he alleadgeth this sentence in approbation thereof and commendation of the Author moderate men saith he ibid. on both sides confesse this controuersy may cease hee should haue said luke-warme men on both sides Secondly he resteth on this passage as being a full answer to the Popish obiection concerning the visibility of the Church Thirdly in other places of his booke Appeale page 113. and 139. and 140. he affirmeth in his owne words as much in effect as he here coteth linguâ Romanâ out of Cassander but fide Graecâ His words are page 113. I am absolutely perswaded and shall be till I see cause to the contrary that the church of Rome is a true though not a sound church of Christ as well since as before the Councell of Trent a part of the catholike though not the catholike church which wee doe professe to beleeue in our Creed In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree holding one faith in one Lord. And p. 139 Rome is and euer was a true church since it was a church And page 140. the church of Rome is a true church ratione essentiae and being of a church not a sound church euery way in their Doctrine Vt Marci Antonij de Dominis discipulum possis agnoscere I know well the mint where these new tenents were coined the Appealer shewes himselfe a tractable and respectiue Prebend to his late Deane following him pene ad aras neere to the Romish Altars That his Deane after his relapse into Popery in the last booke containing his poenitendam poenitentiam et retractandam retractationem his repentance to be repented of and retractation to bee retracted renouncing the true religion which he had defended laboureth to cleare the present church of Rome from the imputation of heresie because as he saith the wiser and learneder Ministers of the church of England teach that the church of Rome doth not erre in any fundamentall articles of faith In defectu credendi haeresis est non in excessu haereticus est censendus qui in fide deficit aliquid quod scriptum est non credendo non is qui in fide superabundat plus quam scriptum est credendo Heresie consists in the defect not in the excesse of beleeuing and he is an Heretike who is deficient in his faith by not beleeuing something that is written not he that superabounds in his faith by beleeuing more then is written This errour as I am informed spreads farre like a Gangreane therefore most needfull it is it be lookt to in time It is true that the Church of Rome holdeth if not all yet most of the fundamentall and positiue articles with vs. It is true also that most of their errours are by way of addition Yet whosoeuer from hence will conclude that the Church of Rome is not hereticall or erreth not in any point necessary to saluation grossely mistaketh the matter as will appeare to any whose iudgement is not forestalled by the demonstration of these two conclusions 1 That Heresy or damnable Errour may be as well by adding to as taking from the Orthodoxe faith 2 That the Church of Rome erreth not onely in excesse or beleeuing more then is needfull but also in defect and beleeuing lesse The first is thus demonstrated Whatsoeuer errours are alike forbidden in Scripture vnder the same punishment are alike damnable Errors by adding to and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith are alike forbidden in Scripture vnder the same punishment Therefore errours by adding to and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith are alike damnable The first proposition is cleare by it owne light The assumption or second proposition is deliuered expresly in holy Scripture Deut. 42. Ye shall not adde vnto the words which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it Proverb 30. 5. 6. Euery word of God is pure adde thou not vnto his words lest he reproue thee Galat. 1. 18. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you beside that which wee haue preached vnto you let him be accursed Reuel 22. 18. For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the words of the Prophesie of this Booke If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the booke of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the Booke of Life and out of the holy City and from the things that are written in this Booke Secondly thus Whatsoeuer things alike destroy the nature of faith are alike damnable Errours by addition and detraction alike destroy the nature of Faith Therefore errors by addition and detraction are alike damnable The first proposition is vnquestionable The assumption I declare thus Faith is of the nature of a rule or certaine measure to which if any thing be added or taken away it ceaseth to be that rule Cùm credimus saith Tertullian nihil desideramus ultra credere prius enim hoc credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus Fides in regulâ posita est nihil ultra scire est omnia scire When we beleeue we desire to beleeue no more for wee first beleeue this that there is nothing more we ought to beleeue Faith is contained in a rule to know nothing beyond it is to know all things Virtue is in the meane vice as well in the excesse as in the defect In our body the superabundance of humours is as dangerous as lacke of them as many dye of Plethories as of Consumptions A hand or foot which hath more fingers or toes then ordinary is alike monstrous as that which wanteth the due number To vse their owne similitude A foundation may be as well ouethrowne by laying on it more then it will beare as by taking away that which is necessary to support the building Thirdly thus The errours in faith and religion of the Samaritans Malchamites Athenians Galatians Ebionites Nazarites Quartadecimans Manichees and Nestorians were damnable But all these seuerall errours were errours of addition Therefore errours of Addition are damnable The first proposition will not bee gainesaied For all these errours are branded as hereticall or damnable either by the Spirit of God in Scripture or by the catholike christian Church The Assumption will appeare in the suruay of those particular errors The Samaritans feared the Lord and serued their owne Gods The Malchamites worshipped and sware by the Lord and sware by Malcham The Athenians worshipped the true God by the name of THE VNKNOWNE GOD and withall worshipped Idols The Galatians Ebionites Nazarites and Quartadecimans beleeued the Gospell yet retained also and obserued the legall ceremonies But now after ye haue knowne God or rather are knowne of God how turne ye againe to the weake and beggerly elements whereunto ye desire againe to bee in bondage saith Saint Paul of the Galatians Ebionitae ceremonias adhuc legis retinent pauperes interpretantur et vere sensu
A Second PARALLEL Together with A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOVRNE M.DC.XXVI TO THE CATHOLIQVE Christian Reader Courteous Reader A Few daies since a friend of mine shewed me a Booke intituled a Parallel which I gladly receiued from him and perused it the more readily because I well hoped that some of the Parallel lines would sute to our Meridian But taking an exact view of them and applying them to our Horizon I found they were somewhat short of our Eleuation yet I discouered some thing drawne in those Parallels which I conceiued to be of some vse to wit the Lineal descent of Arminius by the half bloud at least frō Pelagius for if it be confessed that Arminius his pedegree is lineally to be deriued from Pelagius and that Pelagius is the great Apenninus from which the diuided streames of corrupt doctrine flow then vndoubtedly the assertions of Arminius were priùs damnatae quà m natae were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church before they were brought forth by Arminius And we haue the Prescription of the Christian world for more than 1200. yeares against the new encroachments of these Sectaries But me thinks I heare thee ring in mine care the peale of the Poet Ole quid ad te what is this to thee or me or to the matter now on foot It is not Arminius but an Appealer that troubles our Israel Aemilius fecit plectetur Rutilius Aemilius hath done wrong shall Rutilius beare the blame Because Arminius browseth vpon some branches of Pelagianisme a plant which our heauenly Father neuer planted and therefore in time must be rooted out is it reason the Appealer should be muzled or any mans teeth whet against him Verily the Appealer disclaimes all kinred or affinitie with Arminius nay he protesteth he knoweth not the man and if peraduenture some Longinus or skilfull Genealogist may be able to disproue him yet certainly the vulgar reader is not I haue therefore thought it worth the paines to take the line of Pelagius which is already brought downe to Arminius and from Arminius to draw it out euen to the Appealer to the end all that are not forestalled with preiudice may see that both the Appealer and Arminius hold their errors in capite from Pelagius And that at the first the Netherlands and other parts receiued the infection of pestilent doctrine from Britaine by Pelagius and now at last that Britaine hath receiued it from the Netherlands by Arminius Mater me genuit eadem mox gignitur ex me But before I open the leaues of my Tablet representing on the one side the Arminian and on the other the Appealers Demi-Pelagianisme I intreat the Reader emunctae naris to follow the sent of Arminianisme in the Appealers writings by these foure steps 1. His sleight and dilute purgation from the aspersion of Arminianisme 2. His direct and professed defence of the Arminians 3. His casting a blur vpon the Synod of Dort that blasted them 4. His disparaging the Articles of Lambhith which are è diametro opposite to the tenets of Baro then and since Arminius To begin with his Purgation Although in other Criminations it may be an argument of Innocencie not to be moued or any way sensible of them yet in the suspition of heresie no man as saith Saint Hierom ought to be silent Silence in such an accusation is a crying sin Et patientia digna omni impatientiâ and patience it selfe is vnsufferable Euery man is bound to professe his faith and consequently openly to discharge himselfe from all imputation especially of heresie which is so foule a crime that the water of penitent teares alone hath not bin thought enough to wash it away Scelus hoc exuritur igne it hath bin vsually burnt out with fire It leaueth such a spot in the conscience that S. Cyprian conceiueth The blood of Martyrdome cannot fetch it out Macula haec nec sanguine eluitur Now whether Pelagianisme be heresie I thinke it is a question without question vnlesse we will take vpon vs to censure the censures of the ancient Church and most eminent Doctors thereof S. Austin in his booke de bono Perseuerantiae is not content to call it perniciosissimus error c. 17. but c. 21. he calls it twise Pelagiana haeresis And that Arminianisme is Pelagianisme either in whole or in part I take the Parallel till I see it not slightly glanced at but substantially refuted to be an ocular demōstratiō But if this be yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a point not yet gained yet that Arminianisme wherewith the Appealer is charged not only by two Presbyters of his owne ranke but a reuerend Prelate his Diocesan is formally heresie Appello Caesarem I appeale to that Caesar whom he first appealed vnto King IAMES of blessed memorie who in his declaration against Vorstius hath these words concerning Arminius He was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresie And concerning Bertius he writeth thus Bertius a scholler of Arminius at this present remaining in your towne of Leyden hath not onely presumed to publish of late a blasphemous booke of the apostasie of Saints but hath besides bin so impudent as to send the other day a copie thereof as a goodly present to our Archbishop of Canterbury together with a Letter wherein he is not ashamed as also in his booke to lye so grosly as to auow that his heresies contained in the said booke are agreeable with the Religion and profession of the Church of England To cleare then himselfe from the foule spot of this heresie what course doth the Appealer take Doth he call God and his Angels to witnesse that he renounceth from his heart all Arminius his vnwarrantable and dangerous assertions Doth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fairely and openly make this or the like protestation Arminius teacheth none but respectiue Predestination I am for absolute Vniuersall grace and redemption is an Article of Arminius faith It is none of mine The cooperation of mans freewill with grace in the first conuersion and the power it hath to hinder and frustrate the worke of regenerating grace is current doctrine with Arminius But I take it for a leaden Leyden error Arminius maintaineth a totall and finall falling away from the grace of Iustification I detest and abhominate that assertion and will haue no Confarreation with the apostate defender of such Apostasie This had beene indeed to vnclaspe the right hands of fellowship with Arminius and if he had euer walkt in his path to shake the dust from his feet but in stead hereof the Appealer casts dust in the Readers eyes by making a deepe protestation idque in verbo Sacerdotis of not reading any word in Arminius I protest saith he before God and his Angels the time is yet to come that euer I read word in Arminius Before I read this Protestation I confesse that my selfe
of the Apostasie of Saints Edit Lugduni Anno 1615. pag. 12. Demand the first There is no absolute Election and b pag. 25. Absolute Predestination granted it was necessary to remoue the whole Scripture to settle that head or doctrine Arminius in the forecited Declaration pag. 33. Out of this doctrine to wit of absolute solute Predestination it c followeth that God is the Author of sinne And this may bee proued by a foure-fold Argument 1. Because this Doctrine layeth it downe that God precisely hath decrâ—ed to demonstrate his glory by punishing or punitiue iustice and mercy sauing some men and damning others which but by d Sinne entring into the world neither was nor could be done c. Arminius respons ad Artic. 10. It would be easie for mee to conuince the opinion of some of the brethren of Manichâ—isme and Stoicisme We protest to the whole world that by our aduersaries e Manicheisme and f Stoicisme or fatall necessitie is â—rought into the Church The Embleme of their booke of the Acts of the Synod of Dort hath this triumphant title Destructo fato or the 〈◊〉 of Fate Ex Act. Syn. Dordrac in Peror Bert. epist. Dedic before his booke of the Apostasie of the Saints There are who flie Pelagianisme not seeing that they plainly side with the Manichees Hee citeth these words as out of an Epistle of Casâ—ubon but forged by himselfe Hag Conference set out by Bert. pag. 90. This absolute Decree openeth a gate on this side to a g dissolute life on that side to h desperation APPEALER APPEALE to Caesar pag. 58. In all which passage to wit of the seuenteenth Article there rehearsed both concerning Gods decree and execution of that decree is not one word syllable or apex touching your absolute necessary determined irresistible irrespectiue decree of God to call saue and glorifie Saint Peter for instance infallibly without any consideration had of or regard to his faith obedience and repentance Appeale to Caesar pa. 54. Nothing is by mee ascribed to your side and to your Doctors but an absolute and irrespectiue decree concerning man in vtramque partem I brought no inferences to presse you withall such as are commonly and odiously made against you by opposites whose virulent inuectiues though too true imputations I vsed not I did not charge you with making God the Author of sinne That the reprobate are iâ—cited on and prouoked to sinne by God That God was the Author of Iudas treason and the like Appeale pag. 68. I neuer yet read of any prime preuious determining decree by which men were irrespectiuely denied grace and excluded from glory vnlesse from damned e Heretiques or f Stoâ—call Philosophers Appeale pag. 30. Against that absolute irrespectiue necessitating and fatall decree of your new Predestination Appeale pag. 60. I must confesse my dissent through and sincere from the faction of Noâ—â—lising Puritans c. but in no one point more than in this their h desperate doctrine of Predestination in which as they delight to trouble themselues and others in nothing more so I professe I doe loue to meddle nothing lesse I haue not I did not desire nor intend to declare my opinion in that point a Edit Lugduni Batau ex officina Tho. Basson 1512. b Positâ Praedestinatione illâ absolutâ necessarium fuit totam scripturam loco mouere vt illud caput adsereretur c It no way followeth See Caluines Preface of his booke of Diuine Predestin and first booke of Institut 17. Chap. Beza against Castellio Peter Martyr in his Comment on the 1. Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans Zuinglius in his Sermon of Prouidence Abbot Prelect of the Author of sinne Paraeus Answer to Bellaâ—mine second booke of the state of sinne and losse of grace chap. 4. and diuers others d God decreed the permission and disposing of sinne which he fore-saw vpon his permission would be hee did not decree the effecting or existence of it that it should be Saint Augustine fully answereth these and the like Arguments in his booke de Corrept Grat. cap. 10. We freely confesse that which we most rightly beleeue that the God and Lord of all things who made all things exceeding good and fore-saw that euill things would arise out of good and knew that it more appertained to his most omnipotent goodnesse to draw good out of euil than not to suffer euils to be hath so ordred the life of men and Angels that in it first he might shew the power of their owne free-will and then the benefit of his grace and iudgement of his iustice And in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium cap. 11. God being most exceeding good would not by any meanes suffer any euill to be in his workes but that he is also so omnipotent and good that he can and doth worke good euen out of euill e As Iulian the Pelagian often in his bookes vpbraided Saint Augustine with Manicheisme so doth Arminius and the Appealer following the Pelagians step by step lay the same imputation vpon the orthodox defenders of Predestination But the imputation is most false for the Manichees held two soules in a man one good another bad and ascribed good and euill not to the free-will of man but to those two soules We with the holy Fathers teach but one soule in man and referre good and euill to Free-will but so that the will of it selfe is free to euill but is not neither can sithence the fall of Adam be free vnto good till God hath freed it by his grace according to the words of our Sauiour in Saint Iohns Gospell Chap. 8. 36. But if the Sonne make you free you shall be free indeed And of Saint Paul Rom. 6. 18. Made free from sinne c. f A stale obiection long sithence answered by Saint Augustine in his second booke cap. 5. ad Bonifac. Wee maintaine not Fate or fatall necessity vnder the name of grace but if it please some men to call the omnipotent will of God vnder the name of Fate we seeke indeed to auoid prophane nouelty of word but wee will not contend about words To which answer of Saint Augustine we may further adde that the beleefe of Christians touching the falling out of all things according to the determinate counsell of God Act. 2. differeth from the Stoicke Fate or Fatality in foure things 1. The Stoicks subiected God himselfe to Fate Iupiter though he most desired could not free Sarpedon we subiect Fate that is the necessitie of things to Gods most free-will 2. They vnder the name of Fate vnderstood an eternall fluxe and necessary connexion of naturall causes and effects we teach that all natural and second causes had their beginning in the Creation neither is there such a necessary and absolute depeÌ„dance of effects from their naturall causes but that God can and often doth suspend those effects and miraculously worke beside aboue nay against nature 3. The Stoicks by their Fatality took away all contingencie wee admit