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
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
with many others imagined that as Osorius writeth that some in the Indies by often smelling to Brasell had Scorpions bred in their braines so the Appealer by frequent reading of Arminius his bookes and smelling to his exotecall positions had hatcht this Serpents brood in his braine But because hee denieth it in verbo Sacerdotis I rest satisfied that he neuer read Arminius but for ought he saith to the contrary he may haue heard all Arminius read ouer to him Admit he neuer read or heard of Arminius this will be no good plea if his doctrine be the doctrine of Arminius Legat that was burned in Smithfield for an Arrian might protest truly that he neuer read word in Arrius his bookes as indeed he could not because Arrius his bookes with himselfe were many hundred yeares ago eradicated will the Appealer from thence conclude that Legat was no Arrian How many thousand Nestorians are there in the Greeke Church at this day who yet neuer read word in Nestorius his writings not now extant I take it any where I dare say Arminius himselfe neuer read word in any of Pelagius his workes or the workes of the Semipelagians or Massilians yet he cannot free himselfe from the brand of Pelagianisme neither doth much desire to be acquitted from the note of Semipelagianisme Wee reade in the Ciuill Law Malitia supplet aetatem Malice oftentimes supplies the defect of age In like manner it is most certaine that where there is a propension in any mans minde to any old heresie the malice of the Deuill easily supplyeth the want of reading Zabarel hauing coyned as he thought a new distinction vnheard of before was as proud of it as euer Pelius was of his new sword saying Ego hanc solutionem primus inueni yet afterwards he ingeniously confesseth that perusing Gandauensis his writings vpon the same argument there he found the selfe-same distinction and it much reioyced his heart that so acute a Philosopher as Gandauensis should hit vpon the same conceit with him Might it not be so with the Appealer might he not first proiect the new plot of Predestination in his owne head and yet afterwards light vpon the same in Arminius or some of his schollers and exceedingly applaud either their conceit in himselfe or his in theirs For mine owne part I will not vndertake to proue that the Appealer was euer an apprentice to Iames Harmin but by setting vp both of their loomes I will make it appeare that they are both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same trade or craft Thou seest Christian Reader that his purgation of himselfe needeth a defence but his direct defence of the Arminians much more needeth a purgation No doubt the Appealer read often in the Heathen Orator that it taints a man deepely once to open his lips in the defence of such a man whom he suspecteth to be an enemie to the State Quaedam contagio est sceleris si eum defendas quem patriae obstrictum esse suspiceris How much more doth it blurre a mans reputation to frame an apologie for him whom King Iames of blessed memory vpon iust and religious considerations proclaimeth to be an enemie of God Either the Appealers charity or his cōscience must needs be very large wherein such an offender finds a Sanctuary against whom all the Churches of Germany made complaint to our then dread Soueraigne Nemo omnes neminem omnes fefellerunt Neuer one man deceiued all men neuer all men deceiued one man yet the Appealer is not only content some way to blanch Arminius and his schollers errours whereof diuers by the Arminian way as a conuenient bridge haue fairely walked ouer to Popery but he to the infinite wrong of the Primitiue Saints and Martyrs compareth these Comets to those Stars and would make these as innocent vnguilty of the late troubles in the Nether-lands as they were altogether free from the aspersions which the Gentiles odiously and impiously cast vpon them scil Appeale pag. 41. were these late of-spring of the Semipelagians so harmelesse and free altogether from sowing seed of dissention in the Church as the ancient Christians were from mouing sedition in the State Why did then the wise and Christian States generall in the Low-countries by the aduice of our then Salomon call a nationall Synod and so long continue it at their great charge to suppresse these not venimous vipers tearing the bowels of her mother in the Appealers esteeme but silly and harmelesse wormes Why did our gracious Soueraigne King Charles by his Embassador the Duke of Buckingham his Grace deale effectually with the States to root vp the weed of Arminian Liberty so far spreading among them Yea but saith he did no crafty Interloper put in his stocke among these brawling Bankers Did no wiser man work vpon exasperated minds What of that No question as it was there so it will be here Dum pastores odia exercent lupus intrat ouile While the shepherds are at strife the Wolfe entreth the sheep-fold Doth this proue the brawling Bankers to be innocent Or disproue the speech of our Sauiour Woe be to him by whom offences come But it should seeme there is such a neare tye betweene the Appealer and the Arminians that they are entred into a league defensiue and offensiue for as he holdeth his buckler ouer them so he mainly foiles at their opposites He slighteth vilifieth and falsly traduceth the Synod of Dort for what reason but because they touch the apple of his eye the Arminian theologie He stirs the Articles concluded at Lambhith he carpeth at the most reuerend Metropolitans reuerend Bishops and renowned Doctors the floure of both Vniuersities who subscribed them and published them Neither can hee yeeld any reason hereof but because those eminent and euery way accomplisht Diuines at Lambhith crushed the addle egge now smelling in the Appealers writings when it was new laid in Cambridge before Baro could hatch it If these proofes be not pregnant that the Appealer is deepely engaged in the Arminian pact I intreat the Reader to trust his owne eyes in comparing the ensuing doctrines and arguments set one against the other by way of Parallel where he shall finde that as in the water face answereth face so in the humor of renuing Pelagianisme the Appealer doth Arminius If Arminius or Bertius be the Voice the Appealer is the Eccho if the Appealer be the Voice Arminius or Bertius is the Eccho Behold them both in the ensuing tablet like those two of whom the Poet speaketh Alter in alterius iactantes lumina vultus One looking as it were babies in anothers eyes The Second Parallel Of absolute Predestination ARMINIANS ARMINIVS in his a Declarat to the States of Holland West-Frisland from pag. 22. to pag. 42. endeauoureth to proue by twenty arguments that God hath not decreed absolutely and precisely to saue certain singular men by his grace or mercy Bertius
contingencie in future euents in respect of their second causes which worke contingently though whatsoeuer commeth to passe falleth within the certaine presience of God and is ordered by his prouidence 4. The Stoicks taught that men were impelled to sin by a fatall motion and that mans will was forced by Destiny We detest and abhorre any such assertion See more hereof in Melancthon his Common places Gratianus Ciuilis in Semipelagianismo Lipsius lib. 1. de Constantia cap. 18. sequent g T is true as we reade in the seuenteenth Article that for curious and carnall persons lacking the Spirit of Christ to haue continually before their eyes the sentence of Gods Predestination is a most dangerous downefall whereby the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or into retchlesnesse of most vncleane liuing no lesse perillous than desperation The sweetest meat in a corrupt stomacke turnes to choller but the fault is in the stomacke not in the meat in like manner the word of God and in particular this doctrine of the Word is in it selfe a sauour of life vnto life but to some proues no better than a sauour of death vnto death because as Saint Peter 2. 3. 16. telleth vs They peruert the doctrine of holy Scriptures to their destruction For the doctrine it selfe of Predestination it openeth no gate to a dissolute life but shutteth and barreth all such vnlawfull posternes Shall we continue in sinne because grace aboundeth God forbid Rom. 6. 1. On the contrary it openeth a faire gate and directeth a certaine readie way to holinesse of life For God hath predestinated vs that we might be conformable to the Image of his Sonne Rom 8. 29. And God hath chosen vs before the foundation of the world that we might be holy and blamelesse before him in loue Ephes. 1. 4. h In this obiection from Desperation the Arminians and Appealer as likewise in the former furbush vp the old Pelagians harnesse which Saint Augustine hath beat in peeces in his booke of the gift of Perseuerance chap. 17. I will not amplifie with mine owne words but I leaue it rather to them seriously to consider what a strange thing it is that they should perswade themselves the doctrine of Predestination doth bring to the hearers rather matter of desperation than exhortation or consolation for this is in effect to say that then a man is to despaire of his saluation when he is taught to repose his hope and confidence not in himselfe but in God whereas the Prophet crieth out Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man Some indeed make a desperate vse of this doctrine but the doctrine it selfe is no desperate doctrine or doctrine of desperation but of heauenly consolation as we reade in the seuenteenth Article which ought for euer to stop the mouth of the Appealer from slandering as he doth the truth of God The godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feele in themselues the working of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing vp their minde to high and heauenly things as well because it doth greatly establish and confirme their faith of eternall saluation to be enioyed through Christ as because it doth feruently kindle their loue towards God On the contrary the doctrine of the Arminians and the Appealer which maketh Gods Election to depend vpon the will of man which as they say may totally and finally fall away from grace is in truth a most desperate doctrine taking away all solid and firme ground of comfort both in life and death as shall appeare hereafter Of Election vpon fore-seene faith ARMINIVS ARMIN. Oration to the States pag. 49. * The Decree whereby God hath decreed to saue certaine and singular persons doth depend vpon his prescience by which he fore-knew from eternitie who according to the dispensation of sufficient meanes for their conuersion and faith would by preuenting grace i beleeue and subsequent perseuere And he is so hot in this point and proceedeth so far Argument 19. as to affirme That the opinion of precise Election without respect of foreseene faith in the elect ouerthroweth the foundation of all Religion Hag. Conference set out by Bert. pag. 62. The absolute decree whereby it is said that God in chusing men did not respect any mans good qualities fore-seene cannot stand with the nature of God nor with Scriptures The like is affirmed by Arnoldus against Tilenus And Greuinchouius against Amese and the Arminians generally who thus take that question in the Conference at Hage pag. 123. Faith in Gods decree of election doth in order goe before not follow election it is not a fruit of election but an antecedent conditon to it APPEALER APPEALE pag. 58. The irrespectiue decree of God to call saue and glorifie Saint Peter without any consideration had of or regard vnto his i faith obedience and repentance c. I say there and I say truly is the priuate fancie of some particular man Pa. 64. There must needs be first a k disproportion before there can be conceiued an election or dereliction This disproportion he afterward declares to be in the different wils of men wherof some took hold of merey others would not His words are When all alike being plunged c. God out of his mercy stretched out to them deliuerance in a Mediator the Man Iesus Christ and drew them out that tooke hold of mercy leauing them there that would none of him Which is all one as if he had said he decreed to saue them from the common destruction which he fore-saw would beleeue and reiect those whom he fore-saw would not beleeue for by faith they take hold of mercy and through incredulitie reiect it nay in this point the Appealer speaketh not so warily as the Arminians for they require faith in a person to be elected and iustified as an antecedent condition they doe not say as a cause or motiue in God to elect iustifie and saue But the Appealer Answer to the Gag pag. 143. and Appeale pag. 194. saith that God was drawne by our faith to iustifie vs. * Decretum quo decreuit Deus singulares certas quasdam personas saluare praescientiâ nititur quâ ab aeterno sciuit quinam iuxta administrationem mediorum ad conuersionem fidem idoneorum ex praeueniente gratia credituri erant subsequente perseueraturi i When the Arminians and the Appealer make Election to depend vpon fore-seene faith either they meane that this faith is a meere gift of God receiued only by mans free-will or not so but in part or in whole a worke of mans will If they hold faith to be a meere gift of God their opinion of election vpon fore-seene faith implieth a contradiction for it maketh the former grace and gift of Predestination to glory to depend vpon a latter gift of faith Beside if
learned Bishop of Sarisbury in the words of Tertullian himselfe Salomon in lapsu gratiam fidei remisit actum intermisit habitum non amisit motumque fuit in co spiritualis vitae robur non amotum concussum non excussum There was in Salomons fall a remission or abatement of the grace of faith an intermission of the act not an amission of the habit the strength and vigour of his spirituall life was moued in him not remoued shaken but not shaken out or quite lost Tertullian speakes of Peter but it may be applied as well to Dauid and Salomon who are not said here to haue lost grace totally and finally but to haue fallen into grieuous sinnes the one into adultery the other into idolatry And notwithstanding Dauids fall that hee retained the Spirit of Grace in him it is manifest out of that prayer of his in the 51. Psalme Renoua spiritum rectum intra me Renew a right Spirit within me vers 10. Spiritum sanctum ne recipias à me Take not thy holy Spirit from me vers 11. Establish me with thy free Spirit vers 12. These prayers of that holy Prophet shew that Dauid in his grieuous fall lost the comfort of Gods Spirit vers 12. and the free and quickning motions thereof and therefore he humbly desires a renouation and confirmation of the Spirit but not a new donation thereof That which he prayes to God not to take from him certainly he had in some degree when he so prayed Take not thy Spirit from me As for Salomons recouery after his fall we haue the testimonies of Gregory of Neocaesarea Cyril of Ierusalem Hilary Ierome Ambrose Aquinas Bonauenture Hugo Cardinalis Petrus Comestor Paulus Burgensis Carthusian Soto Genebrard Serarius Delrius Lorinus and many other cited to our hands by Caleb Dalichampius student in Scedan in his booke intituled Vinditiae Salomonis Lastly this place of Tertullian de praescript cap. 3. If it had beene entirely cited by the Appealer would haue vtterly ouerthrown that for which it is cited If those words nemo autem Christianus alledged by the Appealer nisi qui ad finem perseuerauerit That no man is a Christian but he that perseueres to the end wound not the Appealers Tenet yet the words following in the end of this very Chapter cut the very throat thereof Miramur de Ecclesijs eius si à quibusdam deseruntur quum ea nos ostendunt Christianos quae patimur ad exemplumipsius Christi ex nobis inquit prodierunt sed non fuerunt ex nobis si fuissent ex nobis permansissent vtique nobiscum Maruell we if some forsake the Churches of Christ whereas those those things which we suffer after the example of Christ doe manifest vs to be Christians They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would no doubt haue continued with vs saith Saint Iohn 1 Epist. 2. 19. In this allegation as many other in his booke the Appealer resembles the Cappuchin Friers who when they haue gathered great store of meat at rich mens doores I know not out of what blinde superstition they eat the worst and leaue the best and daintiest meat and vain-gloriously put it into the Almes-box and giue it to beggers at the doore l To the place of Saint Cyprian Epist. 7. we answer First that Saint Cyprian in that Epistle exhorts Rogatianus and other Confessors to perseuere in the profession of their holy faith therefore this place is brought obtorto collo for Apostasie His words are immediatly before the words alledged by the Appealer and Bertius Danda opera est vt post haec initia ad incrementa quoque veniatur consummetur in vobis quod iam foelicibus rudimentis esse coepistis You must vse diligence that after these beginnings you may proceed and that may be perfected in you which is happily begun Secondly we answer Cyprian saith that Saul and Salomon lost the grace which was giuen them but expresseth not what grace he meant whether gratiam gratis datam or gratiam gratum facientem whether the grace of illumination only or of sanctification whether the spirit of Prophecie or of Gouernment or of Regeneration Thirdly whether he meaneth grace of wisdome or grace of holinesse ordinary or extraordinary gifts of the Spirit hee saith not that the Spirit or grace departed from them totally or finally and therefore this shaft is not onely blunt in it selfe but also falls very short of the marke Lastly Saint Cyprian as he perseuered himselfe a constant Martyr to the end so is he a great patron of the perseuerance of Saints In his booke against Nouatia◠of the Vnity of the Church he sets a marke vpon backsliders to distinguish them from good men and true beleeuers Nemo aestimet bonos de Ecclesiâ posse decedere Let no man imagine that good men can marke the word Posse depart from the true Church Triticum non rapit ventus nec arborem solidâ radice fundatam procella subuertit inanes paleae tempestate iactantur inualidae arbores turbinis incursione euertuntur The wind doth not blow away corne neither doth a storme ouerturne a tree deepely and strongly rooted it is emptie chaffe that the wind scattereth and they are weake and rotten trees that are ouerthrowne in a storme In this sweet straine Saint Cyprian playeth on his Master Tertullians Key Auolent quantum volent paleae leuis fidei quocunque afflatu tentationum eo purior mass a frumenti in horrea domini reponetur Let the Chaffe that is men of light beleefe be blowne or flie away with euery puffe of temptation by this meanes Gods floore is purged and cleansed I maruell none of this Chaffe flew in Bertius eyes to make him misse his way to Paris who destitute of better arguments for Apostasie became himselfe an example of Apostafie but the best is before his departure he was knowne to be no Saint He went away from vs because he was not of vs for if he had beene of vs he would without doubt haue remained with vs according to the words of Saint Iohn 1 Epist. 2. alledged by Tertullian and Saint Cyprian in both passages m To the place alledged out of Nazianzen we answer That it is like Didoes sword wherewith shee pierced her owne bowels Non hos quaesitum munus in vsus If Bertius who only tasted Nazianzens waters in a muddy streame or the Appealer who hath drunke deepely of them in the pure fountaine had searched diligently thorow all the writings of that profound Diuine for a testimony against themselues they could hardly meet with a more pregnant Because Saul saith this holy Father became not purely and sincerely another man nor gaue himselfe wholly and entirely to be directed by the Spirit he came to a fearefull end Hypocrites therefore and such as are not sincerely conuerted and truly regenerate may fall away not they who wholly and entirely yeeld themselues
vtterly forsaken the catholike faith Therefore the present church of Rome is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ. The first proposition is most euident the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England part 5. ch 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch 22. Diuis 2. This Apology of the Church of England as it beareth the name so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth it was commanded to bee had in all Churches and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in euery Parish Church in this Kingdome in the yeare of our Lord 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames who gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes for the most rare and admirable that haue beene written in this last age of the world and also gaue speciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop Bancroft to appoint some one to write his the said Bishops life in English and prefixe it to his workes which accordingly is done in the last edition Secondly I proue it thus Whatsoeuer Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The first proposition cannot bee denied the assumption is the Appealers Appeale pag. 149. In Apostasie the Turke and Pope are both interessed both are departed away whether wee take that apostacie to bee a departing away from Christ and his Kingdome and his Doctrine or whether wee vnderstand apostacie and defection from the Romane Empire c. page 150. Thirdly I proue it thus No Church maintaining practising Idolatry can be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The present Church of Rome maintaineth and practiseth idolatry Therefore the present Church of Rome cannot be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The first proposition is the Apostles 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England Artic. 35. The Homilies and by name the Homily the second against perill of idolatry containeth godly and wholesome doctrine If godly and wholesome Doctrine then certainely true Fourthly it is a dangerous error to affirme as the Appealer doth Answer to Gagge page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa Christs Church and Spouse That God hath his Church euen in Rome we doe not deny but that the present Romane Church specially since the Councell of Trent holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conuenticle or that the Papacy that is the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents are Christs Church and Spouse the Appealer is the first Protestant that euer for ought I know affirmed it Iunius whom he alleadgeth Appeale pag. 113. to this purpose in his booke De Ecclesiâ is so farre from supporting his assertion that in the same booke hee quite ouerthroweth it his words are pag. 60. 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit cùm Papatus non esset accessit ei Papatus contingenter sic ab ea separabilis ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia sed in Ecclesiâ est adnatum malu◠pestis hydrops gangraena in corpore vitae atque saluti ejus insidians ideoque succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quà m infestissimè The Church of God was many ages when there was no Papacy at all as at this day also there are Churches where there is no Papacy and will be hereafter without the Papacy The Papacy therefore is not the Church but a disease or botch growne to or in the Church a plague a dropsy a gangreene in the body indangering the health feeding vpon and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth Appeale page 113. The Papall Church saith Franciscus Iunius neither Papist nor Arminian quâ id habet in se quod ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet est Ecclesia As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church is a Church Why doth the Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence why doth he not goe on to the full period the sentence is yet but lame he hath put out but the left legge I will put out the right legge for him wherewith Iunius giues Popery a kicke and trips vp the Appealers heeles Qud vero habet in se adnatum malum quod Papalitatem dicimus eo respectu Ecclesia non est sed vitiata atque corrupta Ecclesia ad interitum tendens But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or euill growne to it which we call the Papacy in that respect it is not the Church but a vitiate and corrupt church and tending to ruine Note here Reader in the Appealers defence of Popery a tricke of Popery to cite sentences by halfes alleadging onely that which in shew makes for them and concealing that which in truth makes against them The meaning of the whole sentence of Iunius is cleare enough for vs and against the Appealer to wit that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scriptures is a Church but as it is Popish and addeth many errors to those truths consequently subuerting those very truths it holdeth it is no Church Which I thus proue No Spouse or true church of Christ is in part or in whole that Antichrist or whore of Babylon The present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or Popish state thereof is in part as the Appealer confesseth Appeale pag. 149. or in whole as many Pillars of our Church haue taught that Antichrist or whore of Babylon Therefore the present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or popish state thereof is no Spouse nor true church of christ I haue heard that the Appealer in a late conference wherein this passage on which I haue so long insisted was obiected against him should stand at this ward answering for himselfe that these words praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum firma semper constitit c. manet enim Christi Ecclesia Sponsa Answ. to Gag page 50. were not his owne words but the words of Cassander This his ward will not keepe off the blow For first
Eugenius the Church of Rome was not so visible as the Appealer would haue it Thirdly if the Appealer vnderstand by the Church of Rome as his friends and informers and all Protestants generally vnderstand it and as hee must if he say any thing to the purpose a Church in Rome and the Popes territories or elsewhere holding the present Romane faith which is set downe in the Councell of Trent both the major and minor are notoriously false For neither was there any church in the world holding that faith visible for many hundred yeeres after Christ neither is the Church holding that erroneous faith a true Church Howsoeuer it may please God in that Church as hee did in the Churches of the Arrians in Saint Hilary his time to call many by the Word Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth quorum aures puriores erant quà m doctorum ora whose eares were purer then the teachers mouthes who strained the milke they receiued from their mother and casting away that which was impure dranke downe onely the sincere milke of the word I suppose the Appealer will not affirm the Arrian Churches to bee true Churches yet God had his wheat euen in their floore all couered with chaffe and I doubt not but hee euer had and still hath many thousands euen in the Romane Church it selfe who neuer bowed the knee to that Baäl. Our question is not of them but of their Gouernours and Teachers and the outward face of their Church maintaining and practising idolatry and inforcing as farre as they can the accursed Canons of the Councell of Trent whether in this sense the Church of Rome be a true Church It is saith the Appealer a true Church ratione essentiae in regard of essence but not in regard of soundnesse of doctrine This answer explicateth not the question but implieth a contradiction to say a true Church in respect of the essence and not in respect of soundnesse of Doctrine is to say the church of Rome is a true church in respect of the essence but not in respect of the essence for soundnesse of Doctrine is of the essence of the true church By it the true Church is defined Article the 19. The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure word of God is Preached and the Sacraments bee duely ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same If the Appealer by truth meaneth metaphysicall truth which is of as large extent as being or entity the more hee graspeth the lesse hee holdeth for in this account all Churches are true Churches and the Church of Rome is no more indebted to the Appealer for his Euloge then all the hereticall and schismaticall Churches in Christendome they are Churches therefore in this sense true Churches for Ens et verum conuertuntur In this acception a thiefe is a true man because it is true that he is a man and the Deuill a true Angell because it is true that he is an Angell and the Appealer a true writer because it is true that he is a writer of whom it may be said as it was of Seuerus Omnia fuit et nihil profuit he turneth euery way and yet cannot passe he angleth in all waters and yet catcheth nothing hee hath spent all his oyle in making salues for the foule sores of the Whore of Babylon and yet hath left Her worse then he found Her The filing vp of the Writ THe errors of the Appealer both in point of Arminianisme and Popery and of a different nature from both being laid open in simplicity and sincerity I first appeale from the Appealer to himselfe as that Plaintiffe sometime did from Philip to Philip. I appeale from the Appealer as set on by others to the Appealer as left to himselfe from his rash to his aduised from his former to his latter thoughts which are vsually the wiser 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secundae cogitationes secundiores And if he retract his errours I will let fall the suit if he persist in his erroneous opinions I referre him together with this discouery of his errors to the Examination and Censure of the most learned religious and iudicious House of Conuocation now sitting to whom vnder his Maiesty the cognizance of Doctrinall differences properly belong Faustus Regiensis intending to refute S. Austine vnder another name that he might auoid all suspition of Pelagianisme intitles the first Chapters of his Book against Pelagius and vnder this vaile of opposing S. Austins professed enemie from the third chapter of his booke to the end couertly carps at and refels S. Austins learned Booke of the Predestination of Saints Let moderate men and no franticke Puritans iudge whether the Appealer as in his matter so in his manner of writing follow not Faustus the Demipelagian his patterne whether pretending an answer to a Gagger of the Protestants he intend and indeauour not to Gagge the most learned and zealous Protestants and drawing out his stile more poinenant then a Stilletto in colour and shew against the Romish enemie hee cunningly giue not therwith a secret wound to his owne Mother the Church of England and the true professors of the Gospell therein As for the Fratres Descripti the right and left hand of the Appealer whose Trade hath beene for these many yeares past to informe against the zealous and learned Defenders of the true religion established here in England vnder the name of Puritans quia volunt decipi decipiantur But for those graue and venerable Diuines who are reported to haue subscribed to the Appealers Bookes I thinke the Relator was mistaken in the word hee meant proscribed them and all other ancient worthies of our Church who yet applaud and approue these late Polemickes of the Appealer I humbly intreat them in the words of the Orator Videant Patres Conscripti ne circumscripti videantur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Galat. 4. 16. Tacit. Maledicta si irascaris agnita videntur spreta exolescunt Cyprian epist. Antequam Pelagiana haeresis appareret and recolant aduersus haeresin Pelagianam Concil Carth. sub Aurelio Nefarius ab omnibus anathematizandus error Concil Mileuit Perniciosissimi erroris auctores perhibentur Caelestius Pelagius August p. 94. ad HilariuÌ„ Omnes qui spem habemus in Christo huic pestiferae impietati resistere debemus Prosper in Crom. Per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana damnata est August ep 47. Pelagiana haeresis venena August lib. 1. de peâ—c orig Doctrina illa pestifera Ad Bonis l. 2. c. 5. Nâ—num execrabilâ— dogma Pelagianum vel Caelestianum Et post Exitiosissima prauitas Appeal to Caesar pag. 21. In comment in poster Analyt Cic. pro Sylla Declar. aduers. Vorstium King Iames ibidem Plin. Panegyr Balchanquall Concio ad cleruÌ„ Appeale ibid. Matth. 18. 7. Pag. 70. Pag. 108. Appeal pag. 71. 72. *