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
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
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 true beleeuers to this end that they may not fall away from him is a certaine meanes to preserue true beleeuers in the faith else God should faile in his end But the feare here enioyned is that feare which God promiseth to put into the hearts of true beleeuers to this end that they may not fall away from him Ierem. 22. 40. Therefore the feare here inioyned is a certaine meanes to preserue true beleeuers in the faith and consequently a strong argument for the perseuerance of Saints in faith and grace as it is vrged by Saint Augustine in his booke de Perseuer Sanctorum cap. 2. I will put my feare in their hearts that they shall not depart from me What is it else then to say the feare shall be such and so great that they shall for euer cleaue vnto me z To the places alledged Iohn 15. 2 5. we answer First there is a double insition or ingraffing into Christ externall when a man is made a member of the visible Church by the hearing of the Word and participation of the Sacraments internall when a man by sanctifying grace and sauing faith is made a member of the inuisible Church They who haue the outward insition only into the true Vine Christ Iesus may be cut off but they which haue the inward as well as the outward insition cannot be cut off and wither as a branch for Non est corpus Christi reuerâ quod non er it in aeternum That is not Christs true body which shall not abide for euer neither by the like reason is that a true branch which abideth not for euer in the Vine August de Doct. Chri. lib. 3. cap. 32. Which reason of S. Augustine is confirmed by Saint Gregory in his description of the Church in his Comment on the Canticles Christus sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum permansuris extruxit Christ hath built his Church of Saints which shall for euer perseuere Secondly as there is a double insition into Christ so there is a double profession of faith a naked and bare profession without practise of a holy life or fruit of good workes or a profession ioyned with practise a faith working through loue bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit By the barren branches cut off and withered Theophylact on these words alledged vnderstandeth those who make a naked and bare profession Saint Cyril in his tenth booke vpon Iohn Those who haue faith without loue and good works such a faith S. Iames in his second Chap. calls a dead faith but the faith by which the iust man liueth is a liuing faith working by loue Galat. 5. 6. and bringing forth fruit with patience Luke 8. 15. Thirdly the words in me Iob. 15. 2. may be either referred to the word Vine and the meaning is euery branch existent or ingraffed in me that beareth no fruit but leaues only of a bare profession shall be taken away or the words in me may be referred to bearing of fruit and the meaning is euery professour of Religion or member of any Congregation that beleeueth not in me and beareth not fruit in me to wit the fruits of the Gospell by my grace shall be cast forth as a dead branch and wither for as it is in the fift verse Hee that abideth in mee and I in him the same bringeth forth fruit for without me yee can doe nothing If the words be taken in the former sense they are meant of Hypocrites within the Church if in the latter of Iewes or Pagans without the Church who beare fruit that is doe morally good workes or doe by nature the things contained in the Law Rom. 2. 14. but because they doe not these things in faith their good workes are no better than splendida peccata sins hauing a luster or shew of vertue as Saint Augustine Take the words in either sense they belong not to regenerate persons and true beleeuers who are so ingraffed into Christ that they abide in him by faith and beare fruit in him through faith Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersarie thus No branch that beareth fruit in Christ shall be taken away but purged that it may bring forth more fruit as it followeth in the second verse vrged by the Aduersarie But euery true beleeuer is a branch that beareth fruit in Christ Matth. 13. 23. Rom 6. 22. Therefore no true beleeuer shall be taken away but purged that he may bring forth more fruit ARMINIANS BERTIVS pag. 26. Beleeuers may make shipwrake of faith 1 Tim. 1. 19. some hauing put away a good cōscience cōcerning a faith haue made shipwracke Ibid. 1 Tim. 4. 1. In the latter times some shall depart from the a faith giuing heed to seducing spirits APPEALER APPEALE pag. 160. 1 Tim. 1. 19. Holding faith and a good conscience which some hauing put away cōcerning a faith haue made shipwracke Ibid. Nor was it onely for those times but foretold of succeeding ages 1 Tim. 4. 1. In the latter daies some shall depart from the a faith a To the places alledged out of Timothy wee answer First that they are fully answered by the distinction aboue mentioned ad literam y namely of a two-fold signification of the word faith which is sometimes taken for the saith which we beleeue that is the word of faith or doctrine of the Gospell as Galath 1. 23. Now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach the hearing of faith Galat. 3. 2. A great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith Act. 6. 7. And in this sense Oecumenius taketh the word faith in the first place aboue alledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith I vnderstand faith in doctrine by conscience a godly conuersation or a good life And that it is to be so taken in the latter place it is euident by the words following 1 Tim. 4. 1. Giuing heed to seducing spirits and doctrine of deuils Faith opposed to error and doctrine of deuils is the true doctrine of faith which we beleeue and preach Sometimes the word faith is taken in Scripture for the faith by which we beleeue that is the inward grace or habit of faith as Rom. 3. 28. Iustified by faith without the deeds of the Law And Rom. 4. 5. His faith is counted for righteousnesse Rom. 5. 1. Being iustified by faith we haue peace with God This distinction is not new coyned by nouelizing Puritans but stamped by the ancient Fathers and goes for current among the Schoole-men Saint Augustine in his thirteenth booke of the Trinity chap. 2. deliuers it in these very termes There is a difference betweene the faith quae creditur and quâ creditur And Lombard lib. 3. distinct 23. taketh the same from Saint Augustine saying Fides est interdumid quod credimus interdum estid quo credimus Secondly we answer that as there is a temporary faith so there may be a good conscience for
Gratia and by the Appealer out of Saint Augustine de bono Perseuerant cap. 6. we answer That the words are not found in the places quoted Yet Saint Augustine in other places hath such words But his meaning is very plaine He speakes of a temporary faith and common grace not a iustifying faith and sauing grace His owne words are Let it not moue vs that God giueth not some of his children perseuerance Absit enim vt ita esset si de illiâ— praedestinatis essent secundùm propositum vocatis qui verè sunt filij promissionis God forbid that it should be so if they were of the Predestinate and those which are called according to purpose which truly are the children of promise And a little after Rursus quidam qui filij Dei propter susceptam vel temporaliter gratiam dicuntur à nobis nec sunt tamen Deo de quibus ait Iohannes ex nobis exierunt sed non erant ex nobis hoc est quando videbantur in nobis non erant ex nobis tanquam â—i diceretur vnde id ostendis quòd si fuissent inquit ex nobis permansissent nobiscum Againe some who are called by vs the sonnes of God in respect of the temporall grace they haue receiued are not so vnto God of whom Saint Iohn saith They went out from vs but were not of vs that is and when they were seene amongst vs they were not of vs. And as if it were obiected to him Whence doest thou shew that For if they had beene saith he of vs they would haue remained with vs. In the same booke De Corrept Gratiâ Horum fides quae per dilectionem operatur profecto aut omnino non deficit aut si qui sunt quorum deficit reparatur antequam vita ista finiatur delet â quae intercurrerat iniquitate vsque in finem perseuer antia deputatur Qui verò perseueraturi non sunt ac sic à fide Christianâ conuersatione lapsuri sunt vt tales eos vitae huius finis inueniat proculdubio nec illo tempore quo benè pieque viuunt in isto numero computandi sunt The faith of these men which worketh by loue verily either faileth not at all or if it faile in any it is repaired againe before this life ends and the wickednesse which comes betweene being blotted out it is reputed for perseuerance to the end But those who perseuere not but so fall from Christian faith and conuersation that the end of this life findes them such without doubt they were not to be accounted in that number no not then when they liued well and godly And Chapter 9. Qui non habuerunt perseuerantiam sicut non verè discipuli Christi ita nec verè filij Dei fuerunt etiam quando esse videbantur ita vocabantur Those who had not perseuerance as they were not truly disciples of Christ so neither were they truly the sonnes of God no not when they seemed to be so and called so In producing testimonies of Saint Augustine Inopem me copia facit Store is a sore vnto me I will content my selfe onely with such passages as offer themselues vnto me in that very booke and chapter cited by the Appealer for the contrary Thus the Chapter begins These brethren as you write He speaketh of the Demipelagians and Massilians against whom Prosper and Hilary had made a remonstrance vnto him will not yeeld that such perseuerance should be taught which cannot be lost by contumacie where they doe not well obserue what they say for we speake of perseuerance to the end which if it be giuen the partie to whom it is giuen perseueres to the end Multi eam possunt habere nullus amittere hoc Dei donum suppliciter emereri potest sed cum datum fuerit amitti contumaciter non potest Quomodo enim potest amitti per quod fit vt non amittatur etiam quod posset amitti Many may haue perseuerance none can lose it this gift of God may be gained by humble prayer but once giuen cannot be lost by contumacy For how can that be lost which makes that what otherwise might be lost cannot be lost I pitie here the Appealers ill hap who like the Miser in the Greeke Epigram that going to the place where hee thought he laid vp his treasure safe found there no treasure but a rope wherewith he stopt his wind-pipe p To the place alledged out of Prosper Respons 7. ad Capit. Gallorum we answer First that Saint Prosper Saint Augustines faithfull Scholler and great admirer in the passage alledged concurreth with him Both of them in words seeme to affirme That a regenerate and iustified man may fall by his free-will into foule and enormous sinnes and die in them but lest any should stumble at this sentence vnawares Saint Augustine in the ninth chapter of the same booke giues them warning and most plainly declares his meaning Appellamus eos electos Christi discipulos Dei filios quia sic appellandi sunt quos regeneratos piè viuere cernimus sed tunc verè sunt quod appellantur si manserint in eo propter quod sic appellantur Si autem perseuerantiam non habent id est in eo quod caeperunt esse non manent non verè appellantur quod appellantur non sunt apud eum enim hoc non sunt cui notum est quod futuri sunt We call all those chosen disciples of Christ and sonnes of God because those whom we see liue godly and are regenerate are to be so called but then are they truly that which they are called if they remaine in that for which they are so called But if they haue not perseuerance that is if they remaine not in that which they began to be they are not truly called that which they are called and are not for they are not so to him who knoweth what they will be Secondly Saint Prosper with Saint Hilary made a ioynt relation to Saint Augustine of the Demipelagian and Massilian errors and desired Saint Augustines assistance against them Of these one was as their Epistles to Saint Augustine make it manifest Nulli dari perseuerantiam talem à quâ non permittitur praeuaricari sed à quâ possit suâ voluntate deficere There is no such perseuerance giuen to any man from which he is not suffered to reuolt but such from which a man may by his free-will fall away Against which I oppose that sentence of Saint Augustine as a fortresse impregnable An audebis dicere etiam rogante Christo ne deficeret fides Petri defecturam fuisse si Petrus eam deficere voluisset quasi aliud Petrus vllo modo vellet quà m pro illo Christus rogasset vt vellet Nam quis ignorat tunc fuisse perituram fidem Petri si ea quae fidelis erat voluntas ipsa deficeret sed quia praeparatur
and charge of teaching is cōmitted that according to the vse of the Catholike and Apostolike Church they diligently instruct their congregations touching the intercession and invocation of Saints teaching them that it is good and profitable humbly to call vpon them to flye vnto their prayers help and aid and that they impiously conceiue who deny that Saints inioying eternall happinesse with God are to be called vpon or that the calling vpon them is idolatry or that it is repugnant to the word of God or that it derogateth from the honour of the only Mediator between God man Iesus Christ Bellar. of the blessednes of Saints booke 1. chap. 19. Holy Angels men departed this life are piously profitably called vpon by the liuing Appealer GAgg pag. 200 Perhaps there is no such great impiety in saying S. Laurence pray for me Ibid. p. 203. Now the case of Angels-keepers in point of Advocation Invocation is much different from other Angels not Guardians as being continually attendant alwayes at hand though invisibly therfore though we might say Saint Angell-keeper pray for me it followeth not we may say St. Gabriel pray for me Invocation of Saints page 99. If thus my selfe resolued doe inferre Holy Angel keeper pray for me I see no reason to be taxed with point of Popery or superstition much lesse of absurdity or impiety Answ. to Gagg p. 229. Saue al other labor in this point proue but onely this their knowledge of any thing ordinarily I promise you straight I will say Holy Saint Mary pray for me Discord Church of Engl. ARtic 22. The Romish doctrine cōcerning Invocation of saints is a fond thing vainly invented grounded vpon no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God Homily of Prayer 2 part pag. 114. Invocation or prayer may not bee made without faith in him on whō they call wherupon we must onely soly pray to God For to say wee should beleeue eyther in Angel or Saint or any other liuing creature were horrible blasphemy against God his word Ibid. Is there any Angel Patriark or Prophet among the dead can know the meaning of the heart c. Bishop Andrewes Answ. to Bellarmins Apol. pag. 180. Alleadgeth The Synod of Laodicea did forbid praying to Angels Defence of the Church of England against Spalata c. 60 You aske why Saints are not to be called vpon Because you haue no command of God to call vpō them Now in the worship of God God cōmandeth Deut. 12. 23. What I command thee that onely doe thou Because you haue no example in Scripture of calling on them but that of Iohn Apoc 19. 10. See thou do it not worship God Because it is wil-worship after the commandements doctrines of men condemned by the Apostle Col. 2. 22. Of which God said of old Who required these things at your hands Esay 1. 12 And of which our Sauiour saith In vaine doe they worship me teaing for doctrines the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. White Answ. to Fisher. page 335. Invocation of Saints is iniurious to the onely mediatorship of Christ. In this point touching the Inuocation of Saints the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in two particulars 1 That he maketh a difference betweene Angels especially Guardians and other Saints in respect of Invocation whereas the Church of England putteth no such difference But indifferently forbiddeth the calling vpon Saints departed or Angells Guardians or others And the reasons they alledge are as strong against the one as the other 2 The Appealer denyeth Inuocation of Saints onely vpon this ground that the Saints departed ordinarily know not our affayres and consequently he maketh Popish Invocation idle and foolish but not impious blasphemous iniurious to God and our Sauiour Whereas the Church of England denyeth Invocation of Saints vpon many other grounds and maketh it idolatrous iniurious to Christ yea and blasphemous as appeareth in the places aboue alleadged Of Extreme vnction Harmony Church of Rome COun of Trent Ses. 14. cap. 1. The holy vnction of the sick is instituted by Christ as a truly and properly called Sacrament of the new Testament Ibid. cap. 2. The effect of this Sacrament is the wiping away of all those sins in the sicke which remaine to be expiated the relieuing and strengthening his soule Appealer ANsw. to Gagg ch 37. p. 267. That Sacramental vnction is not to be vsed to the sicke Vse it if you will We hinder you not Nor much care or enquire what effects ensue vpon it But obtrude it not on vs or vnto the Church as in censu of the Sacraments of the Time of grace c. Discord Church of Engl. ARt 25. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ in the Gospell that is to say Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Those fiue commonly called Sacraments Confirmation Penāce Orders Matrimony Extreme vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as haue growne partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in Scriptures But yet haue not like nature of Sacramēts with Baptisme the L. Supper In this point touching Extreme vnction though the Appealer doe not fully ioyne hands with the Papists and shake hands with the Church of England yet he maketh the vsing of Extreme vnction or not vsing it the attributing of such effects as the Church of Rome erroniously if not impiously ascribeth to it or not attributing a light matter of no great importance a thing indeed not to be obtruded vpon the Church as necessary yet a thing for ought that he saith to the contrary that may be not vnlawfully vsed Whereas the Church of England or at least the most approued Writers in the Church of England make the adding of any new Sacrament and attributing a diuine spirituall effect vnto it without commandement or warrant of God's word to be a grieuous sinne breach of the second Commandement And if it may haue such an effect as to wipe away all sinnes remaining in the sicke our Church should very much wrong the sicke not to administer it to them It concernes vs therefore to enquire of any such effects and finding that it hath none to condemne it as not onely vnwarranted by Scripture but also derogatory to the efficacy of the the other Sacraments and Christs blood Of assurance of Saluation Harmony Church of Rome COnc of Trent Ses. 6. canon 13 If any man say that to obtaine remission of sins it is necessary that a man beleeue certainly and without any hesitation or questioning in regard of his own infirmity and disposition that his sins are remitted him let him be accursed Counc of Trent Sess. 6. Canon 14. If any say that a man is absolued frō sin and iustified because he certainly beleeueth that hee is absolued and iustified and that none is iustified but hee that beleeueth that hee is iustified let him be accursed Ibid. Can. 12.
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. *