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
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
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
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
Eugenius the Church of Rome was not so visible as the Appealer would haue it Thirdly if the Appealer vnderstand by the Church of Rome as his friends and informers and all Protestants generally vnderstand it and as hee must if he say any thing to the purpose a Church in Rome and the Popes territories or elsewhere holding the present Romane faith which is set downe in the Councell of Trent both the major and minor are notoriously false For neither was there any church in the world holding that faith visible for many hundred yeeres after Christ neither is the Church holding that erroneous faith a true Church Howsoeuer it may please God in that Church as hee did in the Churches of the Arrians in Saint Hilary his time to call many by the Word Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth quorum aures puriores erant quà m doctorum ora whose eares were purer then the teachers mouthes who strained the milke they receiued from their mother and casting away that which was impure dranke downe onely the sincere milke of the word I suppose the Appealer will not affirm the Arrian Churches to bee true Churches yet God had his wheat euen in their floore all couered with chaffe and I doubt not but hee euer had and still hath many thousands euen in the Romane Church it selfe who neuer bowed the knee to that Baäl. Our question is not of them but of their Gouernours and Teachers and the outward face of their Church maintaining and practising idolatry and inforcing as farre as they can the accursed Canons of the Councell of Trent whether in this sense the Church of Rome be a true Church It is saith the Appealer a true Church ratione essentiae in regard of essence but not in regard of soundnesse of doctrine This answer explicateth not the question but implieth a contradiction to say a true Church in respect of the essence and not in respect of soundnesse of Doctrine is to say the church of Rome is a true church in respect of the essence but not in respect of the essence for soundnesse of Doctrine is of the essence of the true church By it the true Church is defined Article the 19. The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure word of God is Preached and the Sacraments bee duely ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same If the Appealer by truth meaneth metaphysicall truth which is of as large extent as being or entity the more hee graspeth the lesse hee holdeth for in this account all Churches are true Churches and the Church of Rome is no more indebted to the Appealer for his Euloge then all the hereticall and schismaticall Churches in Christendome they are Churches therefore in this sense true Churches for Ens et verum conuertuntur In this acception a thiefe is a true man because it is true that he is a man and the Deuill a true Angell because it is true that he is an Angell and the Appealer a true writer because it is true that he is a writer of whom it may be said as it was of Seuerus Omnia fuit et nihil profuit he turneth euery way and yet cannot passe he angleth in all waters and yet catcheth nothing hee hath spent all his oyle in making salues for the foule sores of the Whore of Babylon and yet hath left Her worse then he found Her The filing vp of the Writ THe errors of the Appealer both in point of Arminianisme and Popery and of a different nature from both being laid open in simplicity and sincerity I first appeale from the Appealer to himselfe as that Plaintiffe sometime did from Philip to Philip. I appeale from the Appealer as set on by others to the Appealer as left to himselfe from his rash to his aduised from his former to his latter thoughts which are vsually the wiser 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secundae cogitationes secundiores And if he retract his errours I will let fall the suit if he persist in his erroneous opinions I referre him together with this discouery of his errors to the Examination and Censure of the most learned religious and iudicious House of Conuocation now sitting to whom vnder his Maiesty the cognizance of Doctrinall differences properly belong Faustus Regiensis intending to refute S. Austine vnder another name that he might auoid all suspition of Pelagianisme intitles the first Chapters of his Book against Pelagius and vnder this vaile of opposing S. Austins professed enemie from the third chapter of his booke to the end couertly carps at and refels S. Austins learned Booke of the Predestination of Saints Let moderate men and no franticke Puritans iudge whether the Appealer as in his matter so in his manner of writing follow not Faustus the Demipelagian his patterne whether pretending an answer to a Gagger of the Protestants he intend and indeauour not to Gagge the most learned and zealous Protestants and drawing out his stile more poinenant then a Stilletto in colour and shew against the Romish enemie hee cunningly giue not therwith a secret wound to his owne Mother the Church of England and the true professors of the Gospell therein As for the Fratres Descripti the right and left hand of the Appealer whose Trade hath beene for these many yeares past to informe against the zealous and learned Defenders of the true religion established here in England vnder the name of Puritans quia volunt decipi decipiantur But for those graue and venerable Diuines who are reported to haue subscribed to the Appealers Bookes I thinke the Relator was mistaken in the word hee meant proscribed them and all other ancient worthies of our Church who yet applaud and approue these late Polemickes of the Appealer I humbly intreat them in the words of the Orator Videant Patres Conscripti ne circumscripti videantur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Galat. 4. 16. Tacit. Maledicta si irascaris agnita videntur spreta exolescunt Cyprian epist. Antequam Pelagiana haeresis appareret and recolant aduersus haeresin Pelagianam Concil Carth. sub Aurelio Nefarius ab omnibus anathematizandus error Concil Mileuit Perniciosissimi erroris auctores perhibentur Caelestius Pelagius August p. 94. ad HilariuÌ„ Omnes qui spem habemus in Christo huic pestiferae impietati resistere debemus Prosper in Crom. Per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana damnata est August ep 47. Pelagiana haeresis venena August lib. 1. de peâ—c orig Doctrina illa pestifera Ad Bonis l. 2. c. 5. Nâ—num execrabilâ— dogma Pelagianum vel Caelestianum Et post Exitiosissima prauitas Appeal to Caesar pag. 21. In comment in poster Analyt Cic. pro Sylla Declar. aduers. Vorstium King Iames ibidem Plin. Panegyr Balchanquall Concio ad cleruÌ„ Appeale ibid. Matth. 18. 7. Pag. 70. Pag. 108. Appeal pag. 71. 72. *