or may bee accounted or is that Antichrist or Antichrists my irresolution grew as I haue remembred from the much insufficiency of their proofs that tender it stoutly strongly affectionately and tantum non as a point of faith Not any one of their arguments is not all their arguments together are conuincing Appeale p. 149. I incline to the more moderate and temperate tenent and rather of the two embrace the Turkish Popish estate not seueral but conioyned doe constitute That Antichrist then either of the two states disioynedly and of the two states rather the Turk by much then the Pope Ibid. p. 144. Why should it not be as lawfull for mee to opine that the Pope is not that Antichrist as for others to write to preach to publish to tender to proceeders this proposition The Pope is Antichrist Ib. p. 154. The Turk is and hath bin long possessed of Ierusalem that holy City The Iewes when Mahomet first declared himselfe came flocking vnto him as to their Messias the sooner rather because hee was circumcised Discord Church of Engl. HOmily against wilfull rebellion 6. part p. 316. The Bishop of Rome vnderstanding the superstition of Englishmen and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonical Beast of Rome and to feare all his threatnings and causelesse cursings c. The Pope is implyed to be that Antichrist in the prayer of thankesgiuing for our deliuerance from the powder Treason Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian sect And in the morning prayer appointed for priuate houses Confound Satan Antichrist with all hirelings c. See K. Iames in his praemonitory preface his CoÌ„ment vpoÌ„ the Reuelation Iuel Def. of Apoâ— par 4. c. 9. diuis 3. B. Abbot and â— Downam de Antichristo B. Andrewes resp ad Car. Bel. Ap. à capite 9. ad 13. In this point touching Antichrist the Appealer agreeth with the Church of Rome and diâ—â—enteth from the learnedst Diuines in England and other reformed Churches both touching the maine conclusion The Pope is Antichrist and touching the seat doctrine and character of Antichrist which they apply to the Pope hee with the Papists to the Turke As for the Protestant arguments taken out of the Apocalyps to proue the Pope to be the Antichrist Bellarmine calls them deliramenta dotages and the Appealer to shew more zeale to the Popes cause straineth farther and termes them Apocalypticall frensies which proceeding from the mouth of a Protestant Antigagger and Appealer to King Iames Non sani esse hominis no sanus juret Orestes Of Limbus Patrum Church of Rome BEllar de Anim. Christi l. 4. c. 11. The soules of the godly were not in heaueÌ„ before Christs ascensioÌ„ Id. de SaÌ„ct beat lib. 1. c. 20. If they demand why prayers of the liuing were not reuealed to the Fathers in Limbo and are now reuealed to the Saints in heauen I answer that the Saints in Limbo did not take care of our affaires as the Saints doe in heauen neither were they then set ouer the Church as now they are Appealer GAgg pag. 278 Though they were not in heauen in regard of place yet were they in happinesse in regard of state Ib. 281. Let them not haue been in heauen before our Sauiour I deny it necessarie they were therefore in Hell that region I call Abrahams bosome which though it bee not Heauen yet is it higher then hell Church of England HOmily concerning Prayer pag. 122. The scripture doth acknowledge but two places after this life the one proper to the elect and blessed of God the other proper to the reprobate and damned soules Ibid. pag. 122. S. Augustine doth acknowledge onely two places after this life to wit heauen and hell In this point though the Appealer dissent from the Romanists in a circumstance on the bye about the situation of Limbus Patrum for they place it nearer the confines of hell the Appealer nearer heauen yet he agreeth with theÌ„ in these 2 main conclusions 1 That there is or at least was a place for soules after this life distinct from heauen and hell 2 That the soules of the Fathers before Christs ascension were not in heauen but in that third place Of Traditions Harmony Church of Rome COuc of Trent Ses. 4. decret 1. The holy Synod of Trent finding this truth and holy discipline to bee contained partly in Scriptures partly in vnwritten traditions which eyther were taken froÌ„ Christs mouth by the Apostles or were deliuered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the holy Ghost and haue passed as it were from hand to hand to vs and following the example of the Orthodoxe Fathers doth with the like religious affection reuerence receiue entertain all the bookes of the old and new Testament as also the traditions theÌ„selues pertaining to faith and manners Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 42. That most learned religious and most iudicious writer hee meaneth St. Basil de Spiritu sancto which Treatise Erasmus Bishop Bilson and other iudicious Diuines proue to be counterfeit saith no more then is iustifiable touching traditions For thus saith he The Doctrine of the Church is two wayes deliuered vnto vs First by writing then by tradition from hand to hand bothe are of alike force or value vnto piety Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 6. Holy scriptures containe all things necessary vnto saluation so that what soeuer is not read therein nor may be proued therby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of faith or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation Art 20. Although the Church bee a witnes a keeper of holy writ yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be beleeued for necessity of saluation Art 21. Things ordained by Generall Councels as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture In this point touching Traditions the Appealer consenteth with the Church of Rome and differeth from vs in two particulars 1 In that he admitteth of doctrinall Traditions belonging to faith and manners We acknowledge traditions concerning discipline and the rites and ceremonies of the Church but not concerning the doctrine or matter of faith and religion 2 In that he equalizeth vnwritten traditions to holy Scriptures such traditions as we receiue we hold and esteeme farre inferiour A WRIT OF ERROVR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER HOrtensius that spruce Oratour commenced an action against a Citizen of Rome for rushing hastily vpon him and thereby disordering and pressing down the pleats of his gowne Many such actions haue been heretofore entred and pursued against such as haue rudely or carelessely crushed a pleat in the Spouse gowne or ruffled a set in her ruffe I meane with their pen glanced though vnwittingly at a ceremonie of order or ornament of decency But now when not her rayment of
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
that I might be graft in through infidelity they were broken off and thou standest by faith be not high minded but y feare Bert. pag. 33. I frame the fourth demonstration from the feare of the Saints Iohn 15. 6. If a man abide not in me he is cast z forth as a branch and withereth and men gather them and cast them into the fire APPEALER ANswer to Gag pag. 160. Matth. 24. 12. Because iniquitie shall abound the charity of many shall grow cold Surely it was hot that groweth cold and charitie enlarged is not but the fruit of a liuing faith which if it continued in statu quo the charity of many could not x wax cold therefore once had may bee lost Againe Rom. 11. 20. 21. Thou standest by faith bee not high minded but y feare and feare is not but where change may be Here change may be or why doth it follow Take heed lest he also spare not thee Ibid. pag. 160. Ioh. 15.2 Euery branch that beareth not fruit in me he taketh z away x To the place of Matth. 24. 12. we answer First that the loue of many may wax cold yet will it not thereupon follow that the loue of the regenerate and true beleeuers waxeth cold for the regenerate and true beleeuers are not meant by those Many True charitie is a fruit of faith and such as the faith is such is the charitie If it be a temporary faith the charity proceeding from it is but temporary and being so may not only wax cold but also be vtterly extinguished The root being rotten the fruit falls of it selfe But if the root of faith be sound charitie will neuer decay but abound more and more till the childe of God be filled with the fruits of righteousnesse Philip. 1. 9 11. Secondly the consequence is not good from a remission of some degree of charitie to the amission of the habit of it The Apostles themselues as they were not so strong in their faith so neither so hot in their loue toward our Sauiour at his Passion as before Their faith was shaken in that fearfull storme of temptation their confidence was small or none in appearance in their owne sense for in saying we trusted it had beene hee that should haue redeemed Israel Luke 24. they imply that his death had loosned the Anker of their hope and that both their heart and faith failed them for the time their loue also waxed cold if not freezed when they fled from him and forsooke him Yet no learned Diuine euer affirmed that their loue to our Sauiour was quite lost for as he loued them so they loued him to the end Thirdly this argument may be retorted against the Aduersaries thus If Christ doth here put a difference betweene those that are truly faithfull and hypocrites in this that the one Hypocrites to wit should in the latter dayes and perillous times be offended deceiued wax cold in charity but the other the truly faithfull should continue to the end then this place maketh not for but against the totall or finall falling away of true beleeuers But Christ in this place puts a difference between those that are truly faithfull and hypocrites in this that the one Hypocrites to wit should in the latter daies and perillous times be offended deceiued and wax cold in charity vers 10 11 12. but the other the truly faithfull should continue to the end vers 13. Therefore this place maketh not for but against the total or finall falling away of true beleeuers y To the place alledged Rom. 11. 19 20. we answer First that it is not meant of particular beleeuers and their danger of falling away from iustifying faith but of the people of the Gentiles in generall and their danger of being cut off from the true Oliue into which they were ingrafted that is from the outward profession of faith and communion of the Catholique Church into which they were admitted vpon the reiection of the Iewes The Gentiles therefore ought not to be high-minded against the Iewes but feare lest God who spared not the naturall branches should not spare them but cut them off also as he did the naturall branches if they should grow proud and presumptuously secure Now there is no question but that a Visible Church which at this time professeth the truth and is a member of the Catholike Church may fall away from the outward and publike profession of faith and cease to be a part of the Catholike visible Church as the most famous sometimes flourishing Churches of Greece and Asia planted by the Apostles themselues now ouer-run with Mahometanisme Idolatry and Heresie proue by their lamentable Apostasie and deplorate if not desperate estate But Bertius and the Appealer should haue had their eyes vpon the marke and point in question which is not of the doctrine of faith but the habit of faith not de fide quam credimus but de fide qua credimus not of the publique profession of a Church but of a particular affiance of euery true beleeuer in Christ. A member of the visible Church may be cut off but no member of the inuisible for Christ cannot haue damnata membra any members who shall not be saued as the Approuer of the Appealers booke rightly gathereth out of Saint Augustine in his Reply to Fisher. A Church or Kingdome generally may depart from the Christian faith or renounce the pure profession thereof in publique and yet no true beleeuer either totally or finally lose his faith but either secretly in that State or Kingdome or else-where openly he may retaine both faith it selfe and the profession thereof Secondly Gods threatnings haue their vse both in the Elect and Reprobate to make the one vnexcusable or to keepe them within some bounds of moderation and to keepe the other in an awfull reuerence filiall feare and spirituall watchfulnesse which are meanes of Perseuerance no arguments of Apostasie Feare is not but where a change may be to wit feare of a change but there may be a feare of offending God through high-mindednesse and presumption as was in the Apostles and is in all the Elect yet no change of their estate of grace could or can be by the confession of Arminius himselfe and the learned'st of all our Aduersaries Thirdly as the faithful ought to feare so they also might and de facto would fall away not only totally but finally if they were left to themselues and therefore in regard of the frailtie of their nature and mutabilitie of their owne will they haue iust cause to feare and doe still feare in themselues yet are still confident in God who is faithfull and will establish them and keepe them from euill 2 Thess. 3. 3. and shall confirme them vnto the end that they may be blamelesse in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 1. 8. Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersarie thus That feare which God promiseth to put into the hearts
only in their liuing and manner of ceremonies But also in matters of faith Apolog. Church of Engl. c. 16. div 1. part 6. Wee haue gone from that Church which Christ who cannot err told so loÌ„g before it shold err Neither had we euer intended so to do except both the manifest assured wil of God opened to vs in his holy scripture regard of our owne saluation had euen coÌ„strained vs. Apol. Chur. of Engl. par 6 div 2. c. 20. We are fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse wee left him we could not come to Christ Apol. par 5. c. 15. d. 3. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the word of God sincerely taught nor sacraments rightly administred and wherein there was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath coÌ„sideration of his own safety In this head touching the Church of Rome the Appealer directly contradicts the Church of England in these particulars The Church of England 1 The church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation 2 Hath erred in matter of Faith 3 Hath not the nature of the true Church 4 Must be left on paine of damnation 5 Is departed from the Primitiue and Catholike Church Appealer 1 The church of Rome holds the same foundation 2 Hath not erred in matters belonging to faith 3 Hath the essence being of the true Church 4 Ought not to be left on paine of daÌ„nation 5 Is not departed but holds coÌ„muinion with the Primitiue and Catholike Church Of Generall Councels Harmony Church of Rome BEllarm de concil Eccles. 2 Booke 2 Chap. Wee are bound by the Catholike faith to beleeue That Generall Councels cannot erre in faith or manners The like is affirmed by Gregory de Valentia Analys fidei Cathol lib. 18. Hosius de legit judicibus reruÌ„ Ecclesiasticarum Andradius Defence of the Councell of Trent in his Chapt. Of the authoritie of Councels Canus in his common places of Diuinity 5 Booke and the Romanists generally Campian rat 4. Concilia Duraeus in confut respons Whitak de Conciliis Appealer ANsw. to Gag page 48. To coÌ„clude The Church cannot erre neither collectiuè nor representativè Thus your Masters distinguish the terms of this question that goe workmanlike not like you clutteringly to worke so they so wee in the largest extent not erre at all Secondly not erre in points of faith for in matters of fact they coÌ„fesse error Appeale p. 124. Many things appertain vnto God which are not of necessity vnto saluation both in practice and speculation in these haply Generall Councells haue erred in those other none can erre Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 21. Generall Councels when they be gathered together for as much as they are an Assembly of men whereof all bee not gouerned with the Spirit and word of GOD they may erre and sometime haue erred euen in things appertaining to God Wherefore things ordained of them as necessary to saluation haue neyther strength nor authoritie vnlesse they may bee declared that they bee taken out of holy Scripture In this point touching the not-erring or infalliâ—itie of Generall Councels the Appealer howsoeuer by distinguishing of points fundamentall and accessory endeuoureth to difference his opinion from the Church of Rome and reconcile it to the Article yet in truth he faileth in both For first the Church of Rome holdeth all doctrines de fide determined by the Church to be necessary to saluation and consequently in the Appealers sense fundamentall points In particular she defineth the decisions of the Councell of Trent in the controuerted points betweene vs to be part of the Catholike Faith without which no man can be saued Pius 4 in Bullâ super formâ juram pag. 441. If therefore the Appealer maintaine as hee doth That Generall Councells cannot erre in matters fundamentall and necessary to saluation he holdeth consequently that they cannot erre in matter de fide Secondly his doctrine cannot stand with the Article of our Church for the Article both supposeth and proueth that Generall Councels may erre euen in points necessary to saluation It supposeth it in those words things ordained of them as necessary to salvation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse c. For if Generall Councels could not erre in things necessary to saluation we might in such things safely rely vpon their authoritie without warrant of Scripture which the Article expressely denyeth If Generall Councels may iudge those things to be necessary to saluation which are not as the Article implyeth they may in like manner iudge those things not to bee necessary to saluation which are and so erre bothe wayes in the iudgement of points necessary and fundamentall And verily the reason annexed to the Article concludeth as strongly that Generall Councels may erre in fundamentals as in Accessory the reason is because Generall Councels are an Assembly of men whereof all are not gouerned by the Spirit and Word of God Now they who are not gouerned by the Spirit and Word of God haue and may erre euen in points fundamentall in asmuch as nothing can preserue a man from fundamentall error but the Spirit and Word of God whereby they are not gouerned as hath the Article Notwithstanding all this iarring and discord from the Article I find some harmony and concord in the close Appeale pag. 147. Detali Concilio saniore parte de coÌ„clusionibus in fide probabile est It is probable that in a Generall Councell lawfully called the sounder part cannot erre in conclusions of faith But this straine was not the Appealers but a learned Asaffs Of Iustification Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. c. 4. Iustification is a translation from the state in which a man is borne the sonne of the first Adam into the state of Grace and adoption of the sons of God by the second Adam Counc of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Iustification is not onely remission of sinnes But also sanctification and renouation of the inward man by the voluntary receiuing of grace and those gifts whereby a man of vniust is made iust Counc of Trent Sess. 6. canon 11. If any man say that A man is iustified onely by remission of sinnes excluding grace and charity which is shed into their hearts by the holy Spirit and is inherent in them let him bee accursed Appealer ANswer to the Gagg page 142. A sinner is then iustified when hee is made iust that is translated from state of Nature to state of Grace Answer to Gagg page 143. Iustification consisteth in forgiuenesse of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily Both the acts of Gods Spirit in man Answer to Gagg page 140. To iustifie hath a threefold extent First to make iust and righteous Secondly to make more iust and righteous Thirdly to declare and pronounce iust Page 142. Iustification properly is in the first acceptance A sinner is theÌ„ iustified when he is made iust that
Images may be lawfully set vp in Churches Appealer ANswer to the Gagg p. 318. The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may be made had in houses set vp in Churches respect and honour may bee giuen to them The Protestants doe it and vse them for helpes of Piety in rememoration and more effectuall representing of the prototype Page 319. Let practice doctrine goe together wee agree Page 318. You say they must not haue Latria sowce Appeale page 257. In your practice you giue them that honour which you call Latria and is a part of diuine worship so not we Let practice and doctrine goe together that is giue them no Latria formall nor interpretatiue we agree Answer to Gagg pag. 318. Images are not vnlawfull for ciuill vses nor vtterly in all maner of religious imployment Gag p. 300. Images haue three vses assigned by your Schooles Instructiō of the rude commonefaction of history and stirring vp of deuotion You and wee also giue vnto them Discord Church of Engl. ARt 22. The Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques is a fond thing vainly inuented and grounded vpon no warranty of Scripture But rather repugnant to the word of God Homily against the perill of Idolatry part 3. page 42. It is vnlawfull that it the image of Christ should be made or that the Image of any Saint should bee made especially to bee set vp in Temples to the great and vnauoidable danger of Idolatry Wee grant that Images vsed for no religion or superstition rather we meane Images of none worshipped nor in danger to be worshipped of any may bee suffered But Images placed publikely in Temples cannot possibly be without danger of Idolatry Ibid. p. 42. Beware lest thou make to thy selfe that is to say to any vse of Religion any grauen Image Ibid. page 43. Images are of more force to crooke an vnhappy soule thē to teach and instruct Ibid. pag. 42. Either Images bee no bookes or if they be they bee false and lying bookes the teachers of all errour In this point of Images the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in foure particulars 1 The Church of England condemneth in the Article the popish doctrine concerning the worshipping of Images The Appealer approueth the doctrine and condemneth the practice onely 2 The Church of England teacheth it to be vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches because it cannot be done without vnauoidable perill of Idolatry The Appealer alloweth the setting them vp in Churches 3 The Church of England forbiddeth all religious vse of Images allowing meere ciuill or historicall The Appealer alloweth Images for religious imployments 4 The Church of England denyeth any worship due to Images The Appealer granteth any worship saue Latria hee stickes not at Dulia if it trench not vpon Latria In all which points of Doctrine hee perfectly accordeth with Bellarmine and the Church of Rome onely hee disclaymeth their practice as also Polidor Virgil and many other ingenuous Papists doe Of the Crosse. Harmony Church of Rome BEll Book 2. of the Images of Saints c. 30. The signe of the Crosse workes miracles not out of a natural virtue that it hath as a figure But as a signe instituted of GOD. Note that there are three wonderfull effects of the crosse 1. it terrifieth putteth deuils to flight 2. It driueth away diseases and all euils 3. It sanctifieth those things vpon which it is imprinted The first effect it hath from three causes from the apprehension of the deuill the deuotion of man and institution of God For the Deuill when he seeth the Crosse presently remembreth that by the Crosse of Christ hee was conquerd spoild bound discōsited Hence it is that he flyes from the Crosse as a Dog doth from a stone or staffe with which he hath beene strucke Againe the Crosse hath a force from the worke of him that worketh with it or vseth it after the same manner as prayer hath For the signe of the Crosse is a kinde of the calling vpon the merits of Christ crucified expressed by the signe of the Crosse. Appealer ANsw. to Gagg page 321. Our church alloweth the signe of the crosse vseth it commandeth it I could tell you some experimented effects of it App. p. 280. What if I meant some experimēted effects of my own knowledge what then Can you controll or convince me What if vpon diuers extremities I haue found ease by vsing that ciaculatory prayer of our Let any By thy cross And what if to testifie my faith I made the signe of the cross Answ. to Gagge pag. 320. Wee vse signing with the signe of the Crosse both in the forehead and elsewhere witnesse that solemne form in our Baptisme for which we are so quarrelled by our factious The flesh is signed that the soule may bee fortified saith Tertullian and so doe wee Appeale p. 268. What hindereth but that I may signe my selfe with the signe of the Crosse in any part of my body at any time at night when I goe to bed in the morning when I rise c Discord Church of England BOok of Common Prayer Then the Priest shall make a Crosse vpon the Childes forehead Booke of Canons Chapter of the signe of the Crosse. The Infant baptised is by virtue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the Crosse receiued into the Congregation of Christs flocke and not by any power assign'd to the signe of the Crosse. The Church of England hath retained the signe of the Crosse being purged from all Popish Superstition and errour for the remembrance of the Cross accounting it a lawfull outward ceremony and honourable badge In this point touching the signe of the Crosse the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in two particulars 1 He falsely imposeth vpon the Church of England That in her forme of Baptisme shee vseth the signe of the Crosse vpon the forehead and elsewhere That else-where is not to be found in the forme of Baptisme or els-where in the constitution or practice of our Church 2 He ascribeth operatiue Power and experimented effects to the Crosse and seemes to father some such error vpon the Church of England saying That wee signe the flesh that the soule may be fortified so wee wheras the Church of England in the Canon will haue no power or efficacy to be ascribed to the signe of the Crosse but onely a kinde of significancy and honorable representation of Christs death vpon the Cross. And more then this I will not beleeue touching any efficacy of the signe of the Crosse till I finde by experience that the Appealers signing his lips with the signe of the Crosse makes him a faire-spoken and his signing himselfe on the brest with the signe of the Crosse makes him a Good man Of Invocation of Saints Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. The holy Synod commādeth all Bishops and others to whom the office
If any say that iustifying faith is nothing else but a confident relying on Gods mercy forgiuing our sinnes by Christ or that this confidence is the only faith whereby we are iustified let him be accursed Ib. c. 16 If any say or beleeue that hee shall certainly haue by absolute and infallible certainty the great gift of perseuerance to the end vnlesse he know and haue learned it by speciall reuelation let him be accursed Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 186. If we consider our own disposition wee assigne no more then probable and coniecturall assurance This Bellarmine assigneth this is enough Faction may transport a man to wrangle for more but when once they ioyne issues the difference will not bee much Much or little great or smal thus or so the Church of England is not touched that assigneth it neither Appeale page 213. I professe I am not of that opinion with you and whatsoeuer you may resolue for your crying Abba Father secundum praesentem justitiam I craue pardon I cannot thinke that you are may or can bee so perswaded secundum statum futurum Discord Church of Engl. HOmily of the passion p. 186. What meanes is that It is faith not an inconstant or wauering faith but a sure stedfast grounded and vnfained faith Pag. 187. The only meanes and instrument of saluation required of our parts is faith that is to say a sure trust and confidence in the merits of God whereby we perswade our selues that God both hath and will forgiue vs our sins and that hee hath accepted vs again into his fauour that he hath released vs from the bonds of damnation and receiued vs into the number of his elect people Et post Wee must take heed that wee doe not halt with GOD through an inconstant and wauering faith but that it be strong and stedfast to our liues end Wee must apprehend the merits of Christs death and passion by faith nothing doubting but that Christ by his owne oblâ—tion and once offering himselfe on the Crosse hath taken away our sinnes and restored vs againe into Gods fauour The point of Perseuerance hath such affinity with this point of assurance of saluation that what is wanting in this may be supplyed out of the former Parallel Al that I here obserue is that the Appealer fully accordeth with the Councell of Trent not only in the conclusion but in the very reason alleadged by the Councell for the ground thereof Of the Popes Primacy Harmony Church of Rome IN the forme of oath prescribed in the Bul of Pius 4 annext to the CouÌ„cell of Trent I acknowledge the holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches and I vow and sweare true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter the Prince of the Apostles Vicar of Iesus Christ. Bellarmin de Romano Pontif. lib. 4. c. 1. The Pope is supreame Iudge in coÌ„trouersies of faith and manners Appealer ANsw. to Gag p. 29. I could interpret S. Anselm well enough as that if a controuersie were referred by the Church or an heresie to bee corrected in the Church which touched the case of the Catholicke Church it could not be put ouer more â—itly to any one man by the Church representatiue in a Councell then vnto the Pope first Bishop of Christendome of greatest not absolute power among Bishops Discord Church of England HOm. for Whitsunday second part pag. 214. 215. First as touching that they will bee termed vniuersall Bishops Heads of all Christian Churches through the world wee haue the iudgement of Gregory expresly against them who writing to Mauritius the Emperour condemned Iohn Bishop of Constantinople in that behalf calling him the Prince of pride Lucifers successor and the forerunner of Antichrist S. Bernard agreeing thereunto saith What greater pride can there bee then that one man should preferre his owne iudgement before the whole congregation as if hee onely had the Spirit of God And Chrysostome pronounceth a terrible sentence against them affiriming plainly that whosoeuer seeketh to be chiefe on earth shall finde confusion in heauen and he that striueth for the supremacy shall not be reputed among the Seruants of Christ. Homily against wilfull rebellion 5 part pag. 308. 309. The Bishop of Rome being by the order of Gods word none other then the Bishop of that one See and Diocesse and neuer yet well able to gouerne the same did by intolerable ambition challenge not onely to be Head of all the Church dispersed through the world but also to be Lord ouer all Kingdomes of the world In this point touching the Popes Primacy though the Appealer comes not full home to the tenent of the Church of Rome yet he goeth too far pointeth at a most dangerous course of referring the iudgement of controuersies of faith that concerne the whole Church vnto the Pope Which course if with Master Mountagues good approbation we should take in the great controuersie touching the Head of the Church the Power of the See of Rome the causes of our Separation from that Church and all the controuerted points betweene vs conclamatum esset he that hath but halfe an eye might see what the issue would bee This resolution of M. Mountagu if he hold still it will bee expected that in the next edition of his booke he change the title now prefixed Appello Caesarem into Appello Papam The markes of the Beast were come out in the Pope before Anselmes time and since they are so apparent in him that other learned Diuines make the Pope whole Antichrist and the Appealer himselfe makes him halfe the Antichrist pag. 149. and an entire Apostata from Christ and his kingdome And was there no fitter Bishop in all Christendome to decide controuersies concerning the whole Church of Christ then he who is either halfe or whole Antichrist but of this point see more in the Writ of error Of Antichrist Harmony Church of Rome BEllarmine de Româ—no pontif lib. 3. c. 13. The seat of Antichrist shal be in Ierusalem not Rome for Enoch and Elias are to fight with Antichrist in Ierusalem Ibid. c. 12. Antichrist shall properly come for the Iewes and shall be receiued by them as the Messias he shall be circumcised and keepe the Sabbath for a time Ibid. cap. 18. The frensies of Hereticks are refelled by which they do not so much proue as impiously affirme that the Pope is Antichrist This conclusion is the scope of his whole third book and he and all Papists who haue written of this argument apply themselues wholly to proue that neither the Pope personally nor the Popes successiuely constitute that Antichrist described in the Apocalyps Appealer ANsw. to Gagg page 74. 75. I am not of opinion that the Bishop of Rome personally is that Antichrist nor yet that the Bishops of Rome successiuely are that Antichrist so spoken of App. p. 146. Whether the Pope of Rome or the Popes of Rome either are
needle worke wrought with diuerse colours that is much variety of rites and ceremonies or her attire is some way wronged or soyled but her body is wounded and that by her Watchmen and her vaile which distinguished her from the Whore of Babylon taken away yet few or none dare plead for her against an Appeale to her most tender and gratious nursing Father Nay which is more to be admired they who out of a loue to the Church as is pretended haue had a jealous eye ouer the Presse and haue procured other Pamphlets to be called in though put forth by lawfull authority haue yet beene most forward to put forth this booke which was stayed vpon just cause and had certainly miscarried and neuer seene the Sunne had not present helpe beene got by a strong manmid wife whether is it because that some are more sollicitous of the Temporall estate of the Church impeached by Puritanisme then of the Spirituall in danger of being vtterly ouerthrowne by Popery Or because they would haue Popery and Puritanisme more eauen ballanced then they are that their accesse to either might be of more moment or is it because as the Appealer hath taught vs that there are certaine in this Kingdome tantū nō in Episcopatu Puritani there are also some of the Clergie that are tantum non in vxoratu Papistae or as Aristotle said of Theodorus that the making of Epithites was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodorus his whole art so the opposition to Puritanisme is all the Religion they seeme to profess Right of Ithacius his stamp who mightily bending himselfe against the heresie of Priscillianists Heretiques of a strict and seeming-holy life the hatred of which euill was all the vertue he had became so wise in the end that euery man carefull of vertuous conuersation studious of Scripture and giuen to any abstinence in diet was set downe in his Kalender for a suspected Puritan I should say Priscillianist for whom the onely way to proue the soundnesse of faith to this man was by a more licentious and loose kind of behauiour But I am too shallow to enter into the depth of these mens proiects Sure I am that if a Puritan Gnat be caught by them in the Presse they will straine it euen vnto death but for many a Popish Cammel they swallow downe readily neuer sticking so much as at the bunch in the backe which taxe of titheing Mint and Commin lest I my selfe might bee liable vnto in noting the smaller and subtiller errours in the Appealers Booke and passing by the greater I thought fit to point at now in the second place some fouller and grosser errours in the Appeale yet but point at because I am certainly informed that many sharper sickles then mine are in this haruest Arminianisme comes vp but thinne and in many passages scarce discernable but Popery is euerywhere thicke and rancke Doubtless in many the particulars set down in the former Tablet besides diuers others ne Athenae quidem ipsae sunt magis Atticae Rome her selfe is not more Romish then the Appealer What should I marke out with a coale diuers errours in his booke of a blacker hiew and deeper taint whereof I cleare his conscience but cannot his pen. In his as in the pen of Demosthenes there is a virulent poyson but I hope he hath not sucked it out as Demosthenes did In the answer to the Gagge page 68. in expresse and direct termes hee denyeth th◠Princes supremacy That a woman may bee supreame Gouernesse of the Church in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall as Queene Elizabeth was As Queene Elizabeth was with lye and all No Protestant euer said so of Queen Elizabeth No Protestant euer thought so of any woman You shamelesse pens and brazen faces In the Appeale page 94. he deliuereth plaine Vorstianisme Deum ire per omnes-terras tractúsque maris coelúmque profundum They meant it substantially and so impiously Christians doe hold and beleeue it too but disposingly c. in his prouidence If God be euery where but disposingly and in his prouidence and not substantially then is hee in his substance confined to certaine places if confined then not infinite and what did or could Vorstius dogmatize more impiously Saint Paul teacheth vs that it is not enough for a man to conceiue rightly in matter of faith but he must take heed hee hold to a forme of wholesome words Such I am sure the former are not nor the like Answer to Gag page 202. Is Christ an Angell and not a true one in appearance not in substance who euer heard such stuffe from a Priests lips Nay I may more truly retort this speech Is Christ a true Angell and that in substance who euer heard such stuffe from a Priests lips For if hee bee an Angel in substance and that a true one he must be so either according to his Diuine nature or humane if hee say according to his humane he dasheth vpon Marcions or Apollinaris his heresie and denyeth by consequence the verity of his humane nature if he make him an Angell and that a true one in substance according to his diuine nature he maketh shipwracke of his faith against Arrius his rock and by consequence euerteth his diuine nature For euery Angelicall substance is finite the deity infinite I haue purposely taken all the Gall out of my inke because I would not dentem dente mordere exasperate his exasperating style yet I cannot but say that the Appealer in describing the markes of the Beast acts the Beasts part For Appeale page 154. hee maketh Circumcision a sacrament sometime instituted by God a marke of the Beast and to make all correspondent he placeth or must place the foreskin to be cut off in the forehead or the hand for there was the marke of the Beast receiued Apoc. 14. 9. If the Appealer did bethinke himselfe how open he lyeth to the lash I perswade my selfe he would plucke away many cords from the cruell whip of his pen. He scourgeth from the first page to the last throughout his booke the novellizing puritans and in that ranke take it as they will not only our accomplished Doctors but our reuerend Prelates Tantum non in Episcopatu Puritani are disciplined by him Appeale page 111. A man would thinke that as it was said of Luther that couetousnesse was not incident to his nature he had such a peculiar antipathy to that vice So the Appealer whatsoeuer other imputation he might bee lyable vnto could not be charged no not by malice it selfe with Puritanisme Citiùs crimen honestum quà m turpem Catonem feceris There is such an antipathy in his nature to that humour Yet see a pang and flash of Amsterdamian zeale Answer to Gagg page 92. The Corinthian was restored without a Bishops seale a Commissaries direction to the Parson He payed no rate no fees for restitution or standing rectus in Curiâ Is not this a spoone-feather of the Martinists brood a
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
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