pauperes The Ebionites still keepe the ceremonies of the Law their name Ebionites by interpretation is poore men and indeed such are they poore and simple in theirvnderstanding God wot saith Haymo Nazaraei dum volunt Iudaei esse et Christiani nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani The Nazarites whilest they will bee both Iewes and Christians are indeed neither Iewes nor christians saith S. Augustine His scil Quartadecimanis Blastus accedens Iudaismum vult introducere Pascha enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse quà m secundum legem Moysis quartadecimâ mensis Quis autem nescit quoniam Euangelica gratia euacuatur si ad legem Christum redigit Blastus adioyning himselfe to the Quartadecimans would secretly bring in Iudaisme for he saith the Passeouer or Feast of Easter must no other wise be kept then according to the law of Moses the fourteenth day of the Moneth Now who knoweth not that the grace of the Gospell is made voyd if Christ bee reduced to or ioyned with the Law saith Tertullian The Manichees held two chiefe first causes of all things as also two soules in man as Cassander The Nestorians held two persons in Christ they denied not one As the Ephesine Councell The second conclusion That the Church of Rome erreth not onely in excesse or beleeuing more then is needfull but also in defect and beleeuing lesse is proued First they beleeue not the Articles of the Apostles Creed according to the true and full meaning many speciall points of faith contained in the Apostles Creed and by necessary consequence deduced from thence are not assented vnto by the Romanists as I shewed before Secondly they beleeue not speciall and particular affiance in Christs merits for saluation and consequently they beleeue not a justifying faith or justification by such a faith nay they condemne such a beleefe as heresy Thirdly they hold not the formall foundation of faith for albeit they beleeue the Scriptures and some points of faith deduced out of them yet they beleeue them not for themselues or the authority of the Scriptures but because the Church hath approued and commanded them to bee thus receiued and beleeued They beleeue not God and the Scriptures for themselues but for the Popes sake that is in effect they beleeue Christ for Antichrist Hence it is that although God expresly forbids all vice and commands all virtue yet Bellarmine saith Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes esse malas nisi vellit contra conscientiam peccare If the Pope should erre by commanding vice and forbidding virtue which is directly contrary to the whole scope and tenor of holy Scriptures yet the Church is bound to beleeue vice to be good and virtue to be euill vnlesse shee will sin against conscience But Pope and Cardinall must pardon vs if as we are bound we beleeue and obey God rather then mā who by the Prophet Esay saith Woe vnto them that call evill good and good evill that put darknesse for light and light for darkness that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter By this time I see the Appealer totum in fermento crying shame on the malice of his aduersaries that mistake him Remember it lest you mistake my saying or maliciously mistake it the Church of Rome is a true Church ratione essentiae and being of a Church not a sound Church euery way in their doctrine I remember well this memento neither can I forget the Appealers syllogisme set downe in the same page viz. The Church of Rome hath euer beene visible The Church of Rome is and euer was a true Church since it was a Church Therefore the true Church hath beene visible The Appealer cannot inferre the conclusion vpon the premisses vnlesse in his minor or assumption he intend to make the Church of Rome more then a true Church hee must make her the true Church that is not a particular Church but the Catholike not a member but the whole The minor should bee thus altered to make his syllogisme current The Church of Rome hath euer beene visible The Church of Rome is the true Church Therefore the true Church hath euer beene visible The syllogisme thus being set vpon his true feet any man may easily see the lame leg The Church of Rome is neither the true Church nor as the Appealer confesseth p. 140. a sound member of the true Church As for the syllogisme made by the Appealer prout jacet in terminis vpon which he would haue his friends and Informers to chew the cud as they doe after Lectures p. 139. Hee deserueth himselfe to be sent to the Vniuersity to chew the cud after a Logique Lecture and learne to make a better syllogisme For this his syllogisme is peccant tam formâ quà m materiâ in matter and forme To say nothing of mood and figure which the Appealer in the mood he was little regarded I say allowing that there may be a lawfull expositorius syllogismus consisting of pure singulars and consequently in no mood first there are foure termes at least in this syllogisme to wit The Church of Rome visible the true Church a true Church the true Church and a true Church are not one Euery particular true Church is a true Church yet neither euery particular nor any particular Church is the true Catholike visible Church of which the question is propounded and debated by the Appealer Againe the minor terminus is not in the conclusion the minor terminus is A true Church since it was a Church which if he had put in the conclusion entirely as he ought by the rules of good syllogizing his argument would haue proued ridiculous viz. The Church of Rome hath euer been visible The Church of Rome is and euer was a true Church since it was a Church Therefore a true church since it was a church hath beene euer visible Let the forme passe enough of the huske we will now chew the graine and come to the matter of his syllogisme First were both the propositions true yet the argument is fallacious for the processe is ab ignotiori ad notius the worst kind of the beggarly fallacy petitio Principii The visibility of the catholique Church is more knowne then the visibility of any one member be it the Church of Rome for the Catholique Church is visible and knowne in all the parts and members and therefore must needs be more knowne then any one member Secondly the major is false if it bee vnderstood in the Appealers sense for during many schismes in the Papacie and when the Pope sate at Auennian and not Rome when diuers Popes were deposed by Councels for Schisme and Heresy and sometimes the Pope set vp by the Councels was deposed by the power of Princes as Amodius and sometimes the Popes deposed by Councels were reëstablished in their Popedomes by the power of Princes as
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
omnia atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas rejectas anathematizatas ego pariter damno rejicio anathematizo Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in praesenti sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissimè Deo juvante retineri confiteri atque à meis subditis vel illis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit retineri doceri praedicari quantum in me erit curabo Whence I thus argue First In this forme of oath the twelue new Articles together with the rest of the definitions of the Councell of Trent are made part of the Catholicke faith which except a man beleeue faithfully he cannot be saued but neither these twelue new articles nor any of them were held as true by the ancient Church much lesse as points fundamentall and de fide therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same intire foundation of faith with the ancient Secondly the ancient Church of Rome held the Scriptures to be the onely perfect infallible rule of faith and foundation of sauing doctrine as is plentifully proued by Iuel Rainolds Bilson Kemnisius Morney D. Francis White and diuers others but the present Church of Rome holdeth otherwise making vnwritten traditions part of the foundation of faith which they say is built partly vpon the written and partly vpon the vnwritten word of God Therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same entire foundation of faith with the ancient Thirdly the articles of the Apostles Creed rightly expounded and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost were the foundation of the ancient Churches faith But the present Church of Rome holdeth not the articles of the Apostles Creed rightly expounded and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation with the ancient Church The proposition or major is not denied the assumption may bee euidently proued by instancing in some of the prime Articles The first article I beleeue in God rightly expounded teacheth vs that we ought to repose our confidence in God and him onely not vpon any Creature Saint or Angell and therefore not to call vpon them the consequence is the Apostles Rom. 10. How shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued this Article thus expounded the present Church of Rome beleeueth not Secondly Faith in Iesus Christ rightly vnderstood signifieth affiance in Christ for saluation or a relying vpon Christ with an assured perswasion for remission of sinnes through his merits and satisfaction This interpretation of faith in Christ the present Church of Rome is so farre from admitting that it accurseth all those who teach the nature of justifying faith to consist in this affiance or confidence Thirdly the Incarnation of Christ rightly expounded implyeth that Christ was once and but once made of a pure Virgin a true and perfect man like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted Heb. 2. 17. 4. 15. And the Councell of Calcedon in the fift Act against Eutiches accurseth all those who deny that Christ retaineth still the properties of his humane nature such as the shape of man proportion dimension circumscription c. This article thus expounded is not assented to by the Church of Rome for the Romanists teach that Christ is made in the Sacrament by the Priest The learneder Iesuits are not content with the adducing or bringing of Christ into the Sacrament where he was not before for that say they were onely a translocation not a transubstantiation a locall motion not a substantiall mutation but in expresse words maintaine a new production of Christs body made of bread Againe they teach that Christs body in the Sacrament is whole in the whole and wholy in euery part of the Host which is impossible if according to the definition of the Councell of Calcedon he retaine the properties of his humane nature to wit extension of parts proportion of limmes distinction of members c. Whence I argue They who teach that Christ hath a body inuisible indiuisible insensible impassible ouerthrow the verity of his humane nature and consequently deny the article of his Incarnation But the Church of Rome teacheth that Christ in the Sacrament to wit hath a body inuisible indiuisible insensible c. Therefore the Church of Rome ouerthroweth the verity of Christ his humane nature and consequently denieth the article of his Incarnation Fourthly the article of Christ his Ascension rightly vnderstood importeth that Christ is so ascended from the earth that hee is not now vpon earth but is contained according to his bodily presence and humane nature in the heauens Act. 3. 21. This article is not thus held by the Church of Rome for the Romanists teach that Christ euen according to his humane nature and bodily presence is vpon earth in euery Church on euery Altar where the sacrifice of the Masse is offered besides priuate houses to which the Sacrament is caried so that by this their Doctrine Christ is more vpon earth since his Ascension then before Before his Ascension he was onely in one Country and at one time according to his bodily presence but in one particular place but since his Ascension according to their beliefe he is truely really and substantially in a million of places viz. euery where in their offertory after the words of Consecration whence I argue They who beleeue and teach that Christ God man according to his bodily presence is vpon earth since his Ascension into heauen deny that he is contained in heauen and consequently ouerthrow the article of his Ascension But the Romanists beleeue and teach that Christ God and man according to his bodily presence is vpon earth since his Ascension into heauen Therefore the Romanists deny that hee is contained in heauen and consequently ouerthrow the article of his Ascension The first proposition or major is grounded vpon the Angels Argument Mat. 28. 6. He is not here for he is risen the testimony of S. Peter Acts 3. 21. whom the heauens must containe S. Austins resolution Christ according to his bodily presence cannot be at the same time in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the Crosse the inference of Vigilius when Christ was in the flesh vpon earth he was not in heauen and now because hee is in heauen he is not therefore vpon earth If Christs body could at the same time bee in more places the Angels argument were of no force for his existence in more places then one at the same time being granted he might be risen and in Ierusalem and yet at the same instant be there where the Angell affirmeth he was not to wit in the graue If Christ may be vpon earth in his body and in heauen at the same time then is not he contained
in the Heauens for it implieth a contradiction that his body should be contained in and yet be without the Heauens at the same time If his body may bee in more places then one at once then he might haue been at the instant of his passion in the Sun and Moon vpon the Crosse which S. Augustine concludes to bee absolutely impossible And if Christ in his flesh may be both in heauen and earth at the same instant Vigilius his reason hath no strength at all to wit because he is in heauen therefore he is not vpon earth To conclude if it be impossible that Christ his body should bee at the same instant in heauen and vpon earth as the testimonies of the Angel S. Peter S. Augustine and Vigilius aboue alleadged declare and if all Papists teach that Christs body after words of Consecration is truely really and substantially vpon earth handled with the hands and eaten with the mouthes of Communicants they must needes consequently deny his bodily presence and being at the right hand of his Father in Heauen Fiftly the article of the Catholike Church rightly expounded signifieth the whole company of Gods elect which is the onely Catholike inuisible Church wee beleeue for the visible Church is an obiect of sense and therefore not properly an article of faith This true interpretation of the article the Romanists are so farre from admitting that in the Councell of Constance they condemned Iohn Husse of heresie for maintaining it Whence I thus argue They who make the visible Church to be the catholike Church which wee beleeue misbeleeue the article touching the Catholike Church But the Romanists make the visible Church to be the Catholike Church which wee beleeue Therefore the Romanists misbeleeue the article touching the catholike Church The first proposition or major is proued by the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 7. We walke by faith and not by sight and Heb. 11. 1. Faith is the euidence of things not seene The Church therefore which we beleeue cannot be the visible Church The assumption is the assertion of all Papists who are so farre from beleeuing that they scoffe and laugh at an inuisible Church as a meere phantasme or Platonicall Idaea Sixtly the foure last articles of the Apostles creed the communion of Saints the forgiuenesse of sins the resurrection of the dead and life euerlasting rightly expounded import not only that there is a communion of Saints and remission of sinnes in the Church and a resurrection of the faithfull to eternall life which the Deuills themselues doe and cannot but beleeue but that euery true beleeuer who rehearseth these articles doth and ought to beleeue that hee hath a part in the communion of Saints hath obtained remission of his sinnes and shall at the last day rise to life eternall This interpretation of these articles is condemned by the Papists as hereticall Whence we thus argue against them They who deny that a man is bound to beleeue that he is of the number of the elect or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen him c. ouerthrow the foure articles aboue mentioned according to their true meaning But the Romanists deny that a man is bound to beleeue that he is of the number of the Elect or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen him c. Therefore the Romanists ouerthrow the foure articles aboue mentioned according to their true meaning Secondly it is a dangerous errour to affirme that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient Church Which I proue first They who maintain seuen Sacraments properly so called hold not the same foundation of Sacraments with that church which held but two onely But the present church of Rome maintaines seauen Sacraments properly so called the Ancient church of Rome held but two onely Therefore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with that church The first proposition or major if it bee not euident in it selfe may be thus confirmed The fiue Sacraments which the Romanists adde cannot be built vpon that foundation which beareth but two onely therefore those fiue Sacraments are built vpon another different foundation or vpon no foundation at all The second proposition or assumption is generally proued by all Protestant writers that handle this question with whom the Appealer professeth euery where to hold faire quarter Secondly I proue it thus Whosoeuer maintaineth an error ouerthrowing the nature of a Sacrament holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church But the present church of Rome maintaineth an error ouerthrowing the nature of a Sacrament Therfore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church The first proposition is euident in it selfe for nothing can be more fundamentall to a Sacrament then that which concernes the nature and essence of a Sacrament nothing more destructiue or euersiue then that which ouerthroweth the very essence and substance of it The second proposition is contained totidem verbis in expresse words in the articles of religion of the Church of England Artic. 28. Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of bread and wine a doctrine de fide in the Church of Rome defined both by the Councell of Lateran and the Councell of Trent in the supper of the Lord cannot be proued by holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions Thirdly it is proued thus Whosoeuer holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance and institution of the Sacraments erreth in the foundation of Sacraments and therein differeth from the ancient Church But the present Church of Rome holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance and institution of the Sacraments Therefore the present Church of Rome erreth in the foundation of Sacraments and therein differeth from the ancient Church The first proposition is cleare for Christs order and institution is the foundation of the Sacraments and therefore an error concerning it must needs be fundamentall in point of Sacrament The second proposition or assumption is set downe in Article 30. Both parts of the Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all christian men alike which assertion touching Christs ordinance the present Church of Rome erroneously denieth and defineth the contrary in the Councell of Constance and Trent Thirdly it is a dangerous errour to affirme that the present church of Rome is not diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. Which I proue First thus Whatsoeuer Church hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles from Christ himselfe from the Primitiue and catholike church of God and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ The present church of Rome hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles from Christ himselfe from the primitiue and catholike church of God and hath
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
is pag. 141. transformed in mind renewed in soule regenerate by grace Discord Church of England HOmil of Saluation page 13. Because all men be sinners and breakers of Gods law therefore can no man by his owne acts words and deeds seeme they neuer so good bee iustified But of necessity euery man is constrained to seeke for another righteousnesse or iustification to bee receiued at Gods owne hands that is to say forgiuenesse of sins And this iustificatiō or righteousnes which wee so receiue of Gods mercy and Christs merits is accepted and allowed of God for our full and perfect iustification The faith in Christ which is within vs doth not iustifie vs for that were to account our selues to bee iustified by some act or virtue which is within our selues Art 11. Of the iustification of man We are accounted righteous before God onely by the merit of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ by faith not our owne workes Note in this maine point of Iustification That the Appealer differeth from the Church of England and consenteth to the Church of Rome in three remarkable particulars 1 In the signification of the word To iustifie which the Appealer and the Church of Rome take for making a man righteous The Church of England and the Protestants generally for accounting declaring or pronouncing a man righteous 2 The Church of England maketh Iustification to consist onely in forgiuenesse of sinnes The Appealer and Church of Rome not onely in forgiuenesse of sins but partly in it and partly in sanctifying graces infused 3 The Church of England teacheth That wee are not iustified by inherent righteousnesse or by any vertue within vs. The church of Rome and the Appealer hold That we are iustified by sanctifying and regenerating graces within vs whereby wee are transformed in minde and renewed in soule By renewing grace inherent in vs wee are sanctified but not iustified the confounding of Sanctification with Iustification as the Appealer and Papists doe is an errour of dangerous consequence as the learned well know Of Merit of Workes Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. can 32. If any man say That the good workes of a man iustified doe not truly merit increase of grace and eternall life let him be accursed Bellar. de iustifi lib. 5. c. 16. The workes of iust men proceeding frō charity are meritorious of eternall life ex condigno this is the common opinion of Diuines and it is most true Vasques in 1a. 2ae q. 114. disput 214. The good workes of iust men without any couenāt or acceptation are worthy of the reward of eternall life and haue an equall value of worth to the obtaining of eternall life Vasques disput 222. The workes of a righteous man doe merit eternall life as an equall reward or wages they make A man iust and worthy eternall life that hee may of desert obtaine the same Appealer APpeal pag. 233. The wicked goe to enduring of torments euerlasting the good goe to enioying of happinesse without end thus is their estate diuersified to their deseruing Answer to Gagg pag. 153. Merit of congruity is not commonly meant as scarce vouchsafed the name of merit Good workes are therefore said to bee meritorious are so vnderstood to be ex condigno which that a worke may so be these conditions are required that it bee morally good freely wrought by man in this life in the state of grace and friendship with God which hath annexed Gods promise of reward all which conditions I cannot conceiue that any protestant doth deny to good workes Discord Church of Engl. HOmily of Saluation 2. part page 17. Though I haue faith hope and charity repentance and doe neuer so many good workes yet wee must renounce the merit of all our said virtues and good deeds which wee either haue done shall doe or can doe as things that bee farre too weake and insufficient to deserue the remission of our sinnes Artic. 11. Wee are accoūted righteous before God onely for the merit of our Lord Sauior Iesus Christ by faith and not for our own works or deseruings Homil. of good workes To haue affiance in our workes as by merit of them to purchase to our selues remission of sinnes and eternall life is blasphemy Obserue reader that the Appealer ignorantly or fraudulently omitteth the proper conditions requisite to a meritorious act which are especially these 1 That the worke be properly our and not his of whom we pretend to merit 2 That it be opus indebitum a worke to which otherwise we are not bound 3 That it be some way profitable and beneficiall to him from whom wee expect our reward 4 That it haue some proportion and correspondence of congruity at least if not of condignitie to the reward expected All which conditions Protestants deny to bee found in our good works And therupon disclaime all merit These conditions the Appealer pretermitteth and from foure common conditions requisite to a good worke in generall he concludeth loosely and weakly That the Papists and wee agree in the doctrine of merit ex condigno of condignitie In his Appeale Chap. 11. by the advice as it seemes of the Approuer of his booke hee disclaimeth merit of condignity which in his former booke he seemed to approue But he saith little or nothing which may not well stand with merit of congruity Indeed hee lasheth Vasques for that wherein he differeth from other Papists but he retracteth not any where that his owne sentence namely The eternall state of men is diuersified to their deseruings Wherein hee crosseth the 11 Article and the words of S. Paul Rom. 6. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life Of Euangelicall Counsels or Workes of supererogation Harmony Church of Rome BEl de Monach. lib. 2. cap 7. An Euangelicall Counsell of Perfection is called a good worke not inioyned vs by Christ but shewed vnto vs not commanded but commended onely Ibid. cap. 8. It is the opinion of all Catholiques that there are many Euangelicall Counsels viz. of things aduised or counselled vnto but not prescribed nor commanded Appealer ANswer to the Gagg p. 103. What is meant by workes of Supererogation we may collect out of the texts of Scripture cited viz. That man in the state of grace and assisted by Gods grace may doe somethings counselled and not commanded I know no doctrine of our English Church against Euangelical counsels Appeale page 214. I doe beleeue there are and euer were Euangelicall counsels Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 14. Voluntary works besides ouer and aboue Gods Commandements w th they call workes of supererogation cānot be taught with our arrogancy and impiety for by them men doe declare that they doe not onely render vnto God as much as they are bound to doe but that they doe more for his sake then of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When yee haue done all that are commanded vnto you say wee are vnprofitable
bitter scoffe at the practice of our Ecclesiasticall Courts Howsoeuer if the Appealer had onely trod a little awry either in the high path of popery or by-path of puritanisme I for mine owne part would haue borne with it and that in respect of his otherwise commendable parts and profitable paines in the Church but when he halteth downe right betweene two religions none that desireth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to walke with a right foot can endure him And doth he not limpe nay doth he not halt downe-right doth he not weare a Linsie-woolsy garment Answer to Gagg page 13. and 14 Truth is of two sorts amongst men manifest and confessed truth or more obscure and involved truth In his quae apertè posita sunt in Scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem morés que vivendi spem scilicet charitatem Plainly deliuered in Scripture are all those points which belong vnto Faith and Manners Hope and Charity to wit And accordingly I doe know no obscurity vpon these I know none of these controuerted inter partes The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides and held plaine enough The controuerted points are of a larger and inferiour alloy of them a man may bee ignorant without any danger of his soule at all A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing for euer c. It is most euident in this place that the parties he speaketh of are the Papists and we for there are no other haue any triall in this Chapter or matter of debate By partes in many other places of his booke he vnderstandeth Papists and Protestants and here he cannot meane any other but the Gagger and his complices on the one side and the Protestant Church on the other side as the antecedents and consequents doe manifest Now if the differences betweene the papists and vs are of such an inferiour alloye that little reckoning is to be made of them because they adde nothing to or take nothing from the summe of sauing knowledge how much haue all the reformed Churches in Christendome to answer at the dreadful Tribunall of Christ for making so great a rent in Christs seamlesse coat vpon so small occasion If the controuerted points be like herbe Iohn in the pot that may be in or out without perill at all why haue all our Prophets sithence Luther at least cryed Mors in ollâ mors in ollâ Death in the pot O blessed Martyrs who sithence the beginning of Reformation haue watred the seed of the Gospell with your blood put off your long white robes and garlands and put on sackcloth and ashes for you dyed vpon no good ground you shed not your blood in zeale but spilt it in folly Martyrs you may be of schisme or obstinacy or indiscretion but not of faith if those points you suffered for belonged not at all to faith Diffido oculis meis identidem interrogo an legerim an viderim I suspect mine eyes I question my Copy I demand of my selfe againe and againe Is it possible a Diuine of no inferiour alloy should vtter such an incredible paradoxe wee dissent from the Church of Rome about Christ and his offices the foundation of faith the Scriptures the rule of faith the Church the subiect of faith the Sacraments the seales of faith iustification the proper effect of faith and good workes the fruit of faith nay wee contest about the very nature and essence of faith And are none of these matters of faith doe none of these belong to faith or manners If our debates are de tribus capellis about the fringe not the Spouse coat about the barke and not the body of Religion then hath not the Church of Rome erred in matter of faith and if she hath not then the Church of England hath erred in charging her with error not onely in matter of ceremony and discipline but also in matter of faith Art 19. If the Church of England hath erred in this Article the Appealers false oathes must needs be answerable to his degrees and preferments for so oft hath he sworne to that Article among the rest But he yeeldeth vs a reason The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides and held plaine enough on both sides hee might say on all sides and hands For the Arrians in Polonia the Antitimitarians in Transiluania the Nestorians in Greece the Anabaptists and Socinians in the Netherlands doe all rehearse the Articles of the Creed and hold them plaine enough Let him peruse al the bedrol of heretikes condemned by the Church of God in all ages drawne by Irenaeus Epiphanius S. Augustine Philastrius Alfonsus a Castro and others and he shall hardly pitch vpon any sort of Heretickes that directly either denyed or articled against the Articles of the Apostles Creed And will he say none of these erred in matter of faith but all were and are in regiâ viâ the high way to heauen If hee answer that the heretickes though they professed the Articles of the Apostles Creed totidem verbis in the very words yet they denyed or depraued the sense and brought in damnable errours by consequence ouerthrowing those foundations of our faith Our reply is at hand As the greater part of ancient heretickes so at this day the Papists confesse the Articles of the Creed and hold them plaine truth but they misinterpret them and by consequence shake if not quite ouerthrow diuers of them Either they or we misinterpret those three articles especially concerning the Catholike Church the Communion of Saints the forgiuenesse of sinnes to which their great Champion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reduceth all the controuersies betweene our Church and theirs And for vndermining the articles of our Creed by consequences and maintaining repugnances to them thâ— Romish Pioners are not farre behind the ancient enemies of our faith Manes and Vorstius doe not directly impugne the article touching God the Almighty Creator nor Marâ—ion Arrius Apollinaris Eutiches Nestorius and Socinus the article concerning Christ the Redeemer nor Macedonius and the Pneumatomachi the article concerning the holy Ghost but they held such doctrine which was not comportable with those articles And how the Romish doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels may stand with the first article rightly expounded I beleeue in God and their doctrine of Iustification by inherent righteousnesse with the second and in Iesus Christ and of transubstantiation with the article of Christ his Incarnation and Ascension and of a Catholick visible Romish Church vnder one visible Head with that I beleeue the holy Catholicke Church and of vncertainty of saluation with those I beleeue the remission of sins and life euerlasting I desire to bee enformed by the Appealer which I could neuer yet bee by any Romanist Vpon this most false and deceiueable ground that the differences inter partes are not in matters de fide hee buildeth two most dangerous assertions that a man may be ignorant
of them without any perill of his soule at all and A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing Tum maximè oppugnaris si te oppugnari nescis The greatest danger of all is when in place of danger wee suspect none A man that enters into a plaguy house if he know not of it is more subiect to infection through his carelesse boldnesse And they who speake fauourably of the Romish Church compare it to a Pest-house in which yet through Gods extraordinary mercy a man may be without mortall infection but cannot possibly be without danger If there be no danger in Romish Schools and Temples if a man may be at Masse and incurre no perill of Idolatry in the adoration of the Hoste inuocation of Saints worshipping of Images Reliques and the like blot out all the parts of the largest and learnedst Homily in all the booke intituled Against perill of Idolatrie Here I appeale to the Appealers conscience Is it no perill at all to the soule of man to be ignorant which are the true inspired Scriptures which is the true Church which are the Sacraments instituted by Christ what is the pure worship of God in spirit and truth what are the prerogatiues of Christ and priuiledges of his Saints what is that faith we are justified and saued by All these and many more are controuerted points and doe none of these strengthen or weaken our title to the Kingdome of Heauen I haue no commission to inlarge the bowels of my Sauiour and most vnwilling am I to straiten them or close vp his side against such ignorant persons who neuer had nor could haue means to come to the full light of the Gospell yet I am not ignorant what Saint Augustines iudgment is euen of inuincible ignorance in points of faith Sed illa ignorantia quae non est eorū qui scire nolunt sed eorum qui tantum simpliciter scire nesciunt neminem sic excusat ut sempiterno igne non ardeat si propterea non credidit quia non audivit omnino quod crederet c. Not wilfull ignorance no not simple nescience can priuiledge any from euerlasting fire although he therefore beleeued not because he neuer heard what he should beleeue For that of the Psalmist is not without ground Powre out thy wrath O God on those nations that know thee not nor that of the Apostle when he shall come in flaming fire to render vengeance to them who know not God But the Appealer restraineth not his assertion to inuincible ignorance be it affected ignorance nay be it resolued errour in the controuerted points it no way in his iudgement indangereth eternall saluation either there is no crimen or at least discrimen in treading in either path for he saith A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing for euer Answer to Gagg pag. 14. A braue resolution of a Protestant Diuine to resolue that a resolute Papist a professed opposite to the doctrine of the Gospell may goe away cleare with it and not at all stumble at that stone on which whosoeuer falleth he shall be broken but on whomsoeuer it shall fall it will grinde him to powder Matt. 21. 44. I desire to be satisfied whether doth the Appealer beleeue that the Articles of Religion established in our Church by Authority standing in direct opposition as they doe to the Trent decisions are expresly contained in the Scriptures or may be euidently deduced from thence or not If not then according to the sixt article of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for saluation they are no articles of faith or religion If they are expresly contained in holy Scriptures or may be euidently deduced from thence then they are Gods truth set downe in his owne word And is there no danger in resoluing against God in opposing his word in siding against that truth which shall stand and abide when heauen and earth shall passe away I grant euery doctrine contained in Scripture is not absolutely necessary to saluation yet in the generall this is a doctrine most necessary to saluation to beleeue that all doctrine of Scripture is vndoubtedly true and that to deny any part of Scripture and much more deliberately to oppugne and wilfully to oppose is dangerous yea damnable And for the controuerted points in particular the denying of the truth in them lay so heauy on Latomus Franciscus Spira his conscience on their death-beds that in a fearful conflict of despaire by reason of the hainousnesse of that sinne they miserably gaue vp the ghost And Minaerius Gallus for mainly opposing the doctrine of the Gospell was so tormented with a burning in his bowels that he had as it were a sense of the very paines of Hell-fire euen in this life I tremble to rehearse what Aubignius reporteth in his history concerning a late great King beyond the Sea who after he had embraced the Romish faith and renounced the pure doctrine of the Gospell was exceedingly perlexed in mind and troubled in conscience and aduised with his bosome friend adiuring him to deale faithfully with him whether or no in that his action of deserting the faith of the reformed Church he had not committed the impardonable sinne against the holy Ghost To illustrate this point concerning the necessity of departing out of Babylon and perill of remaining in her let vs borrow a ray or beame of a true Iewel Wee haue done nothing in altering Religion vpon either rashnesse or arrogancy nay nothing but with good leisure and mature deliberation neither had we euer intended so to doe except both the manifest and assured will of God reuealed to vs in holy Scripture and regard of our own saluation had euen constrained vs thereunto This indeed is the lustre of a true Iewel but the false Diamond glareth on this wise The present Church of Rome hath alwayes continued firme in the same foundation of doctrine and sacraments instituted by God and acknowledgeth and imbraceth communion with the ancient and vndoubted Church of Christ wherefore she cannot be other or diuerse from it for she remaines still Christs Church and Spouse As in Ceiland they say A Snake lurketh vnder euery leafe so wee may truly say of this passage of the Appealer there is poysonous error and Satanicall doctrine in euerie line First it is an errour of dangerous consequence to affirme that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation with the ancient and primitiue Church For the present Church of Rome holdeth the twelue new Articles added to the Apostles Creed mentioned in Pope Pius his Bull as fundamentall points and necessary to saluation The oath prescribed by the Pope runnes thus Caetera item omnia à sacris Canonibus Oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipuè à sacrosanctâ Tridentinâ Synodo tradita definita declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor simúlque contraria