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
and charge of teaching is cōmitted that according to the vse of the Catholike and Apostolike Church they diligently instruct their congregations touching the intercession and invocation of Saints teaching them that it is good and profitable humbly to call vpon them to flye vnto their prayers help and aid and that they impiously conceiue who deny that Saints inioying eternall happinesse with God are to be called vpon or that the calling vpon them is idolatry or that it is repugnant to the word of God or that it derogateth from the honour of the only Mediator between God man Iesus Christ Bellar. of the blessednes of Saints booke 1. chap. 19. Holy Angels men departed this life are piously profitably called vpon by the liuing Appealer GAgg pag. 200 Perhaps there is no such great impiety in saying S. Laurence pray for me Ibid. p. 203. Now the case of Angels-keepers in point of Advocation Invocation is much different from other Angels not Guardians as being continually attendant alwayes at hand though invisibly therfore though we might say Saint Angell-keeper pray for me it followeth not we may say St. Gabriel pray for me Invocation of Saints page 99. If thus my selfe resolued doe inferre Holy Angel keeper pray for me I see no reason to be taxed with point of Popery or superstition much lesse of absurdity or impiety Answ. to Gagg p. 229. Saue al other labor in this point proue but onely this their knowledge of any thing ordinarily I promise you straight I will say Holy Saint Mary pray for me Discord Church of Engl. ARtic 22. The Romish doctrine cōcerning Invocation of saints is a fond thing vainly invented grounded vpon no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God Homily of Prayer 2 part pag. 114. Invocation or prayer may not bee made without faith in him on whō they call wherupon we must onely soly pray to God For to say wee should beleeue eyther in Angel or Saint or any other liuing creature were horrible blasphemy against God his word Ibid. Is there any Angel Patriark or Prophet among the dead can know the meaning of the heart c. Bishop Andrewes Answ. to Bellarmins Apol. pag. 180. Alleadgeth The Synod of Laodicea did forbid praying to Angels Defence of the Church of England against Spalata c. 60 You aske why Saints are not to be called vpon Because you haue no command of God to call vpō them Now in the worship of God God cōmandeth Deut. 12. 23. What I command thee that onely doe thou Because you haue no example in Scripture of calling on them but that of Iohn Apoc 19. 10. See thou do it not worship God Because it is wil-worship after the commandements doctrines of men condemned by the Apostle Col. 2. 22. Of which God said of old Who required these things at your hands Esay 1. 12 And of which our Sauiour saith In vaine doe they worship me teaing for doctrines the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. White Answ. to Fisher. page 335. Invocation of Saints is iniurious to the onely mediatorship of Christ. In this point touching the Inuocation of Saints the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in two particulars 1 That he maketh a difference betweene Angels especially Guardians and other Saints in respect of Invocation whereas the Church of England putteth no such difference But indifferently forbiddeth the calling vpon Saints departed or Angells Guardians or others And the reasons they alledge are as strong against the one as the other 2 The Appealer denyeth Inuocation of Saints onely vpon this ground that the Saints departed ordinarily know not our affayres and consequently he maketh Popish Invocation idle and foolish but not impious blasphemous iniurious to God and our Sauiour Whereas the Church of England denyeth Invocation of Saints vpon many other grounds and maketh it idolatrous iniurious to Christ yea and blasphemous as appeareth in the places aboue alleadged Of Extreme vnction Harmony Church of Rome COun of Trent Ses. 14. cap. 1. The holy vnction of the sick is instituted by Christ as a truly and properly called Sacrament of the new Testament Ibid. cap. 2. The effect of this Sacrament is the wiping away of all those sins in the sicke which remaine to be expiated the relieuing and strengthening his soule Appealer ANsw. to Gagg ch 37. p. 267. That Sacramental vnction is not to be vsed to the sicke Vse it if you will We hinder you not Nor much care or enquire what effects ensue vpon it But obtrude it not on vs or vnto the Church as in censu of the Sacraments of the Time of grace c. Discord Church of Engl. ARt 25. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ in the Gospell that is to say Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Those fiue commonly called Sacraments Confirmation Penāce Orders Matrimony Extreme vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as haue growne partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in Scriptures But yet haue not like nature of Sacramēts with Baptisme the L. Supper In this point touching Extreme vnction though the Appealer doe not fully ioyne hands with the Papists and shake hands with the Church of England yet he maketh the vsing of Extreme vnction or not vsing it the attributing of such effects as the Church of Rome erroniously if not impiously ascribeth to it or not attributing a light matter of no great importance a thing indeed not to be obtruded vpon the Church as necessary yet a thing for ought that he saith to the contrary that may be not vnlawfully vsed Whereas the Church of England or at least the most approued Writers in the Church of England make the adding of any new Sacrament and attributing a diuine spirituall effect vnto it without commandement or warrant of God's word to be a grieuous sinne breach of the second Commandement And if it may haue such an effect as to wipe away all sinnes remaining in the sicke our Church should very much wrong the sicke not to administer it to them It concernes vs therefore to enquire of any such effects and finding that it hath none to condemne it as not onely vnwarranted by Scripture but also derogatory to the efficacy of the the other Sacraments and Christs blood Of assurance of Saluation Harmony Church of Rome COnc of Trent Ses. 6. canon 13 If any man say that to obtaine remission of sins it is necessary that a man beleeue certainly and without any hesitation or questioning in regard of his own infirmity and disposition that his sins are remitted him let him be accursed Counc of Trent Sess. 6. Canon 14. If any say that a man is absolued frō sin and iustified because he certainly beleeueth that hee is absolued and iustified and that none is iustified but hee that beleeueth that hee is iustified let him be accursed Ibid. Can. 12.
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
their Head is not common to all And againe Saint Augustine Christ is put on sometimes vsquâ— ad Sacramenti perceptionem as far as to the receiuing of the Sacrament sometimes also vnto sanctification of life Atque illud primum bonis malis potest esse commune â—oc alterum proprium est bonorum piorum The first is common to good and bad the other is proper to the good and godly Saint Austines hands are supported by Chrysostome and Ierome as Moses were by Aaron and Hur. Saint Chrysostome Many are baptized with water which are not baptised with the holy Ghost they seeme to be the sons of God in regard of their Baptisme but indeed they are not the sonnes of God because they are not baptised with the holy Ghost Saint Ierome Si quis hoc corporeum quod oculis carnis aspicitur aquae tantum accipit lauacrum non est indutus dominum Iesum Nam Simon ille Magus acceperat lauacrum aquae verum quia Spiritum sanctum non habebat indutus non erat Christum Et haeretici vel hypocritae hi qui sordidè victitant videntur quidem accipere baptismum sed nescio an Christi habeant indumentum If any man receiue only the visible lauer of water he hath not put on Christ c. From these and many other the like testimonies of the Ancient Fathers I infer that the foundation of this argument is sandy and sinking Although the inward grace ordinarily accompany the outward signe and we ought to beleeue by the iudgement of Charity that all who are baptised are truly regenerate yet iudicio veritatis as Iunius distinguisheth that is by the iudgement of precise and infallible truth all are not so as the Fathers speake roundly and plainly Now as in the iudgement of Charity we are to beleeue that all that are baptised are regenerate so by the same iudgement we are to beleeue that though they fall into grieuous sinne and sometime come to a fearefull outward end God notwithstanding giueth them grace to repent at the last gaspe and consequently they fall not away finally Inter sacrum saxum inter pontem fontem misericordia Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersarie thus If Baptisme may not be reiterated then the grace of regeneration cannot be totally lost But Baptisme may not be reiterated Therefore the grace of regeneration cannot be totally lost The consequence of the maior is thus made euident A man that hath lost the grace of regeneration totally is as if he neuer had been regenerated and therefore must be borne again if borne againe againe baptised because the signe and the thing signified or as they make it the cause and proper effect cannot be seuered if then the effect to wit regeneration be lost and must be reproduced the proper cause as they say the necessary condition and seale as we say must be againe put If regeneration may bee had the second time without Baptisme why not at first which the Aduersaries absolutely deny pressing farre that text Vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen It is a thing vnconceiueable that the shadow should be more permanent than the substance the Baptisme of water than that of the holy Ghost If then a regenerate man lose totally his regeneration and be as if he had neuer beene regenerate he is as if he had neuer beene baptised This reason may be further confirmed when this question is propounded why Baptisme is but once to be administred and the Lords Supper often It is most vsually answered because a man is borne but once but is fed often The edge of this argument cannot be turned by the Aduersarie vnlesse he can shew more Regenerations in Scripture then Baptismes or any new Regeneration without a new lauer any new Couenant without an authenticall instrument and new seale r To the reason drawne from mortall sinne in the regenerate we answer First if mortall sinne be taken for such sinne as deserueth of it selfe eternall death all sinne is mortall if by mortall sinne such sinne for which a man is bound ouer by God and sentenced to eternall death no sinne in the Elect is mortall for how grieuous soeuer they sinne the seed of God remaines in them which in time will bring forth repentance and repentance saluation In the interìm betweene their sinne and the renued act of their repentance God suspendeth but he reuoketh not his pardon of their sinnes he is angrie with them and they indeed haue forfeited their estate in his grace and fauour and title to the Kingdome of Heauen but God will not take the forfeit they lose the sense and present fruit but not the state of iustification Habituall repentance they haue alwayes and shall haue the Act if the sinne be such for which habituall repentance and the continuall asking of a generall pardon for all sinne will not suffice A tender hearted father though his sonne prouoke him very farre so that hee chastise him with many stripes yet will hee hardly be brought to disinherite him yet if a father could God will not for if euer sonnes then heires if euer iustified then glorified The Apostle will make good the Consequence if the Spirit in our heart make good the Antecedent Lastly this Obiection may be retorted thus Nâ— Ordinarie and small sinnes doe put the regenerate out of the state of grace All ordinarie and small sinnes are in their owne nature mortall Therefore some sinnes in their owne nature mortall doe not put the regenerate out of the state of grace Or thus Peter committed a most grieuous and hainous sinne Peter was not thereby vtterly excluded from the grace of God Therefore a man may commit some most grieuous and hainous sinne and not be vtterly excluded from the grace of God The like may be said of Dauid of which aboue The first proposition is in the Gospell the second is in the Homily of Repentance Sir Thomas Moore hauing tracked Gallus in the Ancient Poets from whom he secretly had borrowed many verses and bragged much of the genius and spirit of Ancient Poësie wittily thus plaieth vpon him in the Epigram saying Thou Gallus hast the very spirit of the Ancient Poëts for thou makest the selfe-same verses that they made before Vatibus idem animusque verè spiritus idem Qui fuit antiquis est modo Galle tibi Carminanamque eadem versusque frequenter eosdem Quos fecêre illi tu quoque Galle facis Doubtlesse if the Appealer neuer read Arminius or Bertius as he seemeth deeply to professe I may say truly of him as he did of Gallus that he hath the very spirit and soule of Arminius and Bertius for he deliuereth not only the same â—enents but he vseth the selfe-same Authorities Scriptures Fathers and Reasons and for the most part in the same words All which Arguments common to them
is pag. 141. transformed in mind renewed in soule regenerate by grace Discord Church of England HOmil of Saluation page 13. Because all men be sinners and breakers of Gods law therefore can no man by his owne acts words and deeds seeme they neuer so good bee iustified But of necessity euery man is constrained to seeke for another righteousnesse or iustification to bee receiued at Gods owne hands that is to say forgiuenesse of sins And this iustificatiō or righteousnes which wee so receiue of Gods mercy and Christs merits is accepted and allowed of God for our full and perfect iustification The faith in Christ which is within vs doth not iustifie vs for that were to account our selues to bee iustified by some act or virtue which is within our selues Art 11. Of the iustification of man We are accounted righteous before God onely by the merit of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ by faith not our owne workes Note in this maine point of Iustification That the Appealer differeth from the Church of England and consenteth to the Church of Rome in three remarkable particulars 1 In the signification of the word To iustifie which the Appealer and the Church of Rome take for making a man righteous The Church of England and the Protestants generally for accounting declaring or pronouncing a man righteous 2 The Church of England maketh Iustification to consist onely in forgiuenesse of sinnes The Appealer and Church of Rome not onely in forgiuenesse of sins but partly in it and partly in sanctifying graces infused 3 The Church of England teacheth That wee are not iustified by inherent righteousnesse or by any vertue within vs. The church of Rome and the Appealer hold That we are iustified by sanctifying and regenerating graces within vs whereby wee are transformed in minde and renewed in soule By renewing grace inherent in vs wee are sanctified but not iustified the confounding of Sanctification with Iustification as the Appealer and Papists doe is an errour of dangerous consequence as the learned well know Of Merit of Workes Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. can 32. If any man say That the good workes of a man iustified doe not truly merit increase of grace and eternall life let him be accursed Bellar. de iustifi lib. 5. c. 16. The workes of iust men proceeding frō charity are meritorious of eternall life ex condigno this is the common opinion of Diuines and it is most true Vasques in 1a. 2ae q. 114. disput 214. The good workes of iust men without any couenāt or acceptation are worthy of the reward of eternall life and haue an equall value of worth to the obtaining of eternall life Vasques disput 222. The workes of a righteous man doe merit eternall life as an equall reward or wages they make A man iust and worthy eternall life that hee may of desert obtaine the same Appealer APpeal pag. 233. The wicked goe to enduring of torments euerlasting the good goe to enioying of happinesse without end thus is their estate diuersified to their deseruing Answer to Gagg pag. 153. Merit of congruity is not commonly meant as scarce vouchsafed the name of merit Good workes are therefore said to bee meritorious are so vnderstood to be ex condigno which that a worke may so be these conditions are required that it bee morally good freely wrought by man in this life in the state of grace and friendship with God which hath annexed Gods promise of reward all which conditions I cannot conceiue that any protestant doth deny to good workes Discord Church of Engl. HOmily of Saluation 2. part page 17. Though I haue faith hope and charity repentance and doe neuer so many good workes yet wee must renounce the merit of all our said virtues and good deeds which wee either haue done shall doe or can doe as things that bee farre too weake and insufficient to deserue the remission of our sinnes Artic. 11. Wee are accoūted righteous before God onely for the merit of our Lord Sauior Iesus Christ by faith and not for our own works or deseruings Homil. of good workes To haue affiance in our workes as by merit of them to purchase to our selues remission of sinnes and eternall life is blasphemy Obserue reader that the Appealer ignorantly or fraudulently omitteth the proper conditions requisite to a meritorious act which are especially these 1 That the worke be properly our and not his of whom we pretend to merit 2 That it be opus indebitum a worke to which otherwise we are not bound 3 That it be some way profitable and beneficiall to him from whom wee expect our reward 4 That it haue some proportion and correspondence of congruity at least if not of condignitie to the reward expected All which conditions Protestants deny to bee found in our good works And therupon disclaime all merit These conditions the Appealer pretermitteth and from foure common conditions requisite to a good worke in generall he concludeth loosely and weakly That the Papists and wee agree in the doctrine of merit ex condigno of condignitie In his Appeale Chap. 11. by the advice as it seemes of the Approuer of his booke hee disclaimeth merit of condignity which in his former booke he seemed to approue But he saith little or nothing which may not well stand with merit of congruity Indeed hee lasheth Vasques for that wherein he differeth from other Papists but he retracteth not any where that his owne sentence namely The eternall state of men is diuersified to their deseruings Wherein hee crosseth the 11 Article and the words of S. Paul Rom. 6. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life Of Euangelicall Counsels or Workes of supererogation Harmony Church of Rome BEl de Monach. lib. 2. cap 7. An Euangelicall Counsell of Perfection is called a good worke not inioyned vs by Christ but shewed vnto vs not commanded but commended onely Ibid. cap. 8. It is the opinion of all Catholiques that there are many Euangelicall Counsels viz. of things aduised or counselled vnto but not prescribed nor commanded Appealer ANswer to the Gagg p. 103. What is meant by workes of Supererogation we may collect out of the texts of Scripture cited viz. That man in the state of grace and assisted by Gods grace may doe somethings counselled and not commanded I know no doctrine of our English Church against Euangelical counsels Appeale page 214. I doe beleeue there are and euer were Euangelicall counsels Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 14. Voluntary works besides ouer and aboue Gods Commandements w th they call workes of supererogation cānot be taught with our arrogancy and impiety for by them men doe declare that they doe not onely render vnto God as much as they are bound to doe but that they doe more for his sake then of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When yee haue done all that are commanded vnto you say wee are vnprofitable
If any say that iustifying faith is nothing else but a confident relying on Gods mercy forgiuing our sinnes by Christ or that this confidence is the only faith whereby we are iustified let him be accursed Ib. c. 16 If any say or beleeue that hee shall certainly haue by absolute and infallible certainty the great gift of perseuerance to the end vnlesse he know and haue learned it by speciall reuelation let him be accursed Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 186. If we consider our own disposition wee assigne no more then probable and coniecturall assurance This Bellarmine assigneth this is enough Faction may transport a man to wrangle for more but when once they ioyne issues the difference will not bee much Much or little great or smal thus or so the Church of England is not touched that assigneth it neither Appeale page 213. I professe I am not of that opinion with you and whatsoeuer you may resolue for your crying Abba Father secundum praesentem justitiam I craue pardon I cannot thinke that you are may or can bee so perswaded secundum statum futurum Discord Church of Engl. HOmily of the passion p. 186. What meanes is that It is faith not an inconstant or wauering faith but a sure stedfast grounded and vnfained faith Pag. 187. The only meanes and instrument of saluation required of our parts is faith that is to say a sure trust and confidence in the merits of God whereby we perswade our selues that God both hath and will forgiue vs our sins and that hee hath accepted vs again into his fauour that he hath released vs from the bonds of damnation and receiued vs into the number of his elect people Et post Wee must take heed that wee doe not halt with GOD through an inconstant and wauering faith but that it be strong and stedfast to our liues end Wee must apprehend the merits of Christs death and passion by faith nothing doubting but that Christ by his owne oblâ—tion and once offering himselfe on the Crosse hath taken away our sinnes and restored vs againe into Gods fauour The point of Perseuerance hath such affinity with this point of assurance of saluation that what is wanting in this may be supplyed out of the former Parallel Al that I here obserue is that the Appealer fully accordeth with the Councell of Trent not only in the conclusion but in the very reason alleadged by the Councell for the ground thereof Of the Popes Primacy Harmony Church of Rome IN the forme of oath prescribed in the Bul of Pius 4 annext to the CouÌ„cell of Trent I acknowledge the holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches and I vow and sweare true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter the Prince of the Apostles Vicar of Iesus Christ. Bellarmin de Romano Pontif. lib. 4. c. 1. The Pope is supreame Iudge in coÌ„trouersies of faith and manners Appealer ANsw. to Gag p. 29. I could interpret S. Anselm well enough as that if a controuersie were referred by the Church or an heresie to bee corrected in the Church which touched the case of the Catholicke Church it could not be put ouer more â—itly to any one man by the Church representatiue in a Councell then vnto the Pope first Bishop of Christendome of greatest not absolute power among Bishops Discord Church of England HOm. for Whitsunday second part pag. 214. 215. First as touching that they will bee termed vniuersall Bishops Heads of all Christian Churches through the world wee haue the iudgement of Gregory expresly against them who writing to Mauritius the Emperour condemned Iohn Bishop of Constantinople in that behalf calling him the Prince of pride Lucifers successor and the forerunner of Antichrist S. Bernard agreeing thereunto saith What greater pride can there bee then that one man should preferre his owne iudgement before the whole congregation as if hee onely had the Spirit of God And Chrysostome pronounceth a terrible sentence against them affiriming plainly that whosoeuer seeketh to be chiefe on earth shall finde confusion in heauen and he that striueth for the supremacy shall not be reputed among the Seruants of Christ. Homily against wilfull rebellion 5 part pag. 308. 309. The Bishop of Rome being by the order of Gods word none other then the Bishop of that one See and Diocesse and neuer yet well able to gouerne the same did by intolerable ambition challenge not onely to be Head of all the Church dispersed through the world but also to be Lord ouer all Kingdomes of the world In this point touching the Popes Primacy though the Appealer comes not full home to the tenent of the Church of Rome yet he goeth too far pointeth at a most dangerous course of referring the iudgement of controuersies of faith that concerne the whole Church vnto the Pope Which course if with Master Mountagues good approbation we should take in the great controuersie touching the Head of the Church the Power of the See of Rome the causes of our Separation from that Church and all the controuerted points betweene vs conclamatum esset he that hath but halfe an eye might see what the issue would bee This resolution of M. Mountagu if he hold still it will bee expected that in the next edition of his booke he change the title now prefixed Appello Caesarem into Appello Papam The markes of the Beast were come out in the Pope before Anselmes time and since they are so apparent in him that other learned Diuines make the Pope whole Antichrist and the Appealer himselfe makes him halfe the Antichrist pag. 149. and an entire Apostata from Christ and his kingdome And was there no fitter Bishop in all Christendome to decide controuersies concerning the whole Church of Christ then he who is either halfe or whole Antichrist but of this point see more in the Writ of error Of Antichrist Harmony Church of Rome BEllarmine de Româ—no pontif lib. 3. c. 13. The seat of Antichrist shal be in Ierusalem not Rome for Enoch and Elias are to fight with Antichrist in Ierusalem Ibid. c. 12. Antichrist shall properly come for the Iewes and shall be receiued by them as the Messias he shall be circumcised and keepe the Sabbath for a time Ibid. cap. 18. The frensies of Hereticks are refelled by which they do not so much proue as impiously affirme that the Pope is Antichrist This conclusion is the scope of his whole third book and he and all Papists who haue written of this argument apply themselues wholly to proue that neither the Pope personally nor the Popes successiuely constitute that Antichrist described in the Apocalyps Appealer ANsw. to Gagg page 74. 75. I am not of opinion that the Bishop of Rome personally is that Antichrist nor yet that the Bishops of Rome successiuely are that Antichrist so spoken of App. p. 146. Whether the Pope of Rome or the Popes of Rome either are
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
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