming and weighing the necessity and importance of a Guide, they follow the Eye of their own Reason only, which is too  to preserve them from falling into the manifold pitfalls, which lie on all sides of Christian Faith, as we learn by all those, who in all ages have swerved from it.  
2. This Man, as the world knows, had warning abundant, in a little Treatise called, The Direction, that he should not go a destructive way tending to the overthrow of all Religion, 
Direct. ●a. 4. per totum.  no less then of Catholic Doctrine. How little he hath observed it, will appear by the ensuing discourse, penned to the like intent, and to no other, then, I dare say, the Direction was, to wit, to prevent, or rather now, to discover Socinianisme covertly creeping into this Kingdom under the shroud of Natural Reason. The vanome of which Sect being still, as it seems, growing, or as I may say, compounding, it is no wonder if the enemy of mankind doth use all his art to make that Treatise more and more odious, by which it began to be detected.  

The Direction falsified.  3. For to what other purpose doth this man in his preface say, against all Truth, and against the word of the letter, that the Author of the Direction, fastens the 
(a) Prefat. n. 7.  imputation of Atheism and Irreligion upon all wise and gallant men that are not of our own Religion: and this in a different letter, as the very words of the Director, who yet hath neither any such words or sense. And again, that 
(b) Prefat. n. 2●.  as the Samaritans saw in the Disciples countenances, that they meant to go to Jerusalem, so you pretend it is even legible in the foreheads of those men, that they (that is some Protestants of worth, and learning and authority too) are even going, nay making haste to Rome: words set down in a different letter, and in the same context with the other words of the Direction, which yet hath not any one such word, or syllable. And the Author was fare from presuming to meddle with the intentions of those persons, with whom this man would make him odious.  
4. He neither commended, nor discommended, nor so much as considered their vicinity to us. His purpose was to show that for want of some public infallible Authority, they could not possibly avoid frequent variations, by which whether they fell to come nearer to us, or to go further from us, was not material to his purpose. Let altars be demolished to morrow, let pictures be defaced, let all that is done be undone; These last alterations will prove his intent as strongly as the others can, wherein they happen to agree with us. For his scope being to discover the impietyes of the Socinians, and to prevent the hurt of souls by forewarning them of the danger; to this end he declared some of the reasons for which this Sect disperseth itself, and is able to do it, by working upon the minds of diverse Protestants. The chiefest he affirmed to be the want of a public infallible judge of Controversyes, without which they are left to their own private spirît, or wit, and discourse, which must of necessity bring forth a multitude of differences, altercations, and alterations, and end in Socinianisme, the quintessence whereof is to resolve Faith into Opinion, or into every man's own Reason and Persuasion. Now to show that for want of some living Guide, alterations in matters of Faith and Religion must needs be frequent, he all adged such instances, as lay open to the knowledge, and even to the eye of every man, and might afford a more sensible demonstration of what he intended to evince: Yet so, that (as I said before) his Argument received strength, not from their coming near to us, but from their altering from themselves. From thence to infer, that they must intent Popery, because they happen to agree with us in some things or rather seem to agree, but indeed differ; is just as if one should say: The first Protestant's in England, intended to persist in Papistry, even when they purposed the contrary, yea even when they did actually departed from us: Because (forsooth) they were not so furious against every particular doctrine of Catholics, as some others were. And I wonder how these men dare believe the B. Trinity, and other principal mysteries of Christian Faith, since they must by this means agree with Papists, and so may fear least themselves be in a way to Popery.  
5. Others are apt to believe on the contrary side, that the Director was so fare from hoping that Protestants would become Catholics by these degrees, as that he rather feared it might be a cause of some temptation to Catholics, and a settling of Protestancy more effectually then could have been performed either by the fervour of Zelots', or fear of Death, or any other means. And therefore I make bold to say, that although we Catholics, his Majesty's most humble and loyal subjects, should be most unworthy and ungrateful creatures, if we did not with deepest thankfulness acknowledge our infinite obligation to the tender Clemency of our dread Sovereign: Yet I may truly say (if such a Truth may be spoken without offence) that by many degrees They are more unreasonable, and unthankful, who are unquiet, because the most moderate, that is, the most powerful means which can be thought of, are put in execution, for establishing that which they pretend to desire, I mean the Protestant Religion; unless indeed they desire Protestancy should perish, if it do not in all respects perfectly and punctually suit with their humours. For it is a true saying; Moderate things may last, but no Violence can long endure.  
6. This than was the Directours intention, free from all malignity, and directed only to matters of Religion, and good of souls in the manner declared above. Which to be true, I have heard him affirm most seriously by all that can be feared, or hoped for in the next life, for all eternity; and therefore he could not but be sorry, that any writing of his was interpreted to an other meaning, of which if he had but once imagined his words to have been capable, himself without so much as hearing any plea of defence, would have been the first to have sentenced them to be destroyed, and all memory of them to be forgotten. And he hopes that upon this sincere declaration it will be believed, that if he erred, it was against his own intention, and not, a more erroris, sed errore amoris (as Blessed S. Austin speaks) not by any love to error, 
Lib. 22. Cinit. ca ●.  but by an error of love, to the eternal good of souls, by preventing the danger of their falling into precipices of Socinian doctrines.  
7. But the foul Imputation wherewith, even in the Epistle Dedicatory to the Kings most Excel. Majesty, this man is bold to calumniate the whole Order of jesuites, with intent doubtless to make the Director, and his endeavours hateful, (terming it, that Order which enuenomes poison itself, and makes the Roman Religion more malignant and turbulent then otherwise it would be: whose very Rule and Doctrine obliges them to make all men, as much as lies in them, subjects unto Kings, & servants unto Christ no further than it shall please the Pope) is a most virulent slander, and most unjust untruth. For the clearing whereof, though we might content ourselves either with his ignorance of our Order, Rule, and Doctrine; or with the guiltiness of his own Conscience, in regard, that probably he cannot choose but know, that the intent of them, and our proceed, are nothing such as he proclaims them: yet I thought fit here to touch briefly some grounds, whereby his Majesty chief, and all others may receive satisfaction, that there is no such thing in our Order, Rule, and Doctrine, as this man is pleased to cast upon it.  
8. And first (in regard, by what he saith in his Preface, of the fourth Vow which the jesuits make of special obedience to the Pope, proper to their Order, it seems, that which he doth vent in his Epistle Dedicatory, hath relation to that VOW) it is to be understood, that, that Fourth VOW is wholly circa Missiones, concerning Missions, in order to the help of souls, 
Constit. part. 5. cap. 13. L. C.  as the words of that Vow expressly speak, and their Constitutions declare thus: Tota intentio huius Voti Obediendi Summo Pontifici fuit, & est circa Missiones, & sic intelligi oportet litter as Apostolicas, ubide hae Obedientia loquuntur, in omnibus quae iufferit Summus Pontifex, & quocunq miferit etc. The whole intention of this Vow to obey the Pope, was, & is concerning Missions, and so the Apostolical Letters are to be understood, where they speak of this Obedience, in all things which the Pope shall command, and whithersoever he shall send etc. As for their Rules in general, they are confirmed by the same Authority, which confirmed the Rules of all Religion's Orders, and there is nothing in them which is not most holy, and which hath not been accounted such, even by our Enemies: or if there be any thing to be found in them otherwise, let this man produce it if be can. They are not so hard to come by, but that S. Paul's Churchyard may of times afford them. Doctrine their Order approoves none but what is taught by other Catholic Divines, as hath been often demonstrated against such as this man is. And therefore we hold ourselves bound in all duty to be, and to profess ourselves to be, as loyal subjects to the sovereign Majesty of our King, as loving and tender towards his Sacred Person, as respectful and dutiful to his Commands, as any other of his subjects of what profession soever; and to be bound also to teach all other subjects, that the same subjection is due, not only for fear, but for Conscience also, by the law of God, of nature, and of Nations. This we shall be ready to make good at all times; as also to give his Majesty full satisfaction, by what means his Majesty shall be pleased to appoint, in any particular point of Doctrine, or Practise, which is, or may be imputed to our Rule, or Order.  
9 It were over great boldness to appeal in this to the living testimony of him, who in his experience abroad hath been acquainted with more Communities of our Order, than this man hath been with Persons in his late changes when he professed himself a Roman Catholic, and conversed with diverse of us: And by the equal hand which he carrieth towards all sorts of persons, obligeth all without prejudice to any. His Majesty may be pleased to use what means in his Royal wisdom he shall think best. And if he should think it fit to pitch upon such a Testimony, we should esteem ourselves happy in the choice; notwithstanding that M. Chillingworth may conceive otherwise, in regard that he wilneeds have it, that Signior Con hath prohibited the Director from writing books any more, 
Pref. n. 25.  or at least, hath reason to do it.  
10. But he must know, that we are of a different disposition from the Socinians, and therefore though that Person were not of that eminent Integrity, Piety, wisdom, Modesty, and all kind of worth as he is, who by so many ways hath obliged many great Persons to our nation, and hourly receives a most gracious regard from those whose judgement and example all should dread, we esteem it a great happiness to be subject to all lawful Auctorities. And whatsoever our skill be in Logic, yet by God's grace we will always in hart, word, and deed maintain these to be good and lawful Arguments: A Person of so eminent wisdom as he is whom this man names, advices me not to write; Therefore it is fittest for me not to write. And this other: A Person endued with Authority, commands me not to write: Therefore it is not only fit, but necessary for me not to write. But this Logic is no Philosophy with Socinians, who will have no Masters ' but themselves, even in matters concerning the eternal salvation of their souls, and will one day find to their cost, that Holy S Bernard uttered a most important Truth when he said: Qui se sibi Magistrum constituit, stul to se Discipulum subdit. He who will be his own Master, shall be scholar to a fool. But it is time for me to take up & conclude this Preface with this caveat, that I would not have the Reader conceive that in this little volume I have touched all this man's Doctrines which tend to the overthrow of Christianity, but only such as were most obvious. Nor is it my purpose at this time, exactly to confute his grounds or answer his objections, which may be done hereafter. My main business is to demonstrate, that under the Name of Christians, he undermines Christianity, and settles Socinianisme. Which is the cause that moved me to set forth this short Treatise for a present Antidote, till a larger answer can be published. For who will adventure upon food if be know it is mixed, and even incorporated with deadly poison? This is the scope of this Treatise, whereto I hope all Christians will concur. Socinians are but an aggregate of jews, Manicheans, Arians, and other condemned sects, which all good Christians ought to detest. I heartily with their Conversion: yet if they will obstinately resist, in despite of their inventions the words of the Apostle will be verified, jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, 
Hebr. 13. ●.  the same also for ever. And they shall give a fearful account for their contempt of all Churches, and errors against Christian Faith, when repentance will nothing avail: Even at that day, when as S. Ambrose gravely saith: 
Lib. 5. de fide c. 7.  The jew shall perforce acknowledge whom he crucified; when the Manichean shall adore whom he believed not to have come in flesh; when the Arian shall confess him to be omnipotent whom he denied. And I may add; when all good Christians shall joyfully behold him, whose Faith they laboured to Maintain.   

The Doctrines confuted in the ensuing Treatise.  

THe first Doctrine. That Faith necessary to Salvation is not infallible. Chap. 1.  
The grounds of this Doctrine lead to Atheism. Chap. 2.  
The second Doctrine. That the assurance which we have of Scriptures is but moral. 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, Injurious to the miracles of our Saviour, and of his Apostles. Chap. 5.  
The fifth Doctrine. By resolving Faith into Reason, he destroys the nature of Faith, and Belief of all Christian Verities. Chap. 6.  
The sixth Doctrine, Destructive of the Theological Virtues of Christian Hope, and Charity. Chap. 7.  
The seaventh Doctrine, Takes away the grounds of Rational Discourse. Chap. 8.  
The eight Doctrine, Opens a way to deny the B. Trinity, and other high mysteries of Christian Faith. Chap. 9  
The ninth Doctrine, Lays grounds to be Constant in no Religion. Chap. 10.  
The tenth Doctrine, Provides for the impunity, and preservation of whatsoever damnable Error against Christian Faith. Chap. 11.  
The Conclusion.    

CHRISTIANITY MAINTAINED. OR The discovery of sundry Doctrines tending to the Overthrow of Christian Religion.  

The first Doctrine. That Faith necessary to Salvation is not Infallible.  
CHAP. I.  
CHRISTIAN Faith being the foundation of Hope, the eye of Charity, the lesser light appointed for the night of this world, the Way to Heaven; if this Foundation be faulty, this Eye deceitful, this Light an Eclipse to itself, this way erroneous; our Hope, Charity, Light, Happiness, and all Christianity must end, 
Chap. 1.  in worse than nothing, in everlasting unhappiness. For as S. Thomas said to our Saviour, 
(a) Io. 14.5.  We know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way? So what will it avail us to know whither we go, if we follow a misleading way, the Direction of a Faith weak, waveriug, and subject to Error? such is Christian Faith in this man's judgement delivered in the Doctrine with which I thought fit to begin, in regard it is the substance, and sum of that which he delivers, and labours to prove through his whole book; and is persuaded, that it is of great and singular use, and demonstrable by unanswerable arguments.  
2. I must confess, it is of great use to ground Socinianisme, which, as the 
(b) Cap. 1. p. 7.  Direction foretold, rejecteth infallible supernatural infused Faith from being necessary to salvation: and maketh our Christian Faith of the Gospel, and of Christ jesus our Lord and Saviour to be a mere human opinion, resolved into the authority of men, of no greater certainty than other human Traditions and Histories known by report. Hence the saying in Charity Maintained (that an absolute certainty of Faith is necessary to Salvation) he taxeth deeply as 
(c) Pag. 328.  most pernicious and uncharitable; and else where 
(d) Pag. 325. n. 3.  as a great error of dangerous & pernicious consequence; yea pag. 37. thus he writeth: Men being possessed with this false principle (that Infallible Faith is necessary) and that it is in vain to believe the Gospel of Christ with such a kind, or degree of assent as they yield to other matter of Tradition; and finding that their Faith of it is to them indiscernible from the belief they give to the truth of other stories, are in danger not to believe at all etc. It is true, that (pag. 36. n. 8.) he saith We cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired assent, more than moral founded upon credibilities, whereby some may conceive, that besides human and rational Faith, he supposes and requires Divine Faith, which is a pure, sincere, firm adhesion to God's word, not caused by reason and discourse, but infused by the Holy Ghost's inspiration into a believing soul. But in truth he disclaims from any necessity of Divine Faith, or any divine light above the light of mere reason, and will have men to be saved by the native forces of human, rational, and fallible Faith. Men (saith he) 
(f) Vbi supra pa. 36. n. 8.  are unreasonable; God requires not any thing but reason; They pretend that heavenly things cannot be seen to any purpose, but by the midday-light: but God will be satisfied, if we receive any degree of Light which makes us leave the works of darknesses. They exact a certainty of Faith above that of sense and science: God desires only that we believe the conclusion, as the premises deserve, whereof in rational Faith one is ever weak, credible, and not infallible. And again pag. 112. n. 154. Neither God doth, nor man may require of us, as our duty, to give a greater assent to the mysteries of our Faith, than the motives of credibility (which are fallible) deserve. This is his doctrine, which he delivers often, & makes use thereof to reject the infallible Authority of God's Church: so profane, impious, & , as I wonder that a man professing himself a Christian, durst venture to vent the same in print, in a Christian country. For is the certainty of the Faith which Christians yield to the truth of the Gospel, to the life of Christ jesus our Lord and Saviour, to the histories of holy Scripture, of no greater discernible certainty, than the belief we yield to humane traditions? I appeal to the conscience of every true Christian, whether he do not most clearly discern his assent to the Truths of holy Scripture, to be superior, and incomparably more firm, than his belief of mere humane stories. That the Serpent spoke unto Eve, and persuaded her to eat of the forbidden tree; that our first Parents were naked, and did not perceive it till they had eaten of the forbidden apple; these stories & other the like would any Christian believe them, yea would they not laugh at them, as they do at Aesop's Fables, were they not of more credit with them, than Caesar's Commentaries, or Salusts histories, as this man 
* Pag. 327. n. 5.  saith, they are not? That God requires not any thing of us but only reason; That he exacts no more than that we believe the mysteries of Christian Faith, with a human fallible assent; That divine illumination above the reach of the light of reason is not necessary, that men may believe as they ought, to please, and satisfy God; That God is satisfied with any degree of light, with the mere light of natural Reason, and with the weak and wavering Faith, which reason standing upon probabilities can ground; These be strange and dismal positions, and such as overthrew Christianity, as is evident by many reasons. I will point at a few.  
3. First it is against holy Scripture. faith, saith 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 received in England hath it, the evidence, or ground, or confidence of things not seen. All which signify a firm, certain, and as I may say substantial Faith, much different from whatsoever assent, if it be only probable. For as S. Bernard disputing against Abailardus (who likewise taught that Faith was but Opinion) saith touching this definition of S. Paul (By the name of Substance we are determined to some certain and settled thing, & Faith is not Opinion but Certainty:) Audis 
(h) Epist. 190.  (saith 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. Dost thou hear the name of Substance? It is not lawful for thee in Faith to think or to dispute at thy pleasure, nor to wander hither and thither, through the emptiness of opinions, or straying error. By the name of substance, some certain and settled thing is appointed thee. Thou art shut up within certain bounds, and confined within limits which are certain. For Faith is not an opinion but a certainty. This is also proved by the words of the same Apostle: 
(i) Gal. 1. v. 8.  Although we, or an Angel from Heaven evangelise to you, beside that which we have evangelized to you: be he anathema: and where he saith, 
(k) Heb. 6. v. 8.  That by two things unmovable, whereby it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a most strong comfort. For how can it be most strong if it be grounded only upon probabilities, as this man saith our Faith and comfort is? The falsehood whereof is yet further declared by the same Apostle Ep. 1. ad Thessaly. cap. 2. v. 12. When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God. And S. Bernard Ep. 190. allegeth 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 believed by all Christians, it will be needless to allege more texts of Scripture in confirmation of it. D. Potter (in whose behalf you stepped forth) doth evidently contradict your doctrine, when he teacheth 
(l) Pag. 143.  that the chief ground of Christian Faith is divine Revelation, and that nothing but this can erect an act of supernatural Faith; which must be absolutely undoubted, and certain, and that without this, Faith is but opinion or persuasion, or at the most an acquired human belief. And Doctor Hooker (whom you allege pag. 325. for your opinion) in his Ecclesiastical Policy pag. 117. writes most expressly in these words: The greatest assurance generally with all men, is that we have by plain aspect and intuitive beholding etc. Scripture with Christian men being received as the word of God, that, for which we have probable, yea that which we have 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 speech revealeth there what himself seethe, and therefore the strongest proof of all, and the most necessary assented unto by us, which do thus receive the Scripture, is the Scripture.  
4. If we have recourse to reason, grounded on principles, which no Christian denies, this doctrine likewise cannot be tolerated. For if a Christian be not certain that his belief is true, he may according to your own confession doubt, whether it be not false According to your own confession, I say, seeing yourself go about to prove 
(m) Pag. 326. n. 4.  that Christian Faith cannot be absolutely certain; because if it were so, it would follow, that any least doubting though resisted and involuntary, would destroy it; which manifestly declares, that doubting can well consist with that sort of uncertain Christian Faith which you go about to vent. If once way be given for Christians to fall upon doubting of their Faith, why may not they put themselves upon an examination in good earnest, and as doubting of the grounds thereof? And if this kind of examination be lawful, 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 Angel from Heaven should evangelise to you, beside that which we have evangelized, be he anathema?  
5. But let us go a step further. This Assertion gives way to believe, that the contrary to Christian Faith retains some probability, in regard that no high degree of probability can of itself wholly divest 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 whosoever believes any point only with probability, hath in his understanding no present disposition which of itself is repugnant to probability for the contrary side. And if Christians must be of this disposition in their belief, they can have no settled or firm resolution, never to embrace the contrary of that which for the present is their belief, which ought notwithstanding to be the resolution of every true Christian believer.  
6. This is not all. If we follow this doctrine, this other  Consequence cannot be avoided: That one may be saved, though he believe some sect contrary to Christian Religion, as judaisme, Turkism, Paganism, or Atheism, with as great, or greater probability, than he believes the articles of Christian Faith. For proof I need allege nothing beside what yourself suggest. In one place you tell us, that 
(n) Pag. 37.  any faith if it be but a grain of mustardseed, if it work by love, shall certainly avail with God, and be accepted of him. In another 
(o) Pag. 327.  you endeavour to prove, that a probable persuasion, and hope of infinite and eternal happiness, provided for all those that obey Christ jesus, may be able to sway our will to Obedience, and encounter with all those temptations, which flesh and blood can suggest to avert us from it. join these two doctrines together, & the issue will be; that any probable belief of Christian verities, or even of a God, must suffice to salvation, as enabling us to work by love. Now it is clear that your grain of mustardseed, your any probable persuasion or hope, are verified in any low degree of probability of faith in Christ, or God; and yet they do not exclude equal or greater probability in behalf of the contrary part (for example that Christ is not the Saviour of the world, or that there is not a God:) whence it follows that a man may attain salvation, though he believe with equal or greater probability, that Christ is not the Saviour of the world, or that there is not a God, then is that wherewith he believes the same, and all other mysteries of Christian Faith. Whether this tend not to judaisme, Turkism, Paganism, or Atheism, and to the overthrow of all Christianity, I need not say.  
7. Moreover, who can oblige any understanding man, to dye for averring the Truth of that Faith, whereof he proclaims himself to have no certainty? And you, O glorious Martyrs of Christ our Lord, did rather spill, then shed your blood, if you were so prodigal thereof, for a truth not certainly believed to be such. This is the very same argument, which mellifluous S. Bernard brings against Petrus Abailardus, a Progenitor of the Socinians, who in those days taught, that Christian Faith was but opinion, and not infallibly certain: 
(p) Epist. 190.  Stulti ergo Martyres nostri (saith this Saint) sustinentes tam acerba propter incerta, nec dubitantes sub dubio remunerationis proemio durum per exitum diuturnum inire exilium. S. Paul saith, 
(q) Rom. 5.7.  Scarce for a just man doth any die. And we may say, who will give his life for a Truth? and most of all, who will not only give his life, but think himself bound under pain of eternal damnation to lay it down in testimony of that, which for aught he certainly knows, may prove to be an unjust, and untrue thing? Was the precious blood 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 servants to dye for the truth of things, which in fine they esteemed but probable?  
8. Far be it from the hearts of Christians to believe, and their tongues to profess, that a God of infinite wisdom and goodness, would oblige himself to reward men with everlasting happiness, for embracing the mysteries of Christian Faith, which may once prove false, and to adjudge men to endless torments, for adhering to the contrary, which in the end may be found true, if Christian Faith can possibly be false, as false it may be, if it be but probable.  
9 Never could any doctrine be offered to the sons of Adam more plausible, then that our belief of Heaven and Hell is but an opinion in itself, and no way certain, concerning things of another world; whereas worldly pleasures, are in present possession and certain. If the greatest certainty wherewith all Christians hitherto have believed their faith to abound, hath not been able to stay the career of men's licentiousness; what shall we now expect, but, that flattered by this doctrine, they, who before did run, will now fly, after the Idols of whatsoever may appear to their souls or bodies, objects of delight?  
10. No less liberty doth this doctrine afford for believing, than it doth for living, giving scope to Apostasyes', and endless changes of Religions, as this man's fourfold alteration makes manifest, if all be true which is reported of him. In which inconstancy notwithstanding he seems to glory, styling it 
(r) Prefa. n. 5.  his Constancy in following that way to heaven, which for the present seems to him the most probable. But of this more hereafter.  
11. I will do him the favour to suppose that he holds no Religion more certainly true then that of Christians, which yet to him being not certain, what remains in his persuasion and doctrine, but that for matters of faith and Religion, God hath provided no certainty on earth? which is not only of very ill consequence, as I have said, amongst Christians themselves, but exposeth Christian Religion to contempt among the enemies thereof, and disbelievers of it: which this man it seems doth not value a hair; but measuring every body by himself, taxeth Christians generally to be of the like weakness, ungroundednes, & unsettledness in their belief: For, saith 
(s) Pag. 327. n. 5.  he, men may talk their pleasure of an absolute & most infallible certainty, but did men generally believe, that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity, but as firmly and undoubtedly, as that there is such a City as Constantinople, but as much as Caesar's Commentaries or the history of Sallust, I believe the lives of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are. I leave the Censure of this Doctrine to others: I only note, first how poor a conceit this man himself hath, & endeavoureth to instill into others of the ground or adhesion, which Christians undoubtedly have in their belief, making it no more solid or firm, than the belief of Caesar's Commentaries etc. And secondly that it may perchance be his fortune to be really forbidden to write any more books, if he can make no better consequences, then to conclude the want of Faith, or firmness of Faith in Christians, from the faults in their lives, seeing there may be in a manner infinite other causes, why they do not live, as they most firmly believe they should.  
12. This therefore, you see is his doctrine concerning Christian Faith; that it is weak, and weakly grounded; that it is resolved into the authority of men, as the belief of Constantinople, 
Chap. 2.  and Caesar's Commentaries; that a Christian may really and deliberately doubt of the points of his faith, and yet be a Christian (that is) faithful. But that which doth most manifestly discover the impiety of this doctrine, and of this his manner of arguing, is, that the reasons by which he pretends to maintain it, induce plain Atheism, that is, they conclude as well, that men can have no certain belief, knowledge, or assent that there is a God, or that we are certain, that Christian Faith is even so much as probable; which now I am going to show.   

The Grounds of this Doctrine lead to Atheism.  
CHAP. II.  
1. I Said in the former Chapter that if a Christian be not certain that his belief is true, he may according to this man's own confession doubt whether it be not false. I pleaded his Confession, upon an Argument of his which perhaps seemed to him a great subtlety, and hard to be answered, but is indeed a mere toy, and if it prove any thing, it proves the Title of this Chapter to be true. If, saith he 
(t) Pag. 326.  this Doctrine, of the absolute certainty of Christian Faith were true, then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow, that every least doubting in any matter of Faith though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all true, and saving Faith. Doth not this Sophism tend also to prove, that if one be tempted with involuntary doubts against the Truths I spoke of, he must forfeit his certainty that there is a God, or that Christian Faith is certainly probable, and so either incur damnation without his own fault, which is impossible, or attain heaven without any certain belief or knowledge that there is a God, or that Christian Faith is certainly probable.  
2. As for the argument itself, it is of no moment. It doth not distinguish betwixt the Habit of Faith, whereby Christians are permanently denominated Faithful, and which remains even when we are a sleep, and the Act or exercise thereof, which may be hindered by many good employments, as study or serious attention to any business, without the least prejudice to the Habit of which we are deprived only by Voluntary errors or doubts against it, not by those which are involuntary and resisted. If this answer give not satisfaction, let him either afford a better against his own objection, or else profess, that he doth not certainly believe there is a God, or that he is not certain, that Christian Faith and Religion is so much as probable. And by the way me thinks he should reflect, that if he think every Act destroys the contrary habit, and in that respect no doubting may consist with the habit of infallible faith, than the Doctrine of Catholic Divines, that every voluntary Act of Heresy or Infidelity is destructive of the habit of Faith, should not in reason and true consequence be termed by him 
(v) Pag. 368.  a vain and groundless fancy.  
3. An other argument to prove the fallibility of Christian Faith, in effect is this: 
(w) Pag. 326.  We pray for the increase and strengthening of our Faith: Therefore our Faith is not infallible. You might as well argue: We may pray for a high degree of happiness in heaven: Therefore every Saint in heaven is not perfectly happy. Do you not know, that there may be intention of degrees, even in qualities which have no mixture of the contrary? No light includes darkness, yet one light may be greater than another. Thus the most imperfect act of faith, is most certain in the most perfect kind of certainty, though not most certain in the most perfect degree of certainty: and we may well believe that the least degree of Christian Faith is incompatible with any deliberate and not resisted doubt, or uncertainty, and yet pray for the increase thereof. If you deny this, then tell me whether you may not pray for the increase of your belief of a God, and his Attributes, and for the strengthening of it against all temptations (rising either from the suggestions of the enemy, or from the weakness of man's understanding 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 have granted that you may, as I hope you will, than you will have answered your own argument, unless you will acknowledge yourself not to be certain that there is a God, or that Christian Religion is probable.  
4. A third reason whereby he endeavours to prove that Christian Faith is not absolutely certain, is this in substance: That seeing, as S. john assures us, 
(x) Pag. 326.  our Faith is the victory which overcomes the world; if our Faith be a certain infallible knowledge, our victory over the world must of necessity be perfect, and it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sin; How this doth follow I cannot perceive, no more than one can infer that Christians cannot commit as grievous sins as men that reject Christianity, because the belief of Christians is true, and the belief of others is false. The Angels in heaven and Adam in Paradise, were endued with infallible Faith, yea and with Evidence, in the opinion of diverse good Divines; and yet the Angels and Adam sinned deliberately, and damnably. Faith doth direct, but not necessitate the will, which still remaining free, may choose good or evil. If he will still maintain the argument for good, than he must be convinced to say, that he doth not with certainty believe a God, or that virtue is to be embraced, because he can doubtless commit deliberate sins against God, and virtue.  
5. Not unlike to this is another reason, 
(y) Ibid.  That Charity being the effect of Faith, if our Faith were perfect, Charity would be perfect, & so no man could possibly make any progress in it. Give me leave to speak to yourself; do you not see, that by this reason, if you believe in God with certainty, your love of God must be perfect without possibility to make any progress in it; which because it is false, it must follow, by force of your Argument, that you do not with certainty believe a God. But as for the reason in itself, because it concerns more than yourself, I must tell you that it doth falsely suppose that Charity is both an immediate, and necessary effect of Faith, without intervention of Freewill, which may refuse to follow the direction of Faith, and either wholly cease to love God, or love him, now more, now less. And therefore no wonder, if upon a false supposal, 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 Faith is absolutely certain, but yet obscure, it must be also absolutely perfect, which is a great mistake, for it wants the perfection of evidence, & hath a possibility annexed to it, that it may be both resisted, and rejected. But it will not be unpleasant notwithstanding, nor untimely to stand a while, and see how excessively confident you are of the strength and force of the foresaid Arguments, and the contentment which you take in them. Thus you speak of them: 
(z) Pag. 326. 327.  These you see are strange and portentous consequences, and yet the deduction of them is clear and apparent, which shows this doctrine of yours (you mean our doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith) which you would fain have true, that there might be some necessity of your Church's infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant, not only to Truth, but even to all Religion and piety, and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith, or Charity. And therefore I must entreat and adjure you, either to discover unto me (which I take God to witness I cannot perceive) some fallacy in my reasons against it, or never hereafter open your mouth in defence of it. I answer, it seems to me, that your reasons are already sufficiently proved to be fallacyes, since from them either nothing can be deduced for your purpose, or else you must acknowledge your self to have no certainty that there is a God, that virtue is to be embraced, or that Christian Faith is even probable.  
7. And yet I add, that you must in another respect also solve your own objections. 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 devout, and humble prayer, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. And elsewhere: 
(a) Pag. 112.  God's spirit if he please may work more, a certainty of adherence beyond certainty of evidence. Now you cannot deny but that these men may be tempted against their Faith by involuntary doubting; that they may increase in it; that they may commit some deliberate sin; and may make daily progress in Charity and good works, even by the greater increase of their Faith: and yet you grant them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. And so in this case yourself must answer your own arguments, and confess them to be but fallacies. Even your main reason, that Christian Faith can be endued with no stronger certainty than the probable motives on which it relies, by this self same instance is proved a Sopbisme. For now you grant a certainty of Faith not without probable arguments of credibility, yet not for them, it being more certain than they are; and therefore you are still put upon a necessity of answering your own arguments. And whereas pag. 330. you make a show of answering this particular objection, really you do not answer, but plainly contradict yourself, labouring to prove that it is impossible that there should be a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of evidence, as the Reader may clearly see, and shall be demonstrated in due time.  
8. One thing more I must not let pass, and it is, That whereas you say, We would fain have Christian Faith believed to be infallible, that there might be some necessity of our Church's infallibility; it seems you are apt enough to yield infallibility to God's Church, if once it be granted that Christian Faith is infallible. And with good reason. For seeing you teach that universal Tradition and other arguments of credibility, cannot produce an infallible belief of holy Scripture, and of the mysteries believed by Christians; it must follow, that some other infallible means must be found out for the propounding to us the holy Scriptures: which other infallible means even according to your persuasion, being not Scripture itself, nor every man's private spirit, there remains only the authority of the Catholic Church, which as an instrument of the holy Ghost, may be an infallible propounder both of Scripture and all divine verities. Wherein there is a large difference between the Church and other judges. These in their sentences or determinations intent not to deliver points of infallible Faith, as the Church must intent, and do it, if once it be granted, that from her we must receive holy Scriptures, and believe them with a certain and infallible assent of Christian Faith.   

The second Doctrine. 
Chap. 3.  That the assurance which we have of Scriptures, is but moral.  
CHAP. III.  
1. THis man magnifies holy Scriptures in many places, as the only thing on which he relies his Salvation; but whosoever shall walk along with him from place to place, & mark well his ways, will find that they lead to the quite contrary, and show that he neither doth value them to their right worth, nor doth lay any other grounds, but such as are more apt to breed disesteem then esteem of them. This may be seen, in that he teacheth, 
(b) Pag. 141. & 62.  That our assurance that the Scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration, and that any other book of any profance writer is incorrupted, is of the same kind and condition, both moral assurances.  
2. If this may be allowed, it must necessarily follow that the assurance which we have of Scripture must in degree be much inferior to the assurance which we have of such books of profane Authors as have a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men, to wit, Atheists, Pagans, jews, Turks & Christians; whereas the books holy Scripture, are either unknown, or impugned by all except Christians, & by some also who would bear of Christians, and consequently the moral assurance of them, and of the incorruptednesse of them, is the much the less, and of less moral credit. And by so same reason whosoever builds upon this man's grounds, cannot have so great assurance that there was a jesus Christ, that he had disciples, and much less that he wrought wondrous things, and less than this, that those wonders were true miracles; as that there was a Caesar, Alexander, Pompey etc. or that they fought such battles, and the like. For these things descend to us by a more universal tradition, than the former. 
(c) Pag. 116.  Do not yourself speak thus? We have as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the Eight King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. You should have said; we have greater reason to believe it, if we consult humane inducements only, and consequently if Christian Faith be not absolutely infallible, even above the motives of credibility, we are more certain that there was a King Henry, than a jesus Christ: A thing which no true Christian can hear without detestation.  
3. That which follows out of the same 116. page, is of the like nature, laying a ground for un wary people to reject Scripture; For, having spoken of some barbarous Nations, that believed the doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God, 
(d) Pag. 116.  for they never heard of it, and Faith comes by hearing; you add these words: Neither doubt I, but if the books of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by th●se barbarous nations, but still by the bare belief, and practise of Christianity they might be saved, God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained.  
4. If this be granted, why might not any Church have rejected 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 Faith by Scripture only, according to your doctrine; we cannot be obliged to believe the Scriptures, because the verities therein contained are necessary to be believed, (for this very necessity you cannot believe, but by believing aforehand the Scripture) but contrarily you may reject the verities themselves, if you be not preobliged to believe the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained.  
5. Again, you say that Scripture is the only Rule of Christian Faith, 
(e) Cap. 2 per totum.  yet it is not necessary to Salvation to believe it to be a rule of Faith, 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. join these two assertions, and the Conclusion will be; That we are not obliged to receive that which is the only ordinary means of attaining Christian Faith, namely the Scriptures. And therefore in the ordinary way, we cannot be bound to embrace Christian Faith, seeing it cannot be compassed without the means to attain to it. For how can one be obliged to attain an end, and yet be left free to reject the only means of achieving that end? I am the freer to make this question, because you concur with me in the answer, when you say: 
(g) Pag. 16.  It was necessary that God by his providence should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernible corruption, in those things which he would have known; otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known, the only means of continuing the Knowledge of them being perished. Now is it not in effect all one, whether the Scripture have perished, or whether it be preserved, if in the mean time we be not bound to believe, that it is the Rule of Faith, and word of God? Nay, seeing as things now stand we may find the verityes contained in Scripture, sufficiently expressed in innumerable other books, we may at this present in conformity to your doctrine reject all the holy Scripture, contenting ourselves with the contents thereof taken from other Authors, and not from the writers of the Bible.  
6. The Doctrine which he carrieth through his whole Book, but particularly insisteth upon in his third Chapter, that we cannot learn from Scripture itself that it is Canonical, but only from Tradition of men, delivering it from hand to hand, is no less injurious and derogative to holy Scripture than the former, speaking of men in his sense, that is, not as endued with any infallible assistance of the holy Ghost (which Catholics believe of the Church) but only as wise, or many men, or for the like human qualifications; for to this effect he saith: 
(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 maintain it. For besides that which I have touched already, that by this means we are not so certain of Scripture, as of profane books, he must come at length to resolve the belief of Scripture into the Tradition or Authority of Pagans, jews, Turks, or condemned Heretics, as well as of true Christians. For seeing errors against faith, or Heresies cannot in his principles be discerned but by Scriptures; before they be received, the testimony of one man concerning the admittance of them must weigh as much as of another, and be considered only as proceeding from a number of men, be they faithful or Infidels, true Christians or condemned Heretics.  
7. And further according to the same principles he must acknowledge, that he believeth some parts of Canonical Scripture with a more firm assent, than others, to wit, as they have been delivered with more or less general consent, or have been more or less once questioned: which is to deprive Canonical Scripture of all Authority. For if once we give way to more or less in the behalf of God's word, we shall end in nothing. And this hath the more force in this man's doctrine, who professeth that the greatest certainty which he hath of any part of Scripture, is within the compass of probability. What certainty then shall those Scriptures have, which participate of that probability in a less and less degree, according as they have been delivered with different tradition and consent. How this doctrine will sound in the ears of all true Christians, I leave to be considered, contenting myself to oppose your Assertion with the discourse of D. King, afterward Bishop of London, in the beginning of his first Lecture upon jonas, where amongst other things he says: Comparisons betwixt Scripture and Scripture are both odious and dangerous. The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy foundation. With an unpartial respect have the children of Christ's family from time to time, received, reverenced, & embraced the whole volume of Scriptures. You on the other side speak in a different strain and say thus: 
(i) Pag. 67. n. 36.  I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles, and to be Canonical: but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those books which were never questioned. And elsewhere: The Canon of Scripture, 
(k) Pag. 69. n. 45.  as we receive it, is built upon universal Tradition. For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain, neither do we urge others to be so, of those Books which have been doubted, as of those which never have. By this means what will become of the Epistle of S. james, the second Epistle of S. Peter, the second and third of S. john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalyps of S. john? And what part of Scripture hath not been questioned by some, and those some so many, as would have made us doubt of the works of Tully or Livy etc. if they had affirmed them not to have been written by such Authors? And the only doubting of Erasmus, or some such other about the works of some Fathers, hath caused them to be questioned by diverse, upon much weaker grounds, as difference of styles, or the like.  
8. In another place you tell us 
(l) Pag. 68 n. 43.  that to receive a Book for Canonical, it is enough to have had attestation though not universal, yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical, which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and authority was not so great, as to prevail against the contrary suffrages. Observe upon what inextricable passages, and less degrees of probability this man doth put us in our belief of holy Scripture. First we must settle our Faith on men; then on considering men, though the consent be not universal; thirdly upon the greater and more prevalent number and authority of suffrages, as if the greater number alone, without infallible assistance of the holy Ghost, were a sufficient ground for Christian Faith. You deny (pag. 68 n. 42.) that the Controversy about Scripture is to be tried by most voices, and yet what is your greater number, but most voices? And as for greater Authority, what can you mean thereby, except perhaps greater learning, or some such quality, nothing proportionable to that Authority, on which Christian Faith must rely?   

The third Doctrine. That the Apostles were not infallible in their writings, but erred with the whole Church of their time.  
CHAP. FOUR  
1. IT can be no wonder that he should speak meanly of the necessity, and infallibility of holy Scripture, since he labours to fasten error upon the Canonical writers, and deliverers thereof the Apostles themselves, and the whole Church of their time. 
Chap. 4.  And this concerning an Article of Faith of highest consequence and most frequently revealed in holy Scripture, the denial whereof had been most derogatory from the glory of our Saviour, and from the abundant fruit of his sacred Passion: to wit, that the Gospel was to be preached to all nations. You shall receive it in his own words: 
(m) Pag. 1●7. n. 21.  The Church may ignorantly disbelieve a Revelation, which by error she thinks to be no Revelation. That the Gospel was to be preached to all Nations, was a Truth revealed before our Saviour's Ascension in these words; Go and teach all nations. Math. 29.19. Yet through prejudice, or inaduertence, or some other cause the Church disbelieved it, as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chapter of the Acts, until the conversion of Cornelius. And that the Apostles themselves were involved in this supposed error of the most primitive Church, he delivers without ceremony in another place: 
(n) Pag. 144. n. 31.  That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the holy Ghost were, and through inaduertence, or prejudice continued for a time, in an error repugnant to a revealed Truth, it is, as I have already noted, unanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles. Is not this to overthrew all Christianity? If the Blessed Apostles on whom Christians are builded, as upon their foundation (Ephes. 2.) were obnoxious to inaduertence, to prejudice, to other causes of error; what certainty can we now have? The Apostles might have written what they believed, and so we cannot be sure but what they have written may contain some error proceeding from inaduertence, prejudice, or some other cause. If they even after the receiving of the holy Ghost, and with them the whole Church of that time, could either forget or transgress so fresh a Command, imposed by our Saviour Christ for his last farewell at his Ascension; it will be obvious for adversaries of Christian Religion to object, that perhaps they have been left to themselves, to oblivion, 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 err in neither, without it, in both.  
2. The Objection which he brings is not hard to solve. S. Peter himself never doubted. That vision was showed to him, and he declared it to the converted jews for their satisfaction, as it happened in the Council held by the Apostles, about the observation of the law of Moses; which some Christians converted from judaisme did much urge. 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 jews did oppose themselves to S. Peter. For before the conversion of Cornelius other Gentiles were become Christians, as 
(o) Com. in Act. cap. 10. post vers. 48,  Cornelius à Lapide with others affirms & proves. For which respect the text expressly declares, 
(p) Act. c. 11. v. 2.  that they who were offended with S. Peter were of the circumcision, that is jews made Christians.  
3. He goes on in this conceit, and adds a point no less dangerous than the former. The Apostles Doctrine, saith he, 
(q) Pag. 144. n. 31.  was confirmed by miracles, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false, or uncertain. I say in no part which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine truth, and which had the attestation of divine miracles. Thus you see he covertly calls in question all the Apostles writings, and lays grounds to except against them. For if once we give way to such distinctions, and say that the Apostles are to be credited only, in what they delivered constantly as a certain divine Truth; we may reject in a manner all Scripture, which scarce ever declares, whether or no the writers thereof did deliver any thing, as a certain divine Truth; and much less that they remained constant in what they delivered by writing. Or if it should express these particulars, yet we could not be obliged to believe it, if once we come to deny to the Apostles an universal infallibility. For what reason can this man give, according to these grounds of his, why they might not have erred in that particular declaration?  
4. And beside, will he not oblige us to believe with certainty any thing delivered by the Apostles which had not the attestation of divine miracles? It seems he will not, and thereby in effect takes away the belief of very many mysteries of Christian Faith and verities contained in holy Scripture. For that miracles were wrought in confirmation of every particular passage of Scripture, we cannot affirm neither out of holy Scripture itself, nor any other credible argument: rather the contrary is certain, there being innumerable verityes of the Bible which were never severally confirmed in that manner, and yet it were damnable sin to deny them. And moreover where, or when did the Apostles particularly prove by miracle, that their writings were the word of God? Thus you see into what plunges he brings all Christians by his own Inconstancy; from which certainly ariseth this itching desire of his to put conceits into men's heads, as if the Apostles also might have been various in their writings and not constant.  
5. I cannot omit another distinction prejudicial to the infallibility of the Apostles & of their writings, which he delivereth in these words: 
(r) Pag. 144. n. 32.  For those things which the Apostles professed to deliver, as the Dictates of human reason, and prudence, and not as divine Revelations, why should we take them as divine Revelations? I see no reason, nor how we can do so, and not contradict the Apostles and God himself. Therefore when S. Paul says in the 1. Epist. to the Corinth. 7.12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord. And again: Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my judgement. If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul spoke, and that his judgement was God's commandment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that spirit by which he wrote which moved him to write; as in other places divine Reuclations, which he certainly knew to be such, so in this place his own judgement touching some things, which God had not particularly revealed unto him. This doctrine is subject to the same just exceptions, which were alleged against the former. For if once we deny universal infallibility to the Apostles, we cannot believe them with infallibility in any one thing, but still we may be doubting whether they speak out of their own spirit, and not by divine Revelation, though they should even declare in what sort they intent to speak, because we may fear they are deceived in those very declarations. And as you will perhaps say, they writ Divine Revelations, except in things which they profess to deliver as the Dictates of human human reason and prudence; another will say that they must or may be understood to deliver the dictates of human reason and prudence, whensoever they do not in express rearmes profess to deliver divine Revelations, which is very seldom; the ordinary custom of holy Scripture being to deliver verityes without any such qualifying of them. And if S. Paul when in the Epistle and Chapter by you cited v. 40. says of himself, I think that I also have the spirit of God, might be deceived in that thought of his; we may also say he might be deceived, even when he affirms 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 Canonical writers do.  
6. In the words which you cite: To the rest speak I, not the Lord, S. Paul treats of a very important matter, that is, of the wives departing from her husband, or the husbands from his wife. Wherein if S. Paul were subject to error, he might chance to have taught a point of great Injustice, against the command of our Saviour declaring the very Law of nature, What God hath joined together let not man separate 
(s) Mat. 19.6. . And as for the words you allege in the second place: Concerning virgins I have no commandment of our Lord, but I deliver my judgement, the Apostle afterwards within the compass of the self same discourse, says that a man sins not if he marry; wherein if S. Paul may be deceived, as speaking out of his own spirit, as you say he doth in some precedent words; you will not only want this text to prove with certainty, that marriage is lawful, but whensoever marriage is allowed in any other place of Scripture (as Hebr. 13. v. 4. Marriage is honourable in all) you have put into the mouths of the old and modern heretics, who impugned the lawfulness of marriage, a ready answer that those texts of Scripture, were but the Dictates of human reason and prudence, wherein the writers of Canonical Scripture might be deceived.  
7. The other words, Speak I, not the Lord, show only that our Saviour left power for the Apostles, and his Church to advice, counsel, ordain, or command some things, as occasion might require, which himself had not commanded, or determined in particular: which truth if you hold to be only a Dictate of human reason, you open a way for refractory spirits to oppose the ordinances of their Superiors and Prelates, in things not expressly commanded by our Lord.  
8. The last Words v. 25. Concerniug virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my judgement, which we translate, but I give counsel, prove indeed our Catholic Doctrine concerning works of supererogation, or Counsels, in regard that the Apostle in this place persuades virginity as the better, but commands it not as necessary: Yet they do in no wise imply any doubtfulness or fallibility in the Apostles; never any hitherto besides yourself, offering to answer our argument by saying, the Apostle wrote only the dictate of human reason, or prudence, and so might be deceived. Which answer had been very obvious, if they had presumed to be so bold, as you are, with the Apostles, and therefore it is a sign that no man besides yourself durst deliver this doctrine.  
9 Certainly if the Apostles did sometimes write by the motion of the holy Ghost, and at other times out of their own private judgement or spirit; though it were granted that themselves could discern the diversity of those motions or spirits (which one may easily deny, if their universal infallibility be once impeached) yet it is clear that others, to whom they spoke or wrote, could not discern the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles. For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge, that although each man's private spirit were admitted for direction of himself, yet it were not useful for teaching others. Thus you say (pag. 141.) A supernatural assurance of the incorruption of Scripture may be an assurance to ones self, but no argument to another. And as you affirm 
(t) Pag. 62.  that books that are not Canonical may say they are, and those that are so, may say nothing of it: so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliver divine Revelations, though they should say they do; nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing thereof, if once we deny their universal infallibility.  
10. Now I beseech the good Reader to reflect upon this man's endeavours to overthrew the holy Scriptures and Christianity, and to what at last he tends by these degrees. First he saith, our belief that Scripture is the word of God exceeds not probability. 2. Amongst those Books which we believe to be the word of God, we believe some with less probability than others. Thirdly we may be saved though we neither believe that Scripture is the Rule of Faith, nor that it is the word of God. Fourthly, our assurance that Scripture or any other Book is corrupted, is of the same kind and condition, both, only moral assurances. Fifthly the writers of holy Scripture might err in things which they delivered not constantly, or not as divine Revelations, but dictates of human reason, or if they delivered any doctrine not confirmed by miracles. Sixtly, upon the same ground he might say that the Apostles were infallible only when they delivered things belonging to Faith, Piety, or Religion, & not when they wrote things merely indifferent, or of no great moment in themselves, as some Socinians 
(u) Volkel. l. 5. c. 5. Dom. Lopez. de Authorit. sac. Script.  either grant, or care not much to deny. And then further it will be left to every man's judgement, what is to be accounted a matter of moment: And soon 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 speculative doctrine, may believe and love God, as a chief Socinian teaches 
(w) Iren. Phil●leth. dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae.  and yourself affirm 
(x) Pag. 37.  that any Faith if it work by love shall certainly avail with God, and be accepted of him. And then will some say; Why may not a man love God though he err in the doctrine concerning Christ delivered in Scripture? & so it will not be necessary to believe that the Apostles were infallible in penning the Scripture, but only in articlesd absolutely necessary to love God, and to have a general sorrow for all our sins. And since to love God & have contrition for our sins, a probable belief will serve according to your 
(y) Pag. 327.  Principles, what need we any infallible Scripture at all, but only some motives sufficient to produce a probable assent that there is a God, whether it be by Scripture believed to be only a probable writing, or by natural discourse, or any other means; as you teach, that one is not bound to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, but may be saved, if by other means, for example, preaching, he attain the knowledge of the verityes contained in Scripture 
(z) Pag. 116. . And thus you see to what havoc these things lead, not only touching Christianity, but of all Religion.   

The fourth Doctrine. Injurious to the miracles of our Saviour, and of his Apostles.  
CHAP. V.  
1. THE Disciple is not above his Master: & we may not wonder that a man should be free with the Apostles, if he spare not Christ himself. To the end that the entrance might be proportionable to the building which he was raising, he plants in his Preface a Tenet, which cannot but be as strange to all considerate Christians, as it is dangerous to the weak. It seems he was not able to deny, that true miracles have been wrought by members of our Catholic Church: He comes therefore to this desperate evasion, and gives us these words in print: 
(a) Pref. 〈◊〉. 43.  It seems to me no strange thing, that God in his justice should permit some true miracles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many, as apparently the Professors of the Roman doctrine have to abuse the world. I shall wrong the Readers understanding, if for his sake I shall stand to dilate upon that, which is very clear; that by this means the miracles of our Blessed Saviour, and his Apostles cannot be known to be inducements to truth, but may have been snares to entrap the behoulders in pernicious errors. To what end then doth S. Paul prove his mission by miracles? 
(b) 2. Cor. 12.12.  Signa Apostolatus meifacta sunt supervos, in omni prudentia, in signis, & prodigijs & virtutibus. To what end did our Blessed Saviour assign miracles, to confirm the preaching of his Apostles? Signa autem eos, qui crediderint, hae sequentur: In nomine meo daemonia eijcient etc. 
(c) Mare. vlt. v. 17. . To what purpose did he send this message to S. john Baptist, Caecivident, claudi ambulant 
(d) Mat. II. ? To what end did he say 
(e) joan. 15.24.  si opera non fecissem in eyes, quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent?  
2. Many other texts might be alleged. These will satisfy every good Christian that believes the Scriptures. But I confess, neither these or any other places of Scripture can prove any thing with this man, who by affirming that true miracles may be wrought to delude men, doth deprive the Apostles of all authority which they could gain by working miracles, and consequently leaves men free from any obligation to believe that their writings were infallible. And then to what purpose doth he tell us in the same place, that the Bible hath been confirmed with those miracles, which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, since those very miracles might by the same ground, be delusions rather than confirmations? If true miracles may now be wrought in punishment of Christians for forging false miracles, as you pretend; what certainty can you give a man that our Saviour & his Apostles did not the like, 
Chap. 5.  in punishment of the jews and Gentiles for Idolatry, irreligiousness and other grievous sins, which are never wanting in the world, and may be punished in the manner you speak of, if once this assertion be admitted, that True miracles may be wrought to delude men?  
3. But though by this impiety you deprive Scripture of all authority, and cannot consequently be persuaded to any thing by Scripture: yet there remains one powerful authority to convince you even in this your tenet. It is yourself. For thus you speak to us upon another occasion: 
(f) Pag. 144. n. 31.  If you be so infallible, as the Apostles were, show it as the Apostles did. They went forth (saith S. Mark) and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. It is impossible that God should lie, & that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such doctrine, as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. Is it not clear by these words that since the Doctrine of the Roman Church hath been confirmed by true miracles (as you affirmed in your Motive, and for aught I can perceive, deny it not in your answer) she must be the true Church? For even against yourself, when you speak not in opposition to the Roman Church, you confess that the eternal Truth cannot confirm a falsehood with true miracles. Or if in opposition to our Church you will recall what you deliver in your Book, and be constant to that which you say in your Preface in answer to your Motive; I must still be enforced to affirm that you prepare a way to the overthrow of Christianity, by evacuating the efficacy of miracles wrought by Christ our Lord, his Apostles, and all holy men, in confirmation of Christian Religion.  
4. And to the end the Reader may not think I am too rigorous in pressing you upon this one passage, upon which you were thrust by a hard necessity of answering your own motives; I challenge you upon this other wherein you say: 
(g) Pag. 69. n. 47.  For my part I profess, that if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the fountain of goodness, as the miracles by which it was confirmed were great, I should want one main pillar of my Faith, and for want of it, I fear should be much staggered in it. Catholics are most certain that the doctrine of the Scripture is as good, as the miracles by which it was confirmed were great. But this certainty we do not ground upon our own Knowledge or judgement, framed by considering the Doctrines in themselves, as if we should be staggered if we could not find them to be such independently of miracles; but, because they are confirmed by miracles, or otherwise testified to be good, by them, to whom we must submit: whereas your way of belief leaves a man in a disposition to be perpetually altering opinions, accordingly as the same things may sometimes appear true, and other times false; which diversity of judgements you must according to this your doctrine follow, even against any point confirmed by miracles, if it chance to seem not true to your understanding, which is the part and proper disposition of a Socinian.   

The fifth Doctrine. 
Chap. 6.  By resolving Faith into Reason, he destroys the nature of Faith and belief 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 man's doctrine, Christian Faith must be resolved into the evidence of natural reason, not as preparing or inducing us to believe, but as the main ground, & strongest pillar of our Faith, and in a word, as the conclusion depends on the premises. And to this purpose he builds much upon this axiom: 
(h) Pag. 36. n. 8.  We cannot possibly be more certain of the conclusion, then of the weaker of the premises; as a river will not rise higher than the fountain from which it flows. Hence in the same place he deduceth that the certainty of Christian Faith can be but moral, and not absolutely infallible. With this principle is connexed another, unless you will call it the same more expressly declared and applied. And it is this: If upon reasons seeming to my understanding very good, I have made choice of a Guide or Rule for my direction in matters of Faith; when afterward I discover that this Guide or Rule leads me to believe one or more points, which in the best judgement that I can frame, I have stronger reasons to reject, than I had to accept my former Rule; I may and aught to forsake that Rule as false & erroneous: otherwise I should be convinced not to follow reason, but some settled resolution to hold fast whatsoever I had once apprehended. What follows from this vast principle, but that if holy Scripture (for example) propound things seeming more evidently contrary to reason, or my opinion, more plainly contradicting one another, than the inducements which first moved me to believe Scripture were strong & convincing; I must reject the Scripture, as an erroneous Rule, and adhere to my own Reason and discourse as my last and safest guide. This certainly doth follow. Especially if we remember another principle that the motives, for which we believe holy Scripture, are only probable, for so they must in all equity give place to reasons seeming demonstrative & convincing, as there will not want many such against the high mysteries of Christian Faith, if once we profess that our assent to them must be resolved into natural discourse. How fare dissonant this is from the received persuasion and tenet of all Christians, that their Faith is not resolved 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 Saviour, and diverse other verityes of Christian Faith, but because they seem manifestly repugnant to reason?  
2. It cannot be doubted but that any one to whom the salvation of his own soul is dear, will be wary in admitting doctrines delivered in a Book, if with Truth it may be affirmed, that the Author in point of belief is certainly no good Christian, as one who denies the Divinity of Christ our Lord, and the most Blessed Trinity, which are misteryes most proper to Christian Faith, and most hateful to jews and Turks. For what authority can he challenge with any judicious Christian, in matters concerning Faith, who confessedly errs in the prime articles of Christian Faith? as we fear even a sound man, if we think he come from the pest-house; and none will trust the Devil though transfigured into an Angel of light. For which cause spiritual men bid us examine, not only what motions we find in our soul, but also from what root they proceed.  
3. I will not take upon me to say what you are, or what you are not, but in matters concerning articles of faith we ought to speak plainly. You tell us 
(i) Praefat. n. 5.  that you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of our Saviour, and all other supernatural verityes revealed in Scripture. The question is not, whether you believe some kind of Trinity, nor whether our Saviour be God in some sense by participation, as David says, I have said, you are Gods (Psal. 81.6.) and in that sense that they are contained in Scripture: But the question is whether you believe those misteryes, as they are generally believed by Christians, and expressed even in the 39 Articles of the English Church: or whether you believe that in this sense they are revealed in Scripture. Be pleased then to declare yourself, whether you believe, that in the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, Power, and Eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as is taught in the first article. And then whether you believe the second Article, wherein is said: The Son which is the word of the Father, the very and eternal God of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance: So that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood were joined together in one Person never to be divided, whereof is one Christ very God, and very Man. Thirdly, whether you firmly believe the contents of the fifth Article: The holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the son, is of one substance, Majesty, and Glory with the Father and the son, very eternal God. If these demands seem harsh, blame yourself who were forewarned, even before that which they call the Direction was published, when it was in your power to have freed yourself from this trouble, and secured others from the scandal which your Book may give. Neither are these questions from the matter, but consequent to principles delivered in your Book.  
4. And let no man wonder, that I desire plain dealing. For I have seen a Socinian Catechism in print, which at first grants that Christ is God, but then to the question, whether he have the divine 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 Faith is resolved into Reason, and that the Manicheans maintained a most strict brotherhood with the Priscillianists, who taught that it is lawful to dissemble a man's Faith even by oath: For their saying was, jura, periura, secretum prodere noli. And Arius, who denied the Divinity of our Saviour Christ, made no bones to forswear himself by a profession of Faith, contrary to his internal belief. And whether any one who is esteemed a Socinian do not hold it lawful to deny, or speak ambiguously against what he believes, that so in a very perverse sense he may with the Apostle, become all to all, it is likely you know better than another can tell you.  
5. Howsoever, every one doth now expect, that both for these and other manifest errors mentioned in that little Book of Direction, you openly declare yourself: it being not sufficient to say, as you do, in a general confused manner, 
(k) Pref. n. 28.  Whosoever teaches, or holds them, let him be Anathema. For this universality or collection of errors, in a confused sort, leaves an evasion to make good your speech, if you reject but any one of those errors, through withal you embrace the rest. And therefore to acquit your credit, and to take away scandal, it were your part to renounce each one in particular. For if in any occasion, certainly in this, silence ought to be interpreted a confession of the said errors. S. Hierome is of this mind, when he says, 
(l) Ep. 75. adu. Vigilantium.  Nolo in suspicion Haereseos quemquam esse patientem, ne apud eos, qui ignorant innocentiam eius, dis●imulatio conscientia iudicetur, si taceat. It you be not guilty, I do you a singular favour, in giving you this fair and sit occasion, to wipe of that public stain which report hath cast on you, and whereof you have not only given too great occasion by your own words in frequent Conferences, but now by your writings, which being published after the Direction, demonstrates how deeply Socinian errors are rooted both in your judgement & affection, which could not be abated, either by private advice, or public admonition.  
6. But to return from this necessary digression; This your resolving Faith into natural Reason gives occasion for others at least, if yourself be guiltless, to deny the Divinity of our Saviour Christ, and consequently to deny that he redeemed mankind by his Death; which if he be not true God, had been (O blasphemy!) not a price for our Redemption, but a punishment rather of his either usurping the name of the true Son of God, or at least for giving men cause to believe he did so. These I grant are harsh inferences, and yet you cannot avoid them, so long as you limit Christian Faith to probabilities, and resolve solve these into natural discourse, as the conclusion into the premises. And give me leave to say, you do but dissemble to circumvent an unwary Reader, when you say, 
(m) Pref. n. 12.  that you submit all other reasons to this one. God hath sai so: Therefore it is true. For you conceal the main point, which is, that you cannot know, that God hath said so, except by motives of credibility, which can produce only a probable assent; and this must yield to the contrary, if it seem evident by convincing arguments, as Socinians conceive their reasons against the Blessed Trinity, and the Deity of our Saviour Christ, to be. The like I say of other high misteryes of Christian Faith; and still must conclude, that under colour of uphoulding your cause you overthrow Christianity.   

The sixth Doctrine. 
Chap. 7.  Destructive of the Theological Virtues of Christian Hope, and Charity.  
CHAP. VII.  
1. THe grounds which he hath laid for the overthrow of Christian Faith, do by consequence overthrow also Christian Hope, and Charity, and bring them down to the rank of ordinary Moral virtues. But not content with this, he hath other passages, in which he strikes more near the root, and delivers doctrines which tend immediately to the destruction of them. It is, saith he, 
(n) Pag. 368.  against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sin, the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated. Reason and experience are his Guides, you see, in all the most supernatural businesses of our souls. Reason and experience, as it seems, do tell him, that even when he is committing a mortal sin, that is, infringing the commandment of God in a matter of weight and moment, and in effect saying, I will not serve him; he is not withstanding in Christian Charity with him, and his humble servant. Christian Charity, as all Christians are taught, is a supernatural infused Habit, whereby we do love and prefer God before all things, and are habitually inclined to it. When we do not prefer him before all things, but turn ourselves to Creatures by some overweeing affection to them, that act of commission or omission, if it be as I said Mortal, is not only to be considered as an Act, but as an Act killing the soul, and bereaving it of the life thereof, that is of Charity, whereby only we live in God: and consequently the Infused Habit of Charity ceaseth in us: howsoever we may find by experience some inclination still to love God, either by some repetition of former acts of our own, or raised by some consideration represented to us.  
2. This is the doctrine received amongst Christians, which I do not now undertake to dispute, and declare at large, but reserve it for a larger work; my intent in this being only to point out the heads from whence very ill consequences must needs follow, that people may take heed of them, and not be too greedy of such novelties, lest together with them they suck their everlasting bane. For to go no further, to what pass would this one doctrine bring a Commonwealth or Kingdom if it were received? Certainly to all licentiousness and liberty. For if deadly sin may consist with the Habit of Charity, much more with the Habit of Faith and Hope. And it being certain among Christians, that God will damn no man in whose soul he beholds the precious gems of these three Theological virtues Faith, Hope, and Charity; it will be concluded, that deadly sin unrepented cannot exclude a man from Heaven. An error most pernicious, and to be banished the thoughts of every Christian Man.  
3. For the virtue of Hope, if I understand him right, he sometimes destroys it by Presumption with overmuch largeness, and sometimes turns it to Desperation by denying sinners a possibility to be saved, even with the best repentance that they can have. In proof of too much largeness it will be sufficient to allege words, wherein he speaks thus to Catholics: 
(o) Pag. 32.  This pretence of yours, that Contrition will serve without actual Confession, but Attrition will not, is a nicety, or fancy, or rather, to give it the true name, a devise of your own to serve ends and purposes; God having no where declared himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that repentance which you are pleased to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition. For though he like best the bright-flaming Holocaust of Love, yet he rejects not the smoking flame of that repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from Hope and Fear. Hear he is very large, and against all good Divinity will needs have an Act proceeding from Hope or Fear, to be a sufficient and proportionable disposition to the noblest of the three Theological virtues Charity. Among Protestant Divines there want not some who are so fare from believing, that sorrow arising from Fear of Hell, is sufficient for remission of sins, that they hold it rather to be a sinful Act.  
4. But neither in this do I intent for the present to enter into long disputation, and therefore go forward to show that in other places of his Book, he is as strict. For he calls 
(p) Pag. 292.  it a doctrine of Licentiousness, that though a man live and dye without the practice of Christian virtues, and with the Habits of many damnable sins unmortified, yet, if he in the last moment of his life, have any sorrow for his sins, and join confession with it, certainly he shall be saved. I see not how this agrees with his former doctrine, that Attrition, and not only Contrition, is sufficient for remission of sins. It is his part to reconcile and vindicate from contradiction his own assertions. For me it is sufficient that every body may be apt enough to infer from hence, that by this means a poor sinner must despair, though he have even Contrition of his sins. For in those circumstances, he hath no time for the practice of Christian virtues, nor for the mortifying the habits of many damnable sins, if he mean the acquired physical habits of vice, produced by former vicious acts, as he must understand if he mean to say any thing. For if by Habits of vice he understand Habitual sins, or sins remaining not sufficiently retracted by sorrow, it is to beg the question, as if he should say such repentance is insufficient for pardon of our sins, because it takes not away our sins.  
5. But he does more clearly declare himself, and cast men upon desperation, by what he says of us in another place: 
(q) Pag: 392.  That although we pretend to be rigid defenders, and stout Champions for the necessity of Good works, yet indeed we do it, to make our own functions necessary, but obedience to God unnecessary: which will appear (saith he) to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men of effectual mortification of the Habits of all vices, and effectual conversion to newness of life, and universal obedience; and withal remembers, that an Act of Attrition, which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant, and therefore neither Attrition, nor Contrition, which signifieth the most perfect kind of repentance will serve at such an exigent. It is strange, Attrition alone should suffice for pardon of our sins, and that it should be insufficient when it is joined with absolution, which I hope you will not say, is ill, though you hold it not necessary. Or if you mean, that Attrition is sufficient only when there remains further time for mortification of vicious habits, this answer seems repugnant to your own words, where speaking of some kind of men, you say, 
(r) Pag. 32.  That notwithstanding their errors, they may dye with Contrition, or if not with Contrition, yet with Attrition, which, you say, God will accept. Which supposition of yours seems either to speak of dying men, or at least to comprehend them. And (pag. 133.) you teach that for those men that have means to find the Truth and will not use them, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins known and unknown, their Salvation is not desperate. Where you seem also to speak of men at the hour of their Death, when yet they have not time to mortify the habits of vice. And indeed it is repugnant to Reason, that by Attrition a man's sins should be forgiven, and yet this forgiveness depend on the future performance of mortification, which you say requires time Howsoever, for my purpose it is sufficient, that by denying possibility of forgiveness to a repentant sinner, at the last instant of his life, you uncharitably cast men on desperation, and destroy the Hope, yea and Faith of Christians, which assures us, that forgiveness is never denied to any that reputes.  
6. But there remains yet a more daungerours' error, that one may be saved with a general repentance for his sins, even while he actually continues in them. This, unless I mistake, is employed in the words which I cited even now 
(s) Pag. 133.  that for those who have means to find the truth and will not use them, if they die with a general repentance for all their sins known and unknown, their salvation is not desperate. Where you suppose, that a man remains in a culpable error, & yet that a general repentance may obtain pardon without actual dereliction of it. For if he forsake his error, he is out of your case, which speaks of men that have means to find the Truth, and will not use them. A very easy pillow if it could be sowed under any understanding ear. For if such a general repentance would suffice at the hour of death, it would also be sufficient at other times, and consequently one might have pardon of his sins whilst he is actually committing them. Or if this be not the meaning of that passage, it will notwithstanding be true, that either sorrow is sufficient to obtain pardon for sins, when there remains no time to mortify the habits of vice, which is against your Tenet; or else that a sinner cannot obtain pardon at the hour of his Death, even with repentance.   

The seaventh Doctrine. 
Chap. 8.  Takes away the grounds of rational discourse.  
CHAP. VIII.  
1. IT may seem strange, that a man should resolve Christian Faith into natural Reason, and yet fall upon a way which destroys all discourse of Reason. But to these exigents human Understanding is brought, when it forsakes the ground of Christianity. He teacheth, and endeavoureth to prove 
(t) Pag. 215. & 217. n. 47.  by no fewer than seven reasons, that it is possible to assent to contradictions at the self same time. If a man will speak in this to the purpose, he must understand of formal and direct contradictions; for example, Christ is the Saviour of the world: Christ is not the Saviour of the world. Whereof to have put thee in mind, good Reader, shall suffice at this present, according to the brevity which in this discourse I have proposed to myself, not doubting but thou wilt upon this reflection and thine own examination find that all his seven arguments, are very weak, and so fare from proving his Assertion, that all of them, not one excepted, show directly the contrary of that which he intended, notwithstanding that as it seems of purpose he took this subject in task to show some strain of wit, and to purchase some opinion of knowledge in Metaphysicke.  
2. How it hath thrived in his hand, time may show in some other treatise. Where also perhaps some other subtiltyes or quirks will be sifted: to wit, first, Whether Faith be properly Knowledge or Apprehension 
(v) Pag. 325. n. 2. , for he mightily mistakes in Philosophy. Secondly, Whether obscure and evident be affections not of our assent, but of the object of it 
(w) Pag. 328. ; which were a strange kind of Philosophy, as if we should say, God in himself is obscure and evident, because some understand him with an obscure, and others with a clear or evident assent. Thirdly, his discourse (pag. 69. n. 48.) about the eye, object, and act of Seeing, with the proportion which he would make between them, and the object and act of Faith, which must fall upon an heresy condemned in the Pelagians, besides some mistakes in Philosophy. Fourthly, another subtlety about the essence of Habits, and formal motive, to any Act etc. whereof he speaks pag. 138. n. 24. and does after his manner mistake. Then also it shallbe showed with how little reason he despises 
(x) Pag. 195. n. 11.  the distinction of being obliged not to disbelieve, and of not being obliged explicitly to believe; and with as little declaimes bitterly (pag. 391. n. 8.) against the doctrine that some things are necessary because they are commanded, and others commanded because they are necessary. And finally, the Reader must not be deprived at that time of the recreation he will receive by a special subtlety indeed, about a saying in Charity maintained, That the Creed was an abridgement 
(y) Pag. 227. n. 65. . Many more of the like nature will be then brought to the touchstone, and laid as flat, as now perhaps to some partial men they may have seemed lofty and learned. My purpose here is only to give the Reader warning, 
Chap. 9  that there be in the current of his discourse such shelves, as by crossing the general received principles among Christians, destroy Faith, and reciprocally by the overthrow of Faith, come at length to overwhelm Reason itself.   

The eight Doctrine. Opens a way to deny the B. Trinity, and other high misteryes of Christian Faith.  
CHAP. IX.  
1. I Cannot omit notwithstanding here to show, that one of the Reasons which he brings to prove, that one may at the self same time, yield assent to contradictories, must be ranked amongst the rest of his Doctrines, which do clearly tend to the over throw of Christianity. It is the third reason wherein he argues thus: 
(z) Pag. 215.  They which do captivated their understandings to the belief of those things, which to their understandings seem irreconciliable contradictions, may as well believe real contradictions (for the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant, but from their seeming to be so.) But you (he speaks to us Catholics) do captivated your understandings to the belief of those things, which seem to your understandings irreconciliable contradictions. Therefore it is as possible, & easy for you to believe those that indeed are so. Change but a word, and instead of Catholics, put Christians, and the Conclusion will be: Therefore it is as possible, and easy for Christians to believe contradictions that indeed are so, as to believe those which to their understanding seem so. And seeing it is the common conceit of men, that one cannot at the same time believe contradictions; and he himself acknowledges in the same place, 
(a) Pag. 217. n. 47.  that men should not do so, and that to do so, is both unreasonable and very difficult; what will follow but that to believe the highest mysteries of Christian Faith, is, if not impossible, at least very difficult, and unreasonable, and a thing that men should not do.  
2. Now that Christians believe mysteries which to human reason seem to imply contradiction, he himself will not deny. For though all the mysteries of Christian Faith be in themselves most sacred & true, yet to the weak eye of human reason some of them seem to be against the Goodness of God: as that, Many are called, and few elected, it being in his power to have elected, and prevented with congruous & efficacious Grace, as well those many, as these few. And our understanding is apt to be the more staggered with the depth of this mystery, by considering that Christ our Lord died for the salvation of all; and that every thought, word, or work of his was superabundantly sufficient for the Redemption of infinite millions of worlds. Other points of Christian Faith appear contrary to God's infinite Mercy, and justice. Such is our belief, that for every deadly sin committed in a moment, and perhaps in a matter seeming but a trifle, as the eating of an apple, he should inflict an eternity of torments, if it be not repent. Or, that Infants can be justly deprived of Beatitude in punishment of Original sin, to which they never concurred by any Act properly theirs. And it might have been to good purpose, if this man had declared himself directly in these two points, seeing he was not without good ground directed to do so.  
3. But I go on with the difficulty of Christian verities. For as the former may seem harsh and rigorous, so others may seem, as it were, silly, & unreasonable if Faith be resolved, as this man will have it, into human Reason. Others bear a show of repugnance to the most received Principles of Philosophy, and Metaphysicke, as the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity. Others in appearance derogate from the supreme respect we own to God, as the mystery of the Incarnation and Death of the son of God. Where I cannot but observe, that this man speaks so irreligiously sometimes, that it may give just occasion for men to inquire what he believes concerning the Divinity of our Saviour Christ, as when he saith; 
(b) Pref. n. 8.  that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may bring a great many others, as well, as himself to Auerroes his resolution: Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis: seeing Christians adore what they eat, my soul be with the Philosophers. Is this matter of eating our Saviour such a pill to your understanding, that rather than digest it you will turn Turk or Infidel? If you believed indeed that our Saviour Christ is truly God, you would not be scandalised that Christians adore Him, who would and could be eaten, no more than Him who stood in need of eating, and whom the jews were able to wound and murder, and might have eaten (even in a Capharnaiticall savage manner, fare different from the manner we receive him in the B. Sacrament) if it had been his will to permit it. Perhaps for these reasons, having subjected Faith to Reason, you wish with Auerroes, a professed enemy of Christians, My soul be with the Philosophers.  
4. He gives another suspicion of it in the passage following. For having alleged diverse seeming contradictions in our Doctrine concerning the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, he concludes, 
(c) Pag. 216. 217.  that if I (that is the Author of Charity Maintained) cannot compose the repugnance, and that after an intelligible manner, than I must give him leave to believe, that either we do not believe Transubstantiation, or else that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugated their understandings to the belief of contradictions; which yet, as I said before, he judgeth either impossible, or at least unreasonable 
(d) Ibid. . And who I pray, can undertake against a cavilling wit, to answer all arguments objected against the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and other sublime verityes of Christian Faith, and compose all seeming repugnances after an intelligible manner? Divines are not ignorant, what inexplicable difficulties offer themselves, even concerning the Deity itself, 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 seem that you are of opinion that we must; to which persuasion if you add another Doctrine of yours, That there is no Christian Church assisted with Infallibility fit to teach any man, even such articles as are fundamental, or necessary to salvation, but that every one may, and must follow the Dictates of his own reason, be he otherwise never so unlearned: what will follow, but a miserable freedom, or rather necessity for men to reject the highest, and most divine mysteries of Christian Faith, unless you can either compose all repugnances after a manner, even intelligible to every ignorant and simple person (which I hope you will confess to be impossible) or else say, it is reasonable for men to believe contradictions at the same time, which by your confession were very unreasonable.  
5. And here I appeal to your own Conscience, whether in true Philosophy, the objections which may be made against the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the Incarnation of the son of God, be not incomparably more difficult, than any which can be brought against Transubstantiation. 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 objections against that mystery, then against this. And if we regard Revelation, Scripture is more clear for the real presence, and Transubstantiation, then for the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of natural reason, are well content under the name of Transubstantiation, to undermine the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith. For which cause I have some reason, as I touched before, 
(d) Chap. 6. n. 6.  not to be satisfied, that this man for all his brags of believing Scripture, doth make that account of it which Christians do, and aught to do, but deludes the Reader with specious words: as for example, when speaking of the holy Scripture he says: 
(e) Pag. 376.  Propose me any thing out of this Book and require whether I believe it or not, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and hart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this: God hath said so: Therefore it is true. These are glorious words, but contrary to his own principles. For resolving Faith into Reason, he cannot believe that which to his reason seems contradictory, but must think that the Motives for which he receives Scripture being but probable, and subject to falsehood, must of necessity yield to arguments more than probable, and demonstrative to human reason. And how then can he subscribe to mysteries incomprehensible to human reason, and capable of objections which cannot always be answered, after a manner intelligible, as he requires? And consequently he must, to use his own words, give me leave to believe, that either he doth not believe those misteryes, or else, that he subiugates his understanding to the belief of seeming contradictions; which he acknowledges to be unreasonable, and a thing which men should not do, according to his own 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 than this; God hath said so: Therefore it is true: since he teaches, that he knows 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: Whatsoever God speaks or reveals, is most certainly true: But I am not certain, that God speaks in the Scripture: Therefore I am certain that whatsoever is in Scripture is true. Behold his demonstration, that is, a very false Syllogism, according to his own discourse in another place where he not only grants, but endeavours to prove that the minor of this Demonstration exceeds not probability, and consequently cannot infer a conclusion more them probable. Somewhat like to this is an other cunning speech of his: 
(h) Pag. 225. n. 5.  That he heartily believes the Articles of our Faith be in themselves Truths, as certain and infallible, as the very common principles of Geometry, or Metaphysicke. Which being understood of the Objects, or Truths of Christian Faith in themselves, is no privilege at all. For every Truth is in itself as certain as the Principles of Geometry, it being absolutely impossible that a Truth can be falsehood. But the point is, that he does not certainly know or believe these Truths, as he does the Principles of Metaphysicke, but only with a probable assent, and so to him the Truths cannot be certain. The like art also he uses pag. 357. saying in these words: I do believe the Gospel of Christ, as verily as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing; for all this flourish signifies only, that he is certain he believes the Gospel of Christ with probable assent. As for the argument, it deserves no answer. For who knows not that contradictories involve two propositions? but he who captivates his understanding, assents to one part only, 
Chap. 10.  and therefore is sure enough not to believe contradictories at the same time, as he pretends. All which considered, the Reader will easily see, that his Doctrines undermine the chiefest mysteries of Christian Faith, and overthrow Christianity.   

The ninth Doctrine. Lays grounds to be constant in no Religion.  
CHAP. X.  
I. I Said in the beginning, that as we could not know the way, unless we first be told whither we go; so it could little avail us to be put in a way, if by following it we might be misled. But suppose the end of our journey be known, and the right way found, what better shall we be, if withal we be continually harkening to some suggestions, which never let us rest, till we have abandoned that path, by following other cross-ways, as we chance to fall upon them. This is the case of the man with whom we have to deal. I will not build upon his deeds, I mean his changes first from Protestant, to Catholic, then from Catholic to Protestant, & then about again to Catholic, till at last he be come to that pass, that it is hard to say, What he is, neither Precisian, nor Subscriber to the 39 Articles, nor confessed Socinian, nor right Christian according to the grounds which he hath laid. If you will believe himself, for matters of Religion, he is constant in nothing, but in following that way to heaven which for the present seems to him the most probable. He follows that which at the present seems most probable: A poor comfort in matters of Faith, wherein error is of so great consequence. And yet this cold comfort is upon the point of being lost; for the probability is limited to the present.  
2. Would any man think that in matters of this nature, and after so much profession that he is now satisfied, he should 
(i) Pref. n. 2.  profess himself, still to have a Travellers indifferency, most willing to be led by reason to any way, or from it? And accordingly to tell us, 
(k) Pref. n. 1.  That had there been represented to his understanding such Reasons for our Doctrine, as would have made our Religion more credible than the contrary, certainly he should have despised the shame of one more alteration, & with both arms, and all his hart most readily have embraced it. Such was the preparation which he brought to the reading of that Book, coming with such a mind to the reading of it, as S. Austin before he was a settled Catholic, brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee. Did S. Austin after he was a settled Catholic come with the like disposition to conference with any Heretic or misbeliever? To what purpose then doth this man bring S. Austin here, but to show the difference betwixt the Faith of one that is a Catholic, and of one that is not; the difference I say in point of adhesion to his Faith, the Catholic believing so assuredly that he may say with the Apostle, If we, or an Angel from heaven evangelise 
(l) Gal. 1. ●.  to you besides that which we have evangelized to you, be he Anathema. Others not being able ever to be certain of what they believe because they build upon grounds which by their own confession are not certain and infallible.  
3. In which respect also it may be justly wondered with what sense this man taking upon him to be a guide to others, and to lead them a sofe way to heaven, professeth himself not to be settled in his way, and still to have not only a 
(m) Prof. n. 2.  Travellers, but an Ignorant Travellers Indifferency, willing to be led to any way, or from it, because he knows not whether he be right or wrong; otherwise if he know himself to be right, certainly it were not his part to be so willing to be led to any way, or from it: which gives me hope, that no man of judgement, and timorous conscience, will adventure the eternal salvation of his soul, upon the writings or Doctrine of one, who is so unsettled, & whom he either knows not where to find, or how long to keep in any one opinion or profession; to whom the words of S. Bernard 
(n) Ep. 193.  concerning Petrus Abailardus (who taught that Faith was but opinion) may be applied: Homo sibi dissimilis est, totus ambiguus. He is a man who disagrees even from himself, wholly composed of doubtings. I leave out his middle words, intus Herodes, foris joannes.  
4. One thing certainly people would be very glad to know, that whereas he maintains, that his Alterations were the most satisfactory actions to himself 
(o) Pag. 303.  that ever he did, and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself: Men, I say, would be glad to know upon what new and great Motives, these most satisfactory actions, & greatest victories were over thrown again, and frequent changes grounded. For his first being Catholic, we have Motives in writing under his own hand, and now in print. But what new reasons moved him to forsake us, this would people willingly know. If he had no better reasons, then be the answers to his own Motives, I scarcely believe, that any judicious Protestant will allow the alteration to have been good, diverse of them being against Protestants themselves, and some repugnant to all Christianity, as may be well seen by the effects, which they have wrought in him, to wit, so much unsettledness in belief and Religion, that he knows not to this day, what he would be at. But we may well suppose that as he willingly leaves all men to their liberty, provided that they improve it not to a Tyranny over others; so he reserves the like liberty to himself, and is in fine resolved to believe whatsoever for the present doth seem most probable to him: and so living in perpetual Indifferency, be an example to others to be constant in no profession, which is as good as to be of no Religion.   

The tenth Doctrine. Provides for the impunity & preservation of whatsoever damnable error against Christian Faith.  
CHAP. XI.  
1. HE is no less provident to conserve then industrious to beget  errors & Atheisms. Suppose an Orthodox Believer fall first into damnable Heresies, then to Turkism or judaisme, afterward to Paganism, and finally to Atheism. Let him freely speak his mind to the learned, and unlearned, to high and low, to the Laity and Clergy, to all sorts of persons: Let him have swarms of followers, let Circumcision be reduced, the Saturday observed for Sunday with jews, or Friday with the Turks, and in confirmation of these sacrileges, let Books be written. What remedy? Must these things be tolerated in a Christian Common wealth, or Kingdom? with resentment of a Christian Prince? in despite of Christian Prelates? under the eyes of Christian Divines? in the midst of Christian people? They must be suffered, if we believe this man's doctrine, 
(p) Pag. 297.  that no man ought to be punished for his opinions in Religion. We are willing (saith he) to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyramny over others 
(q) Pag. 179. n. 81. , a good means to preserve every one in his liberty without fear of punishment. And the contrary persuasion and practice, what is it? It well becomes them who have their portions in this life, who serve no higher state than that of England, or Spain, or France, who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes, and tranquillity in this world, who think of no other means to preserve States, but human power & Machiavillian Policy. How dangerous to Church, & even to State this pernicious error is, and what encouragement it gives for unquiet persons to oppose Authority, and how deeply it taxes England & other Protestant Churches of Machiavillian Policy, and to be men who have their portions in this life, who serve no higher State than that of England, or Spain, or France, who think of no other Happiness, but the preservation of their own fortunes in this world, for having punished Heretics even with death, I leave to be considered by higher Powers.  
2. 
Chap. 11.  I grant he would seem to mitigate his doctrine, and confine it within certain limits, but such, that his exception is worse than his general Rule, unless I mistake his meaning, & therefore present his words as they lie to the Readers judgement. There is, saith he, no danger to any State from any man's opinion, unless it be such an opinion, by which disobedience to Authority, or impiety is taught, or licenced; which sort I confess may justly be punished, as well as other faults: or unless this sanguinary doctrine be joined with it, That its lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it. Thus he. As for his first limitation, it either destroys all that he said before, or else it is but a verbal gloss for his own security. For if he grant that every Heresy is impiety, and brings with it disobedience to Authority (as certainly it does, if it be professed against the laws of the Kingdom, or Decrees and Commands of the Church, State, & Prelates where the contrary is maintained:) If, I say, his meaning be this, than his former general Doctrine vanisheth into nothing; & it will still remain true, that men may be punished for their opinions & heresies. But if his meaning be, that no opinion is to be punished, except such as implies disobedience to Authority, or licenseth Impiety in things which belong merely to Temporal affairs, and concern only the civil comportment of one man to another, as theft, murder, and the like; then he still leaves a freedom for men to believe, and profess what they please for matters of Religion. And so, if they judge a thing to be unlawful, which their Superiors affirm to be indifferent, yet they may hold their opinion, and disobey their Prelates, and may be able to tell them from this man's doctrine, that to enforce any man in points of this kind, is unlawful Machiavillian Policy.  
3. His second limitation seems to go further, telling us, that a man's opinion may be punished, if this sanguinary doctrine be joined with it, That it is lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it. Fron whence, for aught I can perceive, it clearly follows, that if any Church prescribe some form of Belief, and punish others for believing and professing the contrary, the Prelates or others of that Church, who concur to enforce by punishment such contrary believers, may themselves be justly punished. As if for example, an Arian be punished with Death in any Kingdom, the Prelates, or other Persons of authority in that State, may according to his doctrine be lawfully punished, as holding it lawful to enforce men against their conscience, which he calls a sanguinary Doctrine. How dangerous a position this might prove, if Arians, or Socinians, or any other sect, or unquiet spirit could prevail in any Kingdom or Commonwealth where Heretics are punished, it is not fit for me to exaggerate; being sufficient for my intention, to have made it clear, that the enemy of mankind could never have invented a more effectual means then this freedom of opinion, and encouragement by impunity, for the enlarging of his infernal Kingdom by Heresy, Paganism, Atheism, and in a word, by destroying whatsoever belongs to Christianity.  
4. As for punishing Heretics with Excommunication, in words he grants it may be done; but I have reason to suspect what his meaning is indeed, & whether he speak 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 temporal punishment for embracing that which his Conscience persuades him to be Truth, how can he be lawfully punished by Excommunication, for doing that which to his understanding he is obliged to do? For not acknowledging any authority of Church, or Prelates endued with infallibility, he is still left to his own reason. Besides one effect of excommunication is to exclude the Person so censured, from the civil conversation with others; other temporal punishments in all Courts being also consequent to it. Seeing then he denies that men are to be punished for their opinions by Temporal punishments, he cannot with coherence affirm, that they may lawfully be excommunicated: This certainly being a greater enforcement than death itself, to such as understand the spiritual benefits, and advantages, of which men are deprived by that Censure.   

The Conclusion.  
1. By that which hath been said in these few precedent Chapters it evidently appears; first, how fitting it was for the good of our Country in these present circumstances, that people should have learned by some such Treatise as the Direction, to beware of impious Doctrines, such as were foreseen that this man would vent under colour of defending the Protestant cause, and answering Charity maintained. And that although nothing could be intended more disgraceful to Protestant Religion, then to see a Champion, & a way chosen to defend it, which openly destroys all Religion; yet Compassion could not but work in a wel-wishing soul, and move it to desire, and to endeavour 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 up the foundation thereof, to lay instead of them, the grounds of Atheism.  
2. Secondly though this hath not taken the full effect which could have been wished, & that notwithstanding the warning given, he hath interlaced his whole book with such stuff as here you have seen; yet this we have gotten further, that it is discovered clearly to the world, how deeply Socinianisme is rooted in this man, (and, as it is to be feared, in many others with whom he must needs have had much conference since his undertaking the work) in regard that no timely advice or Direction, no force of reason, no fear of shame or punishment, no former impressions of Christianity could withdraw him from steeping his thoughts and pen in such un-christian ink; nor the many Corrections endeavoured by the Approovers of his Book, blot out his errors, though in respect of the alterations which have been by report made in it by them, it is quite another thing from the first platform which he drew, and put into their hands; and consequently how just reason the Director had to suspect, that his true intention, was not to defend Protestantisme, but covertly to vent Socinianisme.  
3. Now, thirdly, whether it be not high time that people should now at the least open their eyes upon this second warning, and take that order which may be convenient to prevent the spreading of so pernicious a Sect, I must leave to the consideration of every one whom it may concern. I do only for the present wish from my hart, that the maintaining of that Blessed Title, and State of Christianity, of which our Country hath been for so many ages possessed, may be the effect both of this man's wavering and wandering travels, 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 Son of God  
In the margin pag. 11. over against S. Bernard eited line 3. put. Bernard. Epist. 87.