sed sine quo per liberum arbitrium perseuerare non posset Nunc vero sanctis in regnum Dei per gratiam praedestinatis non tantum tale adiutorium perseuerantie datur sed tale vt ijs perseuerantia ipsa donetur non solum vt sine isto dono perseuerantes esse non possint verumetiam vt per hoc donum non nisi perseuerantes sint Secondly from Gods dealing with the Angels that kept not their first estate but c. to his dealing with man after his fall no good president can be taken for it is certaine God prouided a Redeemer for man but none for them As the Angels sin was greater so their iudgement was more heauy and losse irreparable Neither is the consequence good from Adams losse of his estate of Innocency to the like possibilitie of the regenerates losse of their estate of Grace because God made no euerlasting couenant of peace with Adam before his fall as he did since with the regenerate in Christ the Peace-maker He made no such promise to Adam before his fall as he hath made to his Church since that Hell gates should not preuaile against her Adam had no Mediator before his fall to pray for his perseuerance in the state of Innocencie but the faithfull and truly regenerate haue the effectuall prayers of Christ the Mediator for their perseuerance in faith and grace I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith faile not And I pray that thou shouldest keepe them from the euill neither pray I for these alone but for them also which shall beleeue on me through their word Thirdly Adam in Paradise stood by the power of his owne free-will and naturall integrity but the regenerate are now kept by supernaturall grace and the power of God through faith vnto saluation and therefore albeit Lucifer in Heauen and Adam in Paradise who stood meerely of themselues fell from their first estate it is no consequent that the regenerate may in like manner fall from their estate who stand not by themselues but by Christ and are supported by God Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersary thus If the state of Creation and Redemption differ especially in this that men and Angels in the state of creation had power to perseuere if they would but not will and men in the state of redemption haue not only power but also will giuen them to perseuere and grace by which they cannot but perseuere then the argument drawne from the totall fall of Adam and finall of Lucifer to the totall and finall falling away of the regenerate maketh nothing for but strongly against the Aduersary But the state of Creation and Redemption differ especially in this that men and Angels in the state of Creation had power to perseuere if they would but not will and men in the state of Redemption haue not only power but also will giuen them to perseuere and grace by which they cannot but perseuere as hath beene proued Therefore the Argument drawne from the totall fall of Adam and finall of Lucifer to the totall and finall falling away of the regenerate maketh nothing for but strongly against the Aduersary ARMINIANS BERTIVS pag. 28. Of Saul what saith the Scripture 1 Sam. 9. 2. The sonne of Kish whose name was h Saul an elect and good man and there was not of the sonnes of Israel a good man beyond him Yet of him chap. 15. 11. we reade It repenteth me that I haue made Saul King for he is turned backe from following me Bert. ibid. ex Cypriano Epist. 7. i Salomon Saul and many others while they walked in the wayes of the Lord could haue held the grace giuen to them but departing from the ordinance of God grace departed from them APPEALER ANswer to Gag pag. 162. h Saul was at the first the childe of God called according to the election of grace not only temporall for the kingdome of Israel but also eternall for the heauenly kingdome In opinion of Antiquity thus he was and yet afterward he fell it is confessed totally all say eternally these say that maintaine iustifying faith cannot be lost Ibidem But if Saul were not of Gods children in grace indued with faith and the holy Spirit yet i Salomon was there is no question with them because he was a writer of holy Writ and wrote as he was inspired by God If they did not grant it the Scripture would euict it 2 Sam. 7. 12. yet Salomon fell as Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostome are cleare for it at least temporally and totally too when he serued other gods h To the first instance in Saul we answer First with Melancthon that Saul seemed to be a faithfull man but the euent sheweth that he was an hypocrite He was indeed chosen to the Kingdome of Israel but not to the Kingdome of Heauen by the Appealers leaue there is no syllable in Scripture importeth so much hee was indeed indued with the Spirit of Gouernment and the Spirit of Prophecie but not with the Spirit of Regeneration for ought appeares in Scripture hee might be and as most thinke he was among those to whom that speech of our Sauiour might be applied Many shall say to me in that day Lord Lord haue we not prophecied in thy name c. then will I professe vnto them I neuer knew you Depart from me ye that worke iniquitie Secondly we answer The words alledged by Bertius 1 Sam. 9. 2. speake of the lineaments of his body and proper personage not of the inward vertues of his minde or graces of his soule There was not a goodlyer the text saith not a godlyer person than hee from the shoulders and vpward he was higher than any of the people To argue from stature to grace from the bodie to the soule from proceritie to sinceritie from a corruptible crowne to an incorruptible is scopam dissolutam facere to make a besome without a band or to make a rope of sands Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersarie thus The gifts and calling by God of the regenerate are without repentance Rom. 11. 29. Sauls gifts and calling by God were not without repentance for the text saith 1 Sam. 15. 11. God repented him that he had made Saul King c. Therefore Sauls gifts and calling were not the calling and gifts of the regenerate i To the second instance in Salomon wee answer That Salomon was indeed a childe of God and is called the beloued of the Lord because the Lord loued him indeed 2 Sam. 7. 12. But we deny that he fell from grace either totally or finally Hee was a type of Christ a pen-man of the holy Ghost God threatned grieuously to scourge him for his sinnes yet promised withall neuer quite to cast him off His fall I confesse was grieuous but his repentance in his booke of the Preacher sheweth that the seed of God still remained in him as it doth in all
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.
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