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.
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
of true beleeuers to this end that they may not fall away from him is a certaine meanes to preserue true beleeuers in the faith else God should faile in his end But the feare here enioyned is that feare which God promiseth to put into the hearts of true beleeuers to this end that they may not fall away from him Ierem. 22. 40. Therefore the feare here inioyned is a certaine meanes to preserue true beleeuers in the faith and consequently a strong argument for the perseuerance of Saints in faith and grace as it is vrged by Saint Augustine in his booke de Perseuer Sanctorum cap. 2. I will put my feare in their hearts that they shall not depart from me What is it else then to say the feare shall be such and so great that they shall for euer cleaue vnto me z To the places alledged Iohn 15. 2 5. we answer First there is a double insition or ingraffing into Christ externall when a man is made a member of the visible Church by the hearing of the Word and participation of the Sacraments internall when a man by sanctifying grace and sauing faith is made a member of the inuisible Church They who haue the outward insition only into the true Vine Christ Iesus may be cut off but they which haue the inward as well as the outward insition cannot be cut off and wither as a branch for Non est corpus Christi reuerâ quod non er it in aeternum That is not Christs true body which shall not abide for euer neither by the like reason is that a true branch which abideth not for euer in the Vine August de Doct. Chri. lib. 3. cap. 32. Which reason of S. Augustine is confirmed by Saint Gregory in his description of the Church in his Comment on the Canticles Christus sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum permansuris extruxit Christ hath built his Church of Saints which shall for euer perseuere Secondly as there is a double insition into Christ so there is a double profession of faith a naked and bare profession without practise of a holy life or fruit of good workes or a profession ioyned with practise a faith working through loue bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit By the barren branches cut off and withered Theophylact on these words alledged vnderstandeth those who make a naked and bare profession Saint Cyril in his tenth booke vpon Iohn Those who haue faith without loue and good works such a faith S. Iames in his second Chap. calls a dead faith but the faith by which the iust man liueth is a liuing faith working by loue Galat. 5. 6. and bringing forth fruit with patience Luke 8. 15. Thirdly the words in me Iob. 15. 2. may be either referred to the word Vine and the meaning is euery branch existent or ingraffed in me that beareth no fruit but leaues only of a bare profession shall be taken away or the words in me may be referred to bearing of fruit and the meaning is euery professour of Religion or member of any Congregation that beleeueth not in me and beareth not fruit in me to wit the fruits of the Gospell by my grace shall be cast forth as a dead branch and wither for as it is in the fift verse Hee that abideth in mee and I in him the same bringeth forth fruit for without me yee can doe nothing If the words be taken in the former sense they are meant of Hypocrites within the Church if in the latter of Iewes or Pagans without the Church who beare fruit that is doe morally good workes or doe by nature the things contained in the Law Rom. 2. 14. but because they doe not these things in faith their good workes are no better than splendida peccata sins hauing a luster or shew of vertue as Saint Augustine Take the words in either sense they belong not to regenerate persons and true beleeuers who are so ingraffed into Christ that they abide in him by faith and beare fruit in him through faith Lastly this Obiection may be retorted against the Aduersarie thus No branch that beareth fruit in Christ shall be taken away but purged that it may bring forth more fruit as it followeth in the second verse vrged by the Aduersarie But euery true beleeuer is a branch that beareth fruit in Christ Matth. 13. 23. Rom 6. 22. Therefore no true beleeuer shall be taken away but purged that he may bring forth more fruit ARMINIANS BERTIVS pag. 26. Beleeuers may make shipwrake of faith 1 Tim. 1. 19. some hauing put away a good cōscience cōcerning a faith haue made shipwracke Ibid. 1 Tim. 4. 1. In the latter times some shall depart from the a faith giuing heed to seducing spirits APPEALER APPEALE pag. 160. 1 Tim. 1. 19. Holding faith and a good conscience which some hauing put away cōcerning a faith haue made shipwracke Ibid. Nor was it onely for those times but foretold of succeeding ages 1 Tim. 4. 1. In the latter daies some shall depart from the a faith a To the places alledged out of Timothy wee answer First that they are fully answered by the distinction aboue mentioned ad literam y namely of a two-fold signification of the word faith which is sometimes taken for the saith which we beleeue that is the word of faith or doctrine of the Gospell as Galath 1. 23. Now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach the hearing of faith Galat. 3. 2. A great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith Act. 6. 7. And in this sense Oecumenius taketh the word faith in the first place aboue alledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith I vnderstand faith in doctrine by conscience a godly conuersation or a good life And that it is to be so taken in the latter place it is euident by the words following 1 Tim. 4. 1. Giuing heed to seducing spirits and doctrine of deuils Faith opposed to error and doctrine of deuils is the true doctrine of faith which we beleeue and preach Sometimes the word faith is taken in Scripture for the faith by which we beleeue that is the inward grace or habit of faith as Rom. 3. 28. Iustified by faith without the deeds of the Law And Rom. 4. 5. His faith is counted for righteousnesse Rom. 5. 1. Being iustified by faith we haue peace with God This distinction is not new coyned by nouelizing Puritans but stamped by the ancient Fathers and goes for current among the Schoole-men Saint Augustine in his thirteenth booke of the Trinity chap. 2. deliuers it in these very termes There is a difference betweene the faith quae creditur and quâ creditur And Lombard lib. 3. distinct 23. taketh the same from Saint Augustine saying Fides est interdumid quod credimus interdum estid quo credimus Secondly we answer that as there is a temporary faith so there may be a good conscience for
or may bee accounted or is that Antichrist or Antichrists my irresolution grew as I haue remembred from the much insufficiency of their proofs that tender it stoutly strongly affectionately and tantum non as a point of faith Not any one of their arguments is not all their arguments together are conuincing Appeale p. 149. I incline to the more moderate and temperate tenent and rather of the two embrace the Turkish Popish estate not seueral but conioyned doe constitute That Antichrist then either of the two states disioynedly and of the two states rather the Turk by much then the Pope Ibid. p. 144. Why should it not be as lawfull for mee to opine that the Pope is not that Antichrist as for others to write to preach to publish to tender to proceeders this proposition The Pope is Antichrist Ib. p. 154. The Turk is and hath bin long possessed of Ierusalem that holy City The Iewes when Mahomet first declared himselfe came flocking vnto him as to their Messias the sooner rather because hee was circumcised Discord Church of Engl. HOmily against wilfull rebellion 6. part p. 316. The Bishop of Rome vnderstanding the superstition of Englishmen and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonical Beast of Rome and to feare all his threatnings and causelesse cursings c. The Pope is implyed to be that Antichrist in the prayer of thankesgiuing for our deliuerance from the powder Treason Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian sect And in the morning prayer appointed for priuate houses Confound Satan Antichrist with all hirelings c. See K. Iames in his praemonitory preface his CoÌ„ment vpoÌ„ the Reuelation Iuel Def. of Apoâ— par 4. c. 9. diuis 3. B. Abbot and â— Downam de Antichristo B. Andrewes resp ad Car. Bel. Ap. à capite 9. ad 13. In this point touching Antichrist the Appealer agreeth with the Church of Rome and diâ—â—enteth from the learnedst Diuines in England and other reformed Churches both touching the maine conclusion The Pope is Antichrist and touching the seat doctrine and character of Antichrist which they apply to the Pope hee with the Papists to the Turke As for the Protestant arguments taken out of the Apocalyps to proue the Pope to be the Antichrist Bellarmine calls them deliramenta dotages and the Appealer to shew more zeale to the Popes cause straineth farther and termes them Apocalypticall frensies which proceeding from the mouth of a Protestant Antigagger and Appealer to King Iames Non sani esse hominis no sanus juret Orestes Of Limbus Patrum Church of Rome BEllar de Anim. Christi l. 4. c. 11. The soules of the godly were not in heaueÌ„ before Christs ascensioÌ„ Id. de SaÌ„ct beat lib. 1. c. 20. If they demand why prayers of the liuing were not reuealed to the Fathers in Limbo and are now reuealed to the Saints in heauen I answer that the Saints in Limbo did not take care of our affaires as the Saints doe in heauen neither were they then set ouer the Church as now they are Appealer GAgg pag. 278 Though they were not in heauen in regard of place yet were they in happinesse in regard of state Ib. 281. Let them not haue been in heauen before our Sauiour I deny it necessarie they were therefore in Hell that region I call Abrahams bosome which though it bee not Heauen yet is it higher then hell Church of England HOmily concerning Prayer pag. 122. The scripture doth acknowledge but two places after this life the one proper to the elect and blessed of God the other proper to the reprobate and damned soules Ibid. pag. 122. S. Augustine doth acknowledge onely two places after this life to wit heauen and hell In this point though the Appealer dissent from the Romanists in a circumstance on the bye about the situation of Limbus Patrum for they place it nearer the confines of hell the Appealer nearer heauen yet he agreeth with theÌ„ in these 2 main conclusions 1 That there is or at least was a place for soules after this life distinct from heauen and hell 2 That the soules of the Fathers before Christs ascension were not in heauen but in that third place Of Traditions Harmony Church of Rome COuc of Trent Ses. 4. decret 1. The holy Synod of Trent finding this truth and holy discipline to bee contained partly in Scriptures partly in vnwritten traditions which eyther were taken froÌ„ Christs mouth by the Apostles or were deliuered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the holy Ghost and haue passed as it were from hand to hand to vs and following the example of the Orthodoxe Fathers doth with the like religious affection reuerence receiue entertain all the bookes of the old and new Testament as also the traditions theÌ„selues pertaining to faith and manners Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 42. That most learned religious and most iudicious writer hee meaneth St. Basil de Spiritu sancto which Treatise Erasmus Bishop Bilson and other iudicious Diuines proue to be counterfeit saith no more then is iustifiable touching traditions For thus saith he The Doctrine of the Church is two wayes deliuered vnto vs First by writing then by tradition from hand to hand bothe are of alike force or value vnto piety Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 6. Holy scriptures containe all things necessary vnto saluation so that what soeuer is not read therein nor may be proued therby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of faith or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation Art 20. Although the Church bee a witnes a keeper of holy writ yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be beleeued for necessity of saluation Art 21. Things ordained by Generall Councels as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture In this point touching Traditions the Appealer consenteth with the Church of Rome and differeth from vs in two particulars 1 In that he admitteth of doctrinall Traditions belonging to faith and manners We acknowledge traditions concerning discipline and the rites and ceremonies of the Church but not concerning the doctrine or matter of faith and religion 2 In that he equalizeth vnwritten traditions to holy Scriptures such traditions as we receiue we hold and esteeme farre inferiour A WRIT OF ERROVR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER HOrtensius that spruce Oratour commenced an action against a Citizen of Rome for rushing hastily vpon him and thereby disordering and pressing down the pleats of his gowne Many such actions haue been heretofore entred and pursued against such as haue rudely or carelessely crushed a pleat in the Spouse gowne or ruffled a set in her ruffe I meane with their pen glanced though vnwittingly at a ceremonie of order or ornament of decency But now when not her rayment of
contingencie in future euents in respect of their second causes which worke contingently though whatsoeuer commeth to passe falleth within the certaine presience of God and is ordered by his prouidence 4. The Stoicks taught that men were impelled to sin by a fatall motion and that mans will was forced by Destiny We detest and abhorre any such assertion See more hereof in Melancthon his Common places Gratianus Ciuilis in Semipelagianismo Lipsius lib. 1. de Constantia cap. 18. sequent g T is true as we reade in the seuenteenth Article that for curious and carnall persons lacking the Spirit of Christ to haue continually before their eyes the sentence of Gods Predestination is a most dangerous downefall whereby the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or into retchlesnesse of most vncleane liuing no lesse perillous than desperation The sweetest meat in a corrupt stomacke turnes to choller but the fault is in the stomacke not in the meat in like manner the word of God and in particular this doctrine of the Word is in it selfe a sauour of life vnto life but to some proues no better than a sauour of death vnto death because as Saint Peter 2. 3. 16. telleth vs They peruert the doctrine of holy Scriptures to their destruction For the doctrine it selfe of Predestination it openeth no gate to a dissolute life but shutteth and barreth all such vnlawfull posternes Shall we continue in sinne because grace aboundeth God forbid Rom. 6. 1. On the contrary it openeth a faire gate and directeth a certaine readie way to holinesse of life For God hath predestinated vs that we might be conformable to the Image of his Sonne Rom 8. 29. And God hath chosen vs before the foundation of the world that we might be holy and blamelesse before him in loue Ephes. 1. 4. h In this obiection from Desperation the Arminians and Appealer as likewise in the former furbush vp the old Pelagians harnesse which Saint Augustine hath beat in peeces in his booke of the gift of Perseuerance chap. 17. I will not amplifie with mine owne words but I leaue it rather to them seriously to consider what a strange thing it is that they should perswade themselves the doctrine of Predestination doth bring to the hearers rather matter of desperation than exhortation or consolation for this is in effect to say that then a man is to despaire of his saluation when he is taught to repose his hope and confidence not in himselfe but in God whereas the Prophet crieth out Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man Some indeed make a desperate vse of this doctrine but the doctrine it selfe is no desperate doctrine or doctrine of desperation but of heauenly consolation as we reade in the seuenteenth Article which ought for euer to stop the mouth of the Appealer from slandering as he doth the truth of God The godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feele in themselues the working of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing vp their minde to high and heauenly things as well because it doth greatly establish and confirme their faith of eternall saluation to be enioyed through Christ as because it doth feruently kindle their loue towards God On the contrary the doctrine of the Arminians and the Appealer which maketh Gods Election to depend vpon the will of man which as they say may totally and finally fall away from grace is in truth a most desperate doctrine taking away all solid and firme ground of comfort both in life and death as shall appeare hereafter Of Election vpon fore-seene faith ARMINIVS ARMIN. Oration to the States pag. 49. * The Decree whereby God hath decreed to saue certaine and singular persons doth depend vpon his prescience by which he fore-knew from eternitie who according to the dispensation of sufficient meanes for their conuersion and faith would by preuenting grace i beleeue and subsequent perseuere And he is so hot in this point and proceedeth so far Argument 19. as to affirme That the opinion of precise Election without respect of foreseene faith in the elect ouerthroweth the foundation of all Religion Hag. Conference set out by Bert. pag. 62. The absolute decree whereby it is said that God in chusing men did not respect any mans good qualities fore-seene cannot stand with the nature of God nor with Scriptures The like is affirmed by Arnoldus against Tilenus And Greuinchouius against Amese and the Arminians generally who thus take that question in the Conference at Hage pag. 123. Faith in Gods decree of election doth in order goe before not follow election it is not a fruit of election but an antecedent conditon to it APPEALER APPEALE pag. 58. The irrespectiue decree of God to call saue and glorifie Saint Peter without any consideration had of or regard vnto his i faith obedience and repentance c. I say there and I say truly is the priuate fancie of some particular man Pa. 64. There must needs be first a k disproportion before there can be conceiued an election or dereliction This disproportion he afterward declares to be in the different wils of men wherof some took hold of merey others would not His words are When all alike being plunged c. God out of his mercy stretched out to them deliuerance in a Mediator the Man Iesus Christ and drew them out that tooke hold of mercy leauing them there that would none of him Which is all one as if he had said he decreed to saue them from the common destruction which he fore-saw would beleeue and reiect those whom he fore-saw would not beleeue for by faith they take hold of mercy and through incredulitie reiect it nay in this point the Appealer speaketh not so warily as the Arminians for they require faith in a person to be elected and iustified as an antecedent condition they doe not say as a cause or motiue in God to elect iustifie and saue But the Appealer Answer to the Gag pag. 143. and Appeale pag. 194. saith that God was drawne by our faith to iustifie vs. * Decretum quo decreuit Deus singulares certas quasdam personas saluare praescientiâ nititur quâ ab aeterno sciuit quinam iuxta administrationem mediorum ad conuersionem fidem idoneorum ex praeueniente gratia credituri erant subsequente perseueraturi i When the Arminians and the Appealer make Election to depend vpon fore-seene faith either they meane that this faith is a meere gift of God receiued only by mans free-will or not so but in part or in whole a worke of mans will If they hold faith to be a meere gift of God their opinion of election vpon fore-seene faith implieth a contradiction for it maketh the former grace and gift of Predestination to glory to depend vpon a latter gift of faith Beside if
faith be the meere gift of God it can be no reason of difference betweene the Elect and Reprobate on the part of the Elect and Reprobate why the one should bee chosen and the other refused for the Elect haue it not of themselues and the Reprobate haue it not at all because it is not giuen To referre election in this sense to faith as it is Gods meere gift is to make election to depend vpon Gods meere will who giueth faith to some and not to others which quite ouerthroweth the foundation of Arminianisme If they meane that fore-seene faith is in part or in whole a Worke of mans free-will by nature and not meerely a gift of God then their opinion dasheth directly on the rocke of Pelagius that Grace is giuen according to some merit of man that is as Saint Augustine expoundeth it De bono perseuer c. 19. Some good thought word or deed or the good will it selfe to receiue grace and faith when otherwise man might haue reiected or repelled it whereas the Apostle teacheth that it is God which discerneth one man from another that no man hath any good thing different froÌ„ another which he hath not receiued 1 Cor. 4. 7. Whereupon Saint Augustine concludeth in his Epistle to Sixtus and in his booke of Predestination of Saints Chap. 5. And in his Enchiridion ad Laurent cap. 99. That which putteth a difference betweene a beleeuer and vnbeleeuer making him to beleeue and not the other is a speciall grace giuen by God to the one and not the other and consequently that the separation of some men and taking them out of the masse of perdition is of Gods meere grace and not in regard of any different qualities in men A proud man might haue said saith that holy Father of Predestination of Saints chap. 5. against another man my faith maketh me to differ from thee my righteousnesse or the like which insolent words of a proud man rehearsed by Saint Augustine Greuinchouius is so impudent as to take vpon and patterne in himselfe saying Ego me discerno I discerne my selfe The good Doctor meeting with such thoughts and checking them saith What hast thou that thou hast not receiued from whom but from him who made thee differ from another to whom he hath not giuen that he hath giuen to thee and if thou hast receiued it namely that wherein thou differest from another Why doest thou boast as if thou hadst not receiued it Nothing is so contrary to the meaning of the Apostle as that any man should so glory of his owne merits or good workes as if he had wrought them to himselfe and not the grace of God to wit that grace of God which discerneth good men from bad not that which is common to good men and bad The maine conclusion of Saint Augustine in his Enchiridion is most direct to our purpose Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis Grace alone discerneth or differenceth the redeemed from the lost whom a common cause deriued from the beginning or root had vnited in one masse of perdition k This argument from disproportion deceiued sometime Saint Augustine till he better considered of the words of the Apostle Rom. 11. 5. So then there remaineth a remnant according to the election of grace It is impossible indeed to conceiue an election according to desert of some rather than others in a meere paritie there must needs be a disproportion in such an election but in an election of free grace there needs none there can be no such disproportion for if election be of workes then it is not of grace Here if the Appealer or any his friend shall difference his opinion from the Arminians by distinguishing the decree of election in which there is no respect had to faith from the execution in which all sides confesse respect is had to faith and perseuerance I answer that the Appealer hath shut the doore of this Sanctuary against himselfe and debarred himselfe from this defence pag. 61. saying I shall as I can briefly and plainly without scholasticall obscurities set downe what I conceiue of this Act of God or decree of Predestination setting by all execution of purpose After which Preface without any interruption of other discourse he deliuereth his opinion of election as is aboue rehearsed Of Free-will ARMINIANS THe Arminians differ from Orthodoxal Diuines about Free-will in two points 1. They teach Hag. Confer pag. 502. sequent That the will of man hath some operation of it selfe in the first act of our conuersion and doth cooperate with grace God giueth grace sufficient to conuert but doth not so determine the will but that it may out of it's freedome admit grace or not Their main reason is God doth not beleeue but wee therefore l we worke euen in our first conuersion otherwise the assent should bee Gods not ours 2. They teach that the will of man hath power to hinder and resist the worke of grace in his regeneration and conuersion Arminius in his Orat. to the States pag. 53. I beleeue according to the Scriptures that grace is not vis irresistibilis an irresistible force or power but that many doe m resist the holy Spirit Hag. Confer pag. 502. The question is whether grace which worketh in man faith and conuersion cannot be hindred but is an irresistible operation such as God vseth in raising the dead They alledge to proue â—hat man may resist grace Act. 7. 51. Yee stiffe-necked and of vncircumcised hearts and eares yee haue alwaies n resisted the holy Ghost And Matth. 23. 37. How oft would I haue gathered your Children as a Hen gathereth her Chicken vnder her wings and yee o would not APPEALER APpeal p. 84. It is supposed by some that the difference betweene the Pontificians and vs consists in this that the will of man concurreth and cooperateth with diuine grace in the first very instant and point of conuersion wee teach that the will of man doth not cooperate in the first point but in progresse of our iustification so Keckerman in his Systeme a better Logician than Diuine This Assertion of Keckerman he refelleth from pag. 85. to 89. and pag. 92. he insisteth vpoÌ„ the same reason with the Arminians If this were not so then faith and repentance were no the actions of man neither could man be said to beleeue and repent but the holy Spirit Appeale pag. 89. The Councell of Trent addeth that a man may resist the grace of God admit then first man hath m free-will against God Saint Steuen in terminis hath the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you n resist nay fall crosse with the holy Ghost not suffering him to work the worke of grace in you And what said our Sauiour How often would I and thou wouldst o not If the Councell meant of stirring preuenting and p operating grace I thinke no man will deny it if of adiuuant subsequent and cooperating grace there is without question in
former therefore he that is once truly iustified may fall into an estate worse than the former Bert. pag. 36. Among the causes of Apostasie one is the feare of persecution He that receiued the seed in stony places the same is he that heareth the Word and anon with ioy receiueth it yet hath he not root in himselfe but dureth for a while for when tribulation ariseth because of the Word he is offended APPEALER APpeale pa. 159. Ezek. 18. 24 26. If the righteous t turne away from his righteousnesse and commit iniquitie and doe according vnto all the abominations that the wicked man doth shall he liue All his righteousnesse that he hath done shall not be remembred but in his transgression that he hath committed and in his sinne that he hath sinned in them shall he die Ibid. Ezek. 33. 13. If hee commit iniquity all his righteousnesse shal be no more remembred but for his iniquitie that he hath committed he shall die for the same Therefore the righteous may lose his righteousnesse abandon his faith die in his sinne c. Ibid. pag. 159. The vncleane spirit eiected returneth vnto his former residence entreth possedeth his former state and the case of that man is worse than the beginning Matth. 12. 44. u Satan is not eiected but where the partie is in the state of grace with God being regenerate by faith Reposseding is not but by relapse into sinne nor a worse state but where a man dieth in sinne Ibid. pag. 159. Luke 8. 13. * They on the rock are they who when they heare receiue the Word with ioy who for a while beleeue and in time of temptation fall away t Because this place of Ezekiel is set in the fore-front both by the Appealer and by Bertius as a testimony on which they most rely and are most confident of I will endeuour both fully to answer and retort it against them Besides those Answers by which others haue rebated the edge of this Obiection As * first that this speech is conditionall suppositiue and not positiue and therefore no more inferreth that a righteous man may fall from his righteousnesse then those words of Saint Paul If an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you another Gospell than that you receiued let him be accursed conclude that an Angell from heauen can preach another Gospell Or the like of our Sauiour They shall doe signes and wonders to seduce if it were possible the Elect therefore it is possible to seduce the elect whereas indeed the contrary may be inferred euen from those words Secondly That the Prophet speaketh of him that is righteous in his owne opinion and before men but not in the sight of God such a man may fall away from his righteousnesse but the question is of a man regenerate and truly righteous and such a one cannot turne away from his righteousnesse Of this minde is Saint Gregory Moral in Iob. lib. 34. cap. 13. They who may be seduced in such sort that they neuer returne againe may seeme to lose the habit of sanctitie before the eyes of men sed eam ante oculos Dei nunquam habuerunt but indeed they neuer had any holinesse in the sight of God Thirdly that the Prophet speakes here of actuall righteousnesse which may be lost and is lost by the committing of any wilfull and grieuous sinne against conscience not of habituall which cannot be lost if he doe that which is lawfull and right Ezek. 18. 21. and 24. If he doth according to all the abominations the wicked man doth all the righteousnesse that he hath done shall not be remembred here is not a word that importeth habituall righteousnesse but meerely actuall which all sides confesse may be lost Besides these answers I say further that this Scripture no way tendeth to Bertius or the Appealers purpose For they should proue that a iustified man may lose Euangelicall righteousnesse or the righteousnesse of Faith not Legall righteousnesse Now it is euident that the Prophet speaketh of Legall righteousnesse First by the pronoune his if the righteous turne away from his righteousnesse that is the righteousnesse of his owne workes or his inherent righteousnesse not the imputed righteousnesse of Christ for that is not his owne Philip. 3. 9. That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Secondly by the enumeration of particulars vers 6 7 8. 15 16 17. all which appertaine to Legall righteousnesse If he hath not eaten vpon the mountaines nor lift vp his eyes to the Idols of the house of Israel nor come neare to a menstruous woman and hath spoiled none by violence and hath not giuen his money vpon vsury c. Lastly this argument may be retorted against the Aduersaries two wayes First thus If the difference of the Couenant betweene the Law and the Gospell consisteth especially in this that the righteousnesse required by the one may be lost but the righteousnesse promised by the other cannot be lost then the argument from the losse of Legall righteousnesse to Euangelicall is of no force but to disproue our Aduersaries tenent for that which in this place of Ezekiel is affirmed of the one may not be affirmed of the other but the difference of the Couenant betweene the Law and the Gospel cōsisteth especially in this that the righteousnesse required by the one may be lost but the righteousnesse promised by the other cannot be lost Ierem. 31. 31. 33. 34. Heb. 8. 8. Behold the dayes come that I will make a new Couenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Iudah not according to the Couenant that I made with their Fathers c. but this shall be my Couenant which I will make with the house of Israel I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts I will forgiue their iniquitie and remember their sinne no more And Ierem. 32. 40. I will make an euerlasting Couenant with them that I will not turne away from them to doe them good but I will put my feare in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Secondly thus If these words are spoken generally to the children of God and belong to the elect as well as others they cannot imply a totall and finall falling away from righteousnesse no not in the iudgement of the Arminians and Iesuites themselues with whose Heifer the Appealer plowes For as the Iesuites so Arminius himselfe teacheth that a man that is elect and predestinated to eternall life cannot fall finally nor perish for euer But the words of the Prophet Ezekiel are spoken generally vnto all and belong to the very Elect therefore I conclude in the words of the great Champion of Popery in generall and of this particular touching the Apostasie of Saints Card. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Iustif. cap. 12. It is true that the predestinated or elected are in no danger of losing
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
seruants Though this point touching Euangelical Coūsels may seeme to bee of no great consequence yet to the Romanists it is a point fundamentall for vpon it they build their treasury of superaboundant satisfactions And Leech after hee had first suckt this thinner and purer blood afterwards greedily swallowed the most corrupt and ranke blood of Popery but I hope the Appealers manifold preferments and better hopes will be better councellors to him then to merit by a totall or supererogate to a finall Apostacie from vs to the Pope of Rome Of Reall presence Harmony Church of Rome Counc of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 1. Of the reall presence of our Lord in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist This holy Synode openly and simply professeth That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration of Bread Wine That our L. Iesus Christ true God and man is truly really and substantially contained vnder the species or forme of those sensible things Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. cap. Ego Berengarius is inioyned by Pope Nicholas to recāt in this form I Berengarius doe accurse that heresy wherewith I haue beene heretofore defamed in maintaining that the bread and wine after the consecration are onely a Sacrament and not the true body and blood of Christ. And that the true body and blood of Christ cannot be sensibly handled by the Priests or broken or chewed with the teeth of the faithfull but onely in the signe or sacrament thereof And I giue my consent to the holy Church of Rome and Aposto like See and I professe with my tongue and heart that I hold the same faith concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Table which our Lord and holy Father Nicholas and this holy Synod by Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority hath inioyned to be held and hath confirmed vnto me to wit that the bread and wine vpon the Altar after consecration are not onely the sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that not onely the Sacrament but the body and blood of Christ is in truth sensibly handled and broken by the Priests and eaten with the teeth of the faithfull Bellarmine de Sacramento Eucharist lib. 1. c. 2. The Councell of Trent Sess. 13. teacheth That Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really against the fiction of the Calvinists who will haue Christ to be there so present that he may be apprehended by faith that hee is present to the contemplation of faith though corporally in heauen Bellarm. ibid. The Councell addeth substantially against the Calvinists who say that the body of Christ according to his substance is onely in heauen but according to I know not what virtue and power he floweth from thence to vs. Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 253. But that the Diuell bred you vp in a faction and sent you abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Otherwise acknowledge there is there need be no difference in the point of reall presence Appeal p. 289. Cōcerning this point there need be no difference the disagreement is onely de modo praesentiae Answer to Gagg pag. 253. There is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence Ibid. pag. 252. We ingenuously confesse That by this Sacrament Christ giueth vs his very body and blood and really and truly performes in vs his promise as for the maner how this inexplicable that vnutterable trans or con wee skill not of Vide supra Appeal pag. 289. In these passages the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in these three things first that he saith There is no difference betweene vs about the reall presence wheras indeed there is a maine difference and most of our Martyrs dyed rather then they would acknowledge the Popish reall presence See the Acts and Monuments Secondly he saith that the manner is vnutterable whereas the Church of England defineth the manner Thirdly in that he saith we skill not of or make matter of transubstantiation or consubstantiatiō wheras the Church of England expresly condemneth transubstantiation as a grosse and dangerous error Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 28. The body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a heauenly and spirituall manner And the meane wherby the body of Christ is eaten and receiued in the Supper is Faith Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proued by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine word of Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacramēt and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions Iuel Artic. 5. of the reall presence pag. 238. We seeke Christ aboue in heauen and imagine not him to be bodily present vpon the earth The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith onely and no otherwise And in this last point appeareth a notable difference between vs and M. Harding for we place Christ in the heart according to the doctrine of Saint Paul Mr. Harding placeth him in the mouth We say Christ is eaten onely by faith Master Harding saith hee is eatē with the mouth and teeth Article 28. The body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the Supper onely after an heauenly and spirituall manner the meane wherby the body of Christ is receiued and eaten in the supper is faith Transubstantiation is repugnant to Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament The Appealer seemes to bee one of the Bonhommes who in a jejune Lent-discourse durst openly bid defiance to the Article of our Church saying I abhorre them that teach Christ to be in the Sacrament onely by faith for hee is not there because wee beleeue but wee beleeue because he is there present If this be a good beleefe and doctrine That Christ is otherwise present in the Sacrament then to the hearts of beleeuers and that by faith onely let the Appealers poore Woodcocke or Catholike Cockscombe pag. 251. tell vs what he taketh to be the meaning of S. Austin in those words qui credit edit or if he cannot do that yeeld a reason why Rats and Mice may not eate the very body of Christ. Of Images Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. p. 290 The Images of Christ the Virgin mother of God of other Saints are to be had retained in Tēples especially and due honour and veneration is to bee giuen vnto them Because the honour which is to be exhibited to them is referred to the prototype or sampler so that by the images which we kisse and before which we put off our hats and lye downe wee adore Christ and the Saints whose Images they beare Bellarmine of the Images of Saints lib. 2. c. 21. Images by themselues properly are to be worshipped Ibid. cap. 22. We must not say That the supreme worship called Latria is due to Images but on the contrary wee ought to say that they ought not so to be adored Bellarmin ibid. cap. 9. lib. 2.
needle worke wrought with diuerse colours that is much variety of rites and ceremonies or her attire is some way wronged or soyled but her body is wounded and that by her Watchmen and her vaile which distinguished her from the Whore of Babylon taken away yet few or none dare plead for her against an Appeale to her most tender and gratious nursing Father Nay which is more to be admired they who out of a loue to the Church as is pretended haue had a jealous eye ouer the Presse and haue procured other Pamphlets to be called in though put forth by lawfull authority haue yet beene most forward to put forth this booke which was stayed vpon just cause and had certainly miscarried and neuer seene the Sunne had not present helpe beene got by a strong manmid wife whether is it because that some are more sollicitous of the Temporall estate of the Church impeached by Puritanisme then of the Spirituall in danger of being vtterly ouerthrowne by Popery Or because they would haue Popery and Puritanisme more eauen ballanced then they are that their accesse to either might be of more moment or is it because as the Appealer hath taught vs that there are certaine in this Kingdome tantū nō in Episcopatu Puritani there are also some of the Clergie that are tantum non in vxoratu Papistae or as Aristotle said of Theodorus that the making of Epithites was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodorus his whole art so the opposition to Puritanisme is all the Religion they seeme to profess Right of Ithacius his stamp who mightily bending himselfe against the heresie of Priscillianists Heretiques of a strict and seeming-holy life the hatred of which euill was all the vertue he had became so wise in the end that euery man carefull of vertuous conuersation studious of Scripture and giuen to any abstinence in diet was set downe in his Kalender for a suspected Puritan I should say Priscillianist for whom the onely way to proue the soundnesse of faith to this man was by a more licentious and loose kind of behauiour But I am too shallow to enter into the depth of these mens proiects Sure I am that if a Puritan Gnat be caught by them in the Presse they will straine it euen vnto death but for many a Popish Cammel they swallow downe readily neuer sticking so much as at the bunch in the backe which taxe of titheing Mint and Commin lest I my selfe might bee liable vnto in noting the smaller and subtiller errours in the Appealers Booke and passing by the greater I thought fit to point at now in the second place some fouller and grosser errours in the Appeale yet but point at because I am certainly informed that many sharper sickles then mine are in this haruest Arminianisme comes vp but thinne and in many passages scarce discernable but Popery is euerywhere thicke and rancke Doubtless in many the particulars set down in the former Tablet besides diuers others ne Athenae quidem ipsae sunt magis Atticae Rome her selfe is not more Romish then the Appealer What should I marke out with a coale diuers errours in his booke of a blacker hiew and deeper taint whereof I cleare his conscience but cannot his pen. In his as in the pen of Demosthenes there is a virulent poyson but I hope he hath not sucked it out as Demosthenes did In the answer to the Gagge page 68. in expresse and direct termes hee denyeth th◠Princes supremacy That a woman may bee supreame Gouernesse of the Church in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall as Queene Elizabeth was As Queene Elizabeth was with lye and all No Protestant euer said so of Queen Elizabeth No Protestant euer thought so of any woman You shamelesse pens and brazen faces In the Appeale page 94. he deliuereth plaine Vorstianisme Deum ire per omnes-terras tractúsque maris coelúmque profundum They meant it substantially and so impiously Christians doe hold and beleeue it too but disposingly c. in his prouidence If God be euery where but disposingly and in his prouidence and not substantially then is hee in his substance confined to certaine places if confined then not infinite and what did or could Vorstius dogmatize more impiously Saint Paul teacheth vs that it is not enough for a man to conceiue rightly in matter of faith but he must take heed hee hold to a forme of wholesome words Such I am sure the former are not nor the like Answer to Gag page 202. Is Christ an Angell and not a true one in appearance not in substance who euer heard such stuffe from a Priests lips Nay I may more truly retort this speech Is Christ a true Angell and that in substance who euer heard such stuffe from a Priests lips For if hee bee an Angel in substance and that a true one he must be so either according to his Diuine nature or humane if hee say according to his humane he dasheth vpon Marcions or Apollinaris his heresie and denyeth by consequence the verity of his humane nature if he make him an Angell and that a true one in substance according to his diuine nature he maketh shipwracke of his faith against Arrius his rock and by consequence euerteth his diuine nature For euery Angelicall substance is finite the deity infinite I haue purposely taken all the Gall out of my inke because I would not dentem dente mordere exasperate his exasperating style yet I cannot but say that the Appealer in describing the markes of the Beast acts the Beasts part For Appeale page 154. hee maketh Circumcision a sacrament sometime instituted by God a marke of the Beast and to make all correspondent he placeth or must place the foreskin to be cut off in the forehead or the hand for there was the marke of the Beast receiued Apoc. 14. 9. If the Appealer did bethinke himselfe how open he lyeth to the lash I perswade my selfe he would plucke away many cords from the cruell whip of his pen. He scourgeth from the first page to the last throughout his booke the novellizing puritans and in that ranke take it as they will not only our accomplished Doctors but our reuerend Prelates Tantum non in Episcopatu Puritani are disciplined by him Appeale page 111. A man would thinke that as it was said of Luther that couetousnesse was not incident to his nature he had such a peculiar antipathy to that vice So the Appealer whatsoeuer other imputation he might bee lyable vnto could not be charged no not by malice it selfe with Puritanisme Citiùs crimen honestum quà m turpem Catonem feceris There is such an antipathy in his nature to that humour Yet see a pang and flash of Amsterdamian zeale Answer to Gagg page 92. The Corinthian was restored without a Bishops seale a Commissaries direction to the Parson He payed no rate no fees for restitution or standing rectus in Curiâ Is not this a spoone-feather of the Martinists brood a
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
of them without any perill of his soule at all and A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing Tum maximè oppugnaris si te oppugnari nescis The greatest danger of all is when in place of danger wee suspect none A man that enters into a plaguy house if he know not of it is more subiect to infection through his carelesse boldnesse And they who speake fauourably of the Romish Church compare it to a Pest-house in which yet through Gods extraordinary mercy a man may be without mortall infection but cannot possibly be without danger If there be no danger in Romish Schools and Temples if a man may be at Masse and incurre no perill of Idolatry in the adoration of the Hoste inuocation of Saints worshipping of Images Reliques and the like blot out all the parts of the largest and learnedst Homily in all the booke intituled Against perill of Idolatrie Here I appeale to the Appealers conscience Is it no perill at all to the soule of man to be ignorant which are the true inspired Scriptures which is the true Church which are the Sacraments instituted by Christ what is the pure worship of God in spirit and truth what are the prerogatiues of Christ and priuiledges of his Saints what is that faith we are justified and saued by All these and many more are controuerted points and doe none of these strengthen or weaken our title to the Kingdome of Heauen I haue no commission to inlarge the bowels of my Sauiour and most vnwilling am I to straiten them or close vp his side against such ignorant persons who neuer had nor could haue means to come to the full light of the Gospell yet I am not ignorant what Saint Augustines iudgment is euen of inuincible ignorance in points of faith Sed illa ignorantia quae non est eorū qui scire nolunt sed eorum qui tantum simpliciter scire nesciunt neminem sic excusat ut sempiterno igne non ardeat si propterea non credidit quia non audivit omnino quod crederet c. Not wilfull ignorance no not simple nescience can priuiledge any from euerlasting fire although he therefore beleeued not because he neuer heard what he should beleeue For that of the Psalmist is not without ground Powre out thy wrath O God on those nations that know thee not nor that of the Apostle when he shall come in flaming fire to render vengeance to them who know not God But the Appealer restraineth not his assertion to inuincible ignorance be it affected ignorance nay be it resolued errour in the controuerted points it no way in his iudgement indangereth eternall saluation either there is no crimen or at least discrimen in treading in either path for he saith A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing for euer Answer to Gagg pag. 14. A braue resolution of a Protestant Diuine to resolue that a resolute Papist a professed opposite to the doctrine of the Gospell may goe away cleare with it and not at all stumble at that stone on which whosoeuer falleth he shall be broken but on whomsoeuer it shall fall it will grinde him to powder Matt. 21. 44. I desire to be satisfied whether doth the Appealer beleeue that the Articles of Religion established in our Church by Authority standing in direct opposition as they doe to the Trent decisions are expresly contained in the Scriptures or may be euidently deduced from thence or not If not then according to the sixt article of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for saluation they are no articles of faith or religion If they are expresly contained in holy Scriptures or may be euidently deduced from thence then they are Gods truth set downe in his owne word And is there no danger in resoluing against God in opposing his word in siding against that truth which shall stand and abide when heauen and earth shall passe away I grant euery doctrine contained in Scripture is not absolutely necessary to saluation yet in the generall this is a doctrine most necessary to saluation to beleeue that all doctrine of Scripture is vndoubtedly true and that to deny any part of Scripture and much more deliberately to oppugne and wilfully to oppose is dangerous yea damnable And for the controuerted points in particular the denying of the truth in them lay so heauy on Latomus Franciscus Spira his conscience on their death-beds that in a fearful conflict of despaire by reason of the hainousnesse of that sinne they miserably gaue vp the ghost And Minaerius Gallus for mainly opposing the doctrine of the Gospell was so tormented with a burning in his bowels that he had as it were a sense of the very paines of Hell-fire euen in this life I tremble to rehearse what Aubignius reporteth in his history concerning a late great King beyond the Sea who after he had embraced the Romish faith and renounced the pure doctrine of the Gospell was exceedingly perlexed in mind and troubled in conscience and aduised with his bosome friend adiuring him to deale faithfully with him whether or no in that his action of deserting the faith of the reformed Church he had not committed the impardonable sinne against the holy Ghost To illustrate this point concerning the necessity of departing out of Babylon and perill of remaining in her let vs borrow a ray or beame of a true Iewel Wee haue done nothing in altering Religion vpon either rashnesse or arrogancy nay nothing but with good leisure and mature deliberation neither had we euer intended so to doe except both the manifest and assured will of God reuealed to vs in holy Scripture and regard of our own saluation had euen constrained vs thereunto This indeed is the lustre of a true Iewel but the false Diamond glareth on this wise The present Church of Rome hath alwayes continued firme in the same foundation of doctrine and sacraments instituted by God and acknowledgeth and imbraceth communion with the ancient and vndoubted Church of Christ wherefore she cannot be other or diuerse from it for she remaines still Christs Church and Spouse As in Ceiland they say A Snake lurketh vnder euery leafe so wee may truly say of this passage of the Appealer there is poysonous error and Satanicall doctrine in euerie line First it is an errour of dangerous consequence to affirme that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation with the ancient and primitiue Church For the present Church of Rome holdeth the twelue new Articles added to the Apostles Creed mentioned in Pope Pius his Bull as fundamentall points and necessary to saluation The oath prescribed by the Pope runnes thus Caetera item omnia à sacris Canonibus Oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipuè à sacrosanctâ Tridentinâ Synodo tradita definita declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor simúlque contraria
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
he alleadgeth this sentence in approbation thereof and commendation of the Author moderate men saith he ibid. on both sides confesse this controuersy may cease hee should haue said luke-warme men on both sides Secondly he resteth on this passage as being a full answer to the Popish obiection concerning the visibility of the Church Thirdly in other places of his booke Appeale page 113. and 139. and 140. he affirmeth in his owne words as much in effect as he here coteth linguâ Romanâ out of Cassander but fide Graecâ His words are page 113. I am absolutely perswaded and shall be till I see cause to the contrary that the church of Rome is a true though not a sound church of Christ as well since as before the Councell of Trent a part of the catholike though not the catholike church which wee doe professe to beleeue in our Creed In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree holding one faith in one Lord. And p. 139 Rome is and euer was a true church since it was a church And page 140. the church of Rome is a true church ratione essentiae and being of a church not a sound church euery way in their Doctrine Vt Marci Antonij de Dominis discipulum possis agnoscere I know well the mint where these new tenents were coined the Appealer shewes himselfe a tractable and respectiue Prebend to his late Deane following him pene ad aras neere to the Romish Altars That his Deane after his relapse into Popery in the last booke containing his poenitendam poenitentiam et retractandam retractationem his repentance to be repented of and retractation to bee retracted renouncing the true religion which he had defended laboureth to cleare the present church of Rome from the imputation of heresie because as he saith the wiser and learneder Ministers of the church of England teach that the church of Rome doth not erre in any fundamentall articles of faith In defectu credendi haeresis est non in excessu haereticus est censendus qui in fide deficit aliquid quod scriptum est non credendo non is qui in fide superabundat plus quam scriptum est credendo Heresie consists in the defect not in the excesse of beleeuing and he is an Heretike who is deficient in his faith by not beleeuing something that is written not he that superabounds in his faith by beleeuing more then is written This errour as I am informed spreads farre like a Gangreane therefore most needfull it is it be lookt to in time It is true that the Church of Rome holdeth if not all yet most of the fundamentall and positiue articles with vs. It is true also that most of their errours are by way of addition Yet whosoeuer from hence will conclude that the Church of Rome is not hereticall or erreth not in any point necessary to saluation grossely mistaketh the matter as will appeare to any whose iudgement is not forestalled by the demonstration of these two conclusions 1 That Heresy or damnable Errour may be as well by adding to as taking from the Orthodoxe faith 2 That the Church of Rome erreth not onely in excesse or beleeuing more then is needfull but also in defect and beleeuing lesse The first is thus demonstrated Whatsoeuer errours are alike forbidden in Scripture vnder the same punishment are alike damnable Errors by adding to and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith are alike forbidden in Scripture vnder the same punishment Therefore errours by adding to and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith are alike damnable The first proposition is cleare by it owne light The assumption or second proposition is deliuered expresly in holy Scripture Deut. 42. Ye shall not adde vnto the words which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it Proverb 30. 5. 6. Euery word of God is pure adde thou not vnto his words lest he reproue thee Galat. 1. 18. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you beside that which wee haue preached vnto you let him be accursed Reuel 22. 18. For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the words of the Prophesie of this Booke If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the booke of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the Booke of Life and out of the holy City and from the things that are written in this Booke Secondly thus Whatsoeuer things alike destroy the nature of faith are alike damnable Errours by addition and detraction alike destroy the nature of Faith Therefore errors by addition and detraction are alike damnable The first proposition is vnquestionable The assumption I declare thus Faith is of the nature of a rule or certaine measure to which if any thing be added or taken away it ceaseth to be that rule Cùm credimus saith Tertullian nihil desideramus ultra credere prius enim hoc credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus Fides in regulâ posita est nihil ultra scire est omnia scire When we beleeue we desire to beleeue no more for wee first beleeue this that there is nothing more we ought to beleeue Faith is contained in a rule to know nothing beyond it is to know all things Virtue is in the meane vice as well in the excesse as in the defect In our body the superabundance of humours is as dangerous as lacke of them as many dye of Plethories as of Consumptions A hand or foot which hath more fingers or toes then ordinary is alike monstrous as that which wanteth the due number To vse their owne similitude A foundation may be as well ouethrowne by laying on it more then it will beare as by taking away that which is necessary to support the building Thirdly thus The errours in faith and religion of the Samaritans Malchamites Athenians Galatians Ebionites Nazarites Quartadecimans Manichees and Nestorians were damnable But all these seuerall errours were errours of addition Therefore errours of Addition are damnable The first proposition will not bee gainesaied For all these errours are branded as hereticall or damnable either by the Spirit of God in Scripture or by the catholike christian Church The Assumption will appeare in the suruay of those particular errors The Samaritans feared the Lord and serued their owne Gods The Malchamites worshipped and sware by the Lord and sware by Malcham The Athenians worshipped the true God by the name of THE VNKNOWNE GOD and withall worshipped Idols The Galatians Ebionites Nazarites and Quartadecimans beleeued the Gospell yet retained also and obserued the legall ceremonies But now after ye haue knowne God or rather are knowne of God how turne ye againe to the weake and beggerly elements whereunto ye desire againe to bee in bondage saith Saint Paul of the Galatians Ebionitae ceremonias adhuc legis retinent pauperes interpretantur et vere sensu