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
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
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.
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
bitter scoffe at the practice of our Ecclesiasticall Courts Howsoeuer if the Appealer had onely trod a little awry either in the high path of popery or by-path of puritanisme I for mine owne part would haue borne with it and that in respect of his otherwise commendable parts and profitable paines in the Church but when he halteth downe right betweene two religions none that desireth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to walke with a right foot can endure him And doth he not limpe nay doth he not halt downe-right doth he not weare a Linsie-woolsy garment Answer to Gagg page 13. and 14 Truth is of two sorts amongst men manifest and confessed truth or more obscure and involved truth In his quae apertè posita sunt in Scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem morés que vivendi spem scilicet charitatem Plainly deliuered in Scripture are all those points which belong vnto Faith and Manners Hope and Charity to wit And accordingly I doe know no obscurity vpon these I know none of these controuerted inter partes The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides and held plaine enough The controuerted points are of a larger and inferiour alloy of them a man may bee ignorant without any danger of his soule at all A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing for euer c. It is most euident in this place that the parties he speaketh of are the Papists and we for there are no other haue any triall in this Chapter or matter of debate By partes in many other places of his booke he vnderstandeth Papists and Protestants and here he cannot meane any other but the Gagger and his complices on the one side and the Protestant Church on the other side as the antecedents and consequents doe manifest Now if the differences betweene the papists and vs are of such an inferiour alloye that little reckoning is to be made of them because they adde nothing to or take nothing from the summe of sauing knowledge how much haue all the reformed Churches in Christendome to answer at the dreadful Tribunall of Christ for making so great a rent in Christs seamlesse coat vpon so small occasion If the controuerted points be like herbe Iohn in the pot that may be in or out without perill at all why haue all our Prophets sithence Luther at least cryed Mors in ollâ mors in ollâ Death in the pot O blessed Martyrs who sithence the beginning of Reformation haue watred the seed of the Gospell with your blood put off your long white robes and garlands and put on sackcloth and ashes for you dyed vpon no good ground you shed not your blood in zeale but spilt it in folly Martyrs you may be of schisme or obstinacy or indiscretion but not of faith if those points you suffered for belonged not at all to faith Diffido oculis meis identidem interrogo an legerim an viderim I suspect mine eyes I question my Copy I demand of my selfe againe and againe Is it possible a Diuine of no inferiour alloy should vtter such an incredible paradoxe wee dissent from the Church of Rome about Christ and his offices the foundation of faith the Scriptures the rule of faith the Church the subiect of faith the Sacraments the seales of faith iustification the proper effect of faith and good workes the fruit of faith nay wee contest about the very nature and essence of faith And are none of these matters of faith doe none of these belong to faith or manners If our debates are de tribus capellis about the fringe not the Spouse coat about the barke and not the body of Religion then hath not the Church of Rome erred in matter of faith and if she hath not then the Church of England hath erred in charging her with error not onely in matter of ceremony and discipline but also in matter of faith Art 19. If the Church of England hath erred in this Article the Appealers false oathes must needs be answerable to his degrees and preferments for so oft hath he sworne to that Article among the rest But he yeeldeth vs a reason The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides and held plaine enough on both sides hee might say on all sides and hands For the Arrians in Polonia the Antitimitarians in Transiluania the Nestorians in Greece the Anabaptists and Socinians in the Netherlands doe all rehearse the Articles of the Creed and hold them plaine enough Let him peruse al the bedrol of heretikes condemned by the Church of God in all ages drawne by Irenaeus Epiphanius S. Augustine Philastrius Alfonsus a Castro and others and he shall hardly pitch vpon any sort of Heretickes that directly either denyed or articled against the Articles of the Apostles Creed And will he say none of these erred in matter of faith but all were and are in regiâ viâ the high way to heauen If hee answer that the heretickes though they professed the Articles of the Apostles Creed totidem verbis in the very words yet they denyed or depraued the sense and brought in damnable errours by consequence ouerthrowing those foundations of our faith Our reply is at hand As the greater part of ancient heretickes so at this day the Papists confesse the Articles of the Creed and hold them plaine truth but they misinterpret them and by consequence shake if not quite ouerthrow diuers of them Either they or we misinterpret those three articles especially concerning the Catholike Church the Communion of Saints the forgiuenesse of sinnes to which their great Champion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reduceth all the controuersies betweene our Church and theirs And for vndermining the articles of our Creed by consequences and maintaining repugnances to them thâ— Romish Pioners are not farre behind the ancient enemies of our faith Manes and Vorstius doe not directly impugne the article touching God the Almighty Creator nor Marâ—ion Arrius Apollinaris Eutiches Nestorius and Socinus the article concerning Christ the Redeemer nor Macedonius and the Pneumatomachi the article concerning the holy Ghost but they held such doctrine which was not comportable with those articles And how the Romish doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels may stand with the first article rightly expounded I beleeue in God and their doctrine of Iustification by inherent righteousnesse with the second and in Iesus Christ and of transubstantiation with the article of Christ his Incarnation and Ascension and of a Catholick visible Romish Church vnder one visible Head with that I beleeue the holy Catholicke Church and of vncertainty of saluation with those I beleeue the remission of sins and life euerlasting I desire to bee enformed by the Appealer which I could neuer yet bee by any Romanist Vpon this most false and deceiueable ground that the differences inter partes are not in matters de fide hee buildeth two most dangerous assertions that a man may be ignorant
of them without any perill of his soule at all and A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing Tum maximè oppugnaris si te oppugnari nescis The greatest danger of all is when in place of danger wee suspect none A man that enters into a plaguy house if he know not of it is more subiect to infection through his carelesse boldnesse And they who speake fauourably of the Romish Church compare it to a Pest-house in which yet through Gods extraordinary mercy a man may be without mortall infection but cannot possibly be without danger If there be no danger in Romish Schools and Temples if a man may be at Masse and incurre no perill of Idolatry in the adoration of the Hoste inuocation of Saints worshipping of Images Reliques and the like blot out all the parts of the largest and learnedst Homily in all the booke intituled Against perill of Idolatrie Here I appeale to the Appealers conscience Is it no perill at all to the soule of man to be ignorant which are the true inspired Scriptures which is the true Church which are the Sacraments instituted by Christ what is the pure worship of God in spirit and truth what are the prerogatiues of Christ and priuiledges of his Saints what is that faith we are justified and saued by All these and many more are controuerted points and doe none of these strengthen or weaken our title to the Kingdome of Heauen I haue no commission to inlarge the bowels of my Sauiour and most vnwilling am I to straiten them or close vp his side against such ignorant persons who neuer had nor could haue means to come to the full light of the Gospell yet I am not ignorant what Saint Augustines iudgment is euen of inuincible ignorance in points of faith Sed illa ignorantia quae non est eorū qui scire nolunt sed eorum qui tantum simpliciter scire nesciunt neminem sic excusat ut sempiterno igne non ardeat si propterea non credidit quia non audivit omnino quod crederet c. Not wilfull ignorance no not simple nescience can priuiledge any from euerlasting fire although he therefore beleeued not because he neuer heard what he should beleeue For that of the Psalmist is not without ground Powre out thy wrath O God on those nations that know thee not nor that of the Apostle when he shall come in flaming fire to render vengeance to them who know not God But the Appealer restraineth not his assertion to inuincible ignorance be it affected ignorance nay be it resolued errour in the controuerted points it no way in his iudgement indangereth eternall saluation either there is no crimen or at least discrimen in treading in either path for he saith A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing for euer Answer to Gagg pag. 14. A braue resolution of a Protestant Diuine to resolue that a resolute Papist a professed opposite to the doctrine of the Gospell may goe away cleare with it and not at all stumble at that stone on which whosoeuer falleth he shall be broken but on whomsoeuer it shall fall it will grinde him to powder Matt. 21. 44. I desire to be satisfied whether doth the Appealer beleeue that the Articles of Religion established in our Church by Authority standing in direct opposition as they doe to the Trent decisions are expresly contained in the Scriptures or may be euidently deduced from thence or not If not then according to the sixt article of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for saluation they are no articles of faith or religion If they are expresly contained in holy Scriptures or may be euidently deduced from thence then they are Gods truth set downe in his owne word And is there no danger in resoluing against God in opposing his word in siding against that truth which shall stand and abide when heauen and earth shall passe away I grant euery doctrine contained in Scripture is not absolutely necessary to saluation yet in the generall this is a doctrine most necessary to saluation to beleeue that all doctrine of Scripture is vndoubtedly true and that to deny any part of Scripture and much more deliberately to oppugne and wilfully to oppose is dangerous yea damnable And for the controuerted points in particular the denying of the truth in them lay so heauy on Latomus Franciscus Spira his conscience on their death-beds that in a fearful conflict of despaire by reason of the hainousnesse of that sinne they miserably gaue vp the ghost And Minaerius Gallus for mainly opposing the doctrine of the Gospell was so tormented with a burning in his bowels that he had as it were a sense of the very paines of Hell-fire euen in this life I tremble to rehearse what Aubignius reporteth in his history concerning a late great King beyond the Sea who after he had embraced the Romish faith and renounced the pure doctrine of the Gospell was exceedingly perlexed in mind and troubled in conscience and aduised with his bosome friend adiuring him to deale faithfully with him whether or no in that his action of deserting the faith of the reformed Church he had not committed the impardonable sinne against the holy Ghost To illustrate this point concerning the necessity of departing out of Babylon and perill of remaining in her let vs borrow a ray or beame of a true Iewel Wee haue done nothing in altering Religion vpon either rashnesse or arrogancy nay nothing but with good leisure and mature deliberation neither had we euer intended so to doe except both the manifest and assured will of God reuealed to vs in holy Scripture and regard of our own saluation had euen constrained vs thereunto This indeed is the lustre of a true Iewel but the false Diamond glareth on this wise The present Church of Rome hath alwayes continued firme in the same foundation of doctrine and sacraments instituted by God and acknowledgeth and imbraceth communion with the ancient and vndoubted Church of Christ wherefore she cannot be other or diuerse from it for she remaines still Christs Church and Spouse As in Ceiland they say A Snake lurketh vnder euery leafe so wee may truly say of this passage of the Appealer there is poysonous error and Satanicall doctrine in euerie line First it is an errour of dangerous consequence to affirme that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation with the ancient and primitiue Church For the present Church of Rome holdeth the twelue new Articles added to the Apostles Creed mentioned in Pope Pius his Bull as fundamentall points and necessary to saluation The oath prescribed by the Pope runnes thus Caetera item omnia à sacris Canonibus Oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipuè à sacrosanctâ Tridentinâ Synodo tradita definita declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor simúlque contraria
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
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
A Second PARALLEL Together with A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOVRNE M.DC.XXVI TO THE CATHOLIQVE Christian Reader Courteous Reader A Few daies since a friend of mine shewed me a Booke intituled a Parallel which I gladly receiued from him and perused it the more readily because I well hoped that some of the Parallel lines would sute to our Meridian But taking an exact view of them and applying them to our Horizon I found they were somewhat short of our Eleuation yet I discouered some thing drawne in those Parallels which I conceiued to be of some vse to wit the Lineal descent of Arminius by the half bloud at least frō Pelagius for if it be confessed that Arminius his pedegree is lineally to be deriued from Pelagius and that Pelagius is the great Apenninus from which the diuided streames of corrupt doctrine flow then vndoubtedly the assertions of Arminius were priùs damnatae quà m natae were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church before they were brought forth by Arminius And we haue the Prescription of the Christian world for more than 1200. yeares against the new encroachments of these Sectaries But me thinks I heare thee ring in mine care the peale of the Poet Ole quid ad te what is this to thee or me or to the matter now on foot It is not Arminius but an Appealer that troubles our Israel Aemilius fecit plectetur Rutilius Aemilius hath done wrong shall Rutilius beare the blame Because Arminius browseth vpon some branches of Pelagianisme a plant which our heauenly Father neuer planted and therefore in time must be rooted out is it reason the Appealer should be muzled or any mans teeth whet against him Verily the Appealer disclaimes all kinred or affinitie with Arminius nay he protesteth he knoweth not the man and if peraduenture some Longinus or skilfull Genealogist may be able to disproue him yet certainly the vulgar reader is not I haue therefore thought it worth the paines to take the line of Pelagius which is already brought downe to Arminius and from Arminius to draw it out euen to the Appealer to the end all that are not forestalled with preiudice may see that both the Appealer and Arminius hold their errors in capite from Pelagius And that at the first the Netherlands and other parts receiued the infection of pestilent doctrine from Britaine by Pelagius and now at last that Britaine hath receiued it from the Netherlands by Arminius Mater me genuit eadem mox gignitur ex me But before I open the leaues of my Tablet representing on the one side the Arminian and on the other the Appealers Demi-Pelagianisme I intreat the Reader emunctae naris to follow the sent of Arminianisme in the Appealers writings by these foure steps 1. His sleight and dilute purgation from the aspersion of Arminianisme 2. His direct and professed defence of the Arminians 3. His casting a blur vpon the Synod of Dort that blasted them 4. His disparaging the Articles of Lambhith which are è diametro opposite to the tenets of Baro then and since Arminius To begin with his Purgation Although in other Criminations it may be an argument of Innocencie not to be moued or any way sensible of them yet in the suspition of heresie no man as saith Saint Hierom ought to be silent Silence in such an accusation is a crying sin Et patientia digna omni impatientiâ and patience it selfe is vnsufferable Euery man is bound to professe his faith and consequently openly to discharge himselfe from all imputation especially of heresie which is so foule a crime that the water of penitent teares alone hath not bin thought enough to wash it away Scelus hoc exuritur igne it hath bin vsually burnt out with fire It leaueth such a spot in the conscience that S. Cyprian conceiueth The blood of Martyrdome cannot fetch it out Macula haec nec sanguine eluitur Now whether Pelagianisme be heresie I thinke it is a question without question vnlesse we will take vpon vs to censure the censures of the ancient Church and most eminent Doctors thereof S. Austin in his booke de bono Perseuerantiae is not content to call it perniciosissimus error c. 17. but c. 21. he calls it twise Pelagiana haeresis And that Arminianisme is Pelagianisme either in whole or in part I take the Parallel till I see it not slightly glanced at but substantially refuted to be an ocular demōstratiō But if this be yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a point not yet gained yet that Arminianisme wherewith the Appealer is charged not only by two Presbyters of his owne ranke but a reuerend Prelate his Diocesan is formally heresie Appello Caesarem I appeale to that Caesar whom he first appealed vnto King IAMES of blessed memorie who in his declaration against Vorstius hath these words concerning Arminius He was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresie And concerning Bertius he writeth thus Bertius a scholler of Arminius at this present remaining in your towne of Leyden hath not onely presumed to publish of late a blasphemous booke of the apostasie of Saints but hath besides bin so impudent as to send the other day a copie thereof as a goodly present to our Archbishop of Canterbury together with a Letter wherein he is not ashamed as also in his booke to lye so grosly as to auow that his heresies contained in the said booke are agreeable with the Religion and profession of the Church of England To cleare then himselfe from the foule spot of this heresie what course doth the Appealer take Doth he call God and his Angels to witnesse that he renounceth from his heart all Arminius his vnwarrantable and dangerous assertions Doth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fairely and openly make this or the like protestation Arminius teacheth none but respectiue Predestination I am for absolute Vniuersall grace and redemption is an Article of Arminius faith It is none of mine The cooperation of mans freewill with grace in the first conuersion and the power it hath to hinder and frustrate the worke of regenerating grace is current doctrine with Arminius But I take it for a leaden Leyden error Arminius maintaineth a totall and finall falling away from the grace of Iustification I detest and abhominate that assertion and will haue no Confarreation with the apostate defender of such Apostasie This had beene indeed to vnclaspe the right hands of fellowship with Arminius and if he had euer walkt in his path to shake the dust from his feet but in stead hereof the Appealer casts dust in the Readers eyes by making a deepe protestation idque in verbo Sacerdotis of not reading any word in Arminius I protest saith he before God and his Angels the time is yet to come that euer I read word in Arminius Before I read this Protestation I confesse that my selfe
of the Apostasie of Saints Edit Lugduni Anno 1615. pag. 12. Demand the first There is no absolute Election and b pag. 25. Absolute Predestination granted it was necessary to remoue the whole Scripture to settle that head or doctrine Arminius in the forecited Declaration pag. 33. Out of this doctrine to wit of absolute solute Predestination it c followeth that God is the Author of sinne And this may bee proued by a foure-fold Argument 1. Because this Doctrine layeth it downe that God precisely hath decrâ—ed to demonstrate his glory by punishing or punitiue iustice and mercy sauing some men and damning others which but by d Sinne entring into the world neither was nor could be done c. Arminius respons ad Artic. 10. It would be easie for mee to conuince the opinion of some of the brethren of Manichâ—isme and Stoicisme We protest to the whole world that by our aduersaries e Manicheisme and f Stoicisme or fatall necessitie is â—rought into the Church The Embleme of their booke of the Acts of the Synod of Dort hath this triumphant title Destructo fato or the 〈◊〉 of Fate Ex Act. Syn. Dordrac in Peror Bert. epist. Dedic before his booke of the Apostasie of the Saints There are who flie Pelagianisme not seeing that they plainly side with the Manichees Hee citeth these words as out of an Epistle of Casâ—ubon but forged by himselfe Hag Conference set out by Bert. pag. 90. This absolute Decree openeth a gate on this side to a g dissolute life on that side to h desperation APPEALER APPEALE to Caesar pag. 58. In all which passage to wit of the seuenteenth Article there rehearsed both concerning Gods decree and execution of that decree is not one word syllable or apex touching your absolute necessary determined irresistible irrespectiue decree of God to call saue and glorifie Saint Peter for instance infallibly without any consideration had of or regard to his faith obedience and repentance Appeale to Caesar pa. 54. Nothing is by mee ascribed to your side and to your Doctors but an absolute and irrespectiue decree concerning man in vtramque partem I brought no inferences to presse you withall such as are commonly and odiously made against you by opposites whose virulent inuectiues though too true imputations I vsed not I did not charge you with making God the Author of sinne That the reprobate are iâ—cited on and prouoked to sinne by God That God was the Author of Iudas treason and the like Appeale pag. 68. I neuer yet read of any prime preuious determining decree by which men were irrespectiuely denied grace and excluded from glory vnlesse from damned e Heretiques or f Stoâ—call Philosophers Appeale pag. 30. Against that absolute irrespectiue necessitating and fatall decree of your new Predestination Appeale pag. 60. I must confesse my dissent through and sincere from the faction of Noâ—â—lising Puritans c. but in no one point more than in this their h desperate doctrine of Predestination in which as they delight to trouble themselues and others in nothing more so I professe I doe loue to meddle nothing lesse I haue not I did not desire nor intend to declare my opinion in that point a Edit Lugduni Batau ex officina Tho. Basson 1512. b Positâ Praedestinatione illâ absolutâ necessarium fuit totam scripturam loco mouere vt illud caput adsereretur c It no way followeth See Caluines Preface of his booke of Diuine Predestin and first booke of Institut 17. Chap. Beza against Castellio Peter Martyr in his Comment on the 1. Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans Zuinglius in his Sermon of Prouidence Abbot Prelect of the Author of sinne Paraeus Answer to Bellaâ—mine second booke of the state of sinne and losse of grace chap. 4. and diuers others d God decreed the permission and disposing of sinne which he fore-saw vpon his permission would be hee did not decree the effecting or existence of it that it should be Saint Augustine fully answereth these and the like Arguments in his booke de Corrept Grat. cap. 10. We freely confesse that which we most rightly beleeue that the God and Lord of all things who made all things exceeding good and fore-saw that euill things would arise out of good and knew that it more appertained to his most omnipotent goodnesse to draw good out of euil than not to suffer euils to be hath so ordred the life of men and Angels that in it first he might shew the power of their owne free-will and then the benefit of his grace and iudgement of his iustice And in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium cap. 11. God being most exceeding good would not by any meanes suffer any euill to be in his workes but that he is also so omnipotent and good that he can and doth worke good euen out of euill e As Iulian the Pelagian often in his bookes vpbraided Saint Augustine with Manicheisme so doth Arminius and the Appealer following the Pelagians step by step lay the same imputation vpon the orthodox defenders of Predestination But the imputation is most false for the Manichees held two soules in a man one good another bad and ascribed good and euill not to the free-will of man but to those two soules We with the holy Fathers teach but one soule in man and referre good and euill to Free-will but so that the will of it selfe is free to euill but is not neither can sithence the fall of Adam be free vnto good till God hath freed it by his grace according to the words of our Sauiour in Saint Iohns Gospell Chap. 8. 36. But if the Sonne make you free you shall be free indeed And of Saint Paul Rom. 6. 18. Made free from sinne c. f A stale obiection long sithence answered by Saint Augustine in his second booke cap. 5. ad Bonifac. Wee maintaine not Fate or fatall necessity vnder the name of grace but if it please some men to call the omnipotent will of God vnder the name of Fate we seeke indeed to auoid prophane nouelty of word but wee will not contend about words To which answer of Saint Augustine we may further adde that the beleefe of Christians touching the falling out of all things according to the determinate counsell of God Act. 2. differeth from the Stoicke Fate or Fatality in foure things 1. The Stoicks subiected God himselfe to Fate Iupiter though he most desired could not free Sarpedon we subiect Fate that is the necessitie of things to Gods most free-will 2. They vnder the name of Fate vnderstood an eternall fluxe and necessary connexion of naturall causes and effects we teach that all natural and second causes had their beginning in the Creation neither is there such a necessary and absolute depeÌ„dance of effects from their naturall causes but that God can and often doth suspend those effects and miraculously worke beside aboue nay against nature 3. The Stoicks by their Fatality took away all contingencie wee admit
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
voluntas à Domino ideo pro illo Christi non possit esse inanis oratio Quando rogauit ergone fides eius deficeret quid aliud rogauit nisi vt haberet in fide liberrimam fortissimam inuictissimam perseuerantissimam voluntatem Ecce quemadmodum secundum gratiam Dei non contra eam libertas defenditur voluntatis voluntas quippe humana non libertate consequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem vt perseueret delectabilem perpetuitatem insuperabilem fortitudinem When Christ prayed for the faith of Peter that it might not faile what other thing did he aske but that he might haue a most free a most resolute a most vnconquerable a most perseuering will in the faith Behold how the freedome of the will is defended by vs according to Gods grace not against it for the will of man doth not by her freedome obtaine grace but by grace freedome and a delightfull perpetuitie and inuincible power to perseuere ARMINIANS HAge CoÌ„ference Article 5. If those that are regenerate cannot fall away totally nor finally hence it would follow that no q children of the faithfull could be damned because by Baptisme they are put into the state of Grace and regenerated Bertius pag. 79. The seuenth absurdity which followes vpon the Aduersaries doctrine is that Baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of the faithfull the grace of God Bertius pag. 35. The fifth demonstration is drawne from the causes of Apostasie whereof the first is the committing of sin r against conscience 1 Tim. 1. 19. c. Hage Conference Article 5. Those that are truly faithfull may commit murther adultery and the like hainous sins therefore lose faith and Gods fauour for which things the wrath of God falleth vpon the children of disobedience Coloss. 3. 6. APPEALER APPEALE pag. 36. Let this be acknowledged to be the Doctrine of our Church that children duly q baptised are put into the state of Grace and saluation which you see you cannot you must not deny and both our and my experience will shew that many so baptised children when they come to age by a wicked and lewd life do fall away from God and from that state of Grace and Saluation wherein hee had set them to a worse state wherein they shall neuer be saued If you grant not this you must hold that all men that are baptised are saued which I know you will neuer doe Answer to Gag pag. 161. 162. Againe Faith must needs be lost where it cannot consist It cannot consist where God wil not abide God will not abide where he is disobeyed he is disobeyed where mortall r sinne is committed the most righteous man liuing vpon the face of the earth continually doth or may in this sort transgresse who can tell how oft he offendeth Cleanse thy seruant from presumptuous sins Thou wilt haue no fellowship at al with the deceitful Nor shall any euill dwell with thee q To the reason drawne from the Baptisme of Children we answer First that it is of all other most weak childish for it doth not at all touch the state of the question as is obserued by Suarez the German Diuines at the Hage Conference the English Diuines present at the Synod of Dort his Maiesties publique Professor of Diuinity in Oxford The question is of those who are iustified by the Act of faith conceiued by the preaching of the Gospell who fall into actuall sins wounding their conscience whether such thereby lose the habit of Grace and totally and finally fall away from the state of iustification Now infants haue not the actuall vse of reason neither doth their faith if so they haue infused faith actually apprehend and apply the promises of the Gospell neither can they be supposed to commit those crying actuall sins which the Appealer calls mortall I hope not in the Popish sense which cannot stand with the Grace of iustification as is pretended by the Arminians and Appealer Secondly we answer That although in a good sense a child may be said to be put into the state of Grace and Saluation because thereby the infant is admitted into the Church and participateth of the meanes of saluation yet if wee speake properly and precisely the Sacraments seale and not conferre grace or as the Church of England speaketh by her learned Apologist doe not begin but rather continue and confirme our incorporation by Christ. The Sacrament is a seale of the Couenant the conditions are supposed to be drawn and assented vnto before the seale be put to the instrument The Seale without the Couenant is not auaileable the Couenant may be without the Seale we are tyed to Gods Ordinances God is not The contempt of Baptisme is damnable the defect in the children of the Elect and seed of the faithfull comprised in the Couenant with their fathers is not so if all possible meanes haue beene vsed by the Parents and Minister to procure them Baptisme before God call them away there is no danger to the Parents much lesse to the Children For the ineuitable defect of Baptisme may be supplyed either by a desire of Baptisme as in Valentinian or by profession of faith as in the Theefe vpon the Crosse or by the bloud of Martyrdome as in the Innocents put to death by Herod Thirdly we answer All that are regenerate Sacramentally are not necessarily and infallibly regenerated spiritually A man may be baptised with water and yet not with the holy Ghost Ismael was circumcised as well as Isaak Esau as well as Iacob Simon Magus was baptised as well as Simon Peter Our Church in Charitie as it supposeth all children baptised to be regenerate by the holy Ghost so also in the forme of buriall it supposeth all that liue in the bosome of our Church to die in the Lord and to depart in the true faith of Gods holy name Yet vndoubtedly our Church attributeth no more vertue to the Sacraments than the Ancient Church did Theoderets obseruation is well knowne Gratia Sacramentum aliquando praecedit aliquando sequitur aliquando nec sequitur Grace sometimes goes before the sacrament somtimes follows it somtimes it follows it not at all Saint Augustines resolution is peremptory Omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt sed non in omnibus beneplacitum est Deo cùm essent omnia communia Sacramenta non communis erat omnibus gratia quâ— Sacramentorum virtus est Sicut nunc iam reuelatâ fide quae tunc velabatur omnibus in nomine Patris Filij Spiritus sancti baptiz atis commune est lauacrum regenerationis sed ipsa gratia cuius sunt Sacramenta quâ membra corporis Christi cum suo capite regenerata sunt non communis est omnibus The lauer of regeneration is coâ—mon to all that are baptised in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost but the Grace whereof these are Sacraments whereby the members of the body of Christ are regenerate with