A Second Parallel, Writ

A Second Parallel · Writ

p. 35A WRIT OF ERROVR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER.

HOrtensius, A. Gell. …oct. At.that spruce Oratour, commenced an action against a Citizen of Rome, for rushing hastily vponupon him, and thereby disordering, and pressing down the pleats of his gowne. Many such actions hauehave been heretofore entred, and pursued against such, as hauehave 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 needle worke, wrought with diuerse colours, (that is, much variety of rites, and ceremonies, or her attire, is some way wronged, or soyled,) but p. 36duplicate page p. 37duplicate page p. 38duplicate page p. 39duplicate page p. 40duplicate page p. 33duplicate page p. 34duplicate page p. 35duplicate page p. 36her 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 louelove to the Church, (as is pretended,) hauehave had a jealous eye ouer the Presse, and hauehave procured other Pamphlets to be called in, (though put forth by lawfull authority,) hauehave yet beene most forward to put forth this booke, which was stayed vponupon 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 hauehave 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 vsus) that there are certaine in this Kingdome [tantū nō in Episcopatu Puritani,] there are also p. 37some of the Clergie, that are tantum non in vxoratu Papistae: or, as Aristotle said of Theodorus, that the making of Epithites was foreign. Theodorus his whole art; so the opposition to Puritanisme is all the Religion they seeme to profess?Sulpit. Seuer. hist. 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 eueryevery 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto 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 p. 38liable vntounto, [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 p. 39was. 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 eueryevery 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 vsus, 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, p. 40if 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 vponupon 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 eueryevery Angelicall substance is finite, the deity infinite.

I hauehave 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 p. 49my 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 vntounto) could not be charged, no not by malice it selfe, with Puritanisme. Citiùs crimen honestum, quàm 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 onelyonly trod a little awry, either p. 50in the high path of popery, or by-path of puritanisme; I, for mine owne part, would hauehave 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 foreign 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 vntounto Faith, and Manners, Hope and Charity, to wit. And accordingly I doe know no obscurity vponupon 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 p. 51perill 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 hauehave all the reformed Churches in Christendome to answer at the dreadful Tribunall of Christ, for making so great a rent in Christs seamlesse coat, vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave p. 52watred 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 vponupon 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. Plin. paneg.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 p. 53the 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 onelyonly 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 vsus 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 vponupon 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 p. 54were 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, foreign, reduceth all the controuersies betweene our Church, and theirs. And for vndermining the articles of our Creed by consequences, and maintaining repugnances to them, th… 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 Mar…ion, Arrius, Apollinaris, p. 55Eutiches, 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 vnderunder 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. VponUpon 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 p. 56oppugnaris, 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 p. 57more, are controuerted points; and doe none of these strengthen, or weaken our title to the Kingdome of Heauen? I hauehave 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 hauehave means to come to the full light of the Gospell: yet I am not ignorant,Aug. de gr…t. & lib. arbi…. c. 3. 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 p. 58no 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 p. 59his word, in siding against that truth? which shall stand, and abide when heauen and earth shall passe away. I grant, eueryevery 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,Panta…con in his h…storie. 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 p. 60perlexed 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 vsus borrow a ray, Iuel. Apol. part. 6. c. 6. diuis. 1.or beame of a true Iewel: Wee hauehave done nothing in altering Religion vponupon 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 vsus in holy Scripture, and regard of our own saluation, had euen constrained vsus thereunto. This indeed is the lustre of a true Iewel:Answer to Gag. pag. 50 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. p. 61As in Ceiland, they say, A Snake lurketh vnderunder eueryevery leafe; so wee may truly say of this passage of the Appealer, there is poysonous error, and Satanicall doctrine in euerie line.

First, 1 Errour.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,Adiect. ad Calcem concil. Trident. 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; at que profiteor, simúlque contraria omnia, at que 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 us que ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissimè (Deo juvante) retineri, & confiteri, at que à meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, retineri, doceri, p. 62& 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 onelyonly perfect infallible rule of faith, and foundation of sauing doctrine, (as is plentifully proued by Iuel,Iuel. def. Apol. p. 195 c. 9. diu. 1. Rainolds cont Hart. c. 8. sect. 1. & thes. 1. sect. 3. & Apol. thes. sect 2 p. 29. Bilson of suprem p…rt. 4 pag. 361. Kemnis Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 1 Morney praes. de sa crâ Euchar. Iohn White in his way to the Church. digres. 3 p. 13. Fr. White Answ. to F…sh. r. p. 32. Culuin Antidot. Sess 4. p. 370. Saaeel quaest. 1. Danaeus & Inni…s …d 1 controuers. Bellar. l 4. c. 3. 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 vponupon the written, and partly vponupon 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 p. 63ancient 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 vsus that we ought to repose our confidence in God, and him onelyonly; not vponupon any Creature, Saint, or Angell; and therefore not to call vponupon them; the consequence is the Apostles, Rom. 10. How shall they call on him, in whom they hauehave 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 vponupon 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,Conc. Trid. Sess 6. can. 12. that it accurseth all those, who teach, the nature of justifying p. 64faith 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 vntounto vsus in all things, sinne onelyonly 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, Bellar. retract.where he was not before; [for that, say they, were onelyonly 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 eueryevery part of the Host; which is impossible, if, according to the definition of the Councell of Calcedon, he retaine the properties of his humane p. 65nature; 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 vponupon 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 vponupon earth in eueryevery Church, on eueryevery 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 vponupon earth since his Ascension, then before. Before his Ascension p. 66he was onelyonly in one Country, and at one time, according to his bodily presence, but in one particular place: but since his Ascension, Counc. Trent Sess. 13 ch. 1.according to their beliefe, he is truely, really, and substantially in a million of places, viz. eueryevery 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 vponupon 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 vponupon 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 vponupon 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, A…g. lib. 20 contra Faustum Manich, c. 11.[Christ, according to his bodily presence, cannot be, at the same time, in the Sunne, and Moone, and vponupon the Crosse:] the inference of Vigilius,Lib. 4. contra Euiychetem. (when Christ was in the flesh vponupon earth, he was not in heauen; and now because hee p. 67is in heauen, he is not therefore vponupon 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 vponupon earth in his body, and in heauen at the same time, then is not he contained in the Heauens; for it implieth a contradiction, that his body should be contained in, and yet be without the Heauens at the same time. If his body may bee in more places then one at once, then he might hauehave been at the instant of his passion in the Sun, and Moon, & vponupon the Crosse, which S. Augustine concludes to bee absolutely impossible. And if Christ in his flesh may be both in heauen and earth at the same instant, Vigilius his reason hath no strength at all, to wit, (because he is in heauen, therefore he is not vponupon earth.) To conclude, if it be impossible that Christ his body should bee at the same instant in heauen and vponupon earth, as the testimonies of the Angel, S. Peter, S. Augustine, and Vigilius aboue alleadged, declare; and if p. 68all Papists teach, that Christs body, after words of Consecration, is truely, really, and substantially vponupon earth handled with the hands, and eaten with the mouthes of Communicants; they must needes consequently deny his bodily presence, and being at the right hand of his Father in Heauen. Fiftly, the article of the Catholike Church, rightly expounded, signifieth the whole company of Gods elect; which is the onelyonly Catholike (inuisible) Church, wee beleeue, (for the visible Church is an obiect of sense, and therefore not properly an article of faith.) This true interpretation of the article, the Romanists are so farre from admitting, that in the Councell of Constance,Cocl. histor. Bohemi. lib. 3. they condemned Iohn Husse of heresie, for maintaining it. Whence I thus argue: They who make the visible Church to be the catholike Church which wee beleeue, misbeleeue the article touching the Catholike Church; But the Romanists make the visible Church to be the Catholike Church, which wee beleeue; Therefore the Romanists misbeleeue the article touching the catholike Church.

The first proposition, or major, is proued by the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 7. We walke by faith, and not by sight. and Heb. 11. 1. p. 69Faith is the euidence of things not seene. The Church therefore, which we beleeue, cannot be the visible Church. Campian reason. 3.The assumption is the assertion of all Papists, who are so farre from beleeuing, that they scoffe and laugh at an inuisible Church, as a meere phantasme, or Platonicall Idaea.

Sixtly, the foure last articles of the Apostles creed [the communion of Saints, the forgiuenesse of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and life euerlasting] rightly expounded, import not only, that there is a communion of Saints, and remission of sinnes in the Church, and a resurrection of the faithfull to eternall life; [which the Deuills themselues doe, and cannot but beleeue] but that eueryevery true beleeuer, who rehearseth these articles, doth, and ought to beleeue, that hee hath a part in the communion of Saints, hath obtained remission of his sinnes, and shall at the last day rise to life eternall. …This interpretation of these articles is condemned by the Papists as hereticall. Whence we thus argue against them:

They, who deny that a man is bound to beleeue, that he is of the number of the elect, or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen p. 70him, &c. ouerthrow the foure articles aboue mentioned, according to their true meaning.

But the Romanists deny, that a man is bound to beleeue, that he is of the number of the Elect, or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen him, &c.

Therefore the Romanists ouerthrow the foure articles aboue mentioned, according to their true meaning.

Secondly,2 Errour. it is a dangerous errour, to affirme, that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient Church. Which I proue, first:

They who maintain seuen Sacraments properly so called, hold not the same foundation of Sacraments, with that church which held but two onelyonly:

But the present church of Rome maintaines seauen Sacraments properly so called, the Ancient church of Rome held but two onelyonly: Therefore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments, with that church.

The first proposition, or major, if it bee p. 71not euident in it selfe, may be thus confirmed. The fiue Sacraments which the Romanists adde, cannot be built vponupon that foundation, which beareth but two onelyonly: therefore those fiue Sacraments are built vponupon another different foundation, or vponupon no foundation at all. The second proposition or assumption is generally proued by all Protestant writers that handle this question, with whom the Appealer professeth eueryevery where to hold faire quarter.

Secondly, I proue it thus;

Whosoeuer maintaineth an error ouerthrowing the nature of a Sacrament, holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church:

But the present church of Rome maintaineth an error ouerthrowing the nature of a Sacrament;

Therfore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church.

The first proposition is euident in it selfe; for nothing can be more fundamentall to a Sacrament, then that which concernes the nature and essence of a Sacrament; nothing p. 72more destructiue, or euersiue then that, which ouerthroweth the very essence, and substance of it.

The second proposition, is contained totidem verbis, in expresse words in the articles of religion of the Church of England, Artic. 28. Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, [a doctrine de fide in the Church of Rome, defined both by the Councell of Lateran, and the Councell of Trent] in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proued by holy Writ, but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions.

Thirdly, it is proued thus:

Whosoeuer holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance, and institution of the Sacraments, erreth in the foundation of Sacraments, and therein differeth from the ancient Church:

But the present Church of Rome holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance and institution of the Sacraments;

Therefore the present Church of Rome erreth in the foundation of Sacraments, and therein differeth from the ancient Church.

p. 73The first proposition is cleare; for Christs order and institution is the foundation of the Sacraments, and therefore an error concerning it must needs be fundamentall in point of Sacrament. The second proposition or assumption, is set downe in Article 30. Both parts of the Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all christian men alike; which assertion touching Christs ordinance, the present Church of Rome erroneously denieth, and defineth the contrary in the Councell of Constance and Trent.

Thirdly, 3 Errour.it is a dangerous errour, to affirme, that the present church of Rome is not diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. Which I proue. First thus,

Whatsoeuer Church hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles, from Christ himselfe, from the Primitiue and catholike church of God, and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith, is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ;

The present church of Rome hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles, from Christ himselfe, from the primitiue and p. 74catholike church of God, and hath vtterly forsaken the catholike faith.

Therefore the present church of Rome is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ.

The first proposition is most euident: the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England, part 5. ch. 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch. 22. Diuis. 2. This Apology of the Church of England, as it beareth the name, so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England. When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth, it was commanded to bee had in all Churches; and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in eueryevery Parish Church in this Kingdome, in the yeare of our Lord, 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames, who**See the Preface to the King, pend by Bishop Ouerall, in the end. gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes, for the most rare and admirable that hauehave beene written in this last age of the world: and also gaue speciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Bancroft, to appoint some one**The life was penned by D. F. then a Student in C. C. C. to write his, the said Bishops life in English, and prefixe it to his workes, p. 75which accordingly is done in the last edition.

Secondly, I proue it, thus;

Whatsoeuer Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine, is not the same with, but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ.

The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine;

Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with, but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ.

The first proposition cannot bee denied; the assumption is the Appealers, Appeale pag. 149. In Apostasie the Turke and Pope are both interessed; both are departed away; whether wee take that apostacie to bee a departing away from Christ, and his Kingdome, and his Doctrine: or whether wee vnderstand apostacie and defection from the Romane Empire, &c. page 150.

Thirdly, I proue it thus;

No Church maintaining & practising Idolatry, can be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth:

The present Church of Rome maintaineth and practiseth idolatry:

Therefore the present Church of Rome cannot p. 76be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth.

The first proposition is the Apostles, 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry, confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England, Artic. 35. The Homilies, and by name the Homily (the second against perill of idolatry) containeth godly and wholesome doctrine. If godly and wholesome Doctrine, then certainely true.

Fourthly, 4 Errour.it is a dangerous error to affirme, as the Appealer doth, Answer to Gagge page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa. Christs Church and Spouse. That God hath his Church euen in Rome we doe not deny; but that the present Romane Church, specially since the Councell of Trent, holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conuenticle, or that the Papacy, that is, the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents, are Christs Church and Spouse, the Appealer is the first Protestant that euer for ought I know, affirmed it. Iunius (whom he alleadgeth, Appeale, p. 77pag. 113. to this purpose) in his booke De Ecclesiâ, is so farre from supporting his assertion, that in the same booke hee quite ouerthroweth it: his words are, pag. 60. & 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit, cùm Papatus non esset; accessit ei Papatus contingenter, & sic ab ea separabilis, ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est, & sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint. Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia, sed in Ecclesiâ est adnatum malu…, pestis, hydrops, gangraena in corpore, vitae atque saluti ejus insidians, ideo que succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quàm infestissimè. The Church of God was many ages when there was no Papacy at all; as at this day also there are Churches where there is no Papacy: and will be hereafter without the Papacy. The Papacy therefore is not the Church, but a disease or botch growne to or in the Church, a plague, a dropsy, a gangreene in the body, indangering the health, feeding vponupon, and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church. And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth, Appeale page 113. The Papall Church, (saith Franciscus Iunius▪ neither Papist, nor Arminian) quâ id habet in se quod p. 78ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet, est Ecclesia. As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church, is a Church. Why doth the Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence? why doth he not goe on to the full period? the sentence is yet but lame, he hath put out but the left legge, I will put out the right legge for him, wherewith Iunius giues Popery a kicke, and trips vp the Appealers heeles: Qud vero habet in se adnatum malum, quod Papalitatem dicimus, eo respectu Ecclesia non est, sed vitiata atque corrupta Ecclesia & ad interitum tendens; But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or euill growne to it, which we call the Papacy, in that respect it is not the Church, but a vitiate and corrupt church, and tending to ruine.

Note here Reader, in the Appealers defence of Popery a tricke of Popery, to cite sentences by halfes, alleadging onelyonly that which in shew makes for them, and concealing that which in truth makes against them. The meaning of the whole sentence of Iunius is cleare enough for vsus, and against the Appealer: to wit, that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant, and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scriptures, p. 79is a Church: but as it is Popish, and addeth many errors to those truths, consequently subuerting those very truths it holdeth, it is no Church. Which I thus proue:

No Spouse or true church of Christ is in part or in whole that Antichrist, or whore of Babylon:

The present church of Rome, as it is taken for the Papacy or Popish state thereof, is in part (as the Appealer confesseth, Appeale pag. 149.) or in whole, (as many**See before in the Table, Artic. de Antichristo. Pillars of our Church hauehave taught,) that Antichrist, or whore of Babylon;

Therefore the present church of Rome, as it is taken for the Papacy or popish state thereof, is no Spouse nor true church of christ.

I hauehave heard that the Appealer in a late conference (wherein this passage, on which I hauehave so long insisted, was obiected against him) should stand at this ward, answering for himselfe, that these words [praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae & Sacramentorum firma semper constitit, &c. & manet enim Christi Ecclesia & Sponsa: Answ. to Gag. page 50.] were not his owne words, but the words of Cassander. This his ward will p. 80not keepe off the blow. For first, 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery way in their Doctrine. Vt Marci Antonij de Dominis discipulum p. 81possis 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 p. 82a 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 vsus. 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 onelyonly 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 vnderunder the same punishment, are alike damnable:

Errors by adding to, and detracting from the Orthodoxe faith, are alike forbidden in Scripture vnderunder the same punishment;

p. 83Therefore 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 vntounto the words which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it. Proverb. 30. 5. 6. EueryEvery word of God is pure, adde thou not vntounto his words, lest he reproue thee. Galat. 1. 18. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vntounto you beside that which wee hauehave preached vntounto you, let him be accursed. Reuel. 22. 18. For I testifie vntounto eueryevery man that heareth the words of the Prophesie of this Booke, If any man shall adde vntounto these things, God shall adde vntounto 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 p. 84destroy 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, Tertul. de Praescript. advers. Haeret. c. 8. c. 4.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 p. 85taking 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,2 King. 17. 33.2 Kgs 17:33 and serued their owne Gods. The Malchamites worshipped and sware by the Lord,Zepha. 1. 5. and sware by Malcham. The Athenians worshipped the true God by the name of THE VNKNOWNE GOD, Acts 17. 23. 2.Acts 17:23Acts 17:2and withall worshipped Idols. Gal. 4. 9.Gal 4:9The Galatians, Ebionites, Nazarites, and Quartadecimans, beleeued the Gospell, yet retained also and obserued the legall ceremonies, But now, after ye hauehave knowne God, or rather are knowne p. 86of 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 pauperes: The Ebionites still keepe the ceremonies of the Law,Haymo hist. Sacr. l. 3. c. 17. ex Euseb. histor. l. 3. c. 27. their name (Ebionites) by interpretation is poore men, and indeed such are they, poore and simple in theirvnderstanding, August. de haeres. ad quod vult Deum.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, quàm 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 MonethMonth.Tertul. de praescript. c. 53. 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. p. 87The Manichees held two chiefe first causes of all things,Cassander de reliquijs T…lag ad Iohan. A … Anno Dom. 431. 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto by the Romanists, as I shewed before.

Secondly, they beleeue not speciall and particular affiance in Christs merits for saluation,Councell of Trent. can. 12. 13. S…s. 6. 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 p. 88them 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,Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. Sect. Quod. 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 vsus, if, as we are bound, we beleeue and obey God rather then mā, who by the Prophet Esay saith, Woe vntounto them that call evill good, Isaiah. 5. 20Isa 5:20and 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,Appeale p. 139. [Remember it lest you mistake my saying, or maliciously mistake it; p. 89the Church of Rome is a true Church ratione essentiae, and being of a Church, not a sound Church eueryevery 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 vponupon 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 vponupon his p. 90true 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, vponupon which he would hauehave 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 quàm 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. EueryEvery particular true Church is a true Church, yet neither eueryevery 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 p. 91terminus 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 hauehave 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, p. 92and when the Pope sate at Auennian, and not Rome, when diuers Popes were deposed by Councels for Schisme and Heresy, and sometimes the Pope set vp by the Councels, was deposed by the power of Princes, as Amodius; and sometimes the Popes deposed by Councels were reëstablished in their Popedomes by the power of Princes, as Eugenius, the Church of Rome was not so visible, as the Appealer would hauehave it. Thirdly, if the Appealer vnderstand by the Church of Rome (as his friends and informers, and all Protestants generally vnderstand it, and as hee must, if he say any thing to the purpose.) a Church in Rome, and the Popes territories, or elsewhere, holding the present Romane faith, which is set downe in the Councell of Trent, both the major and minor are notoriously false. For neither was there any church in the world, holding that faith, visible for many hundred yeeres after Christ; neither is the Church holding that erroneous faith a true Church▪ Howsoeuer, it may please God in that Church (as hee did in the Churches of the Arrians in Saint Hilary his time) to call many by the Word & Sacraments to the knowledge p. 93of the truth; …quorum aures puriores erant quàm doctorum ora: whose eares were purer then the teachers mouthes; who strained the milke they receiued from their mother, and, casting away that which was impure, dranke downe onelyonly the sincere milke of the word.

I suppose the Appealer will not affirm the Arrian Churches to bee true Churches; yet God had his wheat euen in their floore all couered with chaffe; and, I doubt not, but hee euer had, and still hath many thousands euen in the Romane Church it selfe, who neuer bowed the knee to that Baäl. Our question is not of them, but of their Gouernours and Teachers; and the outward face of their Church maintaining and practising idolatry, and inforcing as farre as they can the accursed Canons of the Councell of Trent, whether in this sense the Church of Rome be a true Church. It is saith the Appealer a true Church, Appea…e pag. 14….ratione essentiae, in regard of essence, but not in regard of soundnesse of doctrine. This answer explicateth not the question, but implieth a contradiction; to say, a true Church in respect of the essence, and not in respect of soundnesse of Doctrine, is to say, p. 94the church of Rome is a true church in respect of the essence, but not in respect of the essence; for, soundnesse of Doctrine is of the essence of the true church. By it the true Church is defined, Article the 19. The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men, in the which the pure word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments bee duely ministred, according to Christs ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

If the Appealer by (truth) meaneth metaphysicall truth, which is of as large extent as being or entity, the more hee graspeth, the lesse hee holdeth: for in this account all Churches are true Churches; and the Church of Rome is no more indebted to the Appealer for his Euloge, then all the hereticall and schismaticall Churches in Christendome; they are Churches, therefore in this sense, true Churches; for Ens et verum conuertuntur. In this acception, a thiefe is a true man, because it is true that he is a man; and the Deuill a true Angell, because it is true, that he is an Angell; and the Appealer a true writer, because it is true that he is a writer;Melancthon in Chroni…s. of whom it may be said, as it was of Seuerus, Omnia fuit et nihil p. 95profuit: he turneth eueryevery way, and yet cannot passe; he angleth in all waters, and yet catcheth nothing; hee hath spent all his oyle in making salues for the foule sores of the Whore of Babylon, and yet hath left Her worse then he found Her.

The filing vp of the Writ.

THe errors of the Appealer, both in point of Arminianisme, and Popery, and of a different nature from both, being laid open in simplicity and sincerity; I first appeale from the Appealer to himselfe, as that Plaintiffe sometime did from Philip to Philip. I appeale from the Appealer, as set on by others, to the Appealer as left to himselfe: from his rash, to his aduised; from his former, to his latter thoughts, which are vsually the wiser, foreign, &c. Secundae cogitationes secundiores. And if he retract his errours, I will let fall the suit: if he persist in his erroneous opinions, I referre him, together with this discouery of his errors, to the Examination p. 96and Censure of the most learned, religious, and iudicious House of Conuocation now sitting, to whom vnderunder his Maiesty the cognizance of Doctrinall differences properly belong.Latius in Semipelagianismo. Faustus Regiensis intending to refute S. Austine vnderunder another name, that he might auoid all suspition of Pelagianisme, intitles the first Chapters of his Book against Pelagius; and vnderunder this vaile of opposing S. Austins professed enemie, from the third chapter of his booke to the end couertly carps at, and refels S. Austins learned Booke of the Predestination of Saints. Let moderate men, and no franticke Puritans iudge, whether the Appealer, as in his matter, so in his manner of writing, follow not Faustus the Demipelagian his patterne; whether pretending an answer to a Gagger of the Protestants, he intend and indeauour not to Gagge the most learned and zealous Protestants; and drawing out his stile more poinenant then a Stilletto, in colour and shew against the Romish enemie, hee cunningly giuegive not therwith a secret wound to his owne Mother the Church of England, and the true professors of the Gospell therein. As p. 97for the Fratres Descripti, the right and left hand of the Appealer, whose Trade hath beene for these many yeares past, to informe against the zealous and learned Defenders of the true religion established here in England vnderunder the name of Puritans, quia volunt decipi, decipiantur. But for those graue and venerable Diuines, who are reported to hauehave subscribed to the Appealers Bookes, [I thinke the Relator was mistaken in the word, hee meant proscribed them] and all other ancient worthies of our Church, who yet applaud and approue these late Polemickes of the Appealer, I humbly intreat them in the words of the Orator,

Videant Patres Conscripti ne circumscripti videantur.

foreign Galat. 4. 16.

End of the text · Daniel Featley, A Second Parallel (1626)