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
this worke of God Of falling away from Grace ARMINIANS HAGE Conference pag. 355. The Doctrine of our Aduersaries who teach that a man cannot fall away from grace totally nor finally is an q hinderance to godlinesse and also to good manners Theses exhibited to the Synod of Dort concerning the fifth Article All things being fore-laid which are necessarie and sufficient for perseuerance it remaineth still in the power of man to perseuere or not perseuere Bertius in his booke of Apostasie of Saints endeuoureth to proue that his blasphemous Assertion by diuers texts of Scripture Authorities of Fathers and Reasons from whose Armory the Appealer furnisht himselfe as will appeare by comparing their allegations together Bertius Iidit Lugduni Batauorum apud Lodouicum Elzeuirium in the yeare of our Lord 1615. pag. 169. You could not be ignorant that the Confession of the Church of England was cited by mee truly in the Acts at Hampton Court pag. 107. The English Confession set out in the yeare of our Lord 1562. Article 16. After we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may r depart from grace Bertius in his Dedicatory Epistle Doctor Bancroft at the Conference at Hampton Court withstood Doctor Rainolds who to that Article of the English Confession concerning departing from grace would haue those words added but not totally nor finally APPEALER ANswer to Gag pag. 157. That faith once had may be lost may be interpreted and is more wayes than one whether not lost at all whether totally and finally lost Men are diuided in this tenent Some suppose neither totally nor finally some totally but not finally some both totally and finally which is indeed the assertion of antiquitie Ibid. The learnedst of the Church of England assent to antiquity in their tenent which the Protestants of Germany maintain at this day hauing assented therein to the Church of Rome Appeale pag. 36. In my iudgement this is the doctrine of the Church of England not deliuered according to priuate opinions in ordinary Tracts and Lectures but deliuered publiquely positiuely and declaratiuely in Authentick records Appeale pag. 28. They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew composed and agreed the Articles in 52. and 62. that ratified them in 71. that coÌ„firmed them in 604. that iustified and maintained them against the Puritans at Hampton Court but all such doe assent to antiquity in this tenent Ibid. p. 29. The Minor I make good particularly will proue it obsignatis tabulis In the 16. Article we reade and subscribe this After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may r depart away from grace and fall into sinne Appeale pag. 30. This Article was s challenged as vnsound at the Conference at Hampton Court by those that were Petitioners against the Doctrine and Disciplie established in the Church of England and being so challenged before his Sacred Maiestie was there defended and maintained c. namely by Doctor Ouerall pag. 31. q See this obiection answered in the first question of absolute Predestination r The Article hath not the word Alway that is the Appealers addition The words are not After we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may fall into sinne and so fall away from grace but we may depart from grace giuen and fall into sinne that is so farre depart from grace that a man may fall into sinne after grace receiued which is confessed on all parts The Article speaketh not of a totall falling away from grace much lesse finall for the words immediatly following are and by the grace of God to wit before giuen we may rise againe He that falleth finally cannot rise againe he that falleth totally from grace cannot rise againe by the grace he had receiued because he is supposed to haue lost all the grace he receiued and the Article speakes not of new grace but onely of grace before receiued and giuen Besides the words of the Apostle to the Hebrewes 6. 6. beare strongly that way that a man who was once partaker of the holy Ghost if hee fall away that is totally cast away the Spirit of grace cannot possibly be renewed againe by repentance Whence we thus argue None who may after their fall rise againe by repentance fall totally or finally Heb. 6. 6. But all those of whom the Article speakes may after their fall rise againe by repentance Therefore none of whom the Article speaks fall totally or finally s The Appealer vttereth two manifest vntruths in this allegation out of the Conference at Hampton Court The first is That he faith the sense of the Article was there challenged as vnsound for Doctor Rainolds who in the name of the rest desired a fuller explication of the meaning of the Article to preuent that mistaking which is sithence fallen out in M. Montague and others began with this Preface Though the meaning of the Article be sound and good c. The second is That he affirmeth that this tenent a iustified man may fall away from grace and become ipso facto in the state of damnation c. now styled Arminianisme by these Informers was resolued and auowed for true by Doctor Ouerall and that honourable and learned Synod For Doctor Ouerall after he had affirmed That a iustified man committing any grieuous sinne as adultery murther or treason became ipso facto subiect to Gods wrath and was in the state of damnation quoad praesentem statum addeth yet those that are called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election did neuer fall either totally from all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seeds thereof or finally from iustification but were in time renewed by Gods Spirit vnto a liuely faith and repentance and so iustified from those sinnes and the wrath curse and guilt annexed thereunto whereinto they were fallen and wherein they lay so long as they were without true repentance for the same Of Falling away from Grace ARMINIANS BERTIVS pag. 25. De Apostas Sanct. That which we haue proposed we proue first by those formes of Scripture by which Apostasie is diuersly described for this the Scripture calleth to turne away from righteousnesse Ezek. 33. 13. If the righteous commit iniquity all his righteousnesse shall be no more remembred but for his â—niquitie that he hath committed he shall die for the same Ibid. pag. 27. He who can turne away from his righteousnesse can forsake his former righteousnesse but a righteous man can turne away from his righteousnesse Ezek. 18. 24. Therefore the righteous can forsake his former righteousnesse Bert. pag. 41. Hee out of whom the Deuill is cast may become secure and made a Temple in which the former Deuill taking seuen other spirits with him may be lodged and so the latter coÌ„dition of that man made worse than the former Mat. 12. 43. Demonstrat Hee out of whom the Deuill is cast is truly iustified but such a one may by securitie and negligence fall into an estate worse then the
that I might be graft in through infidelity they were broken off and thou standest by faith be not high minded but y feare Bert. pag. 33. I frame the fourth demonstration from the feare of the Saints Iohn 15. 6. If a man abide not in me he is cast z forth as a branch and withereth and men gather them and cast them into the fire APPEALER ANswer to Gag pag. 160. Matth. 24. 12. Because iniquitie shall abound the charity of many shall grow cold Surely it was hot that groweth cold and charitie enlarged is not but the fruit of a liuing faith which if it continued in statu quo the charity of many could not x wax cold therefore once had may bee lost Againe Rom. 11. 20. 21. Thou standest by faith bee not high minded but y feare and feare is not but where change may be Here change may be or why doth it follow Take heed lest he also spare not thee Ibid. pag. 160. Ioh. 15.2 Euery branch that beareth not fruit in me he taketh z away x To the place of Matth. 24. 12. we answer First that the loue of many may wax cold yet will it not thereupon follow that the loue of the regenerate and true beleeuers waxeth cold for the regenerate and true beleeuers are not meant by those Many True charitie is a fruit of faith and such as the faith is such is the charitie If it be a temporary faith the charity proceeding from it is but temporary and being so may not only wax cold but also be vtterly extinguished The root being rotten the fruit falls of it selfe But if the root of faith be sound charitie will neuer decay but abound more and more till the childe of God be filled with the fruits of righteousnesse Philip. 1. 9 11. Secondly the consequence is not good from a remission of some degree of charitie to the amission of the habit of it The Apostles themselues as they were not so strong in their faith so neither so hot in their loue toward our Sauiour at his Passion as before Their faith was shaken in that fearfull storme of temptation their confidence was small or none in appearance in their owne sense for in saying we trusted it had beene hee that should haue redeemed Israel Luke 24. they imply that his death had loosned the Anker of their hope and that both their heart and faith failed them for the time their loue also waxed cold if not freezed when they fled from him and forsooke him Yet no learned Diuine euer affirmed that their loue to our Sauiour was quite lost for as he loued them so they loued him to the end Thirdly this argument may be retorted against the Aduersaries thus If Christ doth here put a difference betweene those that are truly faithfull and hypocrites in this that the one Hypocrites to wit should in the latter dayes and perillous times be offended deceiued wax cold in charity but the other the truly faithfull should continue to the end then this place maketh not for but against the totall or finall falling away of true beleeuers But Christ in this place puts a difference between those that are truly faithfull and hypocrites in this that the one Hypocrites to wit should in the latter daies and perillous times be offended deceiued and wax cold in charity vers 10 11 12. but the other the truly faithfull should continue to the end vers 13. Therefore this place maketh not for but against the total or finall falling away of true beleeuers y To the place alledged Rom. 11. 19 20. we answer First that it is not meant of particular beleeuers and their danger of falling away from iustifying faith but of the people of the Gentiles in generall and their danger of being cut off from the true Oliue into which they were ingrafted that is from the outward profession of faith and communion of the Catholique Church into which they were admitted vpon the reiection of the Iewes The Gentiles therefore ought not to be high-minded against the Iewes but feare lest God who spared not the naturall branches should not spare them but cut them off also as he did the naturall branches if they should grow proud and presumptuously secure Now there is no question but that a Visible Church which at this time professeth the truth and is a member of the Catholike Church may fall away from the outward and publike profession of faith and cease to be a part of the Catholike visible Church as the most famous sometimes flourishing Churches of Greece and Asia planted by the Apostles themselues now ouer-run with Mahometanisme Idolatry and Heresie proue by their lamentable Apostasie and deplorate if not desperate estate But Bertius and the Appealer should haue had their eyes vpon the marke and point in question which is not of the doctrine of faith but the habit of faith not de fide quam credimus but de fide qua credimus not of the publique profession of a Church but of a particular affiance of euery true beleeuer in Christ. A member of the visible Church may be cut off but no member of the inuisible for Christ cannot haue damnata membra any members who shall not be saued as the Approuer of the Appealers booke rightly gathereth out of Saint Augustine in his Reply to Fisher. A Church or Kingdome generally may depart from the Christian faith or renounce the pure profession thereof in publique and yet no true beleeuer either totally or finally lose his faith but either secretly in that State or Kingdome or else-where openly he may retaine both faith it selfe and the profession thereof Secondly Gods threatnings haue their vse both in the Elect and Reprobate to make the one vnexcusable or to keepe them within some bounds of moderation and to keepe the other in an awfull reuerence filiall feare and spirituall watchfulnesse which are meanes of Perseuerance no arguments of Apostasie Feare is not but where a change may be to wit feare of a change but there may be a feare of offending God through high-mindednesse and presumption as was in the Apostles and is in all the Elect yet no change of their estate of grace could or can be by the confession of Arminius himselfe and the learned'st of all our Aduersaries Thirdly as the faithful ought to feare so they also might and de facto would fall away not only totally but finally if they were left to themselues and therefore in regard of the frailtie of their nature and mutabilitie of their owne will they haue iust cause to feare and doe still feare in themselues yet are still confident in God who is faithfull and will establish them and keepe them from euill 2 Thess. 3. 3. and shall confirme them vnto the end that they may be blamelesse in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 1. 8. Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersarie thus That feare which God promiseth to put into the hearts
both haue beene examined and proued like the stone that Achilles flung at a dead skull which rebounded back and strucke out the 〈◊〉 eye redijt lapis vltor ab osse Actorisque sui frontem oculosque petit We 〈◊〉 doe nothing against the truth but for the truth 2. Cor. 13. 8. An Aduertisement to the Reader THe Errors of the Appealer are of three sorts Popish Arminian and of a third kinde multi-formiter deformes Of the first sort I haue giuen thee a taste Of the second thou shalt haue a Synopsis in the Tablet ensuing The third thou shalt finde in the Writ of Errour In all kindes I haue pretermitted some Non amore erroris sed errore amoris Not for any loue I beare to his errors but through an error of loue Partly because I hope they are rather slips in his pen than downfalls in his iudgement partly also because they are discouered by others whose writings had I seene before my papers were ingaged in the Presse Aiax hic meus in spongiam incubuisset A SECOND TABLET Representing the Appealers consent with the Church of Rome and dissent from the Church of England in diuers remarkable points Of the Church Harmony Church of Rome CAssander in his Consultation Article 7. pag. 50. The present Church of Rome hath euer stood firme in the same foundation of Doctrine Sacraments instituted by God c. Quamvis praeseas Ecclesia Romana noÌ„ parùm in morum et disciplinae integritate addo etiam doctrinae sinceritate ab antiquâ illâ unde orta derivata est dissideat tamen eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum à Deo institutorum firma semper constitit Cassander ibid. The present Church of Rome acknowledgeth and embraceth coÌ„munion with the ancient vndoubted church of Christ wherefore shee cannot be other or diuerse from it Praesens Ecclesia Romana communionem cum illà antiquâ indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit colit Quare alia diuersa ab illâ esse noÌ„ potest Councel of Trent page 442. in fine In the Bull of Pius the fourth vpon a forme of oath inioyned to all Professors I acknowledge the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church of Rome to be the mother and Mistresse of all Churches Cassander Article 7. page 50. Praesens Ecclesia Romana manet Christi Ecclesia sponsa The present Church of Rome remaineth Christ his Church and Spouse although shee haue prouoked her husband with many errours and vices so long as Christ her Husband hath not giuen her a bill of diuorce although hee hath chastised her with many scourges Bellarm. de Ro. Pontif. lib. 4. c. 4. The present Church of Rome cannot erre namely in matter of faith c. Sixtus 4. in Syâ—od Complut condemneth certaine Articles of Peter of Oxford whereof one was this That the Church of Rome could erre Martin the fifth in his Bul annexed to the Councell of Constance will haue them held Heretikes who hold otherwise of the Sacraments or Articles of faith then the Church of Rome Appealer ANswer to the Gagg cap. 5. pag. 50. Moderate men on both sides confesse that this Controversie may cease and although the present Church of Rome hath not a little departed from the ancient Church from which it was deriued c. yet she hath euer stood firm in the same foundation of Doctrine Sacraments instituted by God Appeale page 113. In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree Appeal ibid. Praesens Ecclesia Romana communionem cuÌ„ illâ antiquâ indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit colit Quare alia diversa ab illâ esse non potest The present Church of Rome acknowledgeth and embraceth coÌ„munion with the ancient vndoubted church of Christ Wherefore shee cannot bee other or diuerse from it Appeale p. 113. The church of Rome as well since as before the Councell of Trent is a part of the Catholike thogh not the Catholike Church App Answer to Gagg page 50. Manet Christi Ecclesia sponsa The Church of Rome still remaines the spouse Church of Christ c. Appeale page 139. The Church of Rome is and euer was a true Church since it was a Church Appeale page 140. Mistake not my saying The Church of Rome is a true Church ratione Essentiae and being of a Church Appeale page 113. I am absolutely perswaded and shall bee still till I see cause to the contrary that the Church of Rome is a true Church Answer to Gag page 14. Plainly deliuered in Scriptures are all those points which belong to faith and manners hope and charitie I know none of these controverted inter partes By partes hee there apparantly meanes the church of Rome and Reformed Churches Now if the church of Rome differeth not from vs in any matter of faith theÌ„ hath she not erred in any matter of Faith For our differences are about her errors App. pag. 112. I professe my self none of those furious ones in point of difference now a dayes whose resolution is that wee ought to haue no society or accordance with Papists in things diuine vpon paine of eternall damnation Appeal p. 83. That they the Papists raise the foundatioÌ„ that we must for euer vpon paine of damnation strange bugbeares and terriculamenta dissent fom them Discord Church of England HOmily for Whitsonday 2 part p. 213. The church of Rome as it is at this present is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets retaining the sound pure doctrine of Iesus Christ Neyther yet doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them Apology of the Church of England cap. 16. divis 2. part 6. The originall and first foundation of Religion hath beene vtterly corrupted by those men namely the Popes adherents Apology of the Church of England cap. 16. divis 1. part 6. Wee haue gone from that Church which we our selues did euidently see with our eyes to haue gone from the old holy Fathers and from the Apostles and from the Primitiue and Catholike Church of God Apol. Church of England part 6. cap. 22. diuis 2. We are departed from him namely the Pope who without doubt is the forerunner standard-bearer of Antichrist hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike Faith Homily for Whitsonday 2 part p. 213 If we compare this namely the definition of the true Church with the Church of Rome not as it was in the beginning but as it is presently then shall wee perceiue the state therof to be so far wide from the nature of the true church as nothing can be more Et ibid. pag. 214. If it bee possible that the Spirit of truth should bee there where the true church is not then is it at Rome Homily for Whitsonday p. 213. We may well conclude according to the Rule of S. Austen that the Bishops of Rome their adherents are not the true Church Article 19. The Church of Rome hath erred not
only in their liuing and manner of ceremonies But also in matters of faith Apolog. Church of Engl. c. 16. div 1. part 6. Wee haue gone from that Church which Christ who cannot err told so loÌ„g before it shold err Neither had we euer intended so to do except both the manifest assured wil of God opened to vs in his holy scripture regard of our owne saluation had euen coÌ„strained vs. Apol. Chur. of Engl. par 6 div 2. c. 20. We are fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse wee left him we could not come to Christ Apol. par 5. c. 15. d. 3. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the word of God sincerely taught nor sacraments rightly administred and wherein there was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath coÌ„sideration of his own safety In this head touching the Church of Rome the Appealer directly contradicts the Church of England in these particulars The Church of England 1 The church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation 2 Hath erred in matter of Faith 3 Hath not the nature of the true Church 4 Must be left on paine of damnation 5 Is departed from the Primitiue and Catholike Church Appealer 1 The church of Rome holds the same foundation 2 Hath not erred in matters belonging to faith 3 Hath the essence being of the true Church 4 Ought not to be left on paine of daÌ„nation 5 Is not departed but holds coÌ„muinion with the Primitiue and Catholike Church Of Generall Councels Harmony Church of Rome BEllarm de concil Eccles. 2 Booke 2 Chap. Wee are bound by the Catholike faith to beleeue That Generall Councels cannot erre in faith or manners The like is affirmed by Gregory de Valentia Analys fidei Cathol lib. 18. Hosius de legit judicibus reruÌ„ Ecclesiasticarum Andradius Defence of the Councell of Trent in his Chapt. Of the authoritie of Councels Canus in his common places of Diuinity 5 Booke and the Romanists generally Campian rat 4. Concilia Duraeus in confut respons Whitak de Conciliis Appealer ANsw. to Gag page 48. To coÌ„clude The Church cannot erre neither collectiuè nor representativè Thus your Masters distinguish the terms of this question that goe workmanlike not like you clutteringly to worke so they so wee in the largest extent not erre at all Secondly not erre in points of faith for in matters of fact they coÌ„fesse error Appeale p. 124. Many things appertain vnto God which are not of necessity vnto saluation both in practice and speculation in these haply Generall Councells haue erred in those other none can erre Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 21. Generall Councels when they be gathered together for as much as they are an Assembly of men whereof all bee not gouerned with the Spirit and word of GOD they may erre and sometime haue erred euen in things appertaining to God Wherefore things ordained of them as necessary to saluation haue neyther strength nor authoritie vnlesse they may bee declared that they bee taken out of holy Scripture In this point touching the not-erring or infalliâ—itie of Generall Councels the Appealer howsoeuer by distinguishing of points fundamentall and accessory endeuoureth to difference his opinion from the Church of Rome and reconcile it to the Article yet in truth he faileth in both For first the Church of Rome holdeth all doctrines de fide determined by the Church to be necessary to saluation and consequently in the Appealers sense fundamentall points In particular she defineth the decisions of the Councell of Trent in the controuerted points betweene vs to be part of the Catholike Faith without which no man can be saued Pius 4 in Bullâ super formâ juram pag. 441. If therefore the Appealer maintaine as hee doth That Generall Councells cannot erre in matters fundamentall and necessary to saluation he holdeth consequently that they cannot erre in matter de fide Secondly his doctrine cannot stand with the Article of our Church for the Article both supposeth and proueth that Generall Councels may erre euen in points necessary to saluation It supposeth it in those words things ordained of them as necessary to salvation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse c. For if Generall Councels could not erre in things necessary to saluation we might in such things safely rely vpon their authoritie without warrant of Scripture which the Article expressely denyeth If Generall Councels may iudge those things to be necessary to saluation which are not as the Article implyeth they may in like manner iudge those things not to bee necessary to saluation which are and so erre bothe wayes in the iudgement of points necessary and fundamentall And verily the reason annexed to the Article concludeth as strongly that Generall Councels may erre in fundamentals as in Accessory the reason is because Generall Councels are an Assembly of men whereof all are not gouerned by the Spirit and Word of God Now they who are not gouerned by the Spirit and Word of God haue and may erre euen in points fundamentall in asmuch as nothing can preserue a man from fundamentall error but the Spirit and Word of God whereby they are not gouerned as hath the Article Notwithstanding all this iarring and discord from the Article I find some harmony and concord in the close Appeale pag. 147. Detali Concilio saniore parte de coÌ„clusionibus in fide probabile est It is probable that in a Generall Councell lawfully called the sounder part cannot erre in conclusions of faith But this straine was not the Appealers but a learned Asaffs Of Iustification Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. c. 4. Iustification is a translation from the state in which a man is borne the sonne of the first Adam into the state of Grace and adoption of the sons of God by the second Adam Counc of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Iustification is not onely remission of sinnes But also sanctification and renouation of the inward man by the voluntary receiuing of grace and those gifts whereby a man of vniust is made iust Counc of Trent Sess. 6. canon 11. If any man say that A man is iustified onely by remission of sinnes excluding grace and charity which is shed into their hearts by the holy Spirit and is inherent in them let him bee accursed Appealer ANswer to the Gagg page 142. A sinner is then iustified when hee is made iust that is translated from state of Nature to state of Grace Answer to Gagg page 143. Iustification consisteth in forgiuenesse of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily Both the acts of Gods Spirit in man Answer to Gagg page 140. To iustifie hath a threefold extent First to make iust and righteous Secondly to make more iust and righteous Thirdly to declare and pronounce iust Page 142. Iustification properly is in the first acceptance A sinner is theÌ„ iustified when he is made iust that
seruants Though this point touching Euangelical Coūsels may seeme to bee of no great consequence yet to the Romanists it is a point fundamentall for vpon it they build their treasury of superaboundant satisfactions And Leech after hee had first suckt this thinner and purer blood afterwards greedily swallowed the most corrupt and ranke blood of Popery but I hope the Appealers manifold preferments and better hopes will be better councellors to him then to merit by a totall or supererogate to a finall Apostacie from vs to the Pope of Rome Of Reall presence Harmony Church of Rome Counc of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 1. Of the reall presence of our Lord in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist This holy Synode openly and simply professeth That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration of Bread Wine That our L. Iesus Christ true God and man is truly really and substantially contained vnder the species or forme of those sensible things Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. cap. Ego Berengarius is inioyned by Pope Nicholas to recāt in this form I Berengarius doe accurse that heresy wherewith I haue beene heretofore defamed in maintaining that the bread and wine after the consecration are onely a Sacrament and not the true body and blood of Christ. And that the true body and blood of Christ cannot be sensibly handled by the Priests or broken or chewed with the teeth of the faithfull but onely in the signe or sacrament thereof And I giue my consent to the holy Church of Rome and Aposto like See and I professe with my tongue and heart that I hold the same faith concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Table which our Lord and holy Father Nicholas and this holy Synod by Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority hath inioyned to be held and hath confirmed vnto me to wit that the bread and wine vpon the Altar after consecration are not onely the sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that not onely the Sacrament but the body and blood of Christ is in truth sensibly handled and broken by the Priests and eaten with the teeth of the faithfull Bellarmine de Sacramento Eucharist lib. 1. c. 2. The Councell of Trent Sess. 13. teacheth That Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really against the fiction of the Calvinists who will haue Christ to be there so present that he may be apprehended by faith that hee is present to the contemplation of faith though corporally in heauen Bellarm. ibid. The Councell addeth substantially against the Calvinists who say that the body of Christ according to his substance is onely in heauen but according to I know not what virtue and power he floweth from thence to vs. Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 253. But that the Diuell bred you vp in a faction and sent you abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Otherwise acknowledge there is there need be no difference in the point of reall presence Appeal p. 289. Cōcerning this point there need be no difference the disagreement is onely de modo praesentiae Answer to Gagg pag. 253. There is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence Ibid. pag. 252. We ingenuously confesse That by this Sacrament Christ giueth vs his very body and blood and really and truly performes in vs his promise as for the maner how this inexplicable that vnutterable trans or con wee skill not of Vide supra Appeal pag. 289. In these passages the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in these three things first that he saith There is no difference betweene vs about the reall presence wheras indeed there is a maine difference and most of our Martyrs dyed rather then they would acknowledge the Popish reall presence See the Acts and Monuments Secondly he saith that the manner is vnutterable whereas the Church of England defineth the manner Thirdly in that he saith we skill not of or make matter of transubstantiation or consubstantiatiō wheras the Church of England expresly condemneth transubstantiation as a grosse and dangerous error Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 28. The body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a heauenly and spirituall manner And the meane wherby the body of Christ is eaten and receiued in the Supper is Faith Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proued by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine word of Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacramēt and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions Iuel Artic. 5. of the reall presence pag. 238. We seeke Christ aboue in heauen and imagine not him to be bodily present vpon the earth The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith onely and no otherwise And in this last point appeareth a notable difference between vs and M. Harding for we place Christ in the heart according to the doctrine of Saint Paul Mr. Harding placeth him in the mouth We say Christ is eaten onely by faith Master Harding saith hee is eatē with the mouth and teeth Article 28. The body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the Supper onely after an heauenly and spirituall manner the meane wherby the body of Christ is receiued and eaten in the supper is faith Transubstantiation is repugnant to Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament The Appealer seemes to bee one of the Bonhommes who in a jejune Lent-discourse durst openly bid defiance to the Article of our Church saying I abhorre them that teach Christ to be in the Sacrament onely by faith for hee is not there because wee beleeue but wee beleeue because he is there present If this be a good beleefe and doctrine That Christ is otherwise present in the Sacrament then to the hearts of beleeuers and that by faith onely let the Appealers poore Woodcocke or Catholike Cockscombe pag. 251. tell vs what he taketh to be the meaning of S. Austin in those words qui credit edit or if he cannot do that yeeld a reason why Rats and Mice may not eate the very body of Christ. Of Images Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. p. 290 The Images of Christ the Virgin mother of God of other Saints are to be had retained in Tēples especially and due honour and veneration is to bee giuen vnto them Because the honour which is to be exhibited to them is referred to the prototype or sampler so that by the images which we kisse and before which we put off our hats and lye downe wee adore Christ and the Saints whose Images they beare Bellarmine of the Images of Saints lib. 2. c. 21. Images by themselues properly are to be worshipped Ibid. cap. 22. We must not say That the supreme worship called Latria is due to Images but on the contrary wee ought to say that they ought not so to be adored Bellarmin ibid. cap. 9. lib. 2.
Images may be lawfully set vp in Churches Appealer ANswer to the Gagg p. 318. The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may be made had in houses set vp in Churches respect and honour may bee giuen to them The Protestants doe it and vse them for helpes of Piety in rememoration and more effectuall representing of the prototype Page 319. Let practice doctrine goe together wee agree Page 318. You say they must not haue Latria sowce Appeale page 257. In your practice you giue them that honour which you call Latria and is a part of diuine worship so not we Let practice and doctrine goe together that is giue them no Latria formall nor interpretatiue we agree Answer to Gagg pag. 318. Images are not vnlawfull for ciuill vses nor vtterly in all maner of religious imployment Gag p. 300. Images haue three vses assigned by your Schooles Instructiō of the rude commonefaction of history and stirring vp of deuotion You and wee also giue vnto them Discord Church of Engl. ARt 22. The Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques is a fond thing vainly inuented and grounded vpon no warranty of Scripture But rather repugnant to the word of God Homily against the perill of Idolatry part 3. page 42. It is vnlawfull that it the image of Christ should be made or that the Image of any Saint should bee made especially to bee set vp in Temples to the great and vnauoidable danger of Idolatry Wee grant that Images vsed for no religion or superstition rather we meane Images of none worshipped nor in danger to be worshipped of any may bee suffered But Images placed publikely in Temples cannot possibly be without danger of Idolatry Ibid. p. 42. Beware lest thou make to thy selfe that is to say to any vse of Religion any grauen Image Ibid. page 43. Images are of more force to crooke an vnhappy soule thē to teach and instruct Ibid. pag. 42. Either Images bee no bookes or if they be they bee false and lying bookes the teachers of all errour In this point of Images the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in foure particulars 1 The Church of England condemneth in the Article the popish doctrine concerning the worshipping of Images The Appealer approueth the doctrine and condemneth the practice onely 2 The Church of England teacheth it to be vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches because it cannot be done without vnauoidable perill of Idolatry The Appealer alloweth the setting them vp in Churches 3 The Church of England forbiddeth all religious vse of Images allowing meere ciuill or historicall The Appealer alloweth Images for religious imployments 4 The Church of England denyeth any worship due to Images The Appealer granteth any worship saue Latria hee stickes not at Dulia if it trench not vpon Latria In all which points of Doctrine hee perfectly accordeth with Bellarmine and the Church of Rome onely hee disclaymeth their practice as also Polidor Virgil and many other ingenuous Papists doe Of the Crosse. Harmony Church of Rome BEll Book 2. of the Images of Saints c. 30. The signe of the Crosse workes miracles not out of a natural virtue that it hath as a figure But as a signe instituted of GOD. Note that there are three wonderfull effects of the crosse 1. it terrifieth putteth deuils to flight 2. It driueth away diseases and all euils 3. It sanctifieth those things vpon which it is imprinted The first effect it hath from three causes from the apprehension of the deuill the deuotion of man and institution of God For the Deuill when he seeth the Crosse presently remembreth that by the Crosse of Christ hee was conquerd spoild bound discōsited Hence it is that he flyes from the Crosse as a Dog doth from a stone or staffe with which he hath beene strucke Againe the Crosse hath a force from the worke of him that worketh with it or vseth it after the same manner as prayer hath For the signe of the Crosse is a kinde of the calling vpon the merits of Christ crucified expressed by the signe of the Crosse. Appealer ANsw. to Gagg page 321. Our church alloweth the signe of the crosse vseth it commandeth it I could tell you some experimented effects of it App. p. 280. What if I meant some experimēted effects of my own knowledge what then Can you controll or convince me What if vpon diuers extremities I haue found ease by vsing that ciaculatory prayer of our Let any By thy cross And what if to testifie my faith I made the signe of the cross Answ. to Gagge pag. 320. Wee vse signing with the signe of the Crosse both in the forehead and elsewhere witnesse that solemne form in our Baptisme for which we are so quarrelled by our factious The flesh is signed that the soule may bee fortified saith Tertullian and so doe wee Appeale p. 268. What hindereth but that I may signe my selfe with the signe of the Crosse in any part of my body at any time at night when I goe to bed in the morning when I rise c Discord Church of England BOok of Common Prayer Then the Priest shall make a Crosse vpon the Childes forehead Booke of Canons Chapter of the signe of the Crosse. The Infant baptised is by virtue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the Crosse receiued into the Congregation of Christs flocke and not by any power assign'd to the signe of the Crosse. The Church of England hath retained the signe of the Crosse being purged from all Popish Superstition and errour for the remembrance of the Cross accounting it a lawfull outward ceremony and honourable badge In this point touching the signe of the Crosse the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in two particulars 1 He falsely imposeth vpon the Church of England That in her forme of Baptisme shee vseth the signe of the Crosse vpon the forehead and elsewhere That else-where is not to be found in the forme of Baptisme or els-where in the constitution or practice of our Church 2 He ascribeth operatiue Power and experimented effects to the Crosse and seemes to father some such error vpon the Church of England saying That wee signe the flesh that the soule may be fortified so wee wheras the Church of England in the Canon will haue no power or efficacy to be ascribed to the signe of the Crosse but onely a kinde of significancy and honorable representation of Christs death vpon the Cross. And more then this I will not beleeue touching any efficacy of the signe of the Crosse till I finde by experience that the Appealers signing his lips with the signe of the Crosse makes him a faire-spoken and his signing himselfe on the brest with the signe of the Crosse makes him a Good man Of Invocation of Saints Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. The holy Synod commādeth all Bishops and others to whom the office
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.
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
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
vtterly forsaken the catholike faith Therefore the present church of Rome is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ. The first proposition is most euident the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England part 5. ch 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch 22. Diuis 2. This Apology of the Church of England as it beareth the name so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth it was commanded to bee had in all Churches and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in euery Parish Church in this Kingdome in the yeare of our Lord 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames who gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes for the most rare and admirable that haue beene written in this last age of the world and also gaue speciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop Bancroft to appoint some one to write his the said Bishops life in English and prefixe it to his workes which accordingly is done in the last edition Secondly I proue it thus Whatsoeuer Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The first proposition cannot bee denied the assumption is the Appealers Appeale pag. 149. In Apostasie the Turke and Pope are both interessed both are departed away whether wee take that apostacie to bee a departing away from Christ and his Kingdome and his Doctrine or whether wee vnderstand apostacie and defection from the Romane Empire c. page 150. Thirdly I proue it thus No Church maintaining practising Idolatry can be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The present Church of Rome maintaineth and practiseth idolatry Therefore the present Church of Rome cannot be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The first proposition is the Apostles 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England Artic. 35. The Homilies and by name the Homily the second against perill of idolatry containeth godly and wholesome doctrine If godly and wholesome Doctrine then certainely true Fourthly it is a dangerous error to affirme as the Appealer doth Answer to Gagge page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa Christs Church and Spouse That God hath his Church euen in Rome we doe not deny but that the present Romane Church specially since the Councell of Trent holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conuenticle or that the Papacy that is the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents are Christs Church and Spouse the Appealer is the first Protestant that euer for ought I know affirmed it Iunius whom he alleadgeth Appeale pag. 113. to this purpose in his booke De Ecclesiâ is so farre from supporting his assertion that in the same booke hee quite ouerthroweth it his words are pag. 60. 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit cùm Papatus non esset accessit ei Papatus contingenter sic ab ea separabilis ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia sed in Ecclesiâ est adnatum malu◠pestis hydrops gangraena in corpore vitae atque saluti ejus insidians ideoque succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quà m infestissimè The Church of God was many ages when there was no Papacy at all as at this day also there are Churches where there is no Papacy and will be hereafter without the Papacy The Papacy therefore is not the Church but a disease or botch growne to or in the Church a plague a dropsy a gangreene in the body indangering the health feeding vpon and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth Appeale page 113. The Papall Church saith Franciscus Iunius neither Papist nor Arminian quâ id habet in se quod ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet est Ecclesia As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church is a Church Why doth the Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence why doth he not goe on to the full period the sentence is yet but lame he hath put out but the left legge I will put out the right legge for him wherewith Iunius giues Popery a kicke and trips vp the Appealers heeles Qud vero habet in se adnatum malum quod Papalitatem dicimus eo respectu Ecclesia non est sed vitiata atque corrupta Ecclesia ad interitum tendens But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or euill growne to it which we call the Papacy in that respect it is not the Church but a vitiate and corrupt church and tending to ruine Note here Reader in the Appealers defence of Popery a tricke of Popery to cite sentences by halfes alleadging onely that which in shew makes for them and concealing that which in truth makes against them The meaning of the whole sentence of Iunius is cleare enough for vs and against the Appealer to wit that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scriptures is a Church but as it is Popish and addeth many errors to those truths consequently subuerting those very truths it holdeth it is no Church Which I thus proue No Spouse or true church of Christ is in part or in whole that Antichrist or whore of Babylon The present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or Popish state thereof is in part as the Appealer confesseth Appeale pag. 149. or in whole as many Pillars of our Church haue taught that Antichrist or whore of Babylon Therefore the present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or popish state thereof is no Spouse nor true church of christ I haue heard that the Appealer in a late conference wherein this passage on which I haue so long insisted was obiected against him should stand at this ward answering for himselfe that these words praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum firma semper constitit c. manet enim Christi Ecclesia Sponsa Answ. to Gag page 50. were not his owne words but the words of Cassander This his ward will not keepe off the blow For first
he alleadgeth this sentence in approbation thereof and commendation of the Author moderate men saith he ibid. on both sides confesse this controuersy may cease hee should haue said luke-warme men on both sides Secondly he resteth on this passage as being a full answer to the Popish obiection concerning the visibility of the Church Thirdly in other places of his booke Appeale page 113. and 139. and 140. he affirmeth in his owne words as much in effect as he here coteth linguâ Romanâ out of Cassander but fide Graecâ His words are page 113. I am absolutely perswaded and shall be till I see cause to the contrary that the church of Rome is a true though not a sound church of Christ as well since as before the Councell of Trent a part of the catholike though not the catholike church which wee doe professe to beleeue in our Creed In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree holding one faith in one Lord. And p. 139 Rome is and euer was a true church since it was a church And page 140. the church of Rome is a true church ratione essentiae and being of a church not a sound church euery way in their Doctrine Vt Marci Antonij de Dominis discipulum possis agnoscere I know well the mint where these new tenents were coined the Appealer shewes himselfe a tractable and respectiue Prebend to his late Deane following him pene ad aras neere to the Romish Altars That his Deane after his relapse into Popery in the last booke containing his poenitendam poenitentiam et retractandam retractationem his repentance to be repented of and retractation to bee retracted renouncing the true religion which he had defended laboureth to cleare the present church of Rome from the imputation of heresie because as he saith the wiser and learneder Ministers of the church of England teach that the church of Rome doth not erre in any fundamentall articles of faith In defectu credendi haeresis est non in excessu haereticus est censendus qui in fide deficit aliquid quod scriptum est non credendo non is qui in fide superabundat plus quam scriptum est credendo Heresie consists in the defect not in the excesse of beleeuing and he is an Heretike who is deficient in his faith by not beleeuing something that is written not he that superabounds in his faith by beleeuing more then is written This errour as I am informed spreads farre like a Gangreane therefore most needfull it is it be lookt to in time It is true that the Church of Rome holdeth if not all yet most of the fundamentall and positiue articles with vs. It is true also that most of their errours are by way of addition Yet whosoeuer from hence will conclude that the Church of Rome is not hereticall or erreth not in any point necessary to saluation grossely mistaketh the matter as will appeare to any whose iudgement is not forestalled by the demonstration of these two conclusions 1 That Heresy or damnable Errour may be as well by adding to as taking from the Orthodoxe faith 2 That the Church of Rome erreth not onely in excesse or beleeuing more then is needfull but also in defect and beleeuing lesse The first is thus demonstrated Whatsoeuer errours are alike forbidden in Scripture vnder the same punishment are alike damnable Errors by adding to and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith are alike forbidden in Scripture vnder the same punishment Therefore errours by adding to and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith are alike damnable The first proposition is cleare by it owne light The assumption or second proposition is deliuered expresly in holy Scripture Deut. 42. Ye shall not adde vnto the words which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it Proverb 30. 5. 6. Euery word of God is pure adde thou not vnto his words lest he reproue thee Galat. 1. 18. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you beside that which wee haue preached vnto you let him be accursed Reuel 22. 18. For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the words of the Prophesie of this Booke If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the booke of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the Booke of Life and out of the holy City and from the things that are written in this Booke Secondly thus Whatsoeuer things alike destroy the nature of faith are alike damnable Errours by addition and detraction alike destroy the nature of Faith Therefore errors by addition and detraction are alike damnable The first proposition is vnquestionable The assumption I declare thus Faith is of the nature of a rule or certaine measure to which if any thing be added or taken away it ceaseth to be that rule Cùm credimus saith Tertullian nihil desideramus ultra credere prius enim hoc credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus Fides in regulâ posita est nihil ultra scire est omnia scire When we beleeue we desire to beleeue no more for wee first beleeue this that there is nothing more we ought to beleeue Faith is contained in a rule to know nothing beyond it is to know all things Virtue is in the meane vice as well in the excesse as in the defect In our body the superabundance of humours is as dangerous as lacke of them as many dye of Plethories as of Consumptions A hand or foot which hath more fingers or toes then ordinary is alike monstrous as that which wanteth the due number To vse their owne similitude A foundation may be as well ouethrowne by laying on it more then it will beare as by taking away that which is necessary to support the building Thirdly thus The errours in faith and religion of the Samaritans Malchamites Athenians Galatians Ebionites Nazarites Quartadecimans Manichees and Nestorians were damnable But all these seuerall errours were errours of addition Therefore errours of Addition are damnable The first proposition will not bee gainesaied For all these errours are branded as hereticall or damnable either by the Spirit of God in Scripture or by the catholike christian Church The Assumption will appeare in the suruay of those particular errors The Samaritans feared the Lord and serued their owne Gods The Malchamites worshipped and sware by the Lord and sware by Malcham The Athenians worshipped the true God by the name of THE VNKNOWNE GOD and withall worshipped Idols The Galatians Ebionites Nazarites and Quartadecimans beleeued the Gospell yet retained also and obserued the legall ceremonies But now after ye haue knowne God or rather are knowne of God how turne ye againe to the weake and beggerly elements whereunto ye desire againe to bee in bondage saith Saint Paul of the Galatians Ebionitae ceremonias adhuc legis retinent pauperes interpretantur et vere sensu
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
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. *