or may bee accounted or is that Antichrist or Antichrists my irresolution grew as I haue remembred from the much insufficiency of their proofs that tender it stoutly strongly affectionately and tantum non as a point of faith Not any one of their arguments is not all their arguments together are conuincing Appeale p. 149. I incline to the more moderate and temperate tenent and rather of the two embrace the Turkish Popish estate not seueral but conioyned doe constitute That Antichrist then either of the two states disioynedly and of the two states rather the Turk by much then the Pope Ibid. p. 144. Why should it not be as lawfull for mee to opine that the Pope is not that Antichrist as for others to write to preach to publish to tender to proceeders this proposition The Pope is Antichrist Ib. p. 154. The Turk is and hath bin long possessed of Ierusalem that holy City The Iewes when Mahomet first declared himselfe came flocking vnto him as to their Messias the sooner rather because hee was circumcised Discord Church of Engl. HOmily against wilfull rebellion 6. part p. 316. The Bishop of Rome vnderstanding the superstition of Englishmen and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonical Beast of Rome and to feare all his threatnings and causelesse cursings c. The Pope is implyed to be that Antichrist in the prayer of thankesgiuing for our deliuerance from the powder Treason Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian sect And in the morning prayer appointed for priuate houses Confound Satan Antichrist with all hirelings c. See K. Iames in his praemonitory preface his CoÌ„ment vpoÌ„ the Reuelation Iuel Def. of Apoâ— par 4. c. 9. diuis 3. B. Abbot and â— Downam de Antichristo B. Andrewes resp ad Car. Bel. Ap. à capite 9. ad 13. In this point touching Antichrist the Appealer agreeth with the Church of Rome and diâ—â—enteth from the learnedst Diuines in England and other reformed Churches both touching the maine conclusion The Pope is Antichrist and touching the seat doctrine and character of Antichrist which they apply to the Pope hee with the Papists to the Turke As for the Protestant arguments taken out of the Apocalyps to proue the Pope to be the Antichrist Bellarmine calls them deliramenta dotages and the Appealer to shew more zeale to the Popes cause straineth farther and termes them Apocalypticall frensies which proceeding from the mouth of a Protestant Antigagger and Appealer to King Iames Non sani esse hominis no sanus juret Orestes Of Limbus Patrum Church of Rome BEllar de Anim. Christi l. 4. c. 11. The soules of the godly were not in heaueÌ„ before Christs ascensioÌ„ Id. de SaÌ„ct beat lib. 1. c. 20. If they demand why prayers of the liuing were not reuealed to the Fathers in Limbo and are now reuealed to the Saints in heauen I answer that the Saints in Limbo did not take care of our affaires as the Saints doe in heauen neither were they then set ouer the Church as now they are Appealer GAgg pag. 278 Though they were not in heauen in regard of place yet were they in happinesse in regard of state Ib. 281. Let them not haue been in heauen before our Sauiour I deny it necessarie they were therefore in Hell that region I call Abrahams bosome which though it bee not Heauen yet is it higher then hell Church of England HOmily concerning Prayer pag. 122. The scripture doth acknowledge but two places after this life the one proper to the elect and blessed of God the other proper to the reprobate and damned soules Ibid. pag. 122. S. Augustine doth acknowledge onely two places after this life to wit heauen and hell In this point though the Appealer dissent from the Romanists in a circumstance on the bye about the situation of Limbus Patrum for they place it nearer the confines of hell the Appealer nearer heauen yet he agreeth with theÌ„ in these 2 main conclusions 1 That there is or at least was a place for soules after this life distinct from heauen and hell 2 That the soules of the Fathers before Christs ascension were not in heauen but in that third place Of Traditions Harmony Church of Rome COuc of Trent Ses. 4. decret 1. The holy Synod of Trent finding this truth and holy discipline to bee contained partly in Scriptures partly in vnwritten traditions which eyther were taken froÌ„ Christs mouth by the Apostles or were deliuered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the holy Ghost and haue passed as it were from hand to hand to vs and following the example of the Orthodoxe Fathers doth with the like religious affection reuerence receiue entertain all the bookes of the old and new Testament as also the traditions theÌ„selues pertaining to faith and manners Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 42. That most learned religious and most iudicious writer hee meaneth St. Basil de Spiritu sancto which Treatise Erasmus Bishop Bilson and other iudicious Diuines proue to be counterfeit saith no more then is iustifiable touching traditions For thus saith he The Doctrine of the Church is two wayes deliuered vnto vs First by writing then by tradition from hand to hand bothe are of alike force or value vnto piety Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 6. Holy scriptures containe all things necessary vnto saluation so that what soeuer is not read therein nor may be proued therby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of faith or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation Art 20. Although the Church bee a witnes a keeper of holy writ yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be beleeued for necessity of saluation Art 21. Things ordained by Generall Councels as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture In this point touching Traditions the Appealer consenteth with the Church of Rome and differeth from vs in two particulars 1 In that he admitteth of doctrinall Traditions belonging to faith and manners We acknowledge traditions concerning discipline and the rites and ceremonies of the Church but not concerning the doctrine or matter of faith and religion 2 In that he equalizeth vnwritten traditions to holy Scriptures such traditions as we receiue we hold and esteeme farre inferiour A WRIT OF ERROVR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER HOrtensius that spruce Oratour commenced an action against a Citizen of Rome for rushing hastily vpon him and thereby disordering and pressing down the pleats of his gowne Many such actions haue been heretofore entred and pursued against such as haue rudely or carelessely crushed a pleat in the Spouse gowne or ruffled a set in her ruffe I meane with their pen glanced though vnwittingly at a ceremonie of order or ornament of decency But now when not her rayment of
A Second PARALLEL Together with A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOVRNE M.DC.XXVI TO THE CATHOLIQVE Christian Reader Courteous Reader A Few daies since a friend of mine shewed me a Booke intituled a Parallel which I gladly receiued from him and perused it the more readily because I well hoped that some of the Parallel lines would sute to our Meridian But taking an exact view of them and applying them to our Horizon I found they were somewhat short of our Eleuation yet I discouered some thing drawne in those Parallels which I conceiued to be of some vse to wit the Lineal descent of Arminius by the half bloud at least frō Pelagius for if it be confessed that Arminius his pedegree is lineally to be deriued from Pelagius and that Pelagius is the great Apenninus from which the diuided streames of corrupt doctrine flow then vndoubtedly the assertions of Arminius were priùs damnatae quà m natae were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church before they were brought forth by Arminius And we haue the Prescription of the Christian world for more than 1200. yeares against the new encroachments of these Sectaries But me thinks I heare thee ring in mine care the peale of the Poet Ole quid ad te what is this to thee or me or to the matter now on foot It is not Arminius but an Appealer that troubles our Israel Aemilius fecit plectetur Rutilius Aemilius hath done wrong shall Rutilius beare the blame Because Arminius browseth vpon some branches of Pelagianisme a plant which our heauenly Father neuer planted and therefore in time must be rooted out is it reason the Appealer should be muzled or any mans teeth whet against him Verily the Appealer disclaimes all kinred or affinitie with Arminius nay he protesteth he knoweth not the man and if peraduenture some Longinus or skilfull Genealogist may be able to disproue him yet certainly the vulgar reader is not I haue therefore thought it worth the paines to take the line of Pelagius which is already brought downe to Arminius and from Arminius to draw it out euen to the Appealer to the end all that are not forestalled with preiudice may see that both the Appealer and Arminius hold their errors in capite from Pelagius And that at the first the Netherlands and other parts receiued the infection of pestilent doctrine from Britaine by Pelagius and now at last that Britaine hath receiued it from the Netherlands by Arminius Mater me genuit eadem mox gignitur ex me But before I open the leaues of my Tablet representing on the one side the Arminian and on the other the Appealers Demi-Pelagianisme I intreat the Reader emunctae naris to follow the sent of Arminianisme in the Appealers writings by these foure steps 1. His sleight and dilute purgation from the aspersion of Arminianisme 2. His direct and professed defence of the Arminians 3. His casting a blur vpon the Synod of Dort that blasted them 4. His disparaging the Articles of Lambhith which are è diametro opposite to the tenets of Baro then and since Arminius To begin with his Purgation Although in other Criminations it may be an argument of Innocencie not to be moued or any way sensible of them yet in the suspition of heresie no man as saith Saint Hierom ought to be silent Silence in such an accusation is a crying sin Et patientia digna omni impatientiâ and patience it selfe is vnsufferable Euery man is bound to professe his faith and consequently openly to discharge himselfe from all imputation especially of heresie which is so foule a crime that the water of penitent teares alone hath not bin thought enough to wash it away Scelus hoc exuritur igne it hath bin vsually burnt out with fire It leaueth such a spot in the conscience that S. Cyprian conceiueth The blood of Martyrdome cannot fetch it out Macula haec nec sanguine eluitur Now whether Pelagianisme be heresie I thinke it is a question without question vnlesse we will take vpon vs to censure the censures of the ancient Church and most eminent Doctors thereof S. Austin in his booke de bono Perseuerantiae is not content to call it perniciosissimus error c. 17. but c. 21. he calls it twise Pelagiana haeresis And that Arminianisme is Pelagianisme either in whole or in part I take the Parallel till I see it not slightly glanced at but substantially refuted to be an ocular demōstratiō But if this be yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a point not yet gained yet that Arminianisme wherewith the Appealer is charged not only by two Presbyters of his owne ranke but a reuerend Prelate his Diocesan is formally heresie Appello Caesarem I appeale to that Caesar whom he first appealed vnto King IAMES of blessed memorie who in his declaration against Vorstius hath these words concerning Arminius He was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresie And concerning Bertius he writeth thus Bertius a scholler of Arminius at this present remaining in your towne of Leyden hath not onely presumed to publish of late a blasphemous booke of the apostasie of Saints but hath besides bin so impudent as to send the other day a copie thereof as a goodly present to our Archbishop of Canterbury together with a Letter wherein he is not ashamed as also in his booke to lye so grosly as to auow that his heresies contained in the said booke are agreeable with the Religion and profession of the Church of England To cleare then himselfe from the foule spot of this heresie what course doth the Appealer take Doth he call God and his Angels to witnesse that he renounceth from his heart all Arminius his vnwarrantable and dangerous assertions Doth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fairely and openly make this or the like protestation Arminius teacheth none but respectiue Predestination I am for absolute Vniuersall grace and redemption is an Article of Arminius faith It is none of mine The cooperation of mans freewill with grace in the first conuersion and the power it hath to hinder and frustrate the worke of regenerating grace is current doctrine with Arminius But I take it for a leaden Leyden error Arminius maintaineth a totall and finall falling away from the grace of Iustification I detest and abhominate that assertion and will haue no Confarreation with the apostate defender of such Apostasie This had beene indeed to vnclaspe the right hands of fellowship with Arminius and if he had euer walkt in his path to shake the dust from his feet but in stead hereof the Appealer casts dust in the Readers eyes by making a deepe protestation idque in verbo Sacerdotis of not reading any word in Arminius I protest saith he before God and his Angels the time is yet to come that euer I read word in Arminius Before I read this Protestation I confesse that my selfe
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
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