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
both haue beene examined and proued like the stone that Achilles flung at a dead skull which rebounded back and strucke out the 〈◊〉 eye redijt lapis vltor ab osse Actorisque sui frontem oculosque petit We 〈◊〉 doe nothing against the truth but for the truth 2. Cor. 13. 8. An Aduertisement to the Reader THe Errors of the Appealer are of three sorts Popish Arminian and of a third kinde multi-formiter deformes Of the first sort I haue giuen thee a taste Of the second thou shalt haue a Synopsis in the Tablet ensuing The third thou shalt finde in the Writ of Errour In all kindes I haue pretermitted some Non amore erroris sed errore amoris Not for any loue I beare to his errors but through an error of loue Partly because I hope they are rather slips in his pen than downfalls in his iudgement partly also because they are discouered by others whose writings had I seene before my papers were ingaged in the Presse Aiax hic meus in spongiam incubuisset A SECOND TABLET Representing the Appealers consent with the Church of Rome and dissent from the Church of England in diuers remarkable points Of the Church Harmony Church of Rome CAssander in his Consultation Article 7. pag. 50. The present Church of Rome hath euer stood firme in the same foundation of Doctrine Sacraments instituted by God c. Quamvis praeseas Ecclesia Romana noÌ„ parùm in morum et disciplinae integritate addo etiam doctrinae sinceritate ab antiquâ illâ unde orta derivata est dissideat tamen eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum à Deo institutorum firma semper constitit Cassander ibid. The present Church of Rome acknowledgeth and embraceth coÌ„munion with the ancient vndoubted church of Christ wherefore shee cannot be other or diuerse from it Praesens Ecclesia Romana communionem cum illà antiquâ indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit colit Quare alia diuersa ab illâ esse noÌ„ potest Councel of Trent page 442. in fine In the Bull of Pius the fourth vpon a forme of oath inioyned to all Professors I acknowledge the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church of Rome to be the mother and Mistresse of all Churches Cassander Article 7. page 50. Praesens Ecclesia Romana manet Christi Ecclesia sponsa The present Church of Rome remaineth Christ his Church and Spouse although shee haue prouoked her husband with many errours and vices so long as Christ her Husband hath not giuen her a bill of diuorce although hee hath chastised her with many scourges Bellarm. de Ro. Pontif. lib. 4. c. 4. The present Church of Rome cannot erre namely in matter of faith c. Sixtus 4. in Syâ—od Complut condemneth certaine Articles of Peter of Oxford whereof one was this That the Church of Rome could erre Martin the fifth in his Bul annexed to the Councell of Constance will haue them held Heretikes who hold otherwise of the Sacraments or Articles of faith then the Church of Rome Appealer ANswer to the Gagg cap. 5. pag. 50. Moderate men on both sides confesse that this Controversie may cease and although the present Church of Rome hath not a little departed from the ancient Church from which it was deriued c. yet she hath euer stood firm in the same foundation of Doctrine Sacraments instituted by God Appeale page 113. In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree Appeal ibid. Praesens Ecclesia Romana communionem cuÌ„ illâ antiquâ indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit colit Quare alia diversa ab illâ esse non potest The present Church of Rome acknowledgeth and embraceth coÌ„munion with the ancient vndoubted church of Christ Wherefore shee cannot bee other or diuerse from it Appeale p. 113. The church of Rome as well since as before the Councell of Trent is a part of the Catholike thogh not the Catholike Church App Answer to Gagg page 50. Manet Christi Ecclesia sponsa The Church of Rome still remaines the spouse Church of Christ c. Appeale page 139. The Church of Rome is and euer was a true Church since it was a Church Appeale page 140. Mistake not my saying The Church of Rome is a true Church ratione Essentiae and being of a Church Appeale page 113. I am absolutely perswaded and shall bee still till I see cause to the contrary that the Church of Rome is a true Church Answer to Gag page 14. Plainly deliuered in Scriptures are all those points which belong to faith and manners hope and charitie I know none of these controverted inter partes By partes hee there apparantly meanes the church of Rome and Reformed Churches Now if the church of Rome differeth not from vs in any matter of faith theÌ„ hath she not erred in any matter of Faith For our differences are about her errors App. pag. 112. I professe my self none of those furious ones in point of difference now a dayes whose resolution is that wee ought to haue no society or accordance with Papists in things diuine vpon paine of eternall damnation Appeal p. 83. That they the Papists raise the foundatioÌ„ that we must for euer vpon paine of damnation strange bugbeares and terriculamenta dissent fom them Discord Church of England HOmily for Whitsonday 2 part p. 213. The church of Rome as it is at this present is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets retaining the sound pure doctrine of Iesus Christ Neyther yet doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them Apology of the Church of England cap. 16. divis 2. part 6. The originall and first foundation of Religion hath beene vtterly corrupted by those men namely the Popes adherents Apology of the Church of England cap. 16. divis 1. part 6. Wee haue gone from that Church which we our selues did euidently see with our eyes to haue gone from the old holy Fathers and from the Apostles and from the Primitiue and Catholike Church of God Apol. Church of England part 6. cap. 22. diuis 2. We are departed from him namely the Pope who without doubt is the forerunner standard-bearer of Antichrist hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike Faith Homily for Whitsonday 2 part p. 213 If we compare this namely the definition of the true Church with the Church of Rome not as it was in the beginning but as it is presently then shall wee perceiue the state therof to be so far wide from the nature of the true church as nothing can be more Et ibid. pag. 214. If it bee possible that the Spirit of truth should bee there where the true church is not then is it at Rome Homily for Whitsonday p. 213. We may well conclude according to the Rule of S. Austen that the Bishops of Rome their adherents are not the true Church Article 19. The Church of Rome hath erred not
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
this worke of God Of falling away from Grace ARMINIANS HAGE Conference pag. 355. The Doctrine of our Aduersaries who teach that a man cannot fall away from grace totally nor finally is an q hinderance to godlinesse and also to good manners Theses exhibited to the Synod of Dort concerning the fifth Article All things being fore-laid which are necessarie and sufficient for perseuerance it remaineth still in the power of man to perseuere or not perseuere Bertius in his booke of Apostasie of Saints endeuoureth to proue that his blasphemous Assertion by diuers texts of Scripture Authorities of Fathers and Reasons from whose Armory the Appealer furnisht himselfe as will appeare by comparing their allegations together Bertius Iidit Lugduni Batauorum apud Lodouicum Elzeuirium in the yeare of our Lord 1615. pag. 169. You could not be ignorant that the Confession of the Church of England was cited by mee truly in the Acts at Hampton Court pag. 107. The English Confession set out in the yeare of our Lord 1562. Article 16. After we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may r depart from grace Bertius in his Dedicatory Epistle Doctor Bancroft at the Conference at Hampton Court withstood Doctor Rainolds who to that Article of the English Confession concerning departing from grace would haue those words added but not totally nor finally APPEALER ANswer to Gag pag. 157. That faith once had may be lost may be interpreted and is more wayes than one whether not lost at all whether totally and finally lost Men are diuided in this tenent Some suppose neither totally nor finally some totally but not finally some both totally and finally which is indeed the assertion of antiquitie Ibid. The learnedst of the Church of England assent to antiquity in their tenent which the Protestants of Germany maintain at this day hauing assented therein to the Church of Rome Appeale pag. 36. In my iudgement this is the doctrine of the Church of England not deliuered according to priuate opinions in ordinary Tracts and Lectures but deliuered publiquely positiuely and declaratiuely in Authentick records Appeale pag. 28. They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew composed and agreed the Articles in 52. and 62. that ratified them in 71. that coÌ„firmed them in 604. that iustified and maintained them against the Puritans at Hampton Court but all such doe assent to antiquity in this tenent Ibid. p. 29. The Minor I make good particularly will proue it obsignatis tabulis In the 16. Article we reade and subscribe this After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may r depart away from grace and fall into sinne Appeale pag. 30. This Article was s challenged as vnsound at the Conference at Hampton Court by those that were Petitioners against the Doctrine and Disciplie established in the Church of England and being so challenged before his Sacred Maiestie was there defended and maintained c. namely by Doctor Ouerall pag. 31. q See this obiection answered in the first question of absolute Predestination r The Article hath not the word Alway that is the Appealers addition The words are not After we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may fall into sinne and so fall away from grace but we may depart from grace giuen and fall into sinne that is so farre depart from grace that a man may fall into sinne after grace receiued which is confessed on all parts The Article speaketh not of a totall falling away from grace much lesse finall for the words immediatly following are and by the grace of God to wit before giuen we may rise againe He that falleth finally cannot rise againe he that falleth totally from grace cannot rise againe by the grace he had receiued because he is supposed to haue lost all the grace he receiued and the Article speakes not of new grace but onely of grace before receiued and giuen Besides the words of the Apostle to the Hebrewes 6. 6. beare strongly that way that a man who was once partaker of the holy Ghost if hee fall away that is totally cast away the Spirit of grace cannot possibly be renewed againe by repentance Whence we thus argue None who may after their fall rise againe by repentance fall totally or finally Heb. 6. 6. But all those of whom the Article speakes may after their fall rise againe by repentance Therefore none of whom the Article speaks fall totally or finally s The Appealer vttereth two manifest vntruths in this allegation out of the Conference at Hampton Court The first is That he faith the sense of the Article was there challenged as vnsound for Doctor Rainolds who in the name of the rest desired a fuller explication of the meaning of the Article to preuent that mistaking which is sithence fallen out in M. Montague and others began with this Preface Though the meaning of the Article be sound and good c. The second is That he affirmeth that this tenent a iustified man may fall away from grace and become ipso facto in the state of damnation c. now styled Arminianisme by these Informers was resolued and auowed for true by Doctor Ouerall and that honourable and learned Synod For Doctor Ouerall after he had affirmed That a iustified man committing any grieuous sinne as adultery murther or treason became ipso facto subiect to Gods wrath and was in the state of damnation quoad praesentem statum addeth yet those that are called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election did neuer fall either totally from all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seeds thereof or finally from iustification but were in time renewed by Gods Spirit vnto a liuely faith and repentance and so iustified from those sinnes and the wrath curse and guilt annexed thereunto whereinto they were fallen and wherein they lay so long as they were without true repentance for the same Of Falling away from Grace ARMINIANS BERTIVS pag. 25. De Apostas Sanct. That which we haue proposed we proue first by those formes of Scripture by which Apostasie is diuersly described for this the Scripture calleth to turne away from righteousnesse Ezek. 33. 13. If the righteous commit iniquity all his righteousnesse shall be no more remembred but for his â—niquitie that he hath committed he shall die for the same Ibid. pag. 27. He who can turne away from his righteousnesse can forsake his former righteousnesse but a righteous man can turne away from his righteousnesse Ezek. 18. 24. Therefore the righteous can forsake his former righteousnesse Bert. pag. 41. Hee out of whom the Deuill is cast may become secure and made a Temple in which the former Deuill taking seuen other spirits with him may be lodged and so the latter coÌ„dition of that man made worse than the former Mat. 12. 43. Demonstrat Hee out of whom the Deuill is cast is truly iustified but such a one may by securitie and negligence fall into an estate worse then the
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
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
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. *