A second parallel together with a vvrit of error sued against the appealer.

A WRIT OF ERROVR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER.

HOrtensius,* 1.1 that spruce O∣ratour, 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 glan∣ced (though vnwittingly) at a ceremo∣nie 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

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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 Ap∣peale to her most tender, and gratious nursing Fa∣ther. 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 Pam∣phlets to be called in, (though put forth by lawfull authority,) haue yet beene most for∣ward 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 man∣mid 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 o∣uerthrowne 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 vx∣oratu Papistae: or, as Aristotle said of Theodo∣rus, that the making of Epithites was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodorus his whole art; so the oppo∣sition to Puritanisme is all the Religion they seeme to profess?* 1.2 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 ma∣ny 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 sub∣tiller 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 Ap∣pealer. What should I marke out with a coale diuers errours in his booke of a blac∣ker hiew, and deeper taint? whereof I cleare his conscience, but cannot his pen. In his, as in the pen of Demosthenes, there is a viru∣lent 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 su∣preame Gouernesse of the Church in all causes, as well Ecclesiasticall, as Temporall, as Queene Eli∣zabeth

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-ter∣ras, tractúsque maris, coelúmque profundum. They meant it substantially, and so impiously. Christians doe hold, and beleeue it too; but dispo∣singly, &c. in his prouidence.] If God be euery where but disposingly, and in his prouidence, and not substantially; then is hee in his sub∣stance confined to certaine places; if confi∣ned, 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 e∣uer 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, ac∣cording to his humane, he dasheth vpon Mar∣cions, 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 Ange∣licall 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 descri∣bing the markes of the Beast, acts the Beasts part. For, Appeale page 154. hee maketh Circumcision [a sacrament sometime institu∣ted 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 scour∣geth from the first page to the last, through∣out his booke, the novellizing puritans; and in that ranke, [take it as they will] not only our accomplished Doctors, but our reuerend Pre∣lates: 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 anti∣pathy to that vice:] So the Appealer (what∣soeuer other imputation he might bee lyable vnto) could not be charged, no not by ma∣lice it selfe, with Puritanisme. Citiùs crimen honestum, quàm turpem Catonem feceris; There is such an antipathy in his nature to that hu∣mour. Yet see a pang and flash of Amster∣damian 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 purita∣nisme; I, for mine owne part, would haue borne with it; and that in respect of his other∣wise commendable parts, and profitable paines in the Church: but when he halteth downe right betweene two religions, none, that desireth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Lin∣sie-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 & charita∣tem. 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 igno∣rant, without any danger of his soule at all. A man may resolue, or oppose this way, or that way, with∣out

perill of perishing for euer. &c.] It is most euident in this place, that the parties, he spea∣keth 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 con∣sequents doe manifest.

Now if the differences betweene the pa∣pists and vs, are of such an inferiour alloye, that little reckoning is to be made of them, be∣cause 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 Tri∣bunall 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 pe∣rill 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 si∣thence 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 ob∣stinacy, or indiscretion, but not of faith; if those points, you suffered for, belonged not at all to faith.* 1.3 Diffido oculis meis, & identidem in∣terrogo, 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 offi∣ces, the foundation of faith; the Scriptures, the rule of faith; the Church, the subiect of faith; the Sacraments, the seales of faith; ius∣tification, 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 Eng∣land 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 answe∣rable 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 Irenae∣us, Epiphanius, S. Augustine, Philastrius, Al∣fonsus a Castro, and others, and he shall hardly pitch vpon any sort of Heretickes, that di∣rectly 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 A∣postles Creed, totidem verbis, in the very words; yet they denyed, or depraued the sense, and brought in damnable errours, by conse∣quence ouerthrowing those foundations of our faith: Our reply is at hand. As the grea∣ter part of ancient heretickes, so at this day the Papists, confesse the Articles of the Creed, and hold them plaine truth; but they mis∣interpret them, and by consequence shake, if not quite ouerthrow diuers of them. Ei∣ther they, or we, misinterpret those three ar∣ticles especially, concerning the Catholike Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiue∣nesse of sinnes; to which their great Champion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, reduceth all the con∣trouersies 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 Almigh∣ty Creator; nor Mar••ion, Arrius, Apollinaris,

Eutiches, Nestorius, and Socinus, the article concerning Christ the Redeemer; nor Macedo∣nius, and the Pneumatomachi, the article con∣cerning the holy Ghost; but they held such doctrine, which was not comportable with those articles. And how the Romish doc∣trine of Invocation of Saints, and Angels, may stand with the first article rightly expounded [I beleeue in God]; and their doctrine of Iusti∣fication by inherent righteousnesse, with the se∣cond [and in Iesus Christ]; and of transub∣stantiation, with the article of Christ his Incar∣nation, 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 Roma∣nist. 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 maxi∣mè

oppugnaris, si te oppugnari nescis: The grea∣test 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 infe∣ction, but cannot possibly be without dan∣ger. 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 I∣mages, Reliques, and the like: blot out all the parts of the largest and learnedst Homily in all the booke, intituled, Against perill of Idola∣trie. Here I appeale to the Appealers consci∣ence; 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 priui∣ledges 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 per∣sons, who neuer had, nor could haue means to come to the full light of the Gospell: yet I am not ignorant,* 1.4 what Saint Augustines iudg∣ment 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 wil∣full ignorance, no not simple nescience can priui∣ledge any from euerlasting fire, although he there∣fore beleeued not, because he neuer heard, what he should beleeue. For that of the Psalmist is not with∣out 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 ven∣geance to them, who know not God. But the Ap∣pealer restraineth not his assertion to inuin∣cible ignorance, be it affected ignorance, nay be it resolued errour in the controuerted points, it

no way, in his iudgement, indangereth eter∣nall 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 fal∣leth, 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 Ap∣pealer beleeue, that the Articles of Religion established in our Church by Authority, stan∣ding 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 Scrip∣tures 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 con∣tained in Scripture is not absolutely necessary to saluation; yet in the generall, this is a doc¦trine 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,* 1.5 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 mise∣rably gaue vp the ghost. And Minaerius Gal∣lus, 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 re∣porteth in his history, concerning a late great King beyond the Sea, who, after he had em∣braced the Romish faith, and renounced the pure doctrine of the Gospell, was exceedingly

perlexed in mind, and troubled in consci∣ence; and aduised with his bosome friend (adiuring him to deale faithfully with him) whether, or no, in that his action of deser∣ting 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,* 1.6 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 in∣tended so to doe, except both the manifest, and as∣sured will of God reuealed to vs in holy Scripture, and regard of our own saluation, had euen constrai∣ned vs thereunto. This indeed is the lustre of a true Iewel:* 1.7 but the false Diamond glareth on this wise: The present Church of Rome hath al∣wayes 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 vn∣der euery leafe; so wee may truly say of this passage of the Appealer, there is poysonous error, and Satanicall doctrine in euerie line.

First,* 1.8 it is an errour of dangerous conse∣quence, 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,* 1.9 as fundamentall points, and ne∣cessary to saluation. The oath prescribed by the Pope runnes thus: Caetera item omnia à sa∣cris Canonibus, & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac prae∣cipuè 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 prae∣senti 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, doce∣ri,

& 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,* 1.10 Rainolds, Bilson, Kemnisius, Morney, D. Francis White, and di∣uers 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 pre∣sent 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 mea∣ning 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 mea∣ning 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 re∣pose our confidence in God, and him onely; not vpon any Creature, Saint, or Angell; and therefore not to call vpon them; the conse∣quence 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 vn∣derstood, signifieth affiance in Christ for salua∣tion, or a relying vpon Christ, with an assured perswasion for remission of sinnes, through his me∣rits, and satisfaction. This interpretation of faith in Christ, the present Church of Rome is so farre from admitting,* 1.11 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 Coun∣cell of Calcedon, in the fift Act against Euti∣ches, accurseth all those, who deny, that Christ retaineth still the properties of his humane na∣ture, (such as the shape of man, proportion, dimension, circumscription, &c.) This ar∣ticle 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 Sa∣crament, * 1.12where he was not before; [for that, say they, were onely a translocation, not a tran∣substantiation; 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 e∣uery part of the Host; which is impossible, if, according to the definition of the Councell of Calcedon, he retaine the properties of his hu∣mane

nature; to wit, extension of parts, pro∣portion 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. There∣fore the Church of Rome ouerthroweth the verity of Christ his humane nature, and consequently, de∣nieth the article of his Incarnation. Fourthly, the article of Christ his Ascension rightly vnder∣stood, importeth that Christ is so ascended from the earth, that hee is not now vpon earth, but is contained, (according to his bo∣dily presence, and humane nature) in the hea∣uens, 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 Ascensi∣on, * 1.13according to their beliefe, he is truely, real∣ly, and substantially in a million of places, viz. euery where in their offertory, after the words of Consecration: whence I argue. They who be∣leeue and teach, that Christ God & man, according to his bodily presence, is vpon earth since his Ascen∣sion into heauen, deny that he is contained in hea∣uen, 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 propositi∣on, 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,* 1.14 [Christ, according to his bodily pre∣sence, cannot be, at the same time, in the Sunne, and Moone, and vpon the Crosse:] the inference of Vigilius,* 1.15 (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 in the Heauens; for it implieth a contradiction, that his body should be contained in, and yet be without the Heauens at the same time. If his body may bee in more places then one at once, then he might haue been at the instant of his passion in the Sun, and Moon, & vpon the Crosse, which S. Augustine concludes to bee absolutely impossible. And if Christ in his flesh may be both in heauen and earth at the same instant, Vigilius his reason hath no strength at all, to wit, (because he is in heauen, therefore he is not vpon earth.) To conclude, if it be im∣possible that Christ his body should bee at the same instant in heauen and vpon earth, as the testimonies of the Angel, S. Peter, S. Augustine, and Vigilius aboue alleadged, declare; and if

all Papists teach, that Christs body, after words of Consecration, is truely, really, and substantially vpon earth handled with the hands, and eaten with the mouthes of Communicants; they must needes consequently deny his bodily presence, and be∣ing at the right hand of his Father in Heauen. Fiftly, the article of the Catholike Church, right∣ly expounded, signifieth the whole company of Gods elect; which is the onely Catholike (inui∣sible) Church, wee beleeue, (for the visible Church is an obiect of sense, and therefore not properly an article of faith.) This true in∣terpretation of the article, the Romanists are so farre from admitting, that in the Councell of Constance,* 1.16 they condemned Iohn Husse of heresie, for maintaining it. Whence I thus ar∣gue: 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 Ca∣tholike Church, which wee beleeue; Therefore the Romanists misbeleeue the article touching the ca∣tholike Church.

The first proposition, or major, is proued by the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 7. We walke by faith, and not by sight. and Heb. 11. 1.

Faith is the euidence of things not seene. The Church therefore, which we beleeue, cannot be the visible Church.* 1.17 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 Plato∣nicall 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 euer∣lasting] rightly expounded, import not only, that there is a communion of Saints, and remissi∣on of sinnes in the Church, and a resurrection of the faithfull to eternall life; [which the Deuills themselues doe, and cannot but beleeue] but that euery true beleeuer, who rehearseth these articles, doth, and ought to beleeue, that hee hath a part in the communion of Saints, hath ob¦tained remission of his sinnes, and shall at the last day rise to life eternall.* 1.18 This interpretati∣on of these articles is condemned by the Pa∣pists as hereticall. Whence we thus argue a∣gainst them:

They, who deny that a man is bound to be∣leeue, that he is of the number of the elect, or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen

him, &c. ouerthrow the foure articles a∣boue 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,* 1.19 it is a dangerous errour, to af∣firme, that the present Church of Rome hol∣deth the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient Church. Which I proue, first:

They who maintain seuen Sacraments pro∣perly so called, hold not the same foundation of Sacraments, with that church which held but two onely:

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

The first proposition, or major, if it bee

not euident in it selfe, may be thus confir∣med. The fiue Sacraments which the Roma∣nists adde, cannot be built vpon that founda∣tion, which beareth but two onely: therefore those fiue Sacraments are built vpon another different foundation, or vpon no foundation at all. The second proposition or assumption is generally proued by all Protestant writers that handle this question, with whom the Appealer professeth euery where to hold faire quarter.

Secondly, I proue it thus;

Whosoeuer maintaineth an error ouerthrow∣ing 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 Sacra∣ment;

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

The first proposition is euident in it selfe; for nothing can be more fundamentall to a Sacrament, then that which concernes the nature and essence of a Sacrament; nothing

more destructiue, or euersiue then that, which ouerthroweth the very essence, and substance of it.

The second proposition, is contained to∣tidem verbis, in expresse words in the articles of religion of the Church of England, Artic. 28. Transubstantiation, or the change of the sub∣stance 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 Sacra∣ment, and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions.

Thirdly, it is proued thus:

Whosoeuer holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance, and institution of the Sa∣craments, erreth in the foundation of Sacra∣ments, and therein differeth from the anci∣ent Church:

But the present Church of Rome holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance and in∣stitution of the Sacraments;

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

The first proposition is cleare; for Christs order and institution is the foundation of the Sacraments, and therefore an error concer∣ning 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 christi∣an 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,* 1.20 it is a dangerous errour, to af∣firme, that the present church of Rome is not di∣uerse 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 Catho∣like faith, is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ;

The present church of Rome hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles, from Christ himselfe, from the primitiue and

catholike church of God, and hath vtterly for∣saken 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 se∣cond proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England, part 5. ch. 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch. 22. Diuis. 2. This Apology of the Church of England, as it beareth the name, so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England. When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth, it was commanded to bee had in all Churches; and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in euery Parish Church in this Kingdome, in the yeare of our Lord, 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames, who* 1.21 gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes, for the most rare and admirable that haue beene written in this last age of the world: and also gaue spe∣ciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Bancroft, to appoint some one* 1.22 to write his, the said Bishops life in English, and prefixe it to his workes,

which accordingly is done in the last edition.

Secondly, I proue it, thus;

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, I proue it thus;

No Church maintaining & practising Idola∣try, 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 can∣not

be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth.

The first proposition is the Apostles, 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry, confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England, Artic. 35. The Homi∣lies, 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,* 1.23 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 pre∣sent 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, affir∣med it. Iunius (whom he alleadgeth, Appeale,

pag. 113. to this purpose) in his booke De Ecclesiâ, is so farre from supporting his asser∣tion, that in the same booke hee quite ouer∣throweth it: his words are, pag. 60. & 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit, cùm Papatus non esset; accessit ei Papatus contingenter, & sic ab ea se∣parabilis, ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est, & sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint. Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia, sed in Eccle∣siâ 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 Pa∣pacy: and will be hereafter without the Papacy. The Papacy therefore is not the Church, but a dis∣ease or botch growne to or in the Church, a plague, a dropsy, a gangreene in the body, indangering the health, feeding vpon, and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church. And within a few lines after in the same page fol∣low the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth, Appeale page 113. The Pa∣pall Church, (saith Franciscus Iunius▪ neither Papist, nor Arminian) quâ id habet in se quod

ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet, est Ecclesia. As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church, is a Church. Why doth the Appea∣ler 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 Papalita∣tem dicimus, eo respectu Ecclesia non est, sed vitia∣ta atque corrupta Ecclesia & ad interitum tendens; But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or e∣uill growne to it, which we call the Papacy, in that respect it is not the Church, but a vitiate and cor∣rupt church, and tending to ruine.

Note here Reader, in the Appealers de∣fence of Popery a tricke of Popery, to cite sentences by halfes, alleadging onely that which in shew makes for them, and concea∣ling that which in truth makes against them. The meaning of the whole sentence of Iuni∣us is cleare enough for vs, and against the Ap∣pealer: to wit, that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant, and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scrip∣tures,

is a Church: but as it is Popish, and addeth many errors to those truths, conse∣quently subuerting those very truths it hol∣deth, 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* 1.24 Pillars of our Church haue taught,) that Antichrist, or whore of Babylon;

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

I haue heard that the Appealer in a late conference (wherein this passage, on which I haue so long insisted, was obiected against him) should stand at this ward, answering for himselfe, that these words [praesens Eccle∣sia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae & Sacra∣mentorum firma semper constitit, &c. & manet enim Christi Ecclesia & Sponsa: Answ. to Gag. page 50.] were not his owne words, but the words of Cassander. This his ward will

not keepe off the blow. For first, he allead∣geth this sentence in approbation thereof, and commendation of the Author: [mode∣rate 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 an∣swer to the Popish obiection concerning the visibility of the Church. Thirdly, in other pla∣ces 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 Ro∣manâ out of Cassander, but fide Graecâ. His words are, page 113. I am absolutely perswa∣ded, 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 Coun∣cell 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 be∣ing of a church, not a sound church euery way in their Doctrine. Vt Marci Antonij de Dominis di∣scipulum

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, fol∣lowing him pene ad aras, neere to the Romish Altars. That his Deane, after his relapse into Popery, in the last booke, containing his poe∣nitendam poenitentiam, et retractandam retra∣ctationem, his repentance to be repented of, and retractation to bee retracted, renouncing the true religion which he had defended, labou∣reth to cleare the present church of Rome from the imputation of heresie, because, as he saith, the wi∣ser and learneder Ministers of the church of Eng∣land teach, that the church of Rome doth not erre in any fundamentall articles of faith. In defectu credendi haeresis est, non in excessu; haereti∣cus 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 some∣thing 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 ne∣cessary to saluation, grossely mistaketh the matter, as will appeare to any, whose iudge∣ment is not forestalled, by the demonstrati∣on 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 detrac∣ting from the Orthodoxe faith, are alike damnable.

The first proposition is cleare by it owne light. The assumption or second propositi∣on 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 hea∣uen 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,* 1.25 nihil desideramus ultra credere, prius enim hoc credimus, non esse quod ultra credere, de∣beamus: 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 ex∣cesse, as in the defect. In our body the su∣perabundance 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 a∣like 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 sup∣port the building. Thirdly, thus:

The errours in faith and religion of the Sa∣maritans, Malchamites, Athenians, Gala∣tians, Ebionites, Nazarites, Quartadeci∣mans, Manichees, and Nestorians, were dam∣nable:

But all these seuerall errours were errours of addition;

Therefore errours of Addition are damnable.

The first proposition will not bee gaine∣saied. For all these errours are branded as he∣reticall 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,* 1.26 and serued their owne Gods. The Malchamites worshipped and sware by the Lord,* 1.27 and sware by Malcham. The Athenians worshipped the true God by the name of THE VNKNOWNE GOD,* 1.28 and withall worshipped Idols.* 1.29 The Gala∣tians, Ebionites, Nazarites, and Quartade∣cimans, 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 beg∣gerly 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 paupe∣res: The Ebionites still keepe the ceremonies of the Law,* 1.30 their name (Ebionites) by interpretation is poore men, and indeed such are they, poore and simple in theirvnderstanding,* 1.31 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, Pas∣cha enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse, quàm secundum legem Moysis, quartadecimâ mensis; Quis autem nescit, quoniam Euangelica gratia e∣uacuatur, si ad legem Christum redigit? Blastus adioyning himselfe to the Quartadecimans, would secretly bring in Iudaisme; for he saith, the Passe∣ouer or Feast of Easter must no other wise be kept, then according to the law of Moses the fourteenth day of the Moneth.* 1.32 Now who knoweth not, that the grace of the Gospell is made voyd; if Christ bee reduced to or ioyned with the Law? saith Tertul∣lian.

The Manichees held two chiefe first causes of all things,* 1.33 as also two soules in man: as Cassander. The Nestorians held two persons in Christ, they denied not one; As the Ephesine Coun∣cell.

The second conclusion [That the Church of Rome erreth not onely in excesse, or belee∣uing 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 A∣postles 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 par∣ticular affiance in Christs merits for saluation,* 1.34 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 founda∣tion of faith: for albeit they beleeue the Scrip∣tures, and some points of faith deduced out of them, yet they beleeue them not for them∣selues, or the authority of the Scriptures, but be∣cause the Church hath approued and com∣manded

them to bee thus receiued, and be∣leeued. They beleeue not God and the Scrip∣tures for themselues, but for the Popes sake: that is, in effect, they beleeue Christ for Anti∣christ. Hence it is, that although God ex∣presly forbids all vice, and commands all virtue,* 1.35 yet Bellarmine saith, Si Papa erraret prae∣cipiendo 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 ho∣ly Scriptures) yet the Church is bound to be∣leeue 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 ra∣ther then mā, who by the Prophet Esay saith, Woe vnto them that call evill good,* 1.36 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 fer∣mento, crying shame on the malice of his ad∣uersaries that mistake him,* 1.37 [Remember it lest you mistake my saying, or maliciously mistake it;

the Church of Rome is a true Church ratione es∣sentiae, and being of a Church, not a sound Church euery way in their doctrine.] I remember well this memento; neither can I forget the Ap∣pealers syllogisme set downe in the same page: viz.

The Church of Rome hath euer beene vi∣sible:

The Church of Rome is and euer was a true Church, since it was a Church;

Therefore the true Church hath beene vi∣sible.

The Appealer cannot inferre the conclu∣sion 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 parti∣cular Church, but the Catholike, not a mem∣ber, but the whole. The minor should bee thus altered, to make his syllogisme current.

The Church of Rome hath euer beene vi∣sible:

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 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 consequent∣ly 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 de∣bated 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 entire∣ly, as he ought by the rules of good syllogi∣zing, his argument would haue proued ri∣diculous: 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 vi∣sibility 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 Papa∣cie,

and when the Pope sate at Auennian, and not Rome, when diuers Popes were depo∣sed 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 Eu∣genius, the Church of Rome was not so visible, as the Appealer would haue it. Thirdly, if the Appealer vnderstand by the Church of Rome (as his friends and informers, and all Pro∣testants 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 noto∣riously 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 know∣ledge

of the truth;* 1.38 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 onely the sincere milke of the word.

I suppose the Appealer will not affirm the Arrian Churches to bee true Churches; yet God had his wheat euen in their floore all couered with chaffe; and, I doubt not, but hee euer had, and still hath many thousands euen in the Romane Church it selfe, who neuer bowed the knee to that Baäl. Our question is not of them, but of their Gouernours and Teachers; and the outward face of their Church maintai∣ning 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,* 1.39 ratione essentiae, in re∣gard of essence, but not in regard of soundnesse of doctrine. This answer explicateth not the question, but implieth a contradiction; to say, a true Church in respect of the essence, and not in respect of soundnesse of Doctrine, is to say,

the church of Rome is a true church in respect of the essence, but not in respect of the essence; for, soundnesse of Doctrine is of the essence of the true church. By it the true Church is defined, Ar∣ticle the 19. The visible church of Christ is a con∣gregation 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 meta∣physicall 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 schis∣maticall 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;* 1.40 of whom it may be said, as it was of Seuerus, Omnia fuit et nihil

profuit: he turneth euery way, and yet can∣not 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 Plain∣tiffe sometime did from Philip to Philip. I ap∣peale 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Secundae cogitationes secundiores. And if he retract his errours, I will let fall the suit: if he persist in his erroneous opinions, I referre him, together with this discouery of his errors, to the Examination

and Censure of the most learned, religious, and iudicious House of Conuocation now sitting, to whom vnder his Maiesty the cog∣nizance of Doctrinall differences properly belong.* 1.41 Faustus Regiensis intending to refute S. Austine vnder another name, that he might auoid all suspition of Pelagianisme, intitles the first Chapters of his Book against Pelagi∣us; and vnder this vaile of opposing S. Au∣stins professed enemie, from the third chap∣ter 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 Ap∣pealer, as in his matter, so in his manner of writing, follow not Faustus the Demipela∣gian his patterne; whether pretending an an∣swer to a Gagger of the Protestants, he intend and indeauour not to Gagge the most learned and zealous Protestants; and drawing out his stile more poinenant then a Stilletto, in colour and shew against the Romish enemie, hee cunningly giue not therwith a secret wound to his owne Mother the Church of England, and the true professors of the Gospell therein. As

for the Fratres Descripti, the right and left hand of the Appealer, whose Trade hath beene for these many yeares past, to informe against the zealous and learned Defenders of the true religion established here in England vn∣der the name of Puritans, quia volunt decipi, decipiantur. But for those graue and venerable Diuines, who are reported to haue subscri∣bed to the Appealers Bookes, [I thinke the Relator was mistaken in the word, hee meant proscribed them] and all other anci∣ent worthies of our Church, who yet ap∣plaud and approue these late Polemickes of the Appealer, I humbly intreat them in the words of the Orator,

Videant Patres Conscripti ne circumscrip∣ti videantur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Galat. 4. 16.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A. Gell. ••oct. At.
• * 1.2

  Sulpit. Se∣uer. hist.
• * 1.3

  Plin. paneg.
• * 1.4

  Aug. de gr••t. & lib. arbi••. c. 3.
• * 1.5

  Panta••con in his h••sto∣rie.
• * 1.6

  Iuel. Apol. part. 6. c. 6. diuis. 1.
• * 1.7

  Answer to Gag. pag. 50
• * 1.8

  1 Errour.
• * 1.9

  Adiect. ad Calcem con∣cil. Trident.
• * 1.10

  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 su∣prem p••rt. 4 pag. 361. Kemnis Ex∣am. Conc. Trid. part. 1 Morney praes. de sa crâ Euchar. Iohn White in his way to the Church. di¦gres. 3 p. 13. Fr. White Answ. to F••sh. r. p. 32. Culuin An∣tidot. Sess 4. p. 370. Saaeel quaest. 1. Danaeus & Inni••s ••d 1 controuers. Bellar. l 4. c. 3.
• * 1.11

  Conc. Trid. Sess 6. can. 12.
• * 1.12

  Bellar. re∣tract.
• * 1.13

  Counc. Trent Sess. 13 ch. 1.
• * 1.14

  A••g. lib. 20 contra Fau∣stum Ma∣nich, c. 11.
• * 1.15

  Lib. 4. con∣tra Euiyche∣tem.
• * 1.16

  Cocl. histor. Bohemi. lib. 3.
• * 1.17

  Campian reason. 3.
• * 1.18

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.19

  2 Errour.
• * 1.20

  3 Errour.
• * 1.21

  See the Preface to the King, pend by Bishop O∣uerall, in the end.
• * 1.22

  The life was pen∣ned by D. F. then a Student in C. C. C.
• * 1.23

  4 Errour.
• * 1.24

  See be∣fore in the Table, Ar∣tic. de Antichristo.
• * 1.25

  Tertul. de Praescript. advers. Hae∣ret. c. 8. c. 4.
• * 1.26

  2 King. 17. 33.
• * 1.27

  Zepha. 1. 5.
• * 1.28

  Acts 17. 23. 2.
• * 1.29

  Gal. 4. 9.
• * 1.30

  Haymo hist. Sacr. l. 3. c. 17. ex Eu∣seb. histor. l. 3. c. 27.
• * 1.31

  August. de haeres. ad quod vult Deum.
• * 1.32

  Tertul. de praescript. c. 53.
• * 1.33

  Cassander de reliquijs T••lag ad Iohan. A 〈…〉〈…〉 Anno Dom. 431.
• * 1.34

  Councell of Trent. can. 12. 13. S••s. 6.
• * 1.35

  Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. Sect. Quod.
• * 1.36

  Isaiah. 5. 20
• * 1.37

  Appeale p. 139.
• * 1.38

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.39

  Appea••e pag. 14••.
• * 1.40

  Melancthon in Chroni∣••••s.
• * 1.41

  Latius in Semipelagi∣anismo.