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. *
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
A Second PARALLEL Together with A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOVRNE M.DC.XXVI TO THE CATHOLIQVE Christian Reader Courteous Reader A Few daies since a friend of mine shewed me a Booke intituled a Parallel which I gladly receiued from him and perused it the more readily because I well hoped that some of the Parallel lines would sute to our Meridian But taking an exact view of them and applying them to our Horizon I found they were somewhat short of our Eleuation yet I discouered some thing drawne in those Parallels which I conceiued to be of some vse to wit the Lineal descent of Arminius by the half bloud at least frō Pelagius for if it be confessed that Arminius his pedegree is lineally to be deriued from Pelagius and that Pelagius is the great Apenninus from which the diuided streames of corrupt doctrine flow then vndoubtedly the assertions of Arminius were priùs damnatae quà m natae were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church before they were brought forth by Arminius And we haue the Prescription of the Christian world for more than 1200. yeares against the new encroachments of these Sectaries But me thinks I heare thee ring in mine care the peale of the Poet Ole quid ad te what is this to thee or me or to the matter now on foot It is not Arminius but an Appealer that troubles our Israel Aemilius fecit plectetur Rutilius Aemilius hath done wrong shall Rutilius beare the blame Because Arminius browseth vpon some branches of Pelagianisme a plant which our heauenly Father neuer planted and therefore in time must be rooted out is it reason the Appealer should be muzled or any mans teeth whet against him Verily the Appealer disclaimes all kinred or affinitie with Arminius nay he protesteth he knoweth not the man and if peraduenture some Longinus or skilfull Genealogist may be able to disproue him yet certainly the vulgar reader is not I haue therefore thought it worth the paines to take the line of Pelagius which is already brought downe to Arminius and from Arminius to draw it out euen to the Appealer to the end all that are not forestalled with preiudice may see that both the Appealer and Arminius hold their errors in capite from Pelagius And that at the first the Netherlands and other parts receiued the infection of pestilent doctrine from Britaine by Pelagius and now at last that Britaine hath receiued it from the Netherlands by Arminius Mater me genuit eadem mox gignitur ex me But before I open the leaues of my Tablet representing on the one side the Arminian and on the other the Appealers Demi-Pelagianisme I intreat the Reader emunctae naris to follow the sent of Arminianisme in the Appealers writings by these foure steps 1. His sleight and dilute purgation from the aspersion of Arminianisme 2. His direct and professed defence of the Arminians 3. His casting a blur vpon the Synod of Dort that blasted them 4. His disparaging the Articles of Lambhith which are è diametro opposite to the tenets of Baro then and since Arminius To begin with his Purgation Although in other Criminations it may be an argument of Innocencie not to be moued or any way sensible of them yet in the suspition of heresie no man as saith Saint Hierom ought to be silent Silence in such an accusation is a crying sin Et patientia digna omni impatientiâ and patience it selfe is vnsufferable Euery man is bound to professe his faith and consequently openly to discharge himselfe from all imputation especially of heresie which is so foule a crime that the water of penitent teares alone hath not bin thought enough to wash it away Scelus hoc exuritur igne it hath bin vsually burnt out with fire It leaueth such a spot in the conscience that S. Cyprian conceiueth The blood of Martyrdome cannot fetch it out Macula haec nec sanguine eluitur Now whether Pelagianisme be heresie I thinke it is a question without question vnlesse we will take vpon vs to censure the censures of the ancient Church and most eminent Doctors thereof S. Austin in his booke de bono Perseuerantiae is not content to call it perniciosissimus error c. 17. but c. 21. he calls it twise Pelagiana haeresis And that Arminianisme is Pelagianisme either in whole or in part I take the Parallel till I see it not slightly glanced at but substantially refuted to be an ocular demōstratiō But if this be yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a point not yet gained yet that Arminianisme wherewith the Appealer is charged not only by two Presbyters of his owne ranke but a reuerend Prelate his Diocesan is formally heresie Appello Caesarem I appeale to that Caesar whom he first appealed vnto King IAMES of blessed memorie who in his declaration against Vorstius hath these words concerning Arminius He was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresie And concerning Bertius he writeth thus Bertius a scholler of Arminius at this present remaining in your towne of Leyden hath not onely presumed to publish of late a blasphemous booke of the apostasie of Saints but hath besides bin so impudent as to send the other day a copie thereof as a goodly present to our Archbishop of Canterbury together with a Letter wherein he is not ashamed as also in his booke to lye so grosly as to auow that his heresies contained in the said booke are agreeable with the Religion and profession of the Church of England To cleare then himselfe from the foule spot of this heresie what course doth the Appealer take Doth he call God and his Angels to witnesse that he renounceth from his heart all Arminius his vnwarrantable and dangerous assertions Doth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fairely and openly make this or the like protestation Arminius teacheth none but respectiue Predestination I am for absolute Vniuersall grace and redemption is an Article of Arminius faith It is none of mine The cooperation of mans freewill with grace in the first conuersion and the power it hath to hinder and frustrate the worke of regenerating grace is current doctrine with Arminius But I take it for a leaden Leyden error Arminius maintaineth a totall and finall falling away from the grace of Iustification I detest and abhominate that assertion and will haue no Confarreation with the apostate defender of such Apostasie This had beene indeed to vnclaspe the right hands of fellowship with Arminius and if he had euer walkt in his path to shake the dust from his feet but in stead hereof the Appealer casts dust in the Readers eyes by making a deepe protestation idque in verbo Sacerdotis of not reading any word in Arminius I protest saith he before God and his Angels the time is yet to come that euer I read word in Arminius Before I read this Protestation I confesse that my selfe
vtterly forsaken the catholike faith Therefore the present church of Rome is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ. The first proposition is most euident the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England part 5. ch 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch 22. Diuis 2. This Apology of the Church of England as it beareth the name so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth it was commanded to bee had in all Churches and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in euery Parish Church in this Kingdome in the yeare of our Lord 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames who gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes for the most rare and admirable that haue beene written in this last age of the world and also gaue speciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop Bancroft to appoint some one to write his the said Bishops life in English and prefixe it to his workes which accordingly is done in the last edition Secondly I proue it thus Whatsoeuer Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The first proposition cannot bee denied the assumption is the Appealers Appeale pag. 149. In Apostasie the Turke and Pope are both interessed both are departed away whether wee take that apostacie to bee a departing away from Christ and his Kingdome and his Doctrine or whether wee vnderstand apostacie and defection from the Romane Empire c. page 150. Thirdly I proue it thus No Church maintaining practising Idolatry can be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The present Church of Rome maintaineth and practiseth idolatry Therefore the present Church of Rome cannot be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The first proposition is the Apostles 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England Artic. 35. The Homilies and by name the Homily the second against perill of idolatry containeth godly and wholesome doctrine If godly and wholesome Doctrine then certainely true Fourthly it is a dangerous error to affirme as the Appealer doth Answer to Gagge page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa Christs Church and Spouse That God hath his Church euen in Rome we doe not deny but that the present Romane Church specially since the Councell of Trent holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conuenticle or that the Papacy that is the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents are Christs Church and Spouse the Appealer is the first Protestant that euer for ought I know affirmed it Iunius whom he alleadgeth Appeale pag. 113. to this purpose in his booke De Ecclesiâ is so farre from supporting his assertion that in the same booke hee quite ouerthroweth it his words are pag. 60. 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit cùm Papatus non esset accessit ei Papatus contingenter sic ab ea separabilis ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia sed in Ecclesiâ est adnatum malu◠pestis hydrops gangraena in corpore vitae atque saluti ejus insidians ideoque succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quà m infestissimè The Church of God was many ages when there was no Papacy at all as at this day also there are Churches where there is no Papacy and will be hereafter without the Papacy The Papacy therefore is not the Church but a disease or botch growne to or in the Church a plague a dropsy a gangreene in the body indangering the health feeding vpon and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth Appeale page 113. The Papall Church saith Franciscus Iunius neither Papist nor Arminian quâ id habet in se quod ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet est Ecclesia As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church is a Church Why doth the Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence why doth he not goe on to the full period the sentence is yet but lame he hath put out but the left legge I will put out the right legge for him wherewith Iunius giues Popery a kicke and trips vp the Appealers heeles Qud vero habet in se adnatum malum quod Papalitatem dicimus eo respectu Ecclesia non est sed vitiata atque corrupta Ecclesia ad interitum tendens But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or euill growne to it which we call the Papacy in that respect it is not the Church but a vitiate and corrupt church and tending to ruine Note here Reader in the Appealers defence of Popery a tricke of Popery to cite sentences by halfes alleadging onely that which in shew makes for them and concealing that which in truth makes against them The meaning of the whole sentence of Iunius is cleare enough for vs and against the Appealer to wit that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scriptures is a Church but as it is Popish and addeth many errors to those truths consequently subuerting those very truths it holdeth it is no Church Which I thus proue No Spouse or true church of Christ is in part or in whole that Antichrist or whore of Babylon The present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or Popish state thereof is in part as the Appealer confesseth Appeale pag. 149. or in whole as many Pillars of our Church haue taught that Antichrist or whore of Babylon Therefore the present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or popish state thereof is no Spouse nor true church of christ I haue heard that the Appealer in a late conference wherein this passage on which I haue so long insisted was obiected against him should stand at this ward answering for himselfe that these words praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum firma semper constitit c. manet enim Christi Ecclesia Sponsa Answ. to Gag page 50. were not his owne words but the words of Cassander This his ward will not keepe off the blow For first