A Second Parallel, Title page – Dedication
A Second PARALLEL Together with A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER.
foreign.
LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOVRNE. M.DC.XXVI.
TO THE CATHOLIQVE Christian Reader.
Courteous Reader:
A Few daies since a friend of mine shewed me a Booke intituled a Parallel, which I gladly receiued from him, and perused it the more readily, because I well hoped, that some of the Parallel lines would sute to our Meridian. But taking an exact view of them, and applying them to our Horizon, I found they were somewhat short of our Eleuation: yet I discouered some thing drawne in those Parallels, which I conceiued to be of some vse, to wit, the Lineal descent of Arminius by the half bloud at least, frō Pelagius; for if it be confessed, that Arminius his pedegree is lineally to be deriued from Pelagius, and that Pelagius is the great Apenninus, from which the diuided streames of corrupt doctrine flow; then vndoubtedly the assertions of Arminius were priùs damnatae, quàm natae were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church, before they were brought forth by Arminius: And we hauehave the Prescription of the Christian world, for more than 1200. yeares, against the new encroachments of these Sectaries. But me thinks I heare thee ring in mine care the peale of the Poet, Ole quid ad te? what is this to thee, or me? or to the matter now on foot? It is not Arminius, but an Appealer that troubles our Israel; Aemilius fecit, plectetur Rutilius? Aemilius hath done wrong, shall Rutilius beare the blame? Because Arminius browseth vponupon some branches of Pelagianisme, (a plant which our heauenly Father neuer planted, and therefore in time must be rooted out) is it reason, the Appealer should be muzled, or any mans teeth whet against him? Verily, the Appealer disclaimes all kinred or affinitie with Arminius; nay he protesteth, he knoweth not the man; and if peraduenture some Longinus or skilfull Genealogist may be able to disproue him, yet certainly the vulgar reader is not. I hauehave therefore thought it worth the paines, to take the line of Pelagius which is already brought downe to Arminius, and from Arminius to draw it out euen to the Appealer, to the end, all, that are not forestalled with preiudice, may see, that both the Appealer, and Arminius hold their errors in capite from Pelagius; And that at the first the Netherlands, and other parts receiued the infection of pestilent doctrine from Britaine by Pelagius; and now at last, that Britaine hath receiued it from the Netherlands by Arminius: Mater me genuit, eadem mox gignitur ex me. But before I open the leaues of my Tablet, representing on the one side the Arminian, and on the other, the Appealers Demi-Pelagianisme, I intreat the Reader emunctae naris to follow the sent of Arminianisme in the Appealers writings by these foure steps.
1. His sleight and dilute purgation from the aspersion of Arminianisme.
2. His direct and professed defence of the Arminians.
3. His casting a blur vponupon the Synod of Dort that blasted them.
4. His disparaging the Articles of Lambhith, which are è diametro opposite to the tenets of Baro then, and since Arminius.
To begin with his Purgation. Although in other Criminations it may be an argument of Innocencie not to be moued or any way sensible of them; yet in the suspition of heresie,Tacit. Maledicta si irascaris, agnita videntur▪ spreta exolescunt. no man (as saith Saint Hierom) ought to be silent. Silence in such an accusation is a crying sin, Et patientia digna omni impatientiâ, and patience it selfe is vnsufferable. EueryEvery man is bound to professe his faith, and consequently openly to discharge himselfe from all imputation, especially of heresie, which is so foule a crime, that the water of penitent teares alone hath not bin thought enough to wash it away. Scelus hoc exuritur igne; it hath bin vsually burnt out with fire. It leaueth such a spot in the conscience, that S. Cyprian conceiueth, The blood of Martyrdome cannot fetch it out. Macula haec nec sanguine eluitur. Cyprian. epist.Now whether Pelagianisme be heresie, I thinke it is a question without question, vnlesse we will take vponupon vsus to censure the censures of the ancient Church, and most eminent Doctors thereof. S. Austin in his booke de bono Perseuerantiae, is not content to call it perniciosissimus error, c. 17. but c. 21. he calls it twise,Antequam Pelagiana haeresis appareret. and recolant aduersus haeresin Pelagianam. Pelagiana haeresis. And that Arminianisme is Pelagianisme, either in whole or in part, I take the Parallel, till I see it not slightly glanced at, but substantially refuted to be an ocular demōstratiō.Concil. Carth. sub Aurelio. Nefarius & ab omnibus anathematizandus error. Concil. Mileuit. Perniciosissimi erroris auctores perhibentur Caelestius & Pelagius. But if this be yet foreign, a point not yet gained, yet that Arminianisme (wherewith the Appealer is charged, not only by two Presbyters of his owne ranke, but a reuerend Prelate his Diocesan) is formally heresie, Appello Caesarem, I appeale to that Caesar whom he first appealed vntounto,August. p. 94. ad Hilariū: Omnes qui spem habemus in Christo huic pestiferae impietati resistere debemus. Prosper. in Crom. Per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana damnata est. King IAMES, of blessed memorie, who in his declaration against Vorstius hath these words, concerning Arminius, He was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresie. And concerning Bertius he writeth thus; Bertius a scholler of Arminius, at this present remaining in your towne of Leyden, August. ep. 47. Pelagiana haeresis venena. August. lib. 1. de pe…c. orig. Doctrina illa pestifera. Ad Bonis. l. 2. c. 5. N…num & execrabil… dogma Pelagianum vel Caelestianum. Et post, Exitiosissima prauitas.hath not onelyonly presumed to publish of late a blasphemous booke of the apostasie of Saints; but hath besides bin so impudent, as to send the other day a copie thereof, as a goodly present, to our Archbishop of Canterbury, together with a Letter, wherein he is not ashamed, as also in his booke, to lye so grosly, as to auow, that his heresies contained in the said booke, are agreeable with the Religion and profession of the Church of England.
To cleare then himselfe from the foule spot of this heresie, what course doth the Appealer take? Doth he call God, and his Angels to witnesse, that he renounceth from his heart all Arminius his vnwarrantable and dangerous assertions? Doth he foreign, fairely and openly make this, or the like protestation? Arminius teacheth none, but respectiue Predestination: I am for absolute. Vniuersall grace and redemption is an Article of Arminius faith: It is none of mine. The cooperation of mans freewill with grace in the first conuersion, and the power it hath to hinder, and frustrate the worke of regenerating grace, is current doctrine with Arminius. But I take it for a leaden Leyden error. Arminius maintaineth a totall and finall falling away from the grace of Iustification: I detest and abhominate that assertion, and will hauehave no Confarreation with the apostate defender of such Apostasie.
This had beene indeed to vnclaspe the right hands of fellowship with Arminius, and if he had euer walkt in his path, to shake the dust from his feet: but in stead hereof, the Appealer casts dust in the Readers eyes, by making a deepe protestation, idque in verbo Sacerdotis, of not reading any word in Arminius. I protest (saith he) before God and his Angels, Appeal. to Caesar pag. 21.the time is yet to come, that euer I read word in Arminius. Before I read this Protestation, I confesse, that my selfe with many others imagined, that, as Osorius writeth, that some in the Indies by often smelling to Brasell, had Scorpions bred in their braines; so the Appealer by frequent reading of Arminius his bookes, and smelling to his exotecall positions, had hatcht this Serpents brood in his braine. But because hee denieth it, in verbo Sacerdotis, I rest satisfied, that he neuer read Arminius: but for ought he saith to the contrary, he may hauehave heard all Arminius read ouer to him. Admit he neuer read, or heard of Arminius, this will be no good plea, if his doctrine be the doctrine of Arminius; Legat that was burned in Smithfield, for an Arrian, might protest truly, that he neuer read word in Arrius his bookes, as indeed he could not, because Arrius his bookes, with himselfe, were many hundred yeares ago eradicated, will the Appealer from thence conclude that Legat was no Arrian? How many thousand Nestorians are there in the Greeke Church at this day, who yet neuer read word in Nestorius his writings; not now extant (I take it) any where? I dare say, Arminius himselfe neuer read word in any of Pelagius his workes, or the workes of the Semipelagians, or Massilians, yet he cannot free himselfe from the brand of Pelagianisme; neither doth much desire to be acquitted from the note of Semipelagianisme. Wee reade in the Ciuill Law, Malitia supplet aetatem: Malice oftentimes supplies the defect of age. In like manner it is most certaine, that where there is a propension in any mans minde to any old heresie, the malice of the Deuill easily supplyeth the want of reading: Zabarel hauing coyned, as he thought, a new distinction vnheard of before, was as proud of it, as euer Pelius was of his new sword, saying, Ego hanc solutionem primus inueni: In comment. in poster. Analyt.yet afterwards he ingeniously confesseth, that perusing Gandauensis his writings vponupon the same argument, there he found the selfe-same distinction; and it much reioyced his heart, that so acute a Philosopher as Gandauensis, should hit vponupon the same conceit with him. Might it not be so with the Appealer? might he not first proiect the new plot of Predestination in his owne head, and yet afterwards light vponupon the same in Arminius, or some of his schollers, and exceedingly applaud either their conceit in himselfe, or his in theirs? For mine owne part I will not vndertake to proue that the Appealer was euer an apprentice to Iames Harmin; but by setting vp both of their loomes, I will make it appeare that they are both foreign, of the same trade or craft.
Thou seest, Christian Reader, that his purgation of himselfe needeth a defence, but his direct defence of the Arminians much more needeth a purgation. No doubt the Appealer read often in the Heathen Orator,Cic. pro Sylla. that it taints a man deepely once to open his lips in the defence of such a man, whom he suspecteth to be an enemie to the State: Quaedam contagio est sceleris si eum defendas quem patriae obstrictum esse suspiceris. How much more doth it blurre a mans reputation to frame an apologie for him, whom King Iames of blessed memory, vponupon iust and religious considerations,Declar. aduers. Vorstium. proclaimeth to be an enemie of God? Either the Appealers charity, or his cōscience must needs be very large, wherein such an offender finds a Sanctuary,King Iames, ibidem. against whom all the Churches of Germany made complaint to our then dread Soueraigne: Nemo omnes, neminem omnes fefellerunt: Plin. Panegyr.Neuer one man deceiued all men, neuer all men deceiued one man: yet the Appealer is not only content, some way to blanch Arminius, and his schollers errours (whereof diuers by the Arminian way, as a conuenient bridge, hauehave fairely walked ouer to Popery:) but he, to the infinite wrong of the Primitiue Saints and Martyrs, compareth these Comets to those Stars, and would make these as innocent & vnguilty of the late troubles in the Nether-lands, as they were altogether free from the aspersions, which the Gentiles odiously and impiously cast vponupon them, scil: Appeale pag. 41. were these late of-spring of the Semipelagians so harmelesse and free altogether from sowing seed of dissention in the Church, as the ancient Christians were from mouing sedition in the State? Why did then the wise and Christian States generall in the Low-countries, by the aduice of our then Salomon, call a nationall Synod, and so long continue it at their great charge, to suppresse these, not venimous vipers, tearing the bowels of her mother, (in the Appealers esteeme) but silly and harmelesse wormes? Why did our gracious Soueraigne King Charles, Balchanquall Concio ad clerū.by his Embassador, the Duke of Buckingham his Grace, deale effectually with the States to root vp the weed of Arminian Liberty, so far spreading among them?Appeale ibid. Yea, but (saith he) did no crafty Interloper put in his stocke among these brawling Bankers? Did no wiser man work vponupon exasperated minds? What of that? No question, as it was there, so it will be here, Dum pastores odia exercent, lupus intrat ouile: While the shepherds are at strife, the Wolfe entreth the sheep-fold. Doth this proue, the brawling Bankers to be innocent? Or, disproue the speech of our Sauiour,Matth. 18. 7. Woe be to him by whom offences come? But it should seeme there is such a neare tye betweene the Appealer, and the Arminians, that they are entred into a league defensiue, and offensiue, for as he holdeth his buckler ouer them: so he mainly foiles at their opposites: He slighteth, vilifieth,Pag. 70. & Pag. 108. and falsly traduceth the Synod of Dort; for what reason, but because they touch the apple of his eye, the Arminian theologie? He stirs the Articles concluded at Lambhith, he carpeth at the most reuerend Metropolitans, reuerend Bishops, and renowned Doctors,Appeal. pag. 71. 72. the floure of both Vniuersities, who subscribed them, and published them. Neither can hee yeeld any reason hereof, but because those eminent and eueryevery way accomplisht Diuines at Lambhith, crushed the addle egge now smelling in the Appealers writings, when it was new laid in Cambridge, before Baro could hatch it. If these proofes be not pregnant, that the Appealer is deepely engaged in the Arminian pact, I intreat the Reader to trust his owne eyes, in comparing the ensuing doctrines and arguments, set one against the other by way of Parallel, where he shall finde, that as in the water, face answereth face: so in the humor of renuing Pelagianisme, the Appealer doth Arminius. If Arminius or Bertius be the Voice, the Appealer is the Eccho; if the Appealer be the Voice, Arminius or Bertius is the Eccho. Behold them both in the ensuing tablet, like those two of whom the Poet speaketh, Alter in alterius iactantes lumina vultus: One looking, as it were, babies in anothers eyes.