A Second PARALLEL Together with A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOURNE. M.DC.XXVI.   

TO THE CATHOLIQVE Christian Reader.  
Courteous Reader:  
A Few days since a friend of mine showed me a Book entitled a Parallel, which I gladly received from him, and perused it the more readily, because I well hoped, that some of the Parallel lines would suit to our Meridian. But taking an exact view of them, and applying them to our Horizon, I found they were somewhat short of our Elevation: yet I discovered some thing drawn in those Parallels, which I conceived to be of some use, to wit, the Lineal descent of Arminius by the half blood at least, from Pelagius; for if it be confessed, that Arminius his pedigree is lineally to be derived from Pelagius, and that Pelagius is the great Apenninus, from which the divided streams of corrupt doctrine flow; then undoubtedly the assertions of Arminius were prius damnatae, quam natae were condemned by the Catholic Christian Church, before they were brought forth by Arminius: And we have the Prescription of the Christian world, for more than 1200. years, against the new encroachments of these Sectaries. But me thinks I hear thee ring in mine care the peal of the Poet, Ole quid ad te? what is this to thee, or me? or to the matter now on foot? It is not Arminius, but an Appealer that troubles our Israel; Aemilius fecit, plectetur Rutilius? Aemilius hath done wrong, shall Rutilius bear the blame? Because Arminius browseth upon some branches of Pelagianisme, (a plant which our heavenly Father never planted, and therefore in time must be rooted out) is it reason, the Appealer should be muzzled, or any man's teeth whet against him? Verily, the Appealer disclaims all kindred or affinity with Arminius; nay he protesteth, he knoweth not the man; and if peradventure some Longinus or skilful Genealogist may be able to disprove him, yet certainly the vulgar reader is not. I have therefore thought it worth the pains, to take the line of Pelagius which is already brought down to Arminius, and from Arminius to draw it out even to the Appealer, to the end, all, that are not forestalled with prejudice, may see, that both the Appealer, and Arminius hold their errors in capite from Pelagius; And that at the first the Netherlands, and other parts received the infection of pestilent doctrine from Britain by Pelagius; and now at last, that Britain hath received it from the Netherlands by Arminius: Mater me genuit, eadem mox gignitur ex me. But before I open the leaves of my Tablet, representing on the one side the Arminian, and on the other, the Appealers Demipelagianisme, I entreat the Reader emunctae naris to follow the sent of Arminianism in the Appealers' writings by these four steps.  

1. His sleight and dilute purgation from the aspersion of Arminianism.  
2. His direct and professed defence of the Arminians.  
3. His casting a blur upon the Synod of Dort that blasted them.  
4. His disparaging the Articles of Lambhith, which are è diametro opposite to the tenets of Baro then, and since Arminius.   
To begin with his Purgation. Although in other Criminations it may be an argument of Innocence not to be moved or any way sensible of them; yet in the suspicion of heresy, 
Tacit. Maledicta si irascaris, agnita videntur▪ spreta exolescunt.  no man (as saith Saint Hierom) ought to be silent. Silence in such an accusation is a crying sin, Et patientia digna omni impatientiâ, and patience itself is unsufferable. Every man is bound to profess his faith, and consequently openly to discharge himself from all imputation, especially of heresy, which is so foul a crime, that the water of penitent tears alone hath not been thought enough to wash it away. Scelus hoc exuritur igne; it hath been usually burnt out with fire. It leaveth such a spot in the conscience, that S. Cyprian conceiveth, The blood of Martyrdom cannot fetch it out. Macula haec nec sanguine eluitur. 
Cyprian. epist.  Now whether Pelagianisme be heresy, I think it is a question without question, unless we will take upon us to censure the censures of the ancient Church, and most eminent Doctors thereof. S. Austin in his book de bono Perseverantiae, is not content to call it perniciosissimus error, c. 17. but c. 21. he calls it twice, 
Antequam Pelagiana haeresis appareret. and recolant adversus haeresin Pelagianam.  Pelagiana haeresis. And that Arminianism is Pelagianisme, either in whole or in part, I take the Parallel, till I see it not slightly glanced at, but substantially refuted to be an ocular demonstration. 
Concil. Carth. sub Aurelio. Nefarius & ab omnibus anathematizandus error. Concil. Milevit. Perniciosissimi erroris auctores perhibentur Caelestius & Pelagius.  But if this be yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a point not yet gained, yet that Arminianism (wherewith the Appealer is charged, not only by two Presbyters of his own rank, but a reverend Prelate his Diocesan) is formally heresy, Appello Caesarem, I appeal to that Caesar whom he first appealed unto, 
August. p. 94. ad Hilarium: Omnes qui spem habemus in Christo huic pestiferae impietati resistere debemus. Prosper. in Crom. Per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana damnata est.  King JAMES, of blessed memory, who in his declaration against Vorstius hath these words, concerning Arminius, He was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresy. And concerning Bertius he writeth thus; Bertius a scholar of Arminius, at this present remaining in your town of Leyden, 
August. ep. 47. Pelagiana haeresis venena. August. lib. 1. de pe●c. orig. Doctrina illa pestifera. Ad Bonis. l. 2. c. 5. N●num & execrabil● dogma Pelagianum vel Caelestianum. Et post, Exitiosissima pravitas.  hath not only presumed to publish of late a blasphemous book of the apostasy of Saints; but hath besides been so impudent, as to send the other day a copy thereof, as a goodly present, to our Archbishop of Canterbury, together with a Letter, wherein he is not ashamed, as also in his book, to lie so grossly, as to avow, that his heresies contained in the said book, are agreeable with the Religion and profession of the Church of England.  
To clear then himself from the foul spot of this heresy, what course doth the Appealer take? Doth he call God, and his Angels to witness, that he renounceth from his heart all Arminius his unwarrantable and dangerous assertions? Doth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fairly and openly make this, or the like protestation? Arminius teacheth none, but respective Predestination: I am for absolute. Universal grace and redemption is an Article of Arminius faith: It is none of mine. The cooperation of man's freewill with grace in the first conversion, and the power it hath to hinder, and frustrate the work of regenerating grace, is current doctrine with Arminius. But I take it for a leaden Leyden error. Arminius maintaineth a total and final falling away from the grace of justification: I detest and abominate that assertion, and will have no Confarreation with the apostate defender of such Apostasy.  
This had been indeed to unclasp the right hands of fellowship with Arminius, and if he had ever walked in his path, to shake the dust from his feet: but in stead hereof, the Appealer casts dust in the Readers eyes, by making a deep protestation, idque in verbo Sacerdotis, of not reading any word in Arminius. I protest (saith he) before God and his Angels, 
Appeal. to Caesar pag. 21.  the time is yet to come, that ever I read word in Arminius. Before I read this Protestation, I confess, that myself with many others imagined, that, as Osorius writeth, that some in the Indies by often smelling to Brasell, had Scorpions bred in their brains; so the Appealer by frequent reading of Arminius his books, and smelling to his exotecall positions, had hatched this Serpent's brood in his brain. But because he denieth it, in verbo Sacerdotis, I rest satisfied, that he never read Arminius: but for aught he saith to the contrary, he may have heard all Arminius read over to him. Admit he never read, or heard of Arminius, this will be no good plea, if his doctrine be the doctrine of Arminius; Legate that was burned in Smithfield, for an Arrian, might protest truly, that he never read word in Arrius his books, as indeed he could not, because Arrius his books, with himself, were many hundred years ago eradicated, will the Appealer from thence conclude that Legate was no Arrian? How many thousand Nestorians are there in the Greek Church at this day, who yet never read word in Nestorius his writings; not now extant (I take it) any where? I dare say, Arminius himself never read word in any of Pelagius his works, or the works of the Semipelagians, or Massilians, yet he cannot free himself from the brand of Pelagianisme; neither doth much desire to be acquitted from the note of Semipelagianisme. We read in the Civil Law, Malitia supplet aetatem: Malice oftentimes supplies the defect of age. In like manner it is most certain, that where there is a propension in any man's mind to any old heresy, the malice of the Devil easily supplieth the want of reading: Zabarel having coined, as he thought, a new distinction unheard of before, was as proud of it, as ever Pelius was of his new sword, saying, Ego hanc solutionem primus inveni: 
In comment. in poster. Analyt.  yet afterwards he ingeniously confesseth, that perusing Gandavensis his writings upon the same argument, there he found the selfsame distinction; and it much rejoiced his heart, that so acute a Philosopher as Gandavensis, should hit upon the same conceit with him. Might it not be so with the Appealer? might he not first project the new plot of Predestination in his own head, and yet afterwards light upon the same in Arminius, or some of his scholars, and exceedingly applaud either their conceit in himself, or his in theirs? For mine own part I will not undertake to prove that the Appealer was ever an apprentice to james Harmin; but by setting up both of their looms, I will make it appear that they are both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the same trade or craft.  
Thou seest, Christian Reader, that his purgation of himself needeth a defence, but his direct defence of the Arminians much more needeth a purgation. No doubt the Appealer read often in the Heathen Orator, 
Cic. pro Sylla.  that it taints a man deeply once to open his lips in the defence of such a man, whom he suspecteth to be an enemy to the State: Quaedam contagio est sceleris si eum defendas quem patriae obstrictum esse suspiceris. How much more doth it blur a man's reputation to frame an apology for him, whom King james of blessed memory, upon just and religious considerations, 
Declar. advers. Vorstium.  proclaimeth to be an enemy of God? Either the Appealers charity, or his conscience must needs be very large, wherein such an offender finds a Sanctuary, 
King james, ibidem.  against whom all the Churches of Germany made complaint to our then dread Sovereign: Nemo omnes, neminem omnes fefellerunt: 
Plin. Panegyr.  Never one man deceived all men, never all men deceived one man: yet the Appealer is not only content, some way to blanche Arminius, and his scholar's errors (whereof diverse by the Arminian way, as a convenient bridge, have fairly walked over to Popery:) but he, to the infinite wrong of the Primitive Saints and Martyrs, compareth these Comets to those Stars, and would make these as innocent & unguilty of the late troubles in the Nether-lands, as they were altogether free from the aspersions, which the Gentiles odiously and impiously cast upon them, scil: Appeal pag. 41. were these late offspring of the Semipelagians so harmless and free altogether from sowing seed of dissension in the Church, as the ancient Christians were from moving sedition in the State? Why did then the wise and Christian States general in the Low-countries, by the advice of our then Solomon, call a national Synod, and so long continue it at their great charge, to suppress these, not venomous vipers, tearing the bowels of her mother, (in the Appealers esteem) but silly and harmless worms? Why did our gracious Sovereign King Charles, 
Balchanquall Concio ad clerum.  by his Ambassador, the Duke of Buckingham his Grace, deal effectually with the States to root up the weed of Arminian Liberty, so far spreading among them? 
Appeal ibid.  Yea, but (saith he) did no crafty Interloper put in his stock among these brawling Bankers? Did no wiser man work upon exasperated minds? What of that? No question, as it was there, so it will be here, Dum pastores odia exercent, lupus intrat ovile: While the shepherds are at strife, the Wolf entereth the sheep-fold. Doth this prove, the brawling Bankers to be innocent? Or, disprove the speech of our Saviour, 
Matth. 18. 7.  Woe be to him by whom offences come? But it should seem there is such a near tye between the Appealer, and the Arminians, that they are entered into a league defensive, and offensive, for as he holdeth his buckler over them: so he mainly foils at their opposites: He slighteth, vilifieth, 
Pag. 70. & Pag. 108.  and falsely traduceth the Synod of Dort; for what reason, but because they touch the apple of his eye, the Arminian theology? He stirs the Articles concluded at Lambhith, he carpeth at the most reverend Metropolitans, reverend Bishops, and renowned Doctors, 
Appeal. pag. 71. 72.  the flower of both Universities, who subscribed them, and published them. Neither can he yield any reason hereof, but because those eminent and every way accomplished Divines at Lambhith, crushed the addle egg now smelling in the Appealers' writings, when it was new laid in Cambridge, before Baro could hatch it. If these proofs be not pregnant, that the Appealer is deeply engaged in the Arminian pact, I entreat the Reader to trust his own eyes, in comparing the ensuing doctrines and arguments, set one against the other by way of Parallel, where he shall find, that as in the water, face answereth face: so in the humour of renewing Pelagianisme, the Appealer doth Arminius. If Arminius or Bertius be the Voice, the Appealer is the Echo; if the Appealer be the Voice, Arminius or Bertius is the Echo. Behold them both in the ensuing tablet, like those two of whom the Poet speaketh, Alter in alterius iactantes lumina vultus: One looking, as it were, babies in another's eyes.   

The Second Parallel.  

Of absolute Predestination.  

ARMINIANS.  
ARMINIUS in his Declarat. to the States of Holland & West-Frisland, from pag. 22. to pag. 42. endeavoureth to prove by twenty arguments, that God hath not decreed absolutely and precisely to save certain singular men by his grace or mercy.  
Bertius of the Apostasy of Saints, Edit. Lugduni, Anno 1615. pag. 12. Demand the first. There is no absolute Election, and pag. 25. Absolute Predestination granted, it was necessary to remove the whole Scripture, to settle that head or doctrine.  
Arminius in the forecited Declaration, pag. 33. Out of this doctrine (to wit, of absolute solute Predestination) it followeth, that God is the Author of sin. And this may be proved by a fourfold Argument.  
1. Because this Doctrine layeth it down, that God precisely hath decr●ed to demonstrate his glory by punishing or punitive justice, and mercy, saving some men, and damning others; which but by Sin entering into the world neither was, nor could be done, etc.  
Arminius respons add Artic. 10. It would be easy for me to convince the opinion of some of the brethren of Manich●isme and Stoicism.  
We protest to the whole world, that by our adversary's Manicheisme, and Stoicism, or fatal necessity is ●rought into the Church. The Emblem of their book of the Acts of the Synod of Dort hath this triumphant title [Destructo fato] or the 〈◊〉 of Fate▪ Ex Act. Syn. Dordrac. in Peror.  
Bert. epist. Dedic. before his book of the Apostasy of the Saints: There are who fly Pelagianisme, not seeing that they plainly side with the Manichees. [He citeth these words as out of an Epistle of Cas●ubon, but forged by himself.]  
Hag Conference set out by Bert. pag. 90. This absolute Decree openeth a gate on this side to a dissolute life, on that side to desperation.   

APPEALER.  
APPEAL to Caesar, pag. 58. In all which passage (to wit, of the seventeenth Article there rehearsed) both concerning God's decree and execution of that decree, is not one word, syllable, or apex touching your absolute, necessary, determined, irresistible, irrespective decree of God to call, save, and glorify, Saint Peter, for instance, infallibly without any consideration had of, or regard to his faith, obedience, and repentance.  
Appeal to Caesar, pa. 54. Nothing is by me ascribed to your side, and to your Doctors, but an absolute and irrespective decree concerning man, in utramque partem. I brought no inferences to press you withal, such as are commonly, and odiously made against you by opposites, whose virulent invectives, though too true imputations, I used not. I did not charge you with making God the Author of sin; That the reprobate are incited on, and provoked to sin by God; That God was the Author of judas treason, and the like.  
Appeal, pag. 68 I never yet read of any prime, previous determining decree, by which men were irrespectively denied grace, and excluded from glory: unless from damned Heretics, or Sto●call Philosophers.  
Appeal, pag. 30. Against that absolute, irrespective, necessitating, and fatal decree of your new Predestination.  
Appeal, pag. 60. I must confess my dissent through and sincere from the faction of No●●lising Puritans, etc. but in no one point more, than in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination, in which as they delight to trouble themselves and others in nothing more, so, I profess, I do love to meddle nothing less. I have not, I did not desire, nor intent to declare my opinion in that point.   


ᵃ Edit. Lugduni Batau. ex officina Tho. Basson, 1512.   

ᵇ Positâ Praedestinatione illâ absolutâ, necessarium fuit totam scripturam loco movere ut illud caput adsereretur.   

ᶜ It no way followeth: See calvin's Preface of his book of Divine Predestin. and first book of Institut. 17. Chap. Beza against Castellio Peter Martyr in his Comment. on the 1. Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans. Zuinglius in his Sermon of Providence. Abbot Prelect. of the Author of sin. Paraeus Answer to Bella●mine second book of the state of sin, and loss of grace, chap. 4. and diverse others.   

ᵈ God decreed the permission and disposing of sin, which he foresaw upon his permission would be, he did not decree the effecting, or existence of it, that it should be. Saint Augustine fully answereth these and the like Arguments in his book de Corrept. & Grat. cap. 10. We freely confess that, which we most rightly believe, that the God and Lord of all things, who made all things exceeding good, and foresaw, that evil things would arise out of good, and knew, that it more appertained to his most omnipotent goodness, to draw good out of evil, than not to suffer evils to be, hath so ordered the life of men and Angels, that in it first he might show the power of their own freewill, and then the benefit of his grace, and judgement of his justice. And in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 11. God, being most exceeding good, would not by any means suffer any evil to be in his works, but that he is also so omnipotent and good, that he can and doth work good even out of evil.   

ᵉ As julian the Pelagian often in his books upbraided Saint Augustine with Manicheisme; so doth Arminius and the Appealer (following the Pelagians step by step) lay the same imputation upon the orthodox defenders of Predestination. But the imputation is most false; for the Manichees held two souls in a man, one good, another bad, and ascribed good and evil not to the freewill of man, but to those two souls: We, with the holy Fathers, teach but one soul in man, and refer good and evil to freewill, but so that the will of itself is free to evil, but is not, neither can, sithence the fall of Adam, be free unto good, till God hath freed it by his grace, according to the words of our Saviour in Saint john's Gospel, Chap. 8. 36. But if the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed. And of Saint Paul, Rom. 6. 18. Made free from sin, etc.   

ᶠ A stale objection long sithence answered by Saint Augustine, in his second book, cap. 5. ad Bonifac. We maintain not Fate, or fatal necessity under the name of grace; but if it please some men to call the omnipotent will of God under the name of Fate, we seek indeed to avoid profane novelty of word, but we will not contend about words. To which answer of Saint Augustine we may further add, that the belief of Christians, touching the falling out of all things according to the determinate counsel of God, Act. 2. differeth from the Stoic Fate, or Fatality, in four things.  

1. The Stoics subjected God himself to Fate: jupiter, though he most desired, could not free Sarpedon; we subject Fate, that is, the necessity of things, to Gods most freewill.  
2. They under the name of (Fate) understood an eternal flux and necessary connexion of natural causes, and effects: we teach that all natural and second causes had their beginning in the Creation; neither is there such a necessary and absolute dependence of effects from their natural causes, but that God can, and often doth suspend those effects, and miraculously work beside, above, nay against nature.  
3. The Stoics by their Fatality took away all contingency, we admit contingency in future events, in respect of their second causes which work contingently, though whatsoever cometh to pass falleth within the certain presience of God, and is ordered by his providence.  
4. The Stoics taught, that men were impelled to sin by a fatal motion, and that man's will was forced by Destiny. We detest and abhor any such assertion. See more hereof in Melancthon his Common places. Gratianus Civilis in Semipelagianismo. Lipsius' lib. 1. de Constantia cap. 18. & sequent.    

ᵍ 'tis true, as we read in the seventeenth Article, that for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into retchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. The sweetest meat in a corrupt stomach turns to choler, but the fault is in the stomach, not in the meat; in like manner the word of God, and in particular this doctrine of the Word is in itself a savour of life unto life, but to some proves no better than a savour of death unto death, because as Saint Peter 2. 3. 16. telleth us, They pervert the doctrine of holy Scriptures to their destruction. For the doctrine itself of Predestination, it openeth no gate to a dissolute life, but shutteth and barreth all such unlawful posterns; Shall we continue in sin because grace aboundeth? God forbid, Rom. 6. 1. On the contrary, it openeth a fair gate, and directeth a certain ready way to holiness of life; For God hath predestinated us, that we might be conformable to the Image of his Son, Rome 8. 29. And God hath chosen us before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before him in love, Ephes. 1. 4.   

ʰ In this objection from Desperation, the Arminians and Appealer, as likewise in the former, furbush up the old Pelagians harness, which Saint Augustine hath beat in pieces in his book of the gift of Perseverance, chap. 17. I will not amplify with mine own words, but I leave it rather to them seriously to consider, what a strange thing it is, that they should persuade themselves the doctrine of Predestination doth bring to the hearers, rather matter of desperation, than exhortation, (or consolation:) for this is in effect to say, that then a man is to despair of his salvation, when he is taught to repose his hope and confidence not in himself, but in God; whereas the Prophet crieth out, Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man. Some indeed make a desperate use of this doctrine, but the doctrine itself is no desperate doctrine, or doctrine of desperation, but of heavenly consolation, as we read in the seventeenth Article, [which aught for ever to stop the mouth of the Appealer, from slandering as he doth, the truth of God.] The godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God.] On the contrary, the doctrine of the Arminians and the Appealer, which maketh God's Election to depend upon the will of man, which, as they say, may totally and finally fall away from grace, is in truth a most desperate doctrine, taking away all solid and firm ground of comfort both in life and death, as shall appear hereafter.     

Of Election upon foreseen faith.  

ARMINIUS.  
ARMIN. Oration to the States, pag. 49. The Decree whereby God hath decreed to save certain and singular persons, doth depend upon his prescience, by which he fore-knew from eternity, who according to the dispensation of sufficient means for their conversion and faith, would by preventing grace believe, and subsequent persevere. And he is so hot in this point, and proceedeth so far, Argument 19 as to affirm, That the opinion of precise Election, without respect of foreseen faith in the elect, overthroweth the foundation of all Religion.  
Hag. Conference set out by Bert. pag. 62. The absolute decree, whereby it is said, that God in choosing men, did not respect any man's good qualities foreseen, cannot stand with the nature of God, nor with Scriptures. The like is affirmed by Arnoldus against Tilenus. And Grevinchovius against Amese and the Arminians generally, who thus take that question in the Conference at Hage, pag. 123. Faith in God's decree of election doth in order go before, not follow election; it is not a fruit of election, but an antecedent conditon to it.   

APPEALER.  
APPEAL, pag. 58. The irrespective decree of God to call, save, and glorify Saint Peter without any consideration had of, or regard unto his faith, obedience, and repentance etc. I say there, and I say truly, is the private fancy of some particular man.  
Pa. 64. There must needs be first a disproportion before there can be conceived an election, or dereliction. This disproportion he afterward declares to be in the different wills of men, whereof some took hold of merey, others would not. His words are, When all alike being plunged, etc. God out of his mercy stretched out to them deliverance in a Mediator, the Man jesus Christ, and drew them out that took hold of mercy, leaving them there that would none of him. Which is all one, as if he had said, he decreed to save them from the common destruction which he foresaw would believe, and reject those whom he foresaw would not believe, for by faith they take hold of mercy, and through incredulity reject it: nay in this point the Appealer speaketh not so warily as the Arminians, for they require faith in a person to be elected and justified, as an antecedent condition, they do not say as a cause or motive in God to elect, justify, and save: But the Appealer, Answer to the Gag, pag. 143. and Appeal, pag. 194. saith, that God was drawn by our faith to justify us.   


* Decretum, quo decrevit Deus singulares & certas quasdam personas saluare, praescientiâ nititur, quâ ab aeterno scivit, quinam iuxta administrationem mediorum ad conversionem & fidem idoneorum ex praeveniente gratia credituri erant, & subsequente perseveraturi.   

ⁱ When the Arminians, and the Appealer make Election to depend upon foreseen faith, either they mean that this faith is a mere gift of God, received only by man's freewill, or not so, but in part, or in whole a work of man's will. If they hold faith to be a mere gift of God, their opinion of election upon foreseen faith implieth a contradiction; for it maketh the former grace and gift of Predestination to glory to depend upon a latter gift of faith. Beside, if faith be the mere gift of God, it can be no reason of difference between the Elect and Reprobate, on the part of the Elect and Reprobate, why the one should be chosen, and the other refused, for the Elect have it not of themselves, and the Reprobate have it not at all, because it is not given. To refer election in this sense to faith, as it is Gods mere gift, is to make election to depend upon God's mere will, who giveth faith to some, and not to others, which quite overthroweth the foundation of Arminianism. If they mean that foreseen faith is in part, or in whole, a Work of man's freewill by nature, and not merely a gift of God, than their opinion dasheth directly on the rock of Pelagius, [that Grace is given according to some merit of man] that is, as Saint Augustine expoundeth it, De bono persever. c. 19 Some good thought, word, or deed, or the good will itself, to receive grace and faith, when otherwise man might have rejected or repelled it: whereas the Apostle teacheth, that it is God which 
* Or make one man differ fro● another,  discerneth one man from another, & that no man hath any good thing different from another, which he hath not received, 1 Cor. 4. 7. Whereupon Saint Augustine concludeth in his Epistle to Sixtus, and in his book of Predestination of Saints, Chap. 5. And in his Enchiridion ad Laurent. cap. 99 That which putteth a difference between a believer and unbeliever, making him to believe, and not the other, is a special grace given by God to the one, and not the other; and consequently, that the separation of some men, and taking them out of the mass of perdition, is of God's mere grace, and not in regard of any different qualities in men. A proud man might have said, saith that holy Father, of Predestination of Saints, chap. 5. against another man, my faith maketh me to differ from thee, my righteousness, or the like; [which insolent words of a proud man rehearsed by Saint Augustine, Grevinchovius is so impudent, as to take upon, and pattern in himself, saying, Ego me discerno, I discern myself.] The good Doctor meeting with such thoughts, and checking them, saith, What hast thou that thou hast not received? from whom, but from him, who made thee differ from another? to whom he hath not given, that he hath given to thee: and if thou hast received it [namely, that wherein thou differest from another] Why dost thou boast, as if thou hadst not received it? Nothing is so contrary to the meaning of the Apostle, as that any man should so glory of his own merits, or good works, as if he had wrought them to himself, and not the grace of God; to wit, that grace of God which discerneth good men from bad, not that, which is common to good men and bad. The main conclusion of Saint Augustine in his Enchiridion, is most direct to our purpose, Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis, Grace alone discerneth or differenceth the redeemed from the lost, whom a common cause derived from the beginning or root, had united in one mass of perdition.   

ᵏ This argument from disproportion deceived sometime Saint Augustine, till he better considered of the words of the Apostle, Rom. 11. 5. So then there remaineth a remnant according to the election of grace. It is impossible indeed to conceive an election according to desert of some, rather than others, in a mere parity; there must needs be a disproportion in such an election, but in an election of free grace there needs none, there can be no such disproportion, for if election be of works, than it is not of grace. Here if the Appealer, or any his friend, shall difference his opinion from the Arminians, by distinguishing the decree of election, in which there is no respect had to faith from the execution, in which, all sides confess, respect is had to faith and perseverance; I answer that the Appealer hath shut the door of this Sanctuary against himself, and debarred himself from this defence, pag. 61. saying, I shall as I can briefly and plainly, without scholastical obscurities, set down what I conceive of this Act of God, or decree of Predestination, setting by all execution of purpose. After which Preface, without any interruption of other discourse, he delivereth his opinion of election, as is above rehearsed.     

Of freewill.  

ARMINIANS.  
THe Arminians differ from Orthodoxal Divines about freewill in two points:  
1. They teach, Hag. Confer. pag. 502. & sequent. That the will of man hath some operation of itself in the first act of our conversion, and doth cooperate with grace. God giveth grace sufficient to convert, but doth not so determine the will, but that it may out of its freedom admit grace, or not.  
Their main reason is, God doth not believe, but we; therefore we work even in our first conversion, otherwise the assent should be Gods, not ours.  
2. They teach, that the will of man hath power to hinder and resist the work of grace in his regeneration and conversion. Arminius in his Orat. to the States, pag. 53. I believe according to the Scriptures, that grace is not (vis irresistibilis) an irresistible force or power, but that many do resist the holy Spirit. Hag. Confer. pag. 502. The question is, whether grace, which worketh in man faith and conversion, cannot be hindered, but is an irresistible operation, such as God useth in raising the dead. They allege to prove, ●hat man may resist grace, Act. 7. 51. Ye stiffnecked, and of uncircumcised hearts and ears, ye have always resisted the holy Ghost. And Matth. 23. 37. How oft would I have gathered your Children, as a Hen gathereth her Chicken under her wings, and ye would not.   

APPEALER.  
APpeal. p. 84. It is supposed by some that the difference between the Pontificians and us consists in this, that the will of man concurreth and cooperateth with divine grace in the first very instant, and point of conversion: we teach that the will of man doth not cooperate in the first point, but in progress of our justification, so Keckerman in his Systeme, a better Logician, than Divine. This Assertion of Keckerman he refelleth from pag. 85. to 89. and pag. 92. he insisteth upon the same reason with the Arminians. If this were not so, then faith and repentance were no the actions of man, neither could man be said to believe and repent, but the holy Spirit.  
Appeal, pag. 89. The Council of Trent addeth, that a man may resist the grace of God; admit: then, first man hath freewill against God; Saint Steven, in terminis, hath the very word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you resist, nay fall cross with the holy Ghost, not suffering him to work the work of grace in you. And what said our Saviour, How often would I, and thou wouldst not? If the Council meant of stirring, preventing, and operating grace, I think, no man will deny it: if of adiwant, subsequent, and cooperating grace, there is, without question, in the natural will of a regenerate man so much of Adam remaining, and carnal concupiscence, as may make him resist, and rebel against the Law of God.   


ˡ We answer with Saint Augustine in his first book De gratiâ & libero arbit. cap. 16. It is certain, that we will when we will; but he makes us to will that is good, of whom it is said, Pro. 8. The will is prepared by God; and God worketh in us to will, Philip. 2. It is certain that we work when we work, but he worketh in us to work, by giving most efficacious power to the will, who saith, I will make you to walk in my ways, Ezek. 36. Faith and repentance are our works, because in us, though not of us: actions and passions denominate the subject, not the cause; God is the efficient cause of faith and repentance; but the subject, in which these virtues are wrought, is man, who therefore is said to believe and repent, because these things are wrought in him, but not by the power of his own will, but by the effectual work of grace, stirring the will, and making it freely to assent unto, and believe the Gospel. Bernard. de lib. Arbit. What doth freewill? I answer, in one word it is saved, or cured; this work cannot be done without two; one by whom, the other in whom it is wrought. God is the Author of it, (the health or cure of the will) freewill is only capable of it.   

ᵐ 

Grace is twofold,  
Outward.  
Inward.   

Outward,  
Offered in the ministry of the Word.   

Inward,  
Enlightening and inciting only.  
Renewing and regenerating.   Men can, and do resist outward, and inward, only enlightening grace; but not renewing, and regenerating grace, so far as to hinder their conversion; or, after they are converted, utterly to cast away the spirit of sanctification, and thereby fall away totally, & finally. If God should give no other grace, but such as man at his pleasure might reject, or repel, he should have no kingdom within us: and if he could not by his grace absolutely subdue, and conquer the stubborness of man's will, he should not be omnipotent. If grace doth not determine man's will, but man's will the influx and effect of it, the peace and grace of God should not rule in our hearts, but every man should be ruled to righteousness, as well as to sin, by his own freewill; which was the express heresy of Pelagius, and Caelestius, as Prosper in precise terms sets it down in his Chronicle, in the year of our Lord, 414.   

ⁿ To the place in the Acts I answer: First, That Saint Steven speaketh of the jews resisting the Spirit of Prophecy, not the Spirit of regeneration: the jews gainsaid, withstood, and opposed the Word of the holy Ghost, uttered by the Prophets, not the secret working of the holy Ghost by grace in the hearts of such, whom he would, and did convert. Secondly, We confess, that men uncircumcised in heart, (such as were these jews, whom Saint Steven upbraideth) not only can resist, but can do no other than resist the holy Ghost; but regenerating grace by circumcising the heart, removeth that hardness whereby it resisteth grace, and then it cannot resist, because that, which makes it resist, is taken away; as Saint Augustine inferreth upon that of Ezechiel the eleventh, I will take away your stony-hearts, and give you an heart of flesh. His inference is, Chap. 8. of Predestination of Saints, This grace which is secretly conveyed into the hearts of men, is not refused or repelled by any hard heart, for it is therefore given, that the hardness of the heart may first be taken away.   

ᵒ Not to insist upon the distinction of the double will of God [well known to the learned by the notions of signi, & beneplaciti, his commanding, or declarative will, which is not always fulfilled; and his powerfully working, and absolute good will and pleasure, which is always fulfilled:] I further answer, that this place of Scripture rightly interpreted, as it is by Saint Augustine, makes against, and no way for the Arminians, and Appealer; for Christ saith not, How often would I have gathered you Scribes and pharisees, and those Rulers and Governors of jerusalem, which killed my Prophets, and you would not; but how often would I have gathered your Children, that is, the inhabitants of jerusalem, and I did also though you would not, but did what you could to hinder their gathering under my wings, that is, their assembling to the true Church, and sheltering themselves under the shade thereof. Quos volui, te nolente congregavi, Whom I would gather I gathered, though thou wouldst not. So Saint Augustine upon these words.   

ᵖ If by operating grace, he meaneth that grace whereby God circumciseth the heart, Deut. 30. openeth the heart, Acts 16. converteth the heart, jerem. 31. taketh away a stony heart, Ezek. 36. writeth his Law in the heart, jerem. 31. worketh faith in the heart by the mightiness of his power, Eph. 1. and 2 Thess. 1. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; no man, I suppose, [who is well catechised in the principles of Religion] will maintain, that such grace may be resisted: For this were to make the impotency of man's will to prevail against the omnipotency of God, and to disappoint his purpose, and frustrate his work. Saint Augustine [that Delian diver into the depth of this mystery] resolveth the contrary in many places in his book of Predestination of Saints, Chap. 8. Why doth he complain, sithence no man doth, or can resist his will? Doth the Apostle answer, O man, it is false, that thou sayest? No he saith no such thing: But, who art thou, O man, that answerest God? And de Corrept. & Gratiâ, cap. 12. The weakness of man's will is helped in such sort, that it is led by divine grace indeclinably and unconquerably [insuperabiliter ageretur:] and what is [unconquerably] less then [irresistibly!] if grace unconquerably lead the will, the will cannot conquer grace in striving against it. And Chap. 14. ibidem. No will of man resisteth God, when God will save. And he confirmeth his Assertion with a reason, proving that the will of man neither doth, nor can resist the will of God; for, saith he, To will and to nill are so in the power of him that willeth or nilleth, that it can neither hinder Gods will, nor conquer his power. And in his first book of questions to Symplician, 2. Quest. The effect of God's mercy cannot be in man's power to frustrate it, if he list; or that God should have mercy in vain [if man would not take hold of it] because if God would have mercy on those who are reluctant, and withstand it, he could so call them, as it might befit them, that is, be effectual unto them. Saint Bernard in his book of freewill followeth Saint Augustine close; There is made a creation of the will by Christ into liberty, and that without us; if into, than not out of liberty, or freedom of will: if without us, than it is not in our Power to hinder this work of God.     

Of falling away from Grace.  

ARMINIANS.  
HAGE Conference, pag. 355. The Doctrine of our Adversaries, [who teach, that a man cannot fall away from grace totally, nor finally] is an hindrance to godliness, and also to good manners.  
Theses exhibited to the Synod of Dort concerning the fifth Article, All things being forelaid, which are necessary, and sufficient for perseverance, it remaineth still in the power of man, to persevere, or not persevere.  
Bertius in his book of Apostasy of Saints, endeavoureth to prove that his blasphemous Assertion by diverse texts of Scripture, Authorities of Fathers, and Reasons; from whose Armoury the Appealer furnished himself; as will appear by comparing their allegations together.  
Bertius jidit. Lugduni Batavorum apud Lodovicum Elzevirium, in the year of our Lord 1615. pag. 169. You could not be ignorant, that the Confession of the Church of England, was cited by me truly in the Acts at Hampton Court. pag. 107. The English Confession set out in the year of our Lord 1562. Article 16. After we have received the holy Ghost we may depart from grace.  
Bertius in his Dedicatory Epistle. Doctor Bancroft at the Conference at Hampton Court, withstood Doctor Rainolds, who to that Article of the English Confession, concerning departing from grace, would have those words added [but not totally, nor finally.]   

APPEALER.  
ANswer to Gag. pag. 157. That [faith once had may be lost] may be interpreted, and is, more ways, than one: whether not lost at all; whether totally, and finally lost. Men are divided in this tenant; Some suppose neither totally, nor finally; some totally, but not finally; some both totally, and finally, which is indeed the assertion of antiquity. Ibid. The learnedst of the Church of England assent to antiquity in their tenant, which the Protestants of Germany maintain at this day, having assented therein to the Church of Rome. Appeal, pag. 36. In my judgement, this is the doctrine of the Church of England, not delivered according to private opinions in ordinary Tracts and Lectures, but delivered publicly, positively, and declaratively in Authentic records.  
Appeal, pag. 28. They were the learnedst in the Church of England, that drew, composed, and agreed the Articles in 52. and▪ 62. that ratified them in 71. that confirmed them in 604. that justified, and maintained them against the Puritans at Hampton Court: but all such do assent to antiquity in this tenant. Ibid. p. 29. The Minor I make good particularly, & will prove it obsignatis tabulis. In the 16. Article we read, and subscribe this; After we have received the holy Ghost, we may depart away from grace, and fall into sin.  
Appeal, pag. 30. This Article was challenged as unsound at the Conference at Hampton Court, by those that were Petitioners against the Doctrine and Disciple established in the Church of England: and being so challenged before his Sacred Majesty, was there defended and maintained, etc. namely by Doctor Ouerall, pag. 31.   


q See this objection answered in the first question of absolute Predestination.   

ʳ The Article hath not the word [Always] that is the Appealers' addition. The words are not, [After we have received the holy Ghost, we may fall into sin, and so fall away from grace; but we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin:] that is, so far depart from grace, that a man may fall into sin, after grace received; which is confessed on all parts. The Article speaketh not of a total falling away from grace, much less, final; for the words immediately following are [and by the grace of God, to wit, (before given) we may rise again.] He that falleth finally, cannot rise again: he that falleth totally from grace, cannot rise again by the grace he had received, because he is supposed to have lost all the grace he received; and the Article speaks not of new grace, but only of grace before received, and given. Besides, the words of the Apostle to the Hebrews 6. 6. bear strongly that way; that a man, who was once partaker of the holy Ghost, if he fall away, that is, totally cast away the Spirit of grace, cannot possibly be renewed again by repentance. Whence we thus argue;  
None who may after their fall rise again by repentance, fall totally, or finally, Heb. 6. 6.  
But all those, of whom the Article speaks, may after their fall, rise again by repentance.  
Therefore none of whom the Article speaks fall totally, or finally.   

ˢ The Appealer uttereth two manifest untruths in this allegation out of the Conference at Hampton Court. The first is, That he faith the sense of the Article was there challenged as unsound; for Doctor Rainolds [who in the name of the rest desired a fuller explication of the meaning of the Article, to prevent that mistaking, which is sithence fallen out in M. Montague, and others] began with this Preface [Though the meaning of the Article be sound, and good etc.] The second is, That he affirmeth, that this tenant, [a justified man may fall away from grace, and become, ipso facto, in the state of damnation, etc. now styled Arminianism by these Informers] was resolved, and avowed for true by Doctor Ouerall, and that honourable and learned Synod. For Doctor Ouerall, after he had affirmed, That a justified man committing any grievous sin (as adultery, murder, or treason) became, ipso facto, subject to God's wrath, and was in the state of damnation (quoad praesentem statum) addeth, yet those that are called, and justified according to the purpose of God's election did never fall, either totally from all the graces of God, to be utterly destitute of all the parts, and seeds thereof, or finally, from justification; but were in time renewed by God's Spirit unto a lively faith, and repentance, and so justified from those sins, and the wrath, curse, and guilt annexed thereunto, whereinto they were fallen, and wherein they lay so long, as they were without true repentance for the same.     

Of Falling away from Grace.  

ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS pag. 25. De Apostas. Sanct. That which we have proposed we prove, first, by those forms of Scripture, by which Apostasy is diversely described; for this the Scripture calleth to turn away from righteousness, Ezek. 33. 13. If the righteous commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall be no more remembered, but for his iniquity, that he hath committed, he shall die for the same.  
Ibid. pag. 27. He, who can turn away from his righteousness, can forsake his former righteousness; but a righteous man can turn away from his righteousness, Ezek. 18. 24. Therefore the righteous can forsake his former righteousness.  
Bert. pag. 41. He, out of whom the Devil is cast, may become secure, and made a Temple in which the former Devil taking seven other spirits with him, may be lodged; and so the latter condition of that man made worse than the former, Mat. 12. 43. Demonstrat. He, out of whom the Devil is cast, is truly justified; but such a one may by security, and negligence fall into an estate worse than the former: therefore he, that is once truly justified, may fall into an estate worse than the former.  
Bert. pag. 36. Among the causes of Apostasy, one is, the fear of persecution; He that received the seed in stony places, the same is he, that heareth the Word, and anon with joy receiveth it: yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while, for when tribulation ariseth because of the Word, he is offended.   

APPEALER.  
Appeal, pa. 159. Ezek. 18. 24, 26. If the righteous turn away from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and do according unto all the abominations that the wicked man doth, shall he live? All his righteousness, that he hath done, shall not be remembered: but in his transgression that he hath committed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.  
Ibid. Ezek. 33. 13. If he commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall be no more remembered: but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for the same. Therefore the righteous may lose his righteousness, abandon his faith, die in his sin, etc.  
Ibid. pag. 159. The unclean spirit ejected, returneth unto his former residence, entereth, possedeth his former state, and the case of that man is worse than the beginning, Matth. 12. 44. Satan is not ejected, but where the party is in the state of grace with God, being regenerate by faith. Reposseding is not but by relapse into sin: nor a worse state, but where a man dieth in sin.  
Ibid. pag. 159. Luke 8. 13. They on the rock are they, who, when they hear, receive the Word with joy, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.   


t Because this place of Ezekiel is set in the forefront both by the Appealer, and by Bertius, as a testimony, on which they most rely, and are most confident of; I will endeavour both fully to answer, and retort it against them. Besides those Answers, by which others have rebated the edge of this Objection: As * first, that this speech is conditional; suppositive, and not positive; and therefore no more inferreth that a righteous man may fall from his righteousness, than those words of Saint Paul [If an Angel from heaven shall preach unto you another Gospel, than that you received, let him be accursed] conclude, that an Angel from heaven can preach another Gospel. Or the like of our Saviour, [They shall do signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, the Elect] therefore it is possible to seduce the elect; whereas indeed the contrary may be inferred, even from those words. Secondly, That the Prophet speaketh of him, that is righteous in his own opinion, and before men; but not in the sight of God, such a man may fall away from his righteousness; but the question is, of a man regenerate, and truly righteous; and such a one cannot turn away from his righteousness. Of this mind is Saint Gregory Moral. in job. lib. 34. cap. 13. They, who may be seduced in such sort, that they never return again, may seem to lose the habit of sanctity before the eyes of men, [sed eam ante oculos Dei nunquam habuerunt] but indeed they never had any holiness in the sight of God. Thirdly, that the Prophet speaks here of actual righteousness, which may be lost, and is lost, by the committing of any wilful and grievous sin against conscience; not of habitual, which cannot be lost [if he do that which is lawful and right, Ezek. 18. 21. and 24. If he doth according to all the abominations the wicked man doth, all the righteousness that he hath done shall not be remembered] here is not a word that importeth habitual righteousness, but merely actual; which, all sides confess, may be lost. Besides these answers, I say further, that this Scripture no way tendeth to Bertius, or the Appealers' purpose. For they should prove, that a justified man may lose evangelical righteousness, or the righteousness of Faith; not Legal righteousness. Now it is evident, that the Prophet speaketh of Legal righteousness; First, by the pronoun (his) [if the righteous turn away from (his) righteousness] that is, the righteousness of his own works, or his inherent righteousness: not the imputed righteousness of Christ, for that is not his own, Philip. 3. 9 That I may be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law; but the righteousness, which is of God by faith. Secondly, by the enumeration of particulars, vers. 6, 7, 8. 15, 16, 17. all which appertain to Legal righteousness: If he hath not eaten upon the mountains, nor lift up his eyes to the Idols of the house of Israel, nor come near to a menstruous woman, and hath spoiled none by violence, and hath not given his money upon usury, etc. Lastly, this argument may be retorted against the Adversary's two ways. First thus, If the difference of the Covenant between the Law and the Gospel, consisteth especially in this, [that the righteousness required by the one may be lost, but the righteousness promised by the other cannot be lost] then the argument from the loss of Legal righteousness to evangelical, is of no force, but to disprove our Adversary's tenant: for that, which in this place of Ezekiel, is affirmed of the one, may not be affirmed of the other: but the difference of the Covenant between the Law and the Gospel consists especially in this, [that the righteousness required by the one may be lost, but the righteousness promised by the other cannot be lost.] jerem. 31. 31. 33. 34. Heb. 8. 8. Behold the days come that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of judah; not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers, etc. but this shall be my Covenant, which I will make with the house of Israel; I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. And jerem. 32. 40. I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Secondly thus: If these words are spoken generally to the children of God, and belong to the elect as well as others, they cannot imply a total, and final falling away from righteousness, no not in the judgement of the Arminians, and Jesuits themselves, with whose Heifer the Appealer ploughs: [For as the Jesuits, so Arminius himself teacheth, [that a man that is elect, and predestinated to eternal life, cannot fall finally, nor perish for ever:] But the words of the Prophet Ezekiel are spoken generally unto all, and belong to the very Elect; therefore I conclude, in the words of the great Champion of Popery in general, and of this particular touching the Apostasy of Saints, Card. Bellarm. lib. 3. de justif. cap. 12. It is true that the predestinated or elected are in no danger of losing eternal life, and that the terrifying threats used by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, are to this end, to stir up the elect to watchfulness and diligence; motives they are to, and means of perseverance, not arguments at all to prove the Saints Apostasy.   

ᵘ To the place of Matth. 12. 44. we answer; First, we ought not to ground any doctrine of faith upon a mere parable, or allegory: because [as Saint Augustine, in his book, de Doctrinâ Christianâ, delivereth it] All those points which belong to faith and manners, are plainly delivered in the Scriptures. Secondly, we cannot argue strongly from corporal possession, or dispossession, to spiritual: as a Lunatic man, so a man possessed with the Devil in body, may be yet in the state of grace in his soul; and in like manner, as a man that is cured of his frenzy or lunacy, may be yet an unsanctified man; so a man, out of whom the Devil is cast, from tormenting or possessing the body, may be yet an unregenerate man, (although, I grant, our Saviour seldom, or never cured any man's body, but first he healed the soul, as some Interpreters have observed) yet no necessary consequence can be drawn from the health or sickness of the body, to the health or sickness of the soul. Neither is it said here, that the unclean spirit was cast out by Christ, nor by any other; but that he went out of himself, and returned again; and therefore this possessed person can be no fit emblem of a truly regenerated, and justified man, out of whom the Devil is powerfully cast out: and the party is no way under him, or in his power, but led by the spirit of God, Rom. 8. and wholly delivered from the power of Satan. Thirdly, the meaning of the Parable is (as appeareth by our Saviour's application) that as the latter state of that man, [out of whom the Devil first departed, and afterward returned with seven worse than himself] was worse than the former, so it should be with the wicked jews, out of whom the unclean spirit had gone out, for fear of the Law, but now was returned again unto them through their refusal of the Gospel, and despiting the Spirit of Grace. Thus Saint Hilary, Jerome, and Bede expound the Parable; and their Exposition is evidently grounded upon our Saviour's words, vers. 45. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. As it is particularly applied by our Saviour to the jews, so it may be to any Nation, out of which the unclean spirit departeth for a while, or is driven away by the preaching of the Gospel, if it be empty of good works, and given to the pleasures of this world; like the lodging of the unclean spirit, which he found empty, swept, and garnished. The unclean spirit will enter with seven worse, that is, the Gospel shall be taken away from them, and the Kingdom of Grace, for the abuse of it; and they shall be brought into worse bondage of the Devil, than before: according to Saint Peter 2 Epist. 2. 20. If after they have escaped the pollution of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end shall be worse with them than the beginning: for it had been better for them, not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered unto them. This was the case of the Kingdom of Congo, which for a time embraced the Gospel, but afterwards perceiving that it restrained their carnal liberty, and no way permitted plurality of wives, they cast off the yoke of Christ, and enthralled themselves again to Satan. But it is not so with those that are truly regenerate, for to them his yoke is easy, and his burden light. Lastly, this objection may be retorted against the Adversaries thus;  
This Parable is meant of a wicked generation, Matth. 12. 45. an evil, and adulterous generation, vers. 39 a generation of vipers, vers. 34. such as the Scribes and pharisees were, who in this Parable are reproved by our Saviour.  
But the regenerate children of God are not a wicked, adulterous, or viperous generation, but a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, 1 Pet. 2. 9  
Therefore this Parable is not meant of the regenerate children of God.   

* To the place of Saint Luke 8. 13. and Mat. 13. 20. we answer; First, the heart of a man truly regenerated is not compared to a stony ground: for God by regenerating grace takes away our stony heart, and gives us an heart of flesh, Ezek. 36. 26. Secondly, a temporary faith is not of the same nature with a justifying faith; a temporary faith hath no root, Matth. 13. 22. and Luke 8. 13. a justifying faith hath: a temporary faith beareth no fruit, but a justifying faith beareth fruit, Matth. 13. 23. and Luke 8. 15. Those, who believe the Gospel, merely out of temporary hopes, [because godliness hath the promise of this life] they receive the word with joy, while they thrive and gain by it; but when there ariseth trouble and persecution for the Word, they are offended, and fall away: but those who ground their faith upon the promises of a better life, their faith like gold, (1 Pet. 1. 7.) being tried in the fire, is made much more precious, and found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of jesus Christ, believing with joy unspeakable, and full of glory, receiving the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls, verse. 8. Their faith differeth from the faith of Hypocrites, and Temporizers, in the cause and kind; their joy in the degree; and both in the continuance. Lastly, this objection may be retorted against the Adversary: First thus;  
They, who are compared unto the good ground, are not meant here by stony ground:  
But truly regenerate Christians and believers, Luke 8. 15. and Matth. 13. 23. are compared to good ground;  
Therefore they are not here meant by stony ground.  
Secondly, thus;  
That faith, which is distinguished from a justifying faith in this Parable, cannot be taken for the faith of a true regenerate Christian;  
But the temporary faith is distinguished in this Parable from a justifying faith;  
Therefore the temporary faith cannot be taken for the faith of a true regenerate Christian, and consequently, the Appealer, and Arminians are in this their allegation mistaken.     

Of Falling away from Grace.  

ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS of the Apostasy of Saints, pag. 26. Apostasy is described by the phrase [to wax could] Mat. 24. 12. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.  
Bertius, pag. 34. The Apostle foreseeing, that the converted Gentiles might be bewitched with that opinion, [That they could not be cut off from the Church] warneth them, that they wax not proud against the jews, but that they learn by their example, that it may come to pass, that they also may be cast away, Rom. 11. 19 They were broken off, that I might be grafted in; through infidelity they were broken off, and, thou standest by faith: be not high minded, but fear.  
Bert. pag. 33. I frame the fourth demonstration from the fear of the Saints, john 15. 6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withereth, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire.   

APPEALER.  
ANswer to Gag. pag. 160. Matth. 24. 12. Because iniquity shall abound, the charity of many shall grow cold. Surely it was hot, that groweth cold: and charity enlarged, is not but the fruit of a living faith; which if it continued in statu quo, the charity of many could not wax cold; therefore once had may be lost.  
Again, Rom. 11. 20. 21. Thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear: and fear is not but where change may be. Here change may be: or why doth it follow? Take heed lest he also spare not thee.  
Ibid. pag. 160. joh. 15.2. Every branch that beareth not fruit in me, he taketh away.   


ˣ To the place of Matth. 24. 12. we answer; First, that the love of many may wax cold; yet will it not thereupon follow, that the love of the regenerate and true believers waxeth cold: for the regenerate, and true believers, are not meant by those Many. True charity is a fruit of faith, and such as the faith is, such is the charity. If it be a temporary faith, the charity proceeding from it, is but temporary, and being so, may not only wax cold, but also be utterly extinguished. The root being rotten, the fruit falls of itself. But if the root of faith be sound, charity will never decay; but abound more and more, till the child of God be filled with the fruits of righteousness, Philip. 1. 9, 11. Secondly, the consequence is not good, from a remission of some degree of charity, to the amission of the habit of it: The Apostles themselves, as they were not so strong in their faith, so neither so hot in their love toward our Saviour at his Passion, as before. Their faith was shaken in that fearful storm of temptation; their confidence was small, or none in appearance, in their own sense: for in saying [we trusted, it had been he that should have redeemed Israel, Luke 24.] they imply, that his death had loosened the Anchor of their hope, and that both their heart and faith failed them for the time, their love also waxed cold, if not freezed, when they fled from him, and forsook him. Yet no learned Divine ever affirmed, that their love to our Saviour was quite lost; for as he loved them, so they loved him to the end. Thirdly, this argument may be retorted against the Adversaries thus:  
If Christ doth here put a difference between those that are truly faithful, and hypocrites, in this; that the one (Hypocrites to wit) should in the latter days and perilous times be offended, deceived, wax cold in charity, but the other (the truly faithful) should continue to the end, than this place maketh not for, but against the total or final falling away of true believers.  
But Christ in this place puts a difference between those that are truly faithful, and hypocrites, in this; that the one (Hypocrites to wit) should in the latter days and perilous times be offended, deceived, and wax cold in charity, verse. 10, 11, 12. but the other (the truly faithful) should continue to the end, vers. 13.  
Therefore this place maketh not for, but against the total or final falling away of true believers.   

ʸ To the place alleged, Rom. 11. 19, 20. we answer: First, that it is not meant of particular believers, and their danger of falling away from justifying faith; but of the people of the Gentiles in general, and their danger of being cut off from the true Olive, into which they were engrafted, that is, from the outward profession of faith, and communion of the Catholic Church, into which they were admitted upon the rejection of the jews. The Gentiles therefore ought not to be highminded against the jews, but fear, lest God, who spared not the natural branches, should not spare them, but cut them off also, as he did the natural branches, if they should grow proud, and presumptuously secure. Now there is no question, but that a Visible Church, which at this time professeth the truth, and is a member of the Catholic Church, may fall away from the outward and public profession of faith, and cease to be a part of the Catholic visible Church; as the most famous, & sometimes flourishing Churches of Greece and Asia, planted by the Apostles themselves, now overrun with Mahometanisme, Idolatry, and Heresy, prove by their lamentable Apostasy, and deplorate, if not desperate estate. But Bertius and the Appealer should have had their eyes upon the mark, and point in question; which is not of the doctrine of faith, but the habit of faith; not the fide, quam credimus, but de fide, qua credimus; not of the public profession of a Church, but of a particular affiance of every true believer in Christ. A member of the visible Church may be cut off, but no member of the invisible; for Christ cannot have, damnata membra, any members, who shall not be saved, as the Approver of the Appealers' book rightly gathereth out of Saint Augustine, in his Reply to Fisher. A Church, or Kingdom generally may depart from the Christian faith, or renounce the pure profession thereof in public, and yet no true believer, either totally or finally, lose his faith; but either secretly in that State or Kingdom, or elsewhere openly, he may retain both faith itself, and the profession thereof. Secondly, God's threatenings have their use, both in the Elect, and Reprobate; to make the one unexcusable, or to keep them within some bounds of moderation; and to keep the other in an awful reverence, filial fear, and spiritual watchfulness, which are means of Perseverance, no arguments of Apostasy. Fear is not, but where a change may be; to wit, fear of a change; but there may be a fear of offending God through high-mindedness, and presumption, as was in the Apostles, and is in all the Elect, & yet no change of their estate of grace could or can be, by the confession of Arminius himself, and the learned'st of all our Adversaries. Thirdly, as the faithful aught to fear, so they also might, and de facto would fall away, not only totally, but finally, if they were left to themselves; and therefore, in regard of the frailty of their nature, and mutability of their own will, they have just cause to fear, and do still fear in themselves, yet are still confident in God, who is faithful, and will establish them, and keep them from evil, 2 Thess. 3. 3. and shall confirm them unto the end, that they may be blameless in the day of our Lord jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 1. 8. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary thus:  
That fear, which God promiseth to put into the hearts of true believers, to this end, that they may not fall away from him, is a certain means to preserve true believers in the faith, (else God should fail in his end.)  
But the fear here enjoined, is that fear, which God promiseth to put into the hearts of true believers, to this end, that they may not fall away from him, jerem. 22. 40.  
Therefore the fear, here enjoined, is a certain means to preserve true believers in the faith: and consequently a strong argument for the perseverance of Saints in faith and grace; as it is urged by Saint Augustine in his book de Persever. Sanctorum, cap. 2. [I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me) What is it else, then to say? the fear shall be such, and so great, that they shall for ever cleave unto me.   

ᶻ To the places alleged, john 15. 2, 5. we answer: First, there is a double insition or engraffing into Christ; external, when a man is made a member of the visible Church by the hearing of the Word, and participation of the Sacraments; internal, when a man by sanctifying grace, and saving faith, is made a member of the invisible Church. They, who have the outward insition only into the true Vine Christ jesus, may be cut off: but they, which have the inward as well as the outward insition, cannot be cut off, and wither as a branch; for Non est corpus Christi reverâ, quod non oer it in aeternum; That is not Christ's true body, which shall not abide for ever, [neither, by the like reason, is that a true branch, which abideth not for ever in the Vine] August. de Doct. Chri. lib. 3. cap. 32. Which reason of S. Augustine is confirmed by Saint Gregory, in his description of the Church in his Comment on the Canticles, Christus sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum permansuris extruxit; Christ hath built his Church of Saints which shall for ever persevere. Secondly, as there is a double insition into Christ, so there is a double profession of faith; a naked and bare profession without practice of a holy life, or fruit of good works; or a profession joined with practice, a faith working through love, & bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit. By the barren branches cut off, and withered, Theophylact on these words alleged, understandeth those, who make a naked and bare profession: Saint Cyril, in his tenth book upon john, Those who have faith without love, and good works; such a faith S. james in his second Chap. calls a dead faith, but the faith by which the just man liveth, is a living faith working by love, Galat. 5. 6. and bringing forth fruit with patience, Luke 8. 15. Thirdly, the words [in me] job. 15. 2. may be either referred to the word [Vine] and the meaning is, every branch existent or ingraffed in me, that beareth no fruit, but leaves only of a bare profession, shall be taken away; or the words [in me] may be referred to bearing of fruit, and the meaning is, every professor of Religion, or member of any Congregation that believeth not (in me, and beareth not fruit in me, to wit, the fruits of the Gospel by my grace, shall be cast forth as a dead branch, and wither) for, as it is in the fifth verse, He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If the words be taken in the former sense, they are meant of Hypocrites within the Church; if in the latter, of jews, or Pagans, without the Church; who bear fruit, that is, do morally good works, or, do by nature the things contained in the Law, Rom. 2. 14. but because they do not these things in faith, their good works are no better, than splendida peccata, sins having a lustre, or show of virtue, as Saint Augustine. Take the words in either sense, they belong not to regenerate persons, and true believers, who are so ingraffed into Christ, that they abide in him by faith, and bear fruit in him through faith. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
No branch, that beareth fruit in Christ, shall be taken away, but purged, that it may bring forth more fruit (as it followeth in the second verse urged by the Adversary.)  
But every true believer is a branch that beareth fruit in Christ, Matth. 13. 23. Rome 6. 22.  
Therefore no true believer shall be taken away, but purged, that he may bring forth more fruit.     


ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS, pag. 26. Believers may make shipwreck of faith, 1 Tim. 1. 19 some having put away a good conscience, concerning faith, have made shipwreck.  
Ibid. 1 Tim. 4. 1. In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.   

APPEALER.  
APPEAL, pag. 160. 1 Tim. 1. 19 Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away, concerning faith, have made shipwreck.  
Ibid. Nor was it only for those times, but foretold of succeeding ages, 1 Tim. 4. 1. In the latter days some shall depart from the faith.   


ᵃ To the places alleged out of Timothy, we answer: First, that they are fully answered by the distinction above mentioned (ad literam ʸ) namely of a twofold signification of the word (faith) which is sometimes taken for the saith which we believe, that is, the word of faith, or doctrine of the Gospel, as Galath. 1. 23. Now preacheth the faith, which once he destroyed, Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith, which we preach: the hearing of faith, Galat. 3. 2. A great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith, Act. 6. 7. And in this sense Oecumenius taketh the word (faith) in the first place above alleged, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: by faith, I understand faith in doctrine; by conscience, a godly conversation, or a good life. And that it is to be so taken in the latter place, it is evident by the words following, 1 Tim. 4. 1. Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrine of devils. Faith opposed to error, and doctrine of devils, is the true doctrine of faith, which we believe and preach. Sometimes the word (faith) is taken in Scripture for the faith by which we believe; that is, the inward grace, or habit of faith: as Rom. 3. 28. justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. And Rom. 4. 5. His faith is counted for righteousness, Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. This distinction is not new coined by novelizing Puritans, but stamped by the ancient Fathers, and goes for current among the Schoolmen. Saint Augustine in his thirteenth book of the Trinity, chap. 2. delivers it in these very terms, There is a difference between the faith, quae creditur, and quâ creditur: And Lombard, lib. 3. distinct. 23. taketh the same from Saint Augustine, saying, Fides est interdumid, quod credimus, interdum estid, quo credimus. Secondly, we answer, that as there is a temporary faith, so there may be a good conscience for a time, which a man putting away, soon after makes shipwreck concerning faith: that is, either concerning the doctrine of faith, by maintaining errors, (as both Bertius, and the Appealer have done:) or concerning the act of a temporary faith, by ceasing to believe, and profess the faith. Thirdly, it is to be noted, that the Apostle saith not [losing] but [putting away a good conscience] which words may be most properly meant of such, who hold faith, and notwithstanding put away a good conscience; that is, gladly embrace the promise of the Gospel, and remission of their sins by faith, but reject the condition upon, & end for which grace is offered, Tit. 2. 12. (To deny ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world) such are all carnal Gospelers, who believe well, but live not accordingly. Fourthly, the phrase (making shipwreck) doth not import the utter loss of faith; for many things, that fall out of the ship by wrack, are recovered again, and saved; and therefore Tertullian, in his book de Poenitentiâ, elegantly calleth repentance Tabulam post naufragium, A board, or broken piece of the ship, on which after ship wrack a man may, as they did Act. 27. 44. Escape safe to land: Plerique naufragio liberati, exinde repudium & navi & mari dicunt, & Dei beneficium, salutem suam scil: memoriâ periculi honorant; Most men, that have escaped in shipwreck, renounce both ship and sea, and, by remembrance of their former danger, more highly prize God's benefit, and their salvation, Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus.  
If those, who are here said to make shipwreck of faith, are not to be thought, to have fallen away finally from grace and salvation, but rather the contrary, than this place maketh nothing for the final Apostasy of true believers:  
But those, who are here said to make shipwreck of faith, are not to be thought, to have fallen away finally from grace and salvation, but rather the contrary;  
Therefore, this place maketh nothing for the final Apostasy of true believers.  
The first Proposition is evident; the Assumption is thus confirmed:  
Those who were delivered to Satan by the Apostle for their amendment, and that their spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord jesus, are not to be thought to have fallen finally from grace and salvation.  
But those, who are here said to make shipwreck of faith, (to wit, Hymeneus and Alexander) were delivered to Satan by the Apostle, for their amendment, 1 Tim. 1. 20. and that their spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord jesus, 1 Cor. 5. 5.  
Therefore those, who are here said to make shipwreck of faith, are not to be thought, to have fallen finally from grace, and salvation.     


ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS, pag. 25. Apostasy is proved by this phrase of Scripture to fall away from grace, Galath. 5. 4. Whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace.  
Bertius, pag. 29. 2 Pet. 2. 20. For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them, than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment given unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb: The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.  
Bert. pag. 12. To Saints irrecoverable destruction is threatened, Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible for those, who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, & have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; if they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.   

APPEALER.  
APPEAL, pag. 160. Galat. 5. 4. Saint Paul spoke not upon supposition of impossibility, ye are abolished from Christ, whosoever are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace.  
Ibidem, pag. 160. 161. Nor in point of only Heresy wa● faith by them lost, but also of good living and conversation, 2 Pet. 2. 20. where those that had escaped the filthiness of the world; therefore washed, and made clean, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ; therefore justified truly by saith: are yet entangled again therein, and overcome. Therefore lapsed from faith, as is expressed, vers. 21, and 22. ensuing.  
Ibid. pag. 164. Beside, if faith had cannot be lost, the dog cannot be said to return unto his vomit, nor the swine to wallowing in the mire.  
Idem, pag. 161. I add but one of them, Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible, that they which were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the power of the world to come, (if these were not justified, they know not who were: if these had no faith, where was it to be found) if they fall away, should be renewed again by repentance: seeing they crucify again the Son of God unto themselves, and make a mock of him.   


ᵇ To the place Galath. 5. 4. we answer: First, the main scope and drift of the Apostle, is to confute those among the Galathians, who went about to join judaism with Christianisme, Legal righteousness with evangelical: these the Apostle shows cannot stand together. For the one consisteth in the perfect fulfilling of the Law, Rom. 10. 5. the other in forgiveness of sins, Rom. 4. 7. The proper meaning therefore of the words is, that whosoever seeks for justification by the Law, that is, the works of the Law, is fallen from grace, that is, hath lost his claim by the covenant of grace, or is excluded from all hope of obtaining mercy and grace; for such a one is become a debtor to the whole Law, that is, cannot be justified, to wit, by the covenant of works, unless he fulfil the whole Law, which no man is able to do. Secondly, Grace is sometime taken for a reward of free gift, and so it is opposed to merit; sometime it is taken for supernatural habits infused, putting a man in grace and favour with God, or making him gracious, and so it is opposed to nature; sometime it is taken for the doctrine of free remission of sins by Christ, or covenant of grace, and so it is opposed to the Law, or covenant of works: and that it is taken in the last sense in this place, is evident by the antecedents, and consequents, and the very opposition to the Law in this fourth verse, Gal. 5. Thirdly, admit the word (Grace) were here taken for the grace of regeneration, or justification, as the Adversaries would have it, yet the Text maketh nothing for them; for it is not said, that the Galathians fell from grace totally, or finally; although in that particular error of theirs, in retaining the Legal ceremonies, and urging Circumcision, they in effect, and by consequent overthrew a main doctrine of the Gospel, touching justification by faith in Christ. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
Whosoever teach, and believe justification on by the Law, or inherent righteousness, are fallen from grace, and refuted by this text of the Apostle.  
The Adversary teacheth and believeth justification by the Law, or inherent righteousness; see the precedent tablet, Art. of justification.  
Therefore the Adversary is fallen from grace, and refuted by this text of the Apostle.   

ᶜ To the place alleged out of Saint Peter 2. Epist. 2. Chap. 20. We answer: First, Saint Peter speaks not of true believers, but of false teachers, who privily brought in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, verse 1. These [though they had escaped the filthiness of the world through the knowledge of Christ, that is, the practice of gross idolatry, called in Scripture Spiritual fornication and uncleanness; and had kept themselves from other foul, and enormous sins of the flesh even against nature, wherein the blind idolaters of the world were entangled] yet were never inwardly, and throughly washed and cleansed, especially from the pollutions of the heart. The Apostle compareth them to swine, which after they are washed, (that is, outwardly) wallow again in the mire, because they retain still their swinish nature: so these, after they had received the knowledge of Christ, and outwardly conformed themselves to the Gospel, and cleansed themselves from gross actual sins, return to their former filthiness, as natural bruit beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, vers. 12. Secondly, a man may be entangled again in the pollutions of the world, and relapsed into foul sins (as some of God's Saints have been) yea as enormous as any he committed before his conversion, and yet not fall totally or finally from grace, as shall be showed hereafter. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
None, that are, or were true believers, are wells without water, [For he that believeth, out of his belly flow rivers of living water, job. 7. 38.]  
Those spoken of by S. Peter are wells without water, vers. 17.  
Therefore those spoken of by Saint Peter, are not, nor were true believers.  
Or thus:  
None of the regenerate are dogs, or swine; [For holy things, and pearls are given to them, which may not be given to dogs, or cast before swine, Matth. 7. 6.]  
Those, whom Saint Peter speaks of, are dogs and swine, vers. 22.  
Therefore those, whom S. Peter speaks of, are not regenerate.  
And so this text of Scripture is nihil ad rhombum; and the Adversaries argue worse and worse, (It being happened unto them, according to the true proverb, (ab equis ad asinum) mentioned vers. 16. which beast, and the Rider, whether they are not a perfect impress and emblem of the 
* Bertius a pension in France, 〈◊〉 sooke the truth, and ● at this present a Popish Apos●ata.  Adversary, I refer it to the intelligent Reader of that Motto, ver. 15. [HAVE FORSAKEN THE RIGHT WAY, FOLLOWING THE WAY OF BALAAM, THE SON OF BOSOR, WHO LOVED THE WAGES OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.   

ᵈ To the place alleged, Heb. 6. 4. weanswer: First, It is not affirmed (as Whitaker learnedly observeth in Cygneâ Cantio:) that those, who were enlightened etc. do fall away, but, if they fall away, they cannot be renewed by repentance. Which note of that Swan sweetly acordeth with the words of the Apostle himself in this Chapter, vers. 9 But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. May not I justly apply the words of Saint Cyprian, against Novatus, to the Adversary Bertius, (Scindis, sicut ipse scissus es,) As thou art cut off, and hast made a rent in the Church, so thou cuttest, and wouldst make a rent in the Scripture, by taking a part by itself to serve thy turn, contrary to the coherence and scope of the whole? Secondly, enlightening grace doth not necessarily import renewing and sanctifying grace; nor tasting the heavenly gift, eating the bread of life, joh. 6. and being filled therewith, Matth. 5. 6. nor partaking of the holy Ghost, being led by the holy Ghost, Rom. 8. much less sealed with it, Eph. 1. 13. as all true regenerate Christians are. The Adversaries might have learned out of Gratian. de poenit. dist. 2. It is one thing to taste the gift, and powers of the world to come; another, to have them rooted in the heart: Aliud affici pro tempore, aliud perfici, & obsignari in vitam aeternam: One thing, to be moved, or affected for a time, as Herod was at the hearing of john the Baptist; another thing, to be perfectly sanctified, and sealed to eternal life, as are all true believers, 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephess. 4. 30. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
No regenerate child of God can commit the sin unto death, 1 joh. 5. 17. 18.  
The Apostle here speaks of those that commit (or at least may commit) the sin unto death.  
Therefore the Apostle speaks not here of any regenerate child of God.     


ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS, pag. 114. 1 Cor. 10. 12. Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.  
Idem, pag. 116. Philip. 2. 12, 13. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you both to will, and to do, of his good pleasure.   

APPEALER.  
ANswer to Gag. pag. 164. If righteousness had, cannot be lost, why should he admonish as he doth, He that standeth, let him take heed lest he fall?  
Ibidem. And work out your salvation with fear and trembling.   


ᵉ To the place alleged, 1 Cor. 10. 12. we answer: First, though the regenerate, and justified man's estate be certain, yet is it certain by the use of such means as God hath appointed; whereof spiritual watchfulness and care, to which the Apostle here exhorteth, is a principal. The Apostles estate was certain, for Christ saith, Luke 10. 20. Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. And john 17. 12. Those that thou gavest me, I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition. Yet he commandeth them to watch and pray, that they enter not into temptation, Matth. 26. 41. And he prescribeth a form of prayer to be used by them, and us, continually, [Led us not into temptation] Mat. 6. 13. The soldiers, and passengers estate, who were in the ship with Paul, Act. 27. 24. was safe, and sure, because God had given Saint Paul all them that sailed with him: Yet were they to use the help of the shipmen to save their lives, and unless they had so done, they had perished, vers. 31. Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved. Secondly, the Apostles words are to be noted, who saith not, Let him that standeth, but, let him that thinketh he standeth. A man may think he standeth, though indeed he standeth not; as those that killed the Apostles, did think that they did God good service, john 16. 2. The Pharisie thought that he was rather justified, than the Publican, yet he was not. Saint Paul thought he had done a work acceptable to God, and advantageous to the true Church, when he persecuted the Saints, and made havoc of the Church. The heart of man is deceitful above all things, as it deceiveth others, so sometimes ourselves also. We may conceive that we are highly in God's favour, and a great way toward heaven, when yet indeed we are cast back, or stand at a stay. It is therefore a special point of wisdom, to examine our spiritual estate, and prove whether we are in the faith, or no; that is, whether we stand indeed, or think only that we stand: for he that thinketh only that he standeth, and hath no sure footing, nor ground of his persuasion, may fall, and that irrecoverably. Thirdly, He that standeth may fall, yet not totally, or finally. A man may fall, and yet not be hurt by his fall; a man may be hurt, and that dangerously, by a fall, and yet not die of that hurt; 
* Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the Lord upholdeth hi● with his hand Psal. 37. 24.  justus cadit, non tamen excidit. The righteous falleth seven times a day; Si cadit, quomodo iustus? si iustus, quomodo cadit? If he fall, how is he righteous? if righteous, how doth he fall? Saint Jerome answereth, sed iusti vocabulum non amittit, qui semper per poenitentiam resurgit; He loseth not the name of righteous, who, as often as he falls by sin, riseth again by repentance, Epist. 44. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
None of those, whom God preserves from being overcome, in temptation, can fall totally, or finally.  
Those whom Saint Paul adviseth to take heed lest they fall, are such, whom God preserves from being overcome in temptation; in the next verse, 1 Cor. 10. 13.  
But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able: but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.  
Therefore, those whom Saint Paul adviseth to take heed lest they fall, cannot fall totally, or finally.   

ᶠ To the place alleged Phil. 2. 12. we answer: First, that the argument drawn from the fear of God's Saints, hath been before refuted, and retorted, in the handling that text of the Apostle [Be not highminded, but fear.] Secondly, we answer, Fear is not here opposed to religious confidence, but to carnal security, and presumption. The trembling here commanded, is an awful reverence, and filial trembling, not a servile affrighting: this fear and trembling, is not only joined with assured hope, that God will work both the will and the deed in them that so fear, vers. 13. but also with joy, Psal. 2. 11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Fear cannot be here taken for a distrustful fear, or a fear of being damned, but of a solicitous and watchful fear; for this were no good consequence, God worketh in you the will and the deed, therefore fear, that is, doubt and distrust your salvation; but use all diligence to make your election sure, and be careful to stir up God his grace in you, and to call on him continually in all humbleness of mind, for the assistance of his Spirit, without which you can neither do, nor will any good. This grace and assistance of his Spirit God promiseth to none, but to the humble, and such as tremble at his word, Esay 66. 2. Why doth the Apostle say, 
Aug. 〈…〉 turd & 〈◊〉, cont. Pel●g. cap. 27.  saith Saint Augustine, work out your salvation with fear and trembling, and not rather with security, if God work it? unless because in regard of our will, without which we cannot well work, it may soon come into man's heart, to esteem that which he doth well, to be his own work, and say, I shall never be removed? therefore he, who gave power to his will, turned his face for a while from him, that he which said so might be troubled; quoniam ipsis est ille tumor sanandus doloribus: Because that swelling pride is to be healed with very sorrows of a troubled mind. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
None, in whom God worketh both the will to persevere and deed, can fall totally, or finally.  
In those, whom Saint Paul here adviseth to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, God worketh both the will to persevere, and deed, Philip. 2. 13.  
Therefore those, 
〈…〉  whom Saint Paul here adviseth to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, cannot fall totally, or finally.     


ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS, pag. 28. The Scriptures relate this to have come to pass in the Angels, jude 6. And the Angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgement of the great day.  
Ibid. In our first Parents: for Adam being holy & created after Gods own image, yet was by his wife drawn to fall: yea and the craftic serpent dece●ued his holy wife, 2 Cor. 11. 3.  
Idem, pag. 30. That which befell the blessed Angels, and Adam and Eve in the state of innocence, that may befall any Saint now; but it is certain the holy Angels fell, and our first Parents: therefore any Saint may forsake his own righteousness.   

APPEALER.  
ANswer to Gag, pag. 161. Thus Scripture speaketh plain. Their reasons from Scripture are evident. Man is not likely in state of grace to be of an higher alloy than Angels were in state of Glory, than Adam Was in state of Innocence: For Grace is but a conformity thereto, and no conformity exceedeth the Architype: At most it is but an equality thereto: and equals are of the same proportion. Now if Adam in Paradise, and Lucifer in Heaven, did fall and lose their Original estate, the one totally, the other eternally, what greater assurance hath any man in state of Proficiency, not of Consummation?   


ᵍ To the instance in Lucifer and Adam, we answer: First, that though man in the state of Proficiency be not simply in an happier estate, and better than Adam in Paradise, much less than Lucifer in Heaven, yet he may have, and hath a greater assurance of his estate than they had. 
Aug. de Cor. rep. & Gra●. cap. 11.  Saint Augustine confidently affirmeth, That the grace which was given by the second Adam, exceeds that which was given to the first Adam, in that it was more powerful; Haec potentior est in secundo Adam, prima est enim quâ sit ●t habeat homo iustitiam, si velit; secunda plus potest, quâ sit ut velit, tantumque velit, & tanto ardore diligat, ut carnis voluntatem contraria concupiscentem voluntate Spiritus vincat. And again, Primo homini, 
Aug. ibid. cap. 12.  qui in eo bono, quo factus fuerat rectus, acceperat posse non peccare, posse non mori, posse ipsum bonum non deserere, datum est adiutorium perseuer antiae, non quo fieret ut perseveraret, sed sine quo per liberum arbitrium perseverare non posset. Nunc vero sanctis in regnum Dei per gratiam praedestinatis non tantum tale adiutorium perseuerantie datur, sed tale, ut iis perseverantia ipsa donetur; non solum ut sine isto dono perseverantes esse non possint, verumetiam ut per hoc donum non nisi perseverantes sint. Secondly, from Gods dealing with the Angels that kept not their first estate, but etc. to his dealing with man after his fall, no good precedent can be taken; for it is certain, God provided a Redeemer for man, but none for them. (As the Angel's sin was greater, so their judgement was more heavy, and loss irreparable.) Neither is the consequence good from Adam's loss of his estate of Innocency to the like possibility of the regenerates loss of their estate of Grace; because God made no everlasting 
* * Esay ●4▪ 8.  covenant of peace with Adam before his fall, as he did since with the regenerate in Christ the Peacemaker. He made no such promise to Adam before his fall, as he hath made to his Church since, that Hell gates should not prevail against her. Adam had no Mediator before his fall to pray for his perseverance in the state of Innocence; but the faithful and truly regenerate have the effectual prayers of Christ the Mediator for their perseverance in faith and grace; 
* * 〈◊〉. 22. 32.  I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not: And, 
* * john 17. 1●, 20.  I pray that thou shouldest keep them from the evil: neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. Thirdly, Adam in Paradise stood by the power of his own freewill, and natural integrity; but the regenerate are now kept by supernatural grace, and the 
* * 〈…〉  power of God through faith unto salvation; and therefore, albeit Lucifer in Heaven, and Adam in Paradise, who stood merely of themselves, fell from their first estate, it is no consequent that the regenerate may in like manner fall from their estate, who stand not by themselves, but by Christ, and are supported by God. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
If the state of Creation and Redemption differ especially in this, that men and Angels in the state of creation had power to persevere, if they would, but not will; and men in the state of redemption have not only power, but also will given them to persevere, and grace by which they cannot but persevere; then the argument, drawn from the total fall of Adam, and final of Lucifer, to the total and final falling away of the regenerate, maketh nothing for, but strongly against the Adversary:  
But the state of Creation and Redemption differ especially in this, that men and Angels in the state of Creation had power to persevere, if they would, but not will; and men in the state of Redemption have not only power, but also will given them to persevere, and grace by which they cannot but persevere, as hath been proved.  
Therefore the Argument, drawn from the total fall of Adam, and final of Lucifer, to the total and final falling away of the regenerate, maketh nothing for, but strongly against the Adversary.     


ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS, pag. 28. Of Saul what saith the Scripture? 1 Sam. 9 2. The son of Kish, whose name was Saul, an elect and good man, and there was not of the sons of Israel a good man beyond him. Yet of him chap. 15. 11. we read; It repenteth me that I have made Saul King: for he is turned back from following me.  
Bert. ibid. ex Cypriano Epist. 7. Solomon, Saul, and many others, while they walked in the ways of the Lord, could have held the grace given to them: but departing from the ordinance of God, grace departed from them.   

APPEALER.  
ANswer to Gag, pag. 162. Saul was at the first the child of God, called according to the election of grace; not only temporal for the kingdom of Israel, but also eternal for the heavenly kingdom. In opinion of Antiquity thus he was: and yet afterward he fell, it is confessed; totally all say: eternally these say, that maintain justifying faith cannot be lost.  
Ibidem. But if Saul were not of God's children in grace, endued with faith, and the holy Spirit: yet Solomon was there is no question with them, because he was a writer of holy Writ, and wrote as he was inspired by God. If they did not grant it, the Scripture would evict it, 2 Sam. 7. 12. yet Solomon fell, as Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostome are clear for it, at least temporally and totally too, when he served other gods.   


ʰ To the first instance in Saul, we answer▪ First with 
* * Cap. de 〈◊〉  Melancthon, that Saul seemed to be a faithful man, but the event showeth that he was an hypocrite. He was indeed chosen to the Kingdom of Israel, but not to the Kingdom of Heaven, by the Appealers leave: there is no syllable in Scripture importeth so much; he was indeed endued with the Spirit of Government, and the Spirit of Prophecy, but not with the Spirit of Regeneration for aught appears in Scripture: he might be, and, as most think, he was, among those to whom that speech of our Saviour might be applied, 
Mat. 7. 22, 23.  Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? etc. & then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: Depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Secondly, we answer, The words alleged by Bertius, 1 Sam. 9 2. speak of the lineaments of his body, and proper personage, not of the inward virtues of his mind, or graces of his soul [There was not a goodlyer, the text saith not a godlyer, person than he; from the shoulders, and upward, he was higher than any of the people] To argue from stature to grace, from the body to the soul, from proceritie to sincerity, from a corruptible crown, to an incorruptible, is scopam dissolutam facere, to make a bosom without a band, or to make a rope of sands. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
The gifts and calling by God of the regenerate are without repentance, Rom. 11. 29.  
Saul's gifts and calling by God were not without repentance; for the text saith, 1 Sam. 15. 11. God repented him, that he had made Saul King, etc.  
Therefore Saul's gifts and calling were not the calling and gifts of the regenerate.   

ⁱ To the second instance in Solomon we answer: That Solomon was indeed a child of God, and is called the beloved of the Lord, because the Lord loved him indeed, 2 Sam. 7. 12. But we deny, that he fell from grace either totally, or finally. He was a type of Christ, a penman of the holy Ghost; God threatened grievously to scourge him for his sins, yet promised withal never quite to cast him off. His fall, I confess, was grievous, but his repentance in his book of the Preacher showeth that the seed of God still remained in him, as it doth in all the children of God, 1 joh. 3. 9 This seed, because it is immortal, 1 Pet. 1. 23. preserveth every child of God, in whom it remaineth, from eternal death. Lastly, this Argument may be retorted against the Adversary, thus:  
If God withdrew not his loving kindness utterly from Solomon, Solomon fell not from grace totally, nor finally.  
God withdrew not his loving kindness utterly from Solomon:  
Therefore Solomon fell not from Grace totally, nor finally.  
The first proposition is manifest; for utterly & totally are terms equivalent, and it is certain, that whosoever falleth not totally, cannot fall finally. The second proposition may be deduced out of Psa. 89. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.     


ARMINIANS.  
BERTIUS, pag. 96. citeth Tertullian, Praescrip. c. 3. Estne hoc mirum, ut probatus aliquis retro postea excidat? Saul bonus prae caeteris livore postea evertitur. Solomon omni gratiâ & sapientiâ donatus à domino ad idololatriam à mulieribus inducitur, etc.  
Bert. pag. 98. allegeth Cyprian. Epist. 7. Adhuc in saeculo sumus etc. As yet we are in the world etc. Parum est adipisci aliquid potuisse; plus est quod adeptus es posse seruare: sicut & fides ipsa, & nativitas salutaris, non accepta, sed custodita vi●ificat. Nec statim consecutio, sed consummatio hominem Deo seruat, etc. Solomon denique & Saul & caeteri multi quamdiu in vijs domini ambulaverunt datam sibi gratiam tenere potuerunt; recedente ab iis disciplinâ Dominicâ recessit & gratia &c.  
Bert. pag. 99 100 produceth Nazianzen: Deus his quidem lumen est, illis autem ignis, etc. God is a light to some, but to others a fire, etc. Quid vero deprehendimus in Saul? Vnctus erat, & spiritum recepera●, ●ratque tune spiritalis etc. Postea verò non totum se praebuit spiritui, neque purè, sed in alium conversus est virum, etc. What find we in Saul? He was anointed, and made partaker of the holy Spirit: yet for all that afterward he suffered not himself to be wholly and entirely directed by the Spirit, nor became perfectly and sincerely another man.  
Ber. pag. 101. citeth Augustine lib. 11. de Civitat. Dei, ● 12. The Saints though they are certain of the reward of their perseverance, yet are found to be uncertain of their perseverance.  
Bert. pag. 102. August. de Correp. & Grat. cap. 5. Si iam regeneratus & iustificatus in malam vitam suâ voluntate relabitur, certè non potest dicere, Non accepi: quia acceptam gratiam Dei suo in malum libero amisit arbitrio. If a regenerate and justified man doth willingly relapse into an evil life, he cannot say, I have not received; because he hath lost the grace of God, which he received by his own will free to evil.  
Bert. pag. 102. Prosper. Respons. 7. ad capit. Gallorum. It is proved by many lamentable examples, That some of the regenerate in Christ jesus forsaking faith and good manners, did fall away from God, and ended their wicked life in this their Aversion from him.   

APPEALER.  
ANswer to Gag. p. 166. citeth Tertullian, Prescript. c. 3. Et hoc mirum opinor? etc. As if it were a thing so strange, that any man approved by God should afterward relapse from grace. Saul a man better than the rest was overtaken, & undone at length through envy. David was a good man, & according unto the Lord's heart, yet afterward guilty of murder and adultery. Solomon endued with all grace and wisdom from the Lord, was by women brought over unto idolatry. For why? It was reserved unto the Son of God alone to be without sin.  
Answer to Gag, pag. 167. saith, Cyprian is through for this point, Epist. 7. Parum est adipisci potuisse aliquid, etc. It is a small matter to obtain any thing, it is a greater to keep that which thou hast obtained, even as faith itself, and that healthful birth not received, but retained, doth quicken. Neither doth attaining, but consummation keep a man for God etc. Solomon, and Saul, and many other, so long as they walked in the ways of the Lord, could retain the grace given them, but when the discipline or fear of the Lord departed from them, grace also departed.  
Answer to Gag. pag. 168. saith thus; And in Nazianzen too, Apolog. ad Patrem, p. 37. who writeth thus of Saul, etc. Anointed he was, & made partaker of the holy Spirit, and then at that time was spiritual, etc. yet for all that, because he suffered not himself to be wholly and entirely directed by the Spirit, nor became perfectly, and sincerely another man; what need I relate the Tragical end which he underwent?  
Appeal, pag. 27. Augustine of the City of God, book the eleventh, chap. 12. Licet sancti de suae perseverantiae praemio certi font, de ipsâ tamen perseverantiâ suâ reperiuntur incerti, etc.  
Appeal pag. 27. For the Tenet of Antiquity I cannot be challenged. Saint Augustine, and after him Saint Prosper, affirm more than M. Montague hitherto hath done. Saint August. lib. 1. de Bon. Persever. cap. 6. Si autem regeneratus & iustificatus in malam vitam suâ voluntate relabitur, non potest dicere non accepi; quia acceptam Gratiam Dei suo in malum libero amisit arbitrio.  
Appeal p. 27. Prosper Resp. 7. add ca Gallorum. Ex Regeneratis in Christo jesu, quosdam Relictâ Fide, & pijs moribus, APOSTATARE A DEO, & impiam vitam in suâ AVERSIONE ●inire, multis (quod dolendum est) probatur exemplis.   


ᵏ To the place alleged out of Tertullian, we answer: First, The Appealer falsely translates the words of Tertullian, whose words are not (probatus (à Deo) a man approved (by God:) but simply (probatus) that is, a man approved, or well thought of; as probatus Author, an approved Author, or generally well esteemed. And that by (probatus) he meant not approved by God, his words following in the same Chapter seem to me to make evident, his words are about seven lines after, Tu ut homo extrinsecus unumquemque nosti; putas quod vides, vides autem quousque oculos habes, sed oculi sunt Domini alti; Homo in faciem, Deus in praecordia contemplatur; ideo cognoscit Dominus qui sint eius. Thou as man knowest every man by the outside, thou thinkest that to be which thou seest; thou seest as far as thou hast eyes, but the Lords eyes are high: man looketh on the face, God beholdeth the heart; therefore the Lord knoweth who are his. Secondly, the instances of Tertullian are of a different kind. Saul and Solomon were not alike: Solomon a glorious type of Christ; Saul rather of Antichrist. Solomon is called by the holy Ghost jedidiah, beloved of God. Saul never was so called: Saul therefore might fall totally, and finally; but for Solomon we resolve with the Reverend and excellently learned Bishop of Sarisbury in the words of Tertullian himself; 
●obert Abbot in Diatribam Tho●sand. Tertullian. de fugd.  Solomon in lapsu gratiam fidei remisit, actum intermisit, habitum non amisit; motumque fuit in co spiritualis vitae robur, non amotum; concussum, non excussum: There was in Salomon's fall a remission or abatement of the grace of faith, an intermission of the act, not an amission of the habit; the strength and vigour of his spiritual life was moved in him, not removed: shaken, but not shaken out, or quite lost, Tertullian speaks of Peter, but it may be applied as well to David and Solomon, who are not said here to have lost grace totally, and finally, but to have fallen into grievous sins, the one into adultery, the other into idolatry. And, notwithstanding David's fall, that he retained the Spirit of Grace in him, it is manifest out of that prayer of his in the 51. Psalm, Renova spiritum rectum intra me, Renew a right Spirit within me, vers. 10. Spiritum sanctum ne recipias àme; Take not thy holy Spirit from me, vers. 11. Establish me with thy free Spirit, vers. 12. These prayers of that holy Prophet show, that David in his grievous fall lost the comfort of God's Spirit, vers. 12. and the free and quickening motions thereof: and therefore he humbly desires a renovation, and confirmation of the Spirit, but not a new donation thereof. That, which he prays to God not to take from him, certainly he had in some degree, when he so prayed, Take not thy Spirit from me. As for Salomon's recovery after his fall, we have the testimonies of Gregory of Neocaesarea, Cyril of jerusalem, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Hugo Cardinalis, Petrus Comestor, Paulus Burgensis, Carthusian, Soto, Genebrard, Serarius, Delrius, Lorinus, and many other cited to our hands by Caleb Dalichampius student in Scedan, in his book entitled Vinditiae Salomonis. Lastly, this place of Tertullian, de prescript. cap. 3. If it had been entirely cited by the Appealer, would have utterly overthrown that, for which it is cited. If those words (nemo autem Christianus, alleged by the Appealer) nisi qui ad finem perseveraverit; That no man is a Christian, but he that perseveres to the end) wound not the Appealers' Tenet; yet the words following in the end of this very Chapter cut the very throat thereof: Miramur de Ecclesijs eius si à quibusdam deseruntur, quum ea nos ostendunt Christianos, quae patimur ad exemplumipsius Christi: ex nobis, inquit, prodierunt, sed non fuerunt ex nobis; si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum. Marvel we if some forsake the Churches of Christ, whereas those those things which we suffer after the example of Christ do manifest us to be Christians: They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us, saith Saint john, 1 Epist. 2. 19 In this allegation, as many other in his book, the Appealer resembles the Cappuchin Friars; who, when they have gathered great store of meat at rich men's doors, I know not out of what blind superstition, they eat the worst, and leave the best, and daintiest meat, and vaingloriously put it into the Almes-box, and give it to beggars at the door.   

ˡ To the place of Saint Cyprian Epist. 7. we answer: First, that Saint Cyprian in that Epistle exhorts Rogatianus, and other Confessors, to persevere in the profession of their holy faith, & therefore this place is brought obtorto collo, for Apostasy. His words are, immediately before the words alleged by the Appealer and Bertius, Danda opera est, ut post haec initia, ad incrementa quoque veniatur, & consummetur in vobis, quod iam foelicibus rudimentis esse coepistis; You must use diligence, that after these beginnings you may proceed, and that may be perfected in you which is happily begun. Secondly, we answer: Cyprian saith, that Saul and Solomon lost the grace which was given them, but expresseth not what grace he meant; whether gratiam gratis datam, or gratiam gratum facientem; whether the grace of illumination only, or of sanctification; whether the spirit of Prophecy, or of Government, or of Regeneration. Thirdly, whether he meaneth grace of wisdom, or grace of holiness, ordinary, or extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; he saith not that the Spirit or grace departed from them totally or finally: and therefore this shaft is not only blunt in itself, but also falls very short of the mark. Lastly, Saint Cyprian, as he persevered himself a constant Martyr to the end, so is he a great patron of the perseverance of Saints. In his book against Nouatia● of the Unity of the Church, he sets a mark upon backsliders, to distinguish them from good men and true believers: Nemo aestimet bonos de Ecclesiâ posse decedere, Let no man imagine that good men can (mark the word Posse) depart from the true Church: Triticum non rapit ventus, nec arborem solidâ radice fundatam procella subvertit; inanes paleae tempestate iactantur, invalidae arbores turbinis incursione evertuntur: The wind doth not blow away corn, neither doth a storm overturn a tree deeply and strongly rooted; it is empty chaff that the wind scattereth, and they are weak and rotten trees that are overthrown in a storm. In this sweet strain Saint Cyprian playeth on his Master tertullian's Key; 
Tertullian. de prescript. c. 3.  Auolent quantum volent paleae levis fidei quocunque afflatu tentationum, eo purior mass a frumenti in horrea domini reponetur. Let the Chaff, that is, men of light belief, be blown or fly away with every puff of temptation, by this means God's floor is purged and cleansed. I marvel none of this Chaff flew in Bertius eyes, to make him miss his way to Paris; who destitute of better arguments for Apostasy, became himself an example of Apostafie; but the best is, before his departure he was known to be no Saint. He went away from us, because he was not of us, for if he had been of us, he would without doubt have remained with us, according to the words of Saint john, 1 Epist. 2. alleged by Tertullian and Saint Cyprian in both passages.   

ᵐ To the place alleged out of Nazianzen, we answer: 
Virgil. Aenead. 4.  That it is like Dido's sword wherewith she pierced her own bowels; Non hos quaesitum munus in usus. If Bertius, who only tasted Nazianzens waters in a muddy stream; or the Appealer, who hath drunk deeply of them in the pure fountain, had searched diligently thorough all the writings of that profound Divine for a testimony against themselves, they could hardly meet with a more pregnant. Because Saul, saith this holy Father, became not purely and sincerely another man, nor gave himself wholly and entirely to be directed by the Spirit, he came to a fearful end. Hypocrites therefore, and such as are not sincerely converted, and truly regenerate, may fall away: not they, who wholly and entirely yield themselves to the guidance of God's Spirit; not they who by an unfeigned conversion become perfectly and sincerely other men. To the former, as saith this Father, God is a light, to the latter he is a fire: the former he enlighteneth only; the latter he heateth also, melteth their heart, purgeth them from all their dross. Or, if that eloquent Father take light in the good sense, and fire in the worse, than his meaning is, that as the word of God is a savour of life unto life in them that are saved, and a savour of death unto death in them that perish; so God himself is a Comfortable light to the true children of light, but a consuming fire to Hypocrites, and Apostatates, and all such as have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, much more those who utterly forsake God, and consult with the Devil, as Saul did; and others of that his desperate resolution: Flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo. I will make a league with Death, and covenant with Hell.   

ⁿ To the passages alleged out of Saint Augustine we answer most willingly, we desire to hear none rather than Saint Augustine speak in this Cause: Never had the Church of God since the Apostle Saint Paul, a more valiant and resolute Champion of Grace, than Saint Augustine. As Tully spoke of the ancient Rhetoritians, 
Cicero de 〈◊〉.  Potius ex arte quam de arte scripserunt, They rather wrote out of art, than of the art: So may it be truly said of Saint Augustine's works against the Pelagians, non tam de gratiâ, quam ex gratiâ scripsisse videtur, That he wrote rather and spoke from grace, than of grace, so full of grace are his lips, and pen in this argument of Grace. I could easily point to many places in the Works of this holy Father, especially those extant in his seventh Tome, 
〈…〉  Vbi non seclusa aliqua aquula, sed universum flumen erumpit, Where there runs not a small rivelet, but a main stream of this water of the grace of perseverance springing to everlasting life. Verily Saint Augustine so professedly and strongly opposeth both the Pelagian, Demipelagian, and now Arminian errors, that as Pelagius himself in a Synod at jerusalem being pressed with Saint Augustine's Reasons and Authorities, 
Or●sius in Apolog. 〈◊〉 Pelagius contemptor de Augustino esset loqu●ru●s. Cor●inus 〈◊〉 Tilen●●. Bertius praefat. ad Lactor●m.  which he was not able to answer, sought to vilify and slighten his Person. So Arnoldus Coru. & Bertius rather go about to discredit, than satisfy the Authority of this Prime Father Non est standum hâc in parte Authoritati Augustini, We are not to stand to the Authority of Austin in this point, saith Arnoldus. Quid quod Augustinus ipse aliis per African Ecclesijs viuus vidensque sententiam suam non probavit? Quid quod ipse à se dissentit Augustinus, ut Augustinum citanti nihil sit promptius quam Augustinum ipsum opponere? Austin, saith Bertius, by his life time made not good his opinion to the Churches of Africa: He dissents from himself, in so much that nothing is more easy than to oppose Augustine to Augustine. This lesson they both learned from Arminius their Master, as Coruinus, mali corui malum owm, 
Defence. Se●tent. Armi●●ij de Pr●dest.  acknowledgeth, pag. 205. Puto Arminium non illibenter tibi concessurum fuisse, hâc in parte Augustinum vobiscum facere; ita tamen ut varium eum esse dixisset, & inconstantem in sententiâ suâ enuntiandâ. 
Cicer. in 〈◊〉.  But Plato, Instar millium; Saint Augustine is more worth than a thousand, nay all the Arminians: whose Works, as they have already devoured all the works of the Pelagians and Semi-pelagians, so I hope will in time devour also all the Arminians works, as Aaron's Rod did the Magicians. Durum telum necessitas, ignoscite; Mere necessity drove Arminius and his Scholars to this desperate answer. 
Authologia Epigram.  The Fox in the Greek Epigrammatist, when he could not reach the grapes, at which his mouth watered, comforted himself, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is no great matter though I cannot reach them, these grapes are but sour fruit. As sour as they are, Bertius and the Appealer snatch at one, or two; namely, the two passages before alleged by them. 
August. de 〈◊〉. Dei lib. 11. cap. 12. D● Corrept. & Grat. c. 5.  To the first we answer, It toucheth not the state of the present question; The state of Saints in Grace may be sure enough, yet they not always assured of it. There is a certitude of the subject, and a certitude of the object, that which now is in debate, is not the certitude of the subject, whether the Regenerate are assured in themselves of their Perseverance; but the certitude of the object, whether their perseverance in itself be certain. This distinction is acknowledged generally by those Interpreters who comment on that of Saint Peter, 
〈…〉 1. 10.  Make your election sure: that is, say they, to yourselves, and your own hearts, not in itself, nor in respect of God, For the foundation of God standeth sure, 
2 Tim. 2. 19  having this Seal, The Lord knoweth who are his: neither can any thing done by man add strength to God's decree. But because our assurance of Election, and the state of Adoption, and Grace, and perseverance in the same, is partly from the testimony of the Spirit within us, and partly from the effects of Grace, to wit, the fruits of righteousness; and because when we grieve the Spirit of God, he withdraweth his Spirit for a time, and thereby both the testimony of the Spirit is silent for the time, & the effects of Grace cease; Saint Augustine humbly and truly professeth, that the Saints, albeit they are certain of the reward of their perseverance, yet are found uncertain of their perseverance itself; Quis cum hominum se in actione, profectuque iustitiae usque in finem perseveraturum sciet? They are certain, certitudine fidei, by the assurance of faith, but not certain, certitudine scientiae, & experientiae, by the certainty of knowledge and experience, as Bucer acutely distinguisheth: 
Bucer. lib. Concord.  they are certain of perseverance in itself; yet they are found, that is, you may find them in that state by reason of some fearful temptation, not certain in themselves; nay sometimes they in themselves receive the sentence of death, to humble them, and make them pray with sighs and groans which cannot be expressed, Restore unto me the joy of salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit, Psal. 51. 12. Lastly, there is a double perseverance: 

1. A perseverance in a course of sanctity unto the end, without any interruption or stop, when a child of God goeth still forward, and never is cast back, but continueth, as Saint Augustine speaketh, In actione profectuque iustitiae; Still in the action and progress of righteousness: and of such perseverance the Saints are not certain in this life.  
2. A perseverance unto the end, yet not without some interruption and going back also for a time, but without any total or final back-sliding; and of such perseverance a Saint of God may and aught to be assured.     

ᵒ To the place alleged by Bertius out of the fifth Chapter of Saint Augustine de Corrept. & Gratia, and by the Appealer out of Saint Augustine de bono Perseverant. cap. 6. we answer: That the words are not found in the places quoted. Yet Saint Augustine in other places hath such words: But his meaning is very plain; He speaks of a temporary faith and common grace, 
Aug. de Corrept. & Grat. cap. ●.  not a justifying faith, and saving grace. His own words are, Let it not move us that God giveth not some of his children perseverance; Absit enim ut ita esset, si de illig praedestinatis essent, & secundùm propositum vocatis, qui verè sunt filij promissionis; God forbid that it should be so, if they were of the Predestinate, and those which are called according to purpose, which truly are the children of promise. And a little after, Rursus quidam, qui filij Dei propter susceptam vel temporaliter gratiam dicuntur à nobis, nec sunt tamen Deo; de quibus ait johannes, ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; hoc est, & quando videbantur in nobis, non erant ex nobis, & tanquam ●i diceretur unde id ostendis, quòd si fuissent inquit ex nobis, permansissent nobiscum. Again some, who are called by us the sons of God, in respect of the temporal grace they have received, are not so unto God: of whom Saint john saith, They went out from us, but were not of us; that is, and when they were seen amongst us, they were not of us. And as if it were objected to him, Whence dost thou show that? For if they had been, saith he, of us, they would have remained with us. In the same book, De Corrept. & Gratiâ, Horum fides, quae per dilectionem operatur, profecto aut omnino non deficit, aut si qui sunt quorum deficit, reparatur antequam vita ista finiatur; & delet â quae intercurrerat iniquitate usque in finem perseuer antia deputatur. Qui verò perseveraturi non sunt, ac sic à fide Christianâ & conversatione lapsuri sunt, ut tales eos vitae huius finis inveniat proculdubio nec illo tempore quo benè pieque viwnt in isto numero computandi sunt. The faith of these men which worketh by love verily either faileth not at all, or if it fail in any, it is repaired again before this life ends; and the wickedness which comes between being blotted out, it is reputed for perseverance to the end. But those who persevere not, but so fall from Christian faith and conversation, that the end of this life finds them such, without doubt they were not to be accounted in that number, no not then, when they lived well and godly. And Chapter 9 Qui non habuerunt perseverantiam, sicut non verè discipuli Christi, ita nec verè filij Dei fuerunt, etiam quando esse videbantur, & ita vocabantur: Those who had not perseverance, as they were not truly disciples of Christ, so neither were they truly the sons of God, no not when they seemed to be so, and called so. In producing testimonies of Saint Augustine, Inopem me copia facit, Store is a sore unto me; I will content myself only with such passages as offer themselves unto me in that very book and chapter cited by the Appealer for the contrary. 
August. de bono Perseverant. cap. ●.  Thus the Chapter begins, These brethren, as you write, (He speaketh of the Demipelagians, and Massilians, against whom Prosper and Hilary had made a remonstrance unto him) will not yield that such perseverance should be taught, which cannot be lost by contumacy; where they do not well observe what they say; for we speak of perseverance to the end; which if it be given, the party to whom it is given perseveres to the end. Multi eam possunt habere, nullus amittere: hoc Dei donum suppliciter emereri potest, sed cum datum fuerit amitti contumaciter non potest. Quomodo enim potest amitti, per quod fit, ut non amittatur etiam quod posset amitti? Many may have perseverance, none can lose it; this gift of God may be gained by humble prayer, but once given cannot be lost by contumacy. For how can that be lost, which makes, that what otherwise might be lost cannot be lost? I pity here the Appealers ill hap, who like the Miser in the Greek Epigram, that going to the place where he thought he laid up his treasure safe, found there no treasure, but a rope wherewith he stopped his windpipe.   

ᵖ To the place alleged out of Prosper, Respons. 7. ad Capit. Gallorum, we answer: First, that Saint Prosper, Saint Augustine's faithful Scholar and great admirer, in the passage alleged concurreth with him. Both of them in words seem to affirm, 
August. de Corrept. & Grat. c. ●.  That a regenerate and justified man may fall by his freewill into foul and enormous sins, and die in them: but lest any should stumble at this sentence unawares, Saint Augustine in the ninth chapter of the same book gives them warning, and most plainly declares his meaning: Appellamus eos electos Christi discipulos & Dei filios, quia sic appellandi sunt, quos regeneratos piè vivere cernimus; sed tunc verè sunt quod appellantur, si manserint in eo propter quod sic appellantur. Si autem perseverantiam non habent, id est, in eo quod caeperunt esse non manent, non verè appellantur, quod appellantur, & non sunt: apud eum enim hoc non sunt, cui notum est quod futuri sunt. We call all those chosen disciples of Christ, and sons of God, because those whom we see live godly, and are regenerate, are to be so called; but then are they truly that which they are called, if they remain in that, for which they are so called. But if they have not perseverance, that is, if they remain not in that which they began to be, they are not truly called that which they are called, and are not; for they are not so to him, who knoweth what they will be. Secondly, Saint Prosper, with Saint Hilary, made a joint relation to Saint Augustine of the Demipelagian and Massilian errors, and desired Saint Augustine's assistance against them. Of these one was, (as their Epistles to Saint Augustine make it manifest.) Nulli dari perseverantiam talem à quâ non permittitur praevaricari, sed à quâ possit suâ voluntate deficere, There is no such perseverance given to any man, from which he is not suffered to revolt; but such from which a man may by his freewill fall away. Against which I oppose that sentence of Saint Augustine, as a fortress impregnable: 
Aug. de Corrept. & Grat. cap. ●.  An audebis dicere, etiam rogante Christo ne deficeret fides Petri, defecturam fuisse, si Petrus eam deficere voluisset? quasi aliud Petrus ullo modo vellet, quam pro illo Christus rogasset, ut vellet. Nam quis ignorat tunc fuisse perituram fidem Petri, si ea quae fidelis erat voluntas ipsa deficeret, sed quia praeparatur voluntas à Domino, ideo pro illo Christi non possit esse inanis oratio. Quando rogavit ergone fides eius deficeret, quid aliud rogavit nisi ut haberet in fide liberrimam, fortissimam, invictissimam, perseverantissimam voluntatem? Ecce quemadmodum secundum gratiam Dei, non contra eam libertas defenditur voluntatis: voluntas quippe humana non libertate consequitur gratiam, sed gratia potius libertatem, & ut perseveret delectabilem perpetuitatem, & insuperabilem fortitudinem. When Christ prayed for the faith of Peter that it might not fail, what other thing did he ask, but that he might have a most free, a most resolute, a most unconquerable, a most persevering will in the faith? Behold how the freedom of the will is defended by us according to Gods grace not against it: for the will of man doth not by her freedom obtain grace, but by grace freedom, and a delightful perpetuity, and invincible power to persevere.     


ARMINIANS.  
HAge Conference, Article 5. If those that are regenerate cannot fall away totally, nor finally; hence it would follow that no children of the faithful could be damned, because by Baptism they are put into the state of Grace, and regenerated.  
Bertius pag. 79. The seventh absurdity which follows upon the Adversary's doctrine, is, that Baptism doth not certainly seal in all the children of the faithful the grace of God.  
Bertius pag. 35. The fifth demonstration is drawn from the causes of Apostasy: whereof the first is the committing of sin against conscience, 1 Tim. 1. 19 etc.  
Hage Conference, Article 5. Those that are truly faithful may commit murder, adultery, and the like heinous sins, therefore lose faith and God's favour; for which things the wrath of God falleth upon the children of disobedience, Coloss. 3. 6.   

APPEALER.  
APPEAL, pag. 36. Let this be acknowledged to be the Doctrine of our Church, that children duly baptised, are put into the state of Grace and salvation: (which you see you cannot, you must not deny) and both our and my experience will show, that many so baptised children, when they come to age, by a wicked and lewd life do fall away from God, and from that state of Grace and Salvation, wherein he had set them to a worse state: wherein they shall never be saved. If you grant not this, you must hold, that all men that are baptised are saved; which I know you will never do.  
Answer to Gag, pag. 161. 162. Again, Faith must needs be lost where it cannot consist. It cannot consist where God will not abide. God will not abide where he is disobeyed: he is disobeyed, where mortal sin is committed; the most righteous man living upon the face of the earth, continually doth or may in this sort transgress: who can tell how oft he offendeth? Cleanse thy servant from presumptuous sins. Thou wilt have no fellowship at all with the deceitful; Nor shall any evil dwell with thee.   


q To the reason drawn from the Baptism of Children, 
〈◊〉 l. 10. de Grat ca ●. Hag. Conf●r. 〈◊〉. part. 2. pag. 10. A●● 〈…〉 Theologo Aug●o. Ar●ic. 5. Prideaux. Lect. 6. p. 123.  we answer: First, that it is of all other most weak & childish; for it doth not at all touch the state of the question, as is observed by Suarez, the Germane Divines at the Hage Conference, the English Divines present at the Synod of Dort, his Majesty's public Professor of Divinity in Oxford. The question is of those, who are justified by the Act of faith, conceived by the preaching of the Gospel, who fall into actual sins wounding their conscience, whether such thereby lose the habit of Grace, and totally and finally fall away from the state of justification? Now infants have not the actual use of reason, neither doth their faith, if so they have infused faith, actually apprehend and apply the promises of the Gospel: neither can they be supposed to commit those crying actual sins, which the Appealer calls mortal, (I hope not in the Popish sense) which cannot stand with the Grace of justification, as is pretended by the Arminians, and Appealer. Secondly, we answer: That although in a good sense a child may be said to be put into the state of Grace and Salvation, because thereby the infant is admitted into the Church, and participateth of the means of salvation; yet, if we speak properly and precisely, the Sacraments seal, and not confer grace; or, as the Church of England speaketh by her learned Apologist, 
jud Artic. ● divis. 13. 〈◊〉 27.  do not begin, but rather continue and confirm our incorporation, by Christ. The Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant, the conditions are supposed to be drawn and assented unto before the seal be put to the instrument. The Seal without the Covenant is not available; the Covenant may be without the Seal: we are tied to God's Ordinances, God is not. The contempt of Baptism is damnable, the defect in the children of the Elect and seed of the faithful, comprised in the Covenant with their fathers, is not so: if all possible means have been used by the Parents and Minister to procure them Baptism before God call them away, there is no danger to the Parents, much less to the Children. For the inevitable defect of Baptism may be supplied either by a desire of Baptism, as in Valentinian; or by profession of faith, as in the Thief upon the Cross; or by the blood of Martyrdom, as in the Innocents put to death by Herod. Thirdly, we answer, All that are regenerate Sacramentally are not necessarily and infallibly regenerated spiritually: A man may be baptised with water, and yet not with the holy Ghost. Ishmael was circumcised as well as Isaak, Esau as well as jacob, Simon Magus was baptised as well as Simon Peter. Our Church in Charity, 
Book of Common Prayer, Bur●all of the 〈◊〉.  as it supposeth all children baptised to be regenerate by the holy Ghost, so also in the form of burial it supposeth, all that live in the bosom of our Church to die in the Lord, and to depart in the true faith of God's holy name. Yet undoubtedly our Church attributeth no more virtue to the Sacraments than the Ancient Church did. Theoderets observation is well known, Gratia Sacramentum aliquando praecedit, aliquando sequitur, aliquando nec sequitur: Grace sometimes goes before the sacrament, sometimes follows it, sometimes it follows it not at all. Saint Augustine's resolution is peremptory Omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, sed non in omnibus beneplacitum est Deo: & cum essent omnia communia Sacramenta, non communis erat omnibus gratia, qu● Sacramentorum virtus est. Sicut & nunc iam revelatâ fide quae tunc velabatur, omnibus in nomine Patris, & Filij, & Spiritus sancti baptiz atis commune est lavacrum regenerationis, sed ipsa gratia, cuius sunt Sacramenta, quâ membra corporis Christi cum suo capite regenerata sunt, non communis est omnibus. The laver of regeneration is common to all that are baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, but the Grace, whereof these are Sacraments, whereby the members of the body of Christ are regenerate with their Head, is not common to all. And again Saint Augustine, 
August. lib. 5. contra Do●●tis cap. 24.  Christ is put on sometimes, usque ad Sacramenti perceptionem, as far as to the receiving of the Sacrament, sometimes also unto sanctification of life; Atque illud primum bonis & malis potest esse common, ●oc alterum proprium est bonorum & piorum, The first is common to good and bad, the other is proper to the good and godly. Saint Austin's hands are supported by Chrysostome and Jerome, as Moses were by Aaron and Hur. Saint Chrysostome, 
Chrysost. in Mirtth. ho●●. 5.  Many are baptised with water, which are not baptised with the holy Ghost; they seem to be the sons of God in regard of their Baptism, but indeed they are not the sons of God, because they are not baptised with the holy Ghost. 
jerom 〈◊〉. in epist ad Gal. cap. 3.  Saint Jerome, Si quis hoc corporeum, quod oculis carnis aspicitur, aquae tantum accipit lavacrum, non est indutus dominum jesum. Name & Simon ille Magus acceperat lavacrum aquae, verum quia Spiritum sanctum non habebat, indutus non erat Christum. Et haeretici vel hypocritae, & high qui sordidè victitant, videntur quidem accipere baptismum, sed nescio an Christi habeant indumentum. If any man receive only the visible laver of water, he hath not put on Christ, etc. From these and many other the like testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, I infer, that the foundation of this argument is sandy and sinking; Although the inward grace ordinarily accompany the outward sign, and we ought to believe by the judgement of Charity, that all who are baptised are truly regenerate: 
〈…〉  yet iudicio veritatis, as junius distinguisheth, that is, by the judgement of precise and infallible truth all are not so, as the Fathers speak roundly and plainly. Now as in the judgement of Charity we are to believe, that all that are baptised are regenerate, so by the same judgement we are to believe, that, though they fall into grievous sin, and sometime come to a fearful outward end, God notwithstanding giveth them grace to repent at the last gasp, and consequently they fall not away finally. Inter sacrum & saxum, inter pontem & fontem misericordia. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted against the Adversary thus.  
If Baptism may not be reiterated, than the grace of regeneration cannot be totally lost.  
But Baptism may not be 
* * As the Church 〈…〉 of Scripture against all Ana●aptist●.  reiterated. Therefore the grace of regeneration cannot be totally lost.  
The consequence of the mayor is thus made evident. A man that hath lost the grace of regeneration totally, is as if he never had been regenerated, and therefore must be borne again: if borne again, again baptised: because the sign and the thing signified, or, as they make it, the cause and proper effect cannot be severed; if then the effect, to wit, regeneration be lost, and must be reproduced, the proper cause, as they say, the necessary condition and seal, as we say, must be again put. If regeneration may be had the second time without Baptism, why not at first? which the Adversaries absolutely deny, 
john 3. 5.  pressing far that text, Unless a man be borne again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is a thing unconceivable, that the shadow should be more permanent than the substance; the Baptism of water, than that of the holy Ghost. If then a regenerate man lose totally his regeneration, and be as if he had never been regenerate, he is as if he had never been baptised. This reason may be further confirmed; when this question is propounded, why Baptism is but once to be administered, and the Lords Supper often? It is most usually answered, because a man is borne but once, but is fed often. The edge of this argument cannot be turned by the Adversary, unless he can show more Regenerations in Scripture then Baptisms, or any new Regeneration without a new laver, any new Covenant without an authentical instrument and new seal.   

ʳ To the reason drawn from mortal sin in the regenerate, we answer: First, if mortal sin be taken for such sin as deserveth of itself eternal death, all sin is mortal: if by mortal sin such sin for which a man is bound over by God, and sentenced to eternal death, no sin in the Elect is mortal: for how grievous soever they sin, the seed of God remains in them, which in time will bring forth repentance, and repentance salvation. In the interìm between their sin and the renewed act of their repentance, God suspendeth, but he revoketh not his pardon of their sins: he is angry with them, and they indeed have forfeited their estate in his grace and favour, and title to the Kingdom of Heaven, but God will not take the forfeit; they lose the sense and present fruit, but not the state of justification. Habitual repentance they have always, and shall have the Act, if the sin be such for which habitual repentance, and the continual ask of a general pardon for all sin will not suffice. A tender hearted father though his son provoke him very far, so that he chastise him with many stripes, yet will he hardly be brought to disinherit him; 
Rom. ●. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  yet if a father could, God will not; for if ever sons, than heirs, if ever justified, then glorified. The Apostle will make good the Consequence, if the Spirit in our heart make good the Antecedent. Lastly, this Objection may be retorted thus.  
N● Ordinary and small sins do put the regenerate out of the state of grace;  
All ordinary and small sins are in their own nature mortal;  
Therefore some sins in their own nature mortal, do not put the regenerate out of the state of grace.  
Or thus:  
Peter committed a most grievous and heinous sin;  

* * See hereof Sebast. Benefield Praelect. de Perseverantia sanct●rum, cap. 15. & 16. a pag. 97. ad 143.  Peter was not thereby utterly excluded from the grace of God:  
Therefore a man may commit some most grievous and heinous sin, and not be utterly excluded from the grace of God.  
The like may be said 
* * See hereof Sebast. Benefield Praelect. de Perseverantia sanct●rum, cap. 15. & 16. a pag. 97. ad 143.  of David, of which above. The first proposition is in the Gospel; the second is in the Homily of Repentance. Sir Thomas Moor having tracked Gallus in the Ancient Poets, from whom he secretly had borrowed many verses, and bragged much of the genius and spirit of Ancient Poesy, wittily thus playeth upon him in the Epigram, saying, Thou Gallus hast the very spirit of the Ancient Poets, for thou makest the selfsame verses that they made before.  
Vatibus idem, animusque, & verè spiritus idem,  
Qui fuit antiquis, est modo, Gall, tibi.  
Carminanamque eadem, versusque frequenter eosdem  
Quos fecêre illi, tu quoque, Gall, facis.  
Doubtless if the Appealer never read Arminius or Bertius, as he seemeth deeply to profess; I may say truly of him, as he did of Gallus, that he hath the very spirit and soul of Arminius and Bertius, for he delivereth not only the same tenants, but he useth the selfsame Authorities, Scriptures, Fathers, and Reasons, and for the most part in the same words: All which Arguments, common to them both, have been examined, and proved like the stone that Achilles flung at a dead skull, which rebounded back and struck out the 〈◊〉 eye: 
— redijt lapis ultor ab osse  
Actorisque sui frontem, oculosque petit.   
We 〈◊〉 do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 2. Cor. 13. 8.      

An Advertisement to the Reader.  
THe Errors of the Appealer are of three sorts, Popish, Arminian, and of a third kind, multi-formiter deforms. Of the first sort I have given thee a taste: Of the second thou shalt have a Synopsis in the Tablet ensuing: The third thou shalt find in the Writ of Error. In all kinds I have pretermitted some, Non amore erroris, sed errore amoris: Not for any love I bear to his errors, but through an error of love. Partly because I hope they are rather slips in his pen, than downfalls in his judgement: partly also because they are discovered by others; whose writings had I seen before my papers were engaged in the Press: Aiax hic meus in spongiam incubuisset.   

A SECOND TABLET, Representing the Appealers consent with the Church of Rome, and descent from the Church of England, in diverse remarkable points.  

Of the Church.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
CAssander in his Consultation, Article 7. pag. 50. The present Church of Rome hath ever stood firm in the same foundation of Doctrine & Sacraments instituted by God, etc. Quamvis praeseas Ecclesia Romana non parùm in morum et disciplinae integritate, addo etiam & doctrinae sinceritate, ab antiquâ illâ unde orta & derivata est, dissideat; tamen eodem fundamento doctrinae & Sacramentorum à Deo institutorum firma semper constitit.  
Cassander ibid. The present Church of Rome acknowledgeth and embraceth communion with the ancient & undoubted church of Christ; wherefore she cannot be other, or divers from it. Praesens Ecclesia Romana communionem cum illà antiquâ, & indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit & colit: Quare alia, & diversa ab illâ esse non potest.  
Council of Trent page 442. in fine. In the Bull of Pius the fourth, upon a form of oath enjoined to all Professors. I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of Rome to be the mother, and Mistress of all Churches.  
Cassander, Article 7. page 50. Praesens Ecclesia Romana manet Christi Ecclesia & sponsa. The present Church of Rome remaineth Christ his Church and Spouse [although she have provoked her husband with many errors and vices,] so long as Christ her Husband hath not given her a bill of divorce: although he hath chastised her with many scourges.  
Bellarm. de Ro. Pontif. lib. 4. c. 4. The present Church of Rome cannot err (namely, in matter of faith, etc.)  
Sixtus 4. in Synod. Complut. condemneth certain Articles of Peter of Oxford, whereof one was this; That the Church of Rome could err. Martin the fifth, in his Bull annexed to the Council of Constance, will have them held Heretics, who hold otherwise of the Sacraments, or Articles of faith, than the Church of Rome.   

Appealer.  
ANswer to the Gag, cap. 5. pag. 50. Moderate men on both sides confess, that this Controversy may cease: and although the present Church of Rome hath not a little departed from the ancient Church from which it was derived &c. yet she hath ever stood firm in the same foundation of Doctrine & Sacraments instituted by God.  
Appeal page 113. In essentials and fundamentals they agree. Appeal ibid. Praesens Ecclesia Romana communionem cum illâ antiquâ & indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit, & colit: Quare alia & diversa ab illâ esse non potest. The present Church of Rome acknowledgeth and embraceth communion with the ancient & undoubted church of Christ; Wherefore she cannot be other or divers from it.  
Appeal p. 113. The church of Rome as well since, as before the Council of Trent, is a part of the Catholic, though not the Catholic Church.  
Appius: Answer to Gag page 50. Manet Christi Ecclesia & sponsa. The Church of Rome still remains the spouse & Church of Christ etc.  
Appeal page 139. The Church of Rome is, and ever was a true Church since it was a Church. Appeal page 140. Mistake not my saying, The Church of Rome is a true Church ratione Essentiae, and being of a Church.  
Appeal page 113. I am absolutely persuaded, and shall be still, till I see cause to the contrary, that the Church of Rome is a true Church.  
Answer to Gag, page 14. Plainly delivered in Scriptures are all those points, which belong to faith, and manners, hope, and charity. I know none of these controverted inter parts. By parts, he there apparently means, the church of Rome, and Reformed Churches: Now if the church of Rome differeth not from us in any matter of faith, them hath she not erred in any matter of Faith. For our differences are about her errors.  
App. pag. 112. I profess myself none of those furious ones in point of difference now a days, whose resolution is, that we ought to have no society, or accordance with Papists in things divine, upon pain of eternal damnation. Appeal. p. 83. That they (the Papists) raise the foundation, that we must for ever, upon pain of damnation (strange bugbears and terriculamenta, descent from them.    

Discord.  
Church of England.  
HOmily for Whitsonday. 2 part. p. 213. The church of Rome (as it is at this present) is not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, retaining the sound & pure doctrine of jesus Christ: Neither yet do they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute, and ordain them.  
Apology of the Church of England cap. 16. divis. 2. part 6. The original and first foundation of Religion hath been utterly corrupted by those men, (namely) the Pope's adherents.  
Apology of the Church of England cap. 16. divis. 1. part 6. We have gone from that Church, which we ourselves did evidently see with our eyes, to have gone from the old holy Fathers, and from the Apostles, and from the Primitive and Catholic Church of God.  
Apol. Church of England. part 6. cap. 22. divis. 2. We are departed from him, (namely, the Pope) who, without doubt, is the forerunner & standard-bearer of Antichrist, & hath utterly forsaken the Catholic Faith.  
Homily for Whitsonday 2 part. p. 213 If we compare this (namely the definition of the true Church) with the Church of Rome, not as it was in the beginning, but as it is presently, then shall we perceive, the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true church, as nothing can be more. Et ibid. pag. 214. If it be possible, that the Spirit of truth should be there, where the true church is not, then is it at Rome.  
Homily for Whitsonday, p. 213. We may well conclude according to the Rule of S. Austen, that the Bishops of Rome, & their adherents, are not the true Church.  
Article 19 The Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living, and manner of ceremonies: But also in matters of faith. Apolog. Church of Engl. c. 16. div. 1. part 6. We have gone from that Church, which Christ, (who cannot err) told so long▪ before, it should err. Neither had we ever intended so to do except both the manifest & assured will of God, opened to us in his holy scripture, & regard of our own salvation, had even constrained us. Apol. Chur. of Engl. par. 6 div. 2. c. 20. We are fallen from the Bishop of Rome, because the case stood so, that unless we left him, we could not come to Christ Apol. par. 5. c. 15. d. 3. We have renounced that Church, wherein we could neither have the word of God sincerely taught, nor sacraments rightly administered, and wherein there was nothing able to stay a wise man, or one that hath consideration of his own safety.   

In this head touching the Church of Rome, the Appealer directly contradicts the Church of England in these particulars:  

The Church of England.  
1 The church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation.  
2 Hath erred in matter of Faith.  
3 Hath not the nature of the true Church.  
4 Must be left on pain of damnation.  
5 Is departed from the Primitive and Catholic Church.   

Appealer.  
1 The church of Rome holds the same. foundation.  
2 Hath not erred in matters belonging to faith.  
3 Hath the essence & being of the true Church.  
4 Ought not to be left on pain of damnation.  
5 Is not departed, but holds commuinion with the Primitive and Catholic Church.     

Of General Counsels.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
BEllarm. de council. & Eccles. 2 Book▪ 2 Chap. We are bound by the Catholic faith, to believe, That General Counsels cannot err in faith or manners. The like is affirmed by Gregory de Valentia, Analys. fidei Cathol. lib. 18.  
Hosius de legit. judicibus rerum Ecclesiasticarum.  
Andradius, Defence of the Council of Trent, in his Chapt. Of the authority of Counsels.  
Canus in his common places of Divinity 5 Book: and the Romanists generally.  
Campian rat. 4. Concilia.  
Duraeus in confut. respons. Whitak. de Conciliis.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag. page 48. To conclude, The Church cannot err, neither collectiuè, nor representatiuè Thus your Masters distinguish the terms of this question, that go workmanlike, & not like you clutteringly to work: so they, so we, in the largest extent, not err at all. Secondly, not err in points of faith: for in matters of fact, they confess error. Appeal p. 124. Many things appertain unto God, which are not of necessity unto salvation, both in practice and speculation: in these haply, General Counsels have erred, in those other none can err.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARticle 21. General Counsels, when they be gathered together, [for as much as they are an Assembly of men, whereof, all be not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD] they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things appertaining to God.  
Wherefore, things ordained of them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless they may be declared, that they be taken out of holy Scripture.   

In this point (touching the not-erring, or infalli●itie of General Counsels) the Appealer (howsoever by distinguishing of points fundamental, and accessary) endeavoureth to difference his opinion from the Church of Rome, and reconcile it to the Article; yet in truth he faileth in both. For first, the Church of Rome holdeth all doctrines de fide, determined by the Church, to be necessary to salvation, and consequently, in the Appealers' sense, fundamental points. In particular, she defineth the decisions of the Council of Trent, in the controverted points between us, to be part of the Catholic Faith, without which no man can be saved: Pius 4 in Bullâ super formâ juram. pag. 441. If therefore the Appealer, maintain, as he doth, That General Counsels cannot err in matters fundamental, and necessary to salvation, he holdeth consequently, that they cannot err in matter de fide. Secondly, his doctrine cannot stand with the Article of our Church; for the Article both supposeth, and proveth, that General Counsels may err, even in points necessary to salvation: It supposeth it, in those words [things ordained of them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength, nor authority, unless, etc.] For if General Counsels could not err in things necessary to salvation, we might in such things safely rely upon their authority without warrant of Scripture; which the Article expressly denyeth. If General Counsels may judge those things to be necessary to salvation, which are not, (as the Article implieth,) they may in like manner judge, those things not to be necessary to salvation, which are; and so err both ways in the judgement of points necessary, and fundamental. And verily the reason, annexed to the Article, concludeth as strongly, that General Counsels may err in fundamentals, as in Accessary: the reason is, because [General Counsels are an Assembly of men, whereof all are not governed by the Spirit, and Word of God: Now they who are not governed by the Spirit and Word of God, have, and may err even in points fundamental; in as much as nothing can preserve a man from fundamental error, but the Spirit, and Word of God, whereby they are not governed, as hath the Article. Notwithstanding all this jarring and discord from the Article, I find some harmony and concord in the close, Appeal pag. 147. 
* Ad verbum. of such a Council, and the sounder part, & conclusions in saith, it is probable.  Detali Concilio, & saniore parte, de conclusionibus in fide, probabile est: It is probable, that in a General Council lawfully called, the sounder part cannot err in conclusions of faith. But this strain was not the Appealers, but a learned Asaffs.    

Of justification.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. c. 4. justification is a translation from the state, in which a man is borne the son of the first Adam, into the state of Grace, and adoption of the sons of God by the second Adam.  
Counc. of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. justification is not only remission of sins, But also sanctification, and renovation of the inward man, by the voluntary receiving of grace, and those gifts, whereby a man of unjust is made just.  
Counc. of Trent Sess. 6. canon 11. If any man say, that A man is justified only by remission of sins, excluding grace, and charity, which is shed into their hearts by the holy Spirit, and is inherent in them; let him be accursed.   

Appealer.  
ANswer to the Gag. page 142. A sinner is then justified, when he is made just, that is, translated from state of Nature to state of Grace.  
Answer to Gag. page 143. justification consisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace infused secondarily. Both the acts of God's Spirit in man.  
Answer to Gag. page 140. To justify hath a threefold extent. First, to make just and righteous. Secondly, to make more just and righteous. Thirdly, to declare and pronounce just.  
Page 142. justification properly is in the first acceptance. A sinner is then justified, when he is made just; that is, (pag. 141.) transformed in mind, renewed in soul, regenerate by grace.    

Discord.  
Church of England.  
HOmil. of Salvation. page 13. Because all men be sinners, and breakers of God's law, therefore can no man by his own acts, words, and deeds, seem they never so good, be justified. But of necessity every man is constrained to seek for another righteousness, or justification to be received at Gods own hands: that is to say, forgiveness of sins: And this justification, or righteousness, which we so receive of God's mercy, and Christ's merits, is accepted and allowed of God for our full and perfect justification. The faith in Christ, which is within us, doth not justify us; for that were to account ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue, which is within ourselves.  
Art. 11. Of the justification of man. We are accounted righteous before God, only by the merit of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, by faith, & not our own works.   

Note in this main point of justification, That the Appealer differeth from the Church of England, and consenteth to the Church of Rome, in three remarkable particulars.  

1 In the signification of the word, [To justify,] which the Appealer, and the Church of Rome take for [making a man righteous.] The Church of England, and the Protestants generally, for [accounting, declaring, or pronouncing a man righteous.  
2 The Church of England maketh justification to consist only in forgiveness of sins. The Appealer, and Church of Rome, not only in forgiveness of sins, but partly in it, and partly in sanctifying graces infused.  
3 The Church of England teacheth, That we are not justified by inherent righteousness, or, by any virtue within us. The church of Rome, and the Appealer hold, That we are justified by sanctifying and regenerating graces within us, whereby we are transformed in mind, and renewed in soul. By renewing grace inherent in us, we are sanctified, but not justified: the confounding of Sanctification with justification (as the Appealer and Papists do) is an error of dangerous consequence, as the learned well know.     

Of Merit of Works.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. can. 32. If any man say, That the good works of a man justified do not truly merit increase of grace, and eternal life, let him be accursed.  
Bellar. de iustifis. lib. 5. c. 16. The works of just men proceeding from charity, are meritorious of eternal life, (ex condigno:) this is the common opinion of Divines, and it is most true.  
Vasques in 1a. 2ae. q. 114. disput. 214. The good works of just men, without any covenant or acceptation, are worthy of the reward of eternal life, and have an equal value of worth, to the obtaining of eternal life.  
Vasques disput. 222. The works of a righteous man do merit eternal life, as an equal reward, or wages; they make A man just, and worthy eternal life, that he may of desert obtain the same.   

Appealer.  
APpeal. pag. 233. The wicked go to enduring of torments everlasting: the good go to enjoying of happiness without end: thus is their estate diversified to their deserving.  
Answer to Gag. pag. 153. Merit of congruity is not commonly meant, as scarce vouchsafed the name of merit. Good works are therefore said to be meritorious, are so understood to be ex condigno: which, that a work may so be, these conditions are required: that it be morally good, freely wrought by man in this life in the state of grace, and friendship with God, which hath annexed God's promise of reward: all which conditions, I cannot conceive, that any protestant doth deny to good works.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
HOmily of Salvation. 2. part. page 17. Though I have faith, hope, and charity, repentance, and do never so many good works, yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient to deserve the remission of our sins.  
Artic. 11. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord, & Saviour jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings.  
Homil. of good works. To have affiance in our works, as by merit of them to purchase to ourselves remission of sins, and eternal life, is blasphemy.   

Observe reader, that the Appealer ignorantly, or fraudulently omitteth the proper conditions requisite to a meritorious act, which are especially these: 

1 That the work be properly our: and not his, of whom we pretend to merit.  
2 That it be opus indebitum, a work to which otherwise we are not bound.  
3 That it be some way profitable, and beneficial to him, from whom we expect our reward.  
4 That it have some proportion, and correspondence (of congruity at least, if not of condignity) to the reward expected.    
All which conditions Protestants deny to be found in our good works. And thereupon disclaim all merit. These conditions the Appealer pretermitteth, and from four common conditions, requisite to a good work in general, he concludeth loosely, and weakly, That the Papists and we agree in the doctrine of merit (ex condigno) of condignity. In his Appeal Chap. 11. (by the advice, as it seems, of the Approver of his book) he disclaimeth merit of condignity, which in his former book he seemed to approve. But he saith little or nothing which may not well stand with merit of congruity. Indeed he lasheth Vasques for that, wherein he differeth from other Papists: but he retracteth not any where that his own sentence, namely, The eternal state of men is diversified to their deservings. Wherein he crosseth the 11 Article, and the words of S. Paul, Rom. 6. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.    

Of evangelical Counsels: or, Works of supererogation.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
BEl. de Monach. lib. 2. cap 7. An evangelical Counsel of Perfection is called a good work, not enjoined us by Christ, but showed unto us: not commanded, but commended only.  
Ibid. cap. 8. It is the opinion of all Catholics, that there are many evangelical Counsels, viz. of things, advised, or counselled unto, but not prescribed, nor commanded.   

Appealer.  
ANswer to the Gag. p. 103. What is meant by works of Supererogation, we may collect out of the texts of Scripture cited, viz. That man in the state of grace, and assisted by God's grace, may do somethings counselled, and not commanded. I know no doctrine of our English Church against Euangelical counsels. Appeal page 214. I do believe, there are, and ever were evangelical counsels.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARticle 14. Voluntary works, besides, over, and above God's Commandments, with they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught with our arrogancy, and impiety: for by them, men do declare, that they do not only render unto God, as much as they are bound to do, but, that they do more for his sake, then of bounden duty is required, whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all, that are commanded unto you, say, we are unprofitable servants.   

Though this point touching Euangelical Counsels, may seem to be of no great consequence, yet to the Romanists it is a point fundamental: for upon it they build their treasury of superaboundant satisfactions. And Leech after he had first sucked this thinner and purer blood, afterwards greedily swallowed the most corrupt and rank blood of Popery; but I hope the Appealers manifold preferments, and better hopes, will be better councillors to him, then to merit by a total, or supererogate to a final Apostasy from us, to the Pope of Rome.    

Of Real presence.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
Counc. of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 1. Of the real presence of our Lord in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, This holy Synod openly and simply professeth, That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of Bread & Wine, That our L. jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species or form of those sensible things.  
Gratian. de consecrat. distinct. 2. cap. Ego. Berengarius is enjoined by Pope Nicholas to recant in this form.  
I Berengarius do accurse that heresy, wherewith I have been heretofore defamed, in maintaining [that the bread and wine, after the consecration, are only a Sacrament, and not the true body and blood of Christ. And that the true body and blood of Christ cannot be sensibly handled by the Priests, or broken, or chewed with the teeth of the faithful, but only in the sign, or sacrament thereof.] And I give my consent to the holy Church of Rome, and Aposto like See, and I profess with my tongue and heart, that I hold the same faith, concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Table, which our Lord, and holy Father Nicholas, and this holy Synod, by evangelical and Apostolical authority, hath enjoined to be held, and hath confirmed unto me: to wit, that the bread and wine upon the Altar, after consecration, are not only the sacrament, but also the true body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: and that, not only the Sacrament, but the body and blood of Christ is in truth sensibly handled, and broken by the Priests, and eaten with the teeth of the faithful.  
Bellarmine de Sacramento Eucharist. lib. 1. c. 2. The Council of Trent, Sess. 13. teacheth, That Christ is in the Sacrament truly, and really, against the fiction of the Calvinists; who will have Christ to be there so present, that he may be apprehended by faith; that he is present to the contemplation of faith, though corporally in heaven.  
Bellarm. ibid. The Council addeth (substantially) against the Calvinists, who say, that the body of Christ, according to his substance, is only in heaven, but according to, I know not what, virtue and power, he floweth from thence to us.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag. pag. 253. But that the Devil bred you up in a faction, and sent you abroad to do him service in maintaining a faction: Otherwise acknowledge there is, there need be no difference in the point of real presence.  
Appeal. p. 289. Concerning this point there need be no difference, the disagreement is only de modo praesentiae.  
Answer to Gag. pag. 253. There is, there need be no difference in the point of real presence.  
Ibid. pag. 252. We ingenuously confess, That by this Sacrament Christ giveth us his very body and blood, and really and truly performs in us his promise: as for the manner how, this inexplicable, that unutterable, trans or con, we skill not of. Vide supra Appeal pag. 289. In these passages, the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in these three things: first, that he saith, There is no difference between us about the real presence: whereas indeed there is a main difference; and most of our Martyrs died rather, than they would acknowledge the Popish real presence. See the Acts and Monuments. Secondly, he saith, that the manner is unutterable; whereas the Church of England defineth the manner. Thirdly, in that he saith, we skill not of, or make matter, of transubstantiation, or consubstantiation: whereas the Church of England expressly condemneth transubstantiation, as a gross and dangerous error.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARticle 28. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner: And the mean whereby the body of Christ is eaten and received in the Supper, is Faith. Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ: but is repugnant to the plain word of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.  
jewel. Artic. 5. of the real presence, pag. 238. We seek Christ above in heaven, and imagine not him to be bodily present upon the earth: The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, and no otherwise. And in this last point appeareth a notable difference between us and M. Harding, for we place Christ in the heart, according to the doctrine of Saint Paul: Mr. Harding placeth him in the mouth. We say, Christ is eaten only by faith. Master Harding saith he is eaten with the mouth and teeth.  
Article 28. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner: & the mean, whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, is faith. Transubstantiation is repugnant to Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.   

The Appealer seems to be one of the Bonhommes, who, in a jejune Lent-discourse, durst openly bid defiance to the Article of our Church, saying, I abhor them that teach, Christ to be in the Sacrament only by faith: for he is not there, because we believe, but we believe because he is there present. If this be a good belief and doctrine, (That Christ is otherwise present in the Sacrament, then to the hearts of believers, and that by faith only) let the Appealers poor Woodcock, or Catholic Coxcomb, pag. 251. tell us, what he taketh to be the meaning of S. Austin in those words, qui credit, edit: or, if he cannot do that, yield a reason, why Rats and Mice may not eat the very body of Christ.    

Of Images.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. p. 290 The Images of Christ, the Virgin mother of God, & of other Saints, are to be had, & retained in Temples especially, and due honour and veneration is to be given unto them: Because the honour, which is to be exhibited to them, is referred to the prototype or sampler, so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we put off our hats, and lie down, we adore Christ, and the Saints, whose Images they bear.  
Bellarmine of the Images of Saints, lib. 2. c. 21. Images by themselves properly are to be worshipped.  
Ibid. cap. 22. We must not say, That the supreme worship, called Latria, is due to Images: but on the contrary, we ought to say, that they ought not so to be adored.  
Bellarmin. ibid. cap. 9 lib. 2. Images may be lawfully set up in Churches.   

Appealer.  
ANswer to the Gag, p. 318. The pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and Saints, may be made, had in houses, set up in Churches, respect, and honour may be given to them: The Protestants do it, and use them for helps of Piety in rememoration and more effectual representing of the prototype.  
Page 319. Let practice & doctrine go together, we agree.  
Page 318. You say, they must not have Latria, souse.  
Appeal page 257. In your practice you give them that honour, which you call Latria, and is a part of divine worship; so not we. Let practice and doctrine go together, that is, give them no Latria formal nor interpretative, & we agree.  
Answer to Gag. pag. 318. Images are not unlawful for civil uses, nor utterly in all manner of religious employment.  
Gag. p. 300. Images have three uses assigned by your Schools; Instruction of the rude, commonefaction of history; and stirring up of devotion: You, and we also give unto them.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARt. 22. The Romish doctrine concerning worshipping, and adoration, as well of Images, as of Relics, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, But rather repugnant to the word of God.  
Homily against the peril of Idolatry. part. 3. page 42. It is unlawful that it (the image of Christ) should be made, or that the Image of any Saint should be made, especially to be set up in Temples; to the great and unavoidable danger of Idolatry. We grant that Images used for no religion, or superstition rather, [we mean Images of none worshipped, nor in danger to be worshipped of any] may be suffered: But Images placed publicly in Temples, cannot possibly be without danger of Idolatry.  
Ibid. p. 42. Beware lest thou make to thyself, that is to say, to any use of Religion, any graven Image.  
Ibid. page 43. Images are of more force, to crook an unhappy soul, them to teach, and instruct.  
Ibid. pag. 42. Either Images be no books; or if they be, they be false, and lying books, the teachers of all error.   

In this point of Images the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in four particulars: 

1 The Church of England condemneth in the Article, the popish doctrine concerning the worshipping of Images. The Appealer approveth the doctrine, and condemneth the practice only.  
2 The Church of England teacheth it to be unlawful, to set up Images in Churches, because it cannot be done without unavoidable peril of Idolatry. The Appealer alloweth the setting them up in Churches.  
3 The Church of England forbiddeth all religious use of Images, allowing mere civil, or historical. The Appealer alloweth Images for religious employments.  
4 The Church of England denyeth any worship due to Images. The Appealer granteth any worship, save Latria: he sticks not at Dulia, if it trench not upon Latria.    
In all which points of Doctrine he perfectly acordeth with Bellarmine and the Church of Rome, only he disclaimeth their practice, as also Polidor Virgil, and many other ingenuous Papists do.    

Of the Crosse.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
BEll. Book 2. of the Images of Saints. c. 30. The sign of the Cross works miracles, not out of a natural virtue that it hath, as a figure, But as a sign instituted of GOD. Note, that there are three wonderful effects of the cross. 1. it terrifieth, & putteth devils to flight. 2. It driveth away diseases, and all evils. 3. It sanctifieth those things upon which it is imprinted. The first effect it hath from three causes: from the apprehension of the devil, the devotion of man, and institution of God. For the Devil when he seeth the Cross presently remembreth, that by the Cross of Christ, he was conquered, spoilt, bound, & discomfited. Hence it is, that he flies from the Cross, as a Dog doth from a stone, or staff, with which he hath been struck. Again, the Cross hath a force from the work of him, that worketh with it, or useth it; after the same manner as prayer hath. For the sign of the Cross is a kind of the calling upon the merits of Christ crucified▪ expressed by the sign of the Crosse.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag page 321. Our church alloweth the sign of the cross, useth it, commandeth it; & I could tell you some experimented effects of it.  
App. p. 280. What if I meant some experimented effects of my own knowledge? what then? Can you control, or convince me? What if upon diverse extremities I have found ease, by using that ciaculatory prayer of our Let any, By thy cross? And what if to testify my faith, I made the sign of the cross?  
Answ. to Gag. pag. 320. We use signing with the sign of the Cross, both in the forehead, and elsewhere, witness that solemn form in our Baptism, for which we are so quarrelled by our factious. The flesh is signed, that the soul may be fortified, saith Tertullian, and so do we.  
Appeal p. 268. What hindereth, but that I may sign myself with the sign of the Cross, in any part of my body, at any time, at night when I go to bed, in the morning when I rise, & c?    

Discord.  
Church of England.  
BOok of Common Prayer. Then the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Child's forehead.  
Book of Canon's Chapter of the sign of the Crosse. The Infant baptised is by virtue of Baptism, before it be signed with the sign of the Cross received into the Congregation of Christ's flock, and not by any power assigned to the sign of the Crosse. The Church of England hath retained the sign of the Cross, being purged from all Popish Superstition and error, for the remembrance of the Cross, accounting it a lawful, & outward ceremony, and honourable badge.   

In this point, touching the sign of the Cross, the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in two particulars.  
1 He falsely imposeth upon the Church of England, That in her form of Baptism she useth the sign of the Cross upon the forehead, and elsewhere. That [elsewhere] is not to be found in the form of Baptism, or elsewhere in the constitution, or practice of our Church.  
2 He ascribeth operative Power, and experimented effects, to the Cross: and seems to father some such error upon the Church of England, saying, That we sign the flesh, that the soul may be fortified, so we: whereas the Church of England in the Canon, will have no power, or efficacy, to be ascribed to the sign of the Cross; but only a kind of significancy, and honourable representation of Christ's death upon the Cross. And more than this, I will not believe touching any efficacy of the sign of the Cross, till I find by experience, that the Appealers signing his lips with the sign of the Cross, makes him a fair-spoken, and his signing himself on the breast with the sign of the Cross, makes him a Good man.    

Of Invocation of Saints.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. The holy Synod commandeth all Bishops and others, to whom the office and charge of teaching is committed, that, according to the use of the Catholic and apostolic Church, they diligently instruct their congregations touching the intercession and invocation of Saints; teaching them, that it is good, and profitable, humbly to call upon them, to fly unto their prayers, help, and aid: and that they impiously conceive, who deny that Saints, enjoying eternal happiness with God, are to be called upon, or that the calling upon them is idolatry; or that it is repugnant to the word of God; or that it derogateth from the honour of the only Mediator between God & man, jesus Christ Bellar. of the blessedness of Saints. book 1. chap. 19 Holy Angels, & men departed this life, are piously & profitably called upon by the living.   

Appealer.  
Gag pag. 200 Perhaps there is no such great impiety, in saying, [S. Laurence, pray for me.]  
Ibid. p. 203. Now the case of Angels-keepers, in point of Advocation, & Invocation, is much different from other Angels, not Guardians; as being continually attendant, always at hand, though invisibly: & therefore, though we might say, Saint angel-keeper, pray for me; it followeth not, we may say, St. Gabriel, pray for me.  
Invocation of Saints, page 99 If thus myself resolved do infer; [Holy Angel keeper pray for me] I see no reason to be taxed with point of Popery, or superstition, much less of absurdity, or impiety.  
Answ. to Gag. p. 229. Save all other labour in this point; prove but only this, their knowledge of any thing ordinarily, I promise you, strait, I will say, Holy Saint▪ Marry pray for me.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARtic. 22. The Romish doctrine concerning Invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.  
Homily of Prayer 2 part. pag. 114. Invocation or prayer may not be made without faith in him, on whom they call; whereupon we must only & solely pray to God. For to say, we should believe, either in Angel, or Saint, or any other living creature, were horrible blasphemy against God, & his word. Ibid. Is there any Angel, Patriark or Prophet among the dead, can know the meaning of the heart? etc.  
Bishop Andrew's Answ. to Beauties Apol. pag. 180. Allegeth, The Synod of Laodicea, did forbid praying to Angels.  
Defence of the Church of England against Spalata. c. 60 You ask, why Saints are not to be called upon? Because you have no command of God to call upon them. Now in the worship of God, God commandeth, Deut. 12. 23. What I command thee, that only do thou: Because you have no example in Scripture of calling on them, but that of john, Apoc. 19 10. See thou do it not, worship God: Because it is will-worship after the commandments & doctrines of men, condemned by the Apostle, Col. 2. 22. Of which God said of old, Who required these things at your hands? Esay 1. 12 And of which our Saviour saith, In vain do they worship me, teaing for doctrines the commandments of men, Mat. 15. 9  
White. Answ. to Fisher. page 335. Invocation of Saints is injurious to the only mediatorship of Christ.   

In this point touching the Invocation of Saints: the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in two particulars: 

1 That he maketh a difference between Angels, (especially Guardians) and other Saints, in respect of Invocation: whereas the Church of England putteth no such difference. But indifferently forbiddeth the calling upon Saints departed, or Angels: Guardians, or others. And the reasons they allege are as strong against the one, as the other.  
2 The Appealer denyeth Invocation of Saints, only upon this ground; that the Saints departed, ordinarily, know not our affairs: and consequently, he maketh Popish Invocation idle and foolish, but not impious, blasphemous, injurious to God, and our Saviour. Whereas, the Church of England denyeth Invocation of Saints upon many other grounds; and maketh it idolatrous, injurious to Christ, yea and blasphemous, as appeareth in the places above alleged,      

Of Extreme unction.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COun. of Trent Ses. 14. cap. 1. The holy unction of the sick, is instituted by Christ, as a truly and properly called Sacrament of the new Testament.  
Ibid. cap. 2. The effect of this Sacrament is, the wiping away of all those sins in the sick, which remain to be expiated, & the relieving and strengthening his soul.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag. ch. 37. p. 267. That Sacramental unction is not to be used to the sick. Use it if you will. We hinder you not. Nor much care or inquire what effects ensue upon it. But obtrude it not on us, or unto the Church, as in censu of the Sacraments of the Time of grace, etc.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARt. 25. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, & Extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in Scriptures. But yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism & the L. Supper.   

In this point touching Extreme unction, though the Appealer do not fully join hands with the Papists, and shake hands with the Church of England; yet he maketh the using of Extreme unction, or not using it; the attributing of such effects, as the Church of Rome erroneously (if not impiously) ascribeth to it, or not attributing, a light matter, of no great importance; a thing indeed not to be obtruded upon the Church, as necessary: yet a thing, for aught that he saith to the contrary, that may be not unlawfully used. Whereas the Church of England, or at least, the most approved Writers in the Church of England, make the adding of any new Sacrament, and attributing a divine, & spiritual effect unto it, without commandment, or warrant of God's word, to be a grievous sin, & breach of the second Commandment. And if it may have such an effect, as to wipe away all sins remaining in the sick, our Church should very much wrong the sick not to administer it to them. It concerns us therefore to inquire of any such effects, and finding that it hath none, to condemn it, as not only unwarranted by Scripture, but also derogatory to the efficacy of the the other Sacraments, and Christ's blood.    

Of assurance of Salvation.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COnc. of Trent. Ses. 6. canon 13 If any man say, that to obtain remission of sins, it is necessary, that a man believe certainly, and without any hesitation, or questioning, in regard of his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are remitted him, let him be accursed.  
Counc. of Trent Sess. 6. Canon 14. If any say, that a man is absolved from sin, and justified, because he certainly believeth that he is absolved and justified; and that none is justified, but he that believeth, that he is justified, let him be accursed.  
Ibid. Can. 12. If any say, that justifying faith is nothing else, but a confident relying on God's mercy, forgiving our sins by Christ, or that this confidence is the only faith, whereby we are justified, let him be accursed. Ib. c. 16 If any say, or believe, that he shall certainly have by absolute and infallible certainty the great gift of perseverance to the end, unless he know, and have learned it by special revelation, let him be accursed.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag. pag. 186. If we consider our own disposition, we assign no more, then probable and conjectural assurance. This Bellarmine assigneth; this is enough. Faction may transport a man to wrangle for more, but when once they join issues, the difference will not be much. Much, or little, great, or small, thus, or so, the Church of England is not touched, that assigneth it neither.  
Appeal page 213. I profess, I am not of that opinion with you: and whatsoever you may resolve for your crying Abba, Father, secundum praesentem justitiam, I crave pardon, I cannot think that you are, may, or can be so persuaded, secundum statum futurum.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
HOmily of the passion. p. 186. What means is that? It is faith: not an inconstant or wavering faith, but a sure, steadfast, grounded, and unfeigned faith.  
Pag. 187. The only means and instrument of salvation required of our parts, is faith: that is to say, a sure trust and confidence in the merits of God, whereby we persuade ourselves, that God both hath and will forgive us our sins, and that he hath accepted us again into his favour, & that he hath released us from the bonds of damnation, and received us into the number of his elect people.  
Et post. We must take heed, that we do not halt with GOD, through an inconstant and wavering faith, but that it be strong and steadfast to our life's end: We must apprehend the merits of Christ's death and passion by faith, nothing doubting but that Christ by his own oblation, and once offering himself on the Cross, hath taken away our sins, and restored us again into God's favour.   

The point of Perseverance hath such affinity with this point of assurance of salvation, that what is wanting in this, may be supplied out of the former Parallel. All that I here observe, is, that the Appealer fully acordeth with the Council of Trent, not only in the conclusion, but in the very reason alleged by the Council for the ground thereof.    

Of the Pope's Primacy.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
IN the form of oath prescribed in the Bull of Pius 4 annexed to the Council of Trent. I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome, to be the Mother, and Mistress of all Churches: and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, & Vicar of jesus Christ.  
Bellarmin. de Romano Pontif. lib. 4. c. 1. The Pope is supreme judge in controversies of faith and manners.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag. p. 29. I could interpret S. Anselm well enough; as that if a controversy were referred by the Church, or an heresy to be corrected in the Church, which touched the case of the Catholic Church, it could not be put over more ●itly to any one man, by the Church representative in a Council, then unto the Pope, first Bishop of Christendom, of greatest, not absolute power, among Bishops.    

Discord.  
Church of England.  
HOm. for Whitsunday, second part. pag. 214. 215. First, as touching that they will be termed universal Bishops, & Heads of all Christian Churches through the world, we have the judgement of Gregory expressly against them: who, writing to Mauritius the Emperor, condemned john Bishop of Constantinople in that behalf, calling him the Prince of pride, Lucifer's successor, and the forerunner of Antichrist. S. Bernard agreeing thereunto, saith, What greater pride can there be, than that one man should prefer his own judgement before the whole congregation, as if he only had the Spirit of God? And Chrysostome pronounceth a terrible sentence against them, affiriming plainly, that whosoever seeketh to be chief on earth, shall find confusion in heaven: and he, that striveth for the supremacy, shall not be reputed among the Servants of Christ.  
Homily against wilful rebellion, 5 part, pag. 308. 309. The Bishop of Rome being by the order of God's word none other then the Bishop of that one See and Diocese, and never yet well able to govern the same, did by intolerable ambition challenge not only to be Head of all the Church dispersed through the world, but also to be Lord over all Kingdoms of the world.   

In this point, touching the Pope's Primacy, though the Appealer comes not full home to the tenant of the Church of Rome, yet he goeth too far, & pointeth at a most dangerous course, of referring the judgement of controversies of faith, that concern the whole Church, unto the Pope. Which course, if (with Master Mountagues good approbation) we should take in the great controversy touching the Head of the Church, the Power of the See of Rome, the causes of our Separation from that Church, and all the controverted points between us, conclamatum esset; he, that hath but half an eye, might see, what the issue would be. This resolution of M. Mountagu, if he hold still, it will be expected, that in the next edition of his book he change the title now prefixed [Appello Caesarem] into Appello Papam. The marks of the Beast were come out in the Pope before Anselmes' time, and since they are so apparent in him, that other learned Divines make the Pope whole Antichrist, and the Appealer himself makes him half the Antichrist, pag. 149. and an entire Apostata from Christ and his kingdom: And was there no fitter Bishop in all Christendom to decide controversies concerning the whole Church of Christ, than he who is either half or whole Antichrist? but of this point see more in the Writ of error.    

Of Antichrist.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
BEllarmine de Rom●no pontiff. lib. 3. c. 13. The seat of Antichrist shall be in jerusalem▪ not Rome; for Enoch and Elias are to fight with Antichrist in jerusalem.  
Ibid. c. 12. Antichrist shall properly come for the jews, and shall be received by them as the Messias; he shall be circumcised, and keep the Sabbath for a time.  
Ibid. cap. 18. The frenzies of Heretics are refelled, by which they do not so much prove, as impiously affirm, that the Pope is Antichrist.  
This conclusion is the scope of his whole third book; and he, and all Papists, who have written of this argument, apply themselves wholly to prove, that neither the Pope personally, nor the Popes successively constitute that Antichrist, described in the Apocalyps.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag page 74. 75. I am not of opinion, that the Bishop of Rome personally, is that Antichrist, nor yet that the Bishops of Rome successively, are that Antichrist, so spoken of.  
App. p. 146. Whether the Pope of Rome, or the Popes of Rome, either are, or may be accounted, or is that Antichrist, or Antichrists, my irresolution grew, as I have remembered, from the much insufficiency of their proofs, that tender it stoutly, strongly, affectionately, and tantum non, as a point of faith. Not any one of their arguments is, not all their arguments together are, convincing.  
Appeal p. 149. I incline to the more moderate, and temperate tenant, and rather of the two, embrace, the Turkish & Popish estate, not several, but conjoined, do constitute That Antichrist, then either of the two states disjoinedly: and of the two states, rather the Turk by much, than the Pope. Ibid. p. 144. Why should it not be as lawful for me to opine, that the Pope is not that Antichrist, as for others to write, to preach, to publish, to tender to proceeders this proposition, The Pope is Antichrist? Ib. p. 154. The Turk is, and hath been long possessed of jerusalem, that holy City. The jews, when Mahomet first declared himself, came flocking unto him, as to their Messias, the sooner, & rather, because he was circumcised.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
HOmily against wilful rebellion, 6. part. p. 316. The Bishop of Rome, understanding the superstition of Englishmen, and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonical Beast of Rome, and to fear all his threatenings, and causeless cursings, etc.  
The Pope is employed to be that Antichrist, in the prayer of thanksgiving for our deliverance from the powder Treason. [Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian sect.]  
And in the morning prayer appointed for private houses, [Confound Satan, Antichrist, with all hirelings, etc.]  
See K. james in his praemonitory preface, & his Comment upon the Revelation.  
jewel Def. of Apo●. par. 4. c. 9 divis. 3. B. Abbot and ●. Downam de Antichristo. B. Andrew's resp. ad Car. Bel. Ap. à capite 9 ad 13.   

In this point, touching Antichrist, the Appealer agreeth with the Church of Rome, and di●●enteth from the learnedst Divines in England, and other reformed Churches, both touching the main conclusion [The Pope is Antichrist:] and touching the seat, doctrine, and character of Antichrist; which they apply to the Pope; he with the Papists to the Turk. As for the Protestant arguments taken out of the Apocalyps, to prove [the Pope to be the Antichrist,] Bellarmine calls them deliramenta, dotages, and the Appealer, to show more zeal to the Pope's cause, straineth farther, and terms them apocalyptical frenzies; which, proceeding from the mouth of a Protestant Antigagger and Appealer to King james, Non sani esse hominis, no sanus juret Orestes.    

Of Limbus Patrum.  


Church of Rome.  
BEllar. de Anim. Christi, l. 4. c. 11. The souls of the godly were not in heaven, before Christ's ascension. Id. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. c. 20. If they demand, why prayers of the living were not revealed to the Fathers in Limbo, and are now revealed to the Saints in heaven? I answer, that the Saints in Limbo did not take care of our affairs, as the Saints do in heaven, neither were they then set over the Church, as now they are.   

Appealer.  
Gag pag. 278 Though they were not in heaven in regard of place, yet were they in happiness, in regard of state. Ib. 281. Let them not have been in heaven before our Saviour, I deny it necessary they were therefore in Hell: that region I call Abraham's bosom, which though it be not Heaven, yet is it higher than hell.    

Church of England.  
HOmily concerning Prayer, pag. 122. The scripture doth acknowledge but two places after this life; the one proper to the elect and blessed of God; the other proper to the reprobate and damned souls.  
Ibid. pag. 122. S. Augustine doth acknowledge only two places after this life, to wit, heaven, and hell.   

In this point, though the Appealer descent from the Romanists in a circumstance on the buy, about the situation of Limbus Patrum, (for they place it nearer the confines of hell, the Appealer nearer heaven) yet he agreeth with than in these 2 main conclusions: 

1 That there is, or at least was, a place for souls after this life distinct from heaven and hell.  
2 That the souls of the Fathers, before Christ's ascension, were not in heaven, but in that third place.      

Of Traditions.  

Harmony.  

Church of Rome.  
COuc. of Trent. Ses. 4. decret. 1. The holy Synod of Trent, (finding this truth and holy discipline to be contained, partly in Scriptures, & partly in unwritten traditions, which either were taken from Christ's mouth by the Apostles, or were delivered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the holy Ghost, and have passed as it were from hand to hand to us, and following the example of the Orthodox Fathers) doth with the like religious affection & reverence receive, & entertain all the books of the old and new Testament; as also the traditions themselues pertaining to faith and manners.   

Appealer.  
ANsw. to Gag. pag. 42. That most learned, religious, and most judicious writer (he meaneth St. Basil de Spiritu sancto, which Treatise Erasmus, Bishop Bilson, and other judicious Divines prove to be counterfeit) saith no more than is justifiable touching traditions. For thus saith he:  
The Doctrine of the Church is two ways delivered unto us: First, by writing; then by tradition from hand to hand both are of alike force or value unto piety.    

Discord.  
Church of Engl.  
ARticle 6. Holy scriptures contain all things necessary unto salvation; so that what soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to salvation.  
Art. 20. Although the Church be a witness & a keeper of holy writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so, besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation.  
Art. 21. Things ordained by General Counsels as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they be taken out of holy Scripture.   

In this point touching Traditions, the Appealer consenteth with the Church of Rome, and differeth from us in two particulars: 

1 In that he admitteth of doctrinal Traditions belonging to faith and manners. We acknowledge traditions concerning discipline and the rites and ceremonies of the Church, but not concerning the doctrine, or matter of faith and religion.  
2 In that he equalizeth unwritten traditions to holy Scriptures: such traditions, as we receive, we hold and esteem far inferior.       

A WRIT OF ERROR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER.  
Hortensius', 
A. Gell. ●oct. At.  that spruce Orator, commenced an action against a Citizen of Rome, for rushing hastily upon him, and thereby disordering, and pressing down the pleats of his gown. Many such actions have been heretofore entered, and pursued against such, as have rudely or carelessly crushed a pleat in the Spouse gown, or ruffled a set in her ruff; I mean, with their pen glanced (though unwittingly) at a ceremony of order, or ornament of decency. But now, when not her raiment of needle work, wrought with divers colours, (that is, much variety of rites, and ceremonies, or her attire, is some way wronged, or soiled,) but her body is wounded, and that by her Watchmen; and her veil (which distinguished her from the Whore of Babylon,) taken away: yet few, or none dare plead for her against an Appeal to her most tender, and gracious nursing Father. Nay, (which is more to be admired) they, who out of a love to the Church, (as is pretended,) have had a jealous eye over the Press, and have procured other Pamphlets to be called in, (though put forth by lawful authority,) have yet been most forward to put forth this book, which was stayed upon just cause, and had certainly miscarried, and never seen the Sun, had not present help been got by a strong manmid wife; whether is it, because that some are more solicitous of the Temporal estate of the Church, impeached by Puritanisme, then of the Spiritual, in danger of being utterly overthrown by Popery? Or (because they would have Popery and Puritanisme more even balanced, than they are) that their access to either might be of more moment? or is it, because (as the Appealer hath taught us) that there are certain in this Kingdom [tantum non in Episcopatu Puritani,] there are also some of the Clergy, that are tantum non in uxoratu Papistae: or, as Aristotle said of Theodorus, that the making of Epithets was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodorus his whole art; so the opposition to Puritanisme is all the Religion they seem to profess? 
Sulpit. Sever. hist.  Right of Ithacius his stamp, who mightily bending himself against the heresy of Priscillianists [Heretics of a strict and seeming-holy life,] the hatred of which evil was all the virtue he had, became so wise in the end, that every man careful of virtuous conversation, studious of Scripture, and given to any abstinence in diet, was set down in his Calendar for a suspected Puritan, I should say, Priscillianist: for whom the only way to prove the soundness of faith to this man, was, by a more licentious and loose kind of behaviour. But I am too shallow to enter into the depth of these men's projects: Sure I am, that if a Puritan Gnat be caught by them in the Press, they will strain it even unto death; but for many a Popish Camel, they swallow down readily, never sticking so much as at the bunch in the back: which tax of titheing Mint and Commin, lest I myself might be liable unto, [in noting the smaller and subtler errors in the Appealers' Book, and passing by the greater,] I thought fit to point at now in the second place some fouler and grosser errors in the Appeal; yet but point at; because I am certainly informed that many sharper sickles than mine, are in this harvest. Arminianism comes up but thin, and in many passages scarce discernible; but Popery is everywhere thick and rank. Doubtless in many the particulars, set down in the former Tablet, besides diverse others, ne Athenae quidem ipsae sunt magis Atticae, Rome herself is not more Romish, than the Appealer. What should I mark out with a coal diverse errors in his book of a blacker hue, and deeper taint? whereof I clear his conscience, but cannot his pen. In his, as in the pen of Demosthenes, there is a virulent poison; but, I hope, he hath not sucked it out, as Demosthenes did.  
In the answer to the Gag page 68 in express and direct terms he denyeth th● Prince's supremacy: [That a woman may be supreme Governess of the Church in all causes, as well Ecclesiastical, as Temporal, as Queen Elizabeth was. As Queen Elizabeth was? with lie, and all. No Protestant ever said so of Queen Elizabeth: No Protestant ever thought so, of any woman. You shameless pens, and brazen faces.] In the Appeal page 94. he delivereth plain Vorstianisme; [Deum ire per omnes-terras, tractúsque maris, coelúmque profundum. They meant it substantially, and so impiously. Christians do hold, and believe it too; but disposingly, &c. in his providence.] If God be every where but disposingly, and in his providence, and not substantially; then is he in his substance confined to certain places; if confined, than not infinite; and what did, or could, Vorstius dogmatise more impiously? Saint Paul teacheth us, that it is not enough for a man to conceive rightly in matter of faith, but he must take heed, he hold to a form of wholesome words. Such, I am sure, the former are not, nor the like, Answer to Gag. page 202. [Is Christ an Angel, and not a true one? in appearance, not in substance? who ever heard such stuff from a Priest's lips? Nay I may more truly retort this speech, Is Christ a true Angel, and that in substance? who ever heard such stuff from a Priest's lips? For, if he be an Angel in substance, and that a true one; he must be so either according to his Divine nature, or humane: if he say, according to his humane, he dasheth upon Martions, or Apollinaris his heresy, and denyeth, by consequence, the verity of his humane nature: if he make him an Angel, and that a true one in substance according to his divine nature, he maketh shipwreck of his faith against Arrius his rock, and by consequence, everteth his divine nature. For every Angelical substance is finite, the deity infinite.  
I have purposely taken all the Gall out of my ink, because I would not dentem dente mordere, exasperated his exasperating style: yet, I cannot but say, that the Appealer, in describing the marks of the Beast, acts the Beasts part. For, Appeal page 154. he maketh Circumcision [a sacrament sometime instituted by God] a mark 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 mark of the Beast received, Apoc. 14. 9  
If the Appealer did bethink himself, how open he lieth to the lash, I persuade myself he would pluck away many cords from the cruel whip of his pen. He scourgeth from the first page to the last, throughout his book, the novellizing puritans; and in that rank, [take it as they will] not only our accomplished Doctors, but our reverend Prelates: Tantum non in Episcopatu Puritani, are disciplined by him, Appeal page 111. A man would think, that, as it was said of Luther, that covetousness was not incident to his nature, [he had such a peculiar antipathy to that vice:] So the Appealer (whatsoever other imputation he might be liable unto) could not be charged, no not by malice itself, with Puritanisme. Citiùs crimen honestum, quam turpem Catonem feceris; There is such an antipathy in his nature to that humour. Yet see a pang and flash of Amsterdamian zeal, Answer to Gag page 92. The Corinthian was restored without a Bishop's seal; a Commissaries direction to the Parson. He paid no rate, no fees for restitution, or standing rectus in Curiâ. Is not this a spoone-feather of the Martinists' brood, a bitter scoff at the practice of our Ecclesiastical Courts? Howsoever, if the Appealer had only trod a little awry, either in the high path of popery, or by-path of puritanism; I, for mine own part, would have borne with it; and that in respect of his otherwise commendable parts, and profitable pains in the Church: but when he halteth down right between two religions, none, that desireth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to walk with a right foot, can endure him.  
And doth he not limp? nay doth he not halt downright? doth he not wear a Linsie-woolsy garment, Answer to Gag 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 Scriptures, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem morés que vivendi, spem scilicet & charitatem. Plainly delivered in Scripture are all those points, which belong unto Faith, and Manners, Hope and Charity, to wit. And accordingly I do know no obscurity upon these: I know none of these controverted inter parts: The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides, and held plain enough. The controverted points are of a larger, and inferior alloy: of them a man may be ignorant, without any danger of his soul at all. A man may resolve, or oppose this way, or that way, without peril of perishing for ever. etc.] It is most evident in this place, that the parties, he speaketh of, are the Papists and we: for there are no other have any trial in this Chapter or matter of debate. By [parts] in many other places of his book he vnderstandeth Papists and Protestants: and here he cannot mean 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 do manifest.  
Now if the differences between the papists and us, are of such an inferior alloye, that little reckoning is to be made of them, because they add nothing to, or take nothing from the sum of saving knowledge; how much have all the reformed Churches in Christendom to answer at the dreadful Tribunal of Christ, for making so great a rent in Christ's seamlesse coat, upon so small occasion? If the controverted points be like herb john in the pot, that may be in, or out, without peril at all; why have all our Prophets, (sithence Luther at least) cried, Mors in ollâ, mors in ollâ, Death in the pot: O blessed Martyrs, who since the beginning of Reformation have watered the seed of the Gospel with your blood, put off your long white robes, and garlands, and put on sackcloth, and ashes; for you died upon no good ground, you shed not your blood in zeal, but spilt it in folly: Martyrs you may be of schism, 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 myself again and again; Is it possible a Divine of no inferior alloy, should utter such an incredible paradox? we descent from the Church of Rome about Christ and his offices, the foundation of faith; the Scriptures, the rule of faith; the Church, the subject of faith; the Sacraments, the seals of faith; justification, the proper effect of faith; and good works, the fruit of faith: nay we contest about the very nature, and essence of faith. And are none of these matters of faith? do none of these belong to faith, or manners? If our debates are, de tribus capellis, about the fringe, not the Spouse coat; about the bark, and not the body of Religion; then hath not the Church of Rome erred in matter of faith; and if she hath not, than the Church of England hath erred, in charging her with error, not only 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 oaths must needs be answerable to his degrees and preferments, for so oft hath he sworn to that Article among the rest. But he yieldeth us a reason, [The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides, and held plain enough.] on both sides? he 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, do all rehearse the Articles of the Creed, and hold them plain enough. Let him peruse all the bedrol of heretics, condemned by the Church of God in all ages, drawn by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, S. Augustine, Philastrius, Alfonsus a Castro, and others, and he shall hardly pitch upon any sort of Heretics, that directly either denied, 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 heaven? If he answer, that the heretics, though they professed the Articles of the Apostles Creed, totidem verbis, in the very words; yet they denied, or depraved the sense, and brought in damnable errors, by consequence overthrowing those foundations of our faith: Our reply is at hand. As the greater part of ancient heretics, so at this day the Papists, confess the Articles of the Creed, and hold them plain truth; but they misinterpret them, and by consequence shake, if not quite overthrow diverse of them. Either they, or we, misinterpret those three articles especially, concerning the Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins; to which their great Champion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reduceth all the controversies between our Church, and theirs. And for undermining the articles of our Creed by consequences, and maintaining repugnances to them, th● Romish pioneers are not far behind the ancient enemies of our faith. Manes and Vorstius do not directly impugn the article touching God the Almighty Creator; nor Mar●ion, Arrius, Apollinaris, Eutiches, Nestorius, and Socinus, the article concerning Christ the Redeemer; nor Macedonius, and the Pneumatomachis, 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 believe in God]; and their doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness, with the second [and in jesus Christ]; and of transubstantiation, with the article of Christ his Incarnation, and Ascension; and of a Catholic visible Romish Church under one visible Head, with that [I believe the holy Catholic Church]; and of uncertainty of salvation, with those [I believe the remission of sins, and life everlasting]; I desire to be informed by the Appealer, which I could never yet be by any Romanist. Upon this most false and deceivable ground [that the differences (inter parts) are not in matters de fide] he buildeth two most dangerous assertions [that a man may be ignorant of them without any peril of his soul at all: and, A man may resolve or oppose this way or that way without peril of perishing.] Tum maximè oppugnaris, si te oppugnari nescis: The greatest danger of all is, when in place of danger we suspect none. A man that enters into a plaguy house, if he know not of it, is more subject to infection through his careless boldness. And they, who speak favourably of the Romish Church, compare it to a Pest-house, in which yet through God's extraordinary mercy a man may be without mortal infection, but cannot possibly be without danger. If there be no danger in Romish Schools and Temples; if a man may be at Mass, and incur no peril of Idolatry, in the adoration of the Host, invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, Relics, and the like: blot out all the parts of the largest and learnedst Homily in all the book, entitled, Against peril of Idolatry. Here I appeal to the Appealers' conscience; Is it no peril at all to the soul 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 prerogatives of Christ, and privileges of his Saints? what is that faith we are justified, and saved by? All these, and many more, are controverted points; and do none of these strengthen, or weaken our title to the Kingdom of Heaven? I have no commission to enlarge the bowels of my Saviour; and most unwilling am I to straiten them, or close up his side against such ignorant persons, who never had, nor could have means to come to the full light of the Gospel: yet I am not ignorant, 
Aug. de gr●t. & lib. arbi●. c. 3.  what Saint Augustine's judgement is even of invincible ignorance in points of faith; Sed & illa ignorantia, quae non est eorum, 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, etc. Not wilful ignorance, no not simple nescience can privilege any from everlasting fire, although he therefore believed not, because he never heard, what he should believe. For that of the Psalmist is not without ground, Pour 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 invincible ignorance, be it affected ignorance, nay be it resolved error in the controverted points, it no way, in his judgement, indangereth eternal salvation; either there is no crimen, or at lest discrimen, in treading in either path, for he saith, [A man may resolve or oppose, this way or that way, without peril of perishing for ever: Answer to Gag pag. 14.] A brave resolution of a Protestant Divine, to resolve, that a resolute Papist, a professed opposite to the doctrine of the Gospel, may go away clear with it, and not at all stumble at that stone, on which whosoever falleth, he shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Matt. 21. 44. I desire to be satisfied, whether doth the Appealer believe, that the Articles of Religion established in our Church by Authority, standing in direct opposition, as they do, to the Trent decisions, are expressly contained in the Scriptures, or may be evidently deduced from thence, or not? If not▪ then, according to the sixth article of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation, they are no articles of faith, or religion. If they are expressly contained in holy Scriptures, or may be evidently deduced from thence, than they are God's truth, set down in his own word; And is there no danger in resolving against God, in opposing his word, in siding against that truth? which shall stand, and abide when heaven and earth shall pass away. I grant, every doctrine contained in Scripture is not absolutely necessary to salvation; yet in the general, this is a doctrine most necessary to salvation, to believe, that all doctrine of Scripture is undoubtedly true; and that to deny any part of Scripture, and much more deliberately to oppugn, and wilfully to oppose, is dangerous, yea damnable. And for the controverted points in particular, the denying of the truth in them, 
Panta●con in his history.  lay so heavy on Latomus, & Franciscus Spira his conscience, on their deathbeds, that in a fearful conflict of despair, by reason of the heinousness of that sin, they miserably gave up the ghost. And Minaerius Gallus, for mainly opposing the doctrine of the Gospel, was so tormented with a burning in his bowels, that he had, as it were, a sense of the very pains of Hell-fire even 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 Gospel, was exceedingly perlexed in mind, and troubled in conscience; and advised with his bosom friend (adjuring him to deal faithfully with him) whether, or no, in that his action of deserting the faith of the reformed Church, he had not committed the impardonable sin against the holy Ghost.  
To illustrate this point, (concerning the necessity of departing out of Babylon, and peril of remaining in her,) let us borrow a ray, 
jewel. Apol. part. 6. c. 6. diuis. 1.  or beam of a true jewel: We have done nothing in altering Religion upon either rashness or arrogancy; nay nothing, but with good leisure, and mature deliberation; neither had we ever intended so to do, except both the manifest, and assured will of God revealed to us in holy Scripture, and regard of our own salvation, had even constrained us thereunto. This indeed is the lustre of a true jewel: 
Answer to Gag. pag. 50  but the false Diamond glareth on this wise: The present Church of Rome hath always continued firm in the same foundation of doctrine, and sacraments instituted by God, and acknowledgeth, and embraceth communion with the ancient, and undoubted Church of Christ; wherefore she cannot be other, or divers from it, for she remains still Christ's Church and Spouse. As in Ceiland, they say, A Snake lurketh under every leaf; so we may truly say of this passage of the Appealer, there is poisonous error, and Satanical doctrine in every line.  
First, 
1 Error.  it is an error of dangerous consequence, to affirm, that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation with the ancient and primitive Church. For, the present Church of Rome holdeth the twelve new Articles, added to the Apostles Creed; mentioned in Pope Pius his Bull, 
Adiect. ad Calcem council. Trident.  as fundamental points, and necessary to salvation. The oath prescribed by the Pope runs thus: Caetera item omnia à sacris Canonibus, & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipuè à sacrosanctâ Tridentinâ Synodo tradita, definita, & declarata, indubitanter recipio; atque profiteor, simúlque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas, & rejectas, & anathematizatas, ego pariter damno, rejicio, & anathematizo. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem (extra quam nemo salvus esse potest) quam in praesenti sponte profiteor, & veraciter teneo, eandem integram & inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissimè (Deo juvante) retineri, & confiteri, atque à meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, retineri, doceri, & praedicari, quantum in me erit curabo.  
Whence I thus argue: First, In this form of oath the twelve new Articles, together with the rest of the definitions of the Council of Trent, are made part of the Catholic faith, (which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved:) but neither these twelve new articles, nor any of them, were held as true by the ancient Church, much less as points fundamental, and de fide; therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same entire foundation of faith with the ancient.  
Secondly, the ancient Church of Rome held the Scriptures to be the only perfect infallible rule of faith, and foundation of saving doctrine, (as is plentifully proved by jewel, 
jewel. 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. john White in his way to the Church. digres. 3 p. 13. Fr. White Answ. to F●sh. r. p. 32. Culuin Antidote. 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 diverse others,) but the present Church of Rome holdeth otherwise, [making unwritten traditions part of the foundation of faith, which, they say, is built partly upon the written, and partly upon the unwritten word of God;] Therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same entire foundation of faith, with the ancient.  
Thirdly, the articles of the Apostles Creed, rightly expounded, and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost, were the foundation of the ancient Church's 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 be evidently proved, by instancing in some of the prime Articles.  
The first article [I believe in God] rightly expounded, teacheth us that we ought to repose our confidence in God, and him only; not upon any Creature, Saint, or Angel; and therefore not to call upon them; the consequence is the Apostles, Rom. 10. How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? this Article thus expounded, the present Church of Rome believeth not.  
Secondly, Faith in jesus Christ, rightly understood, signifieth affiance in Christ for salvation, or a relying upon Christ, with an assured persuasion for remission of sins, through his merits, and satisfaction. This interpretation of faith in Christ, the present Church of Rome is so far from admitting, 
Conc. Trid. Sess 6. can. 12.  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, implieth, that Christ was once, and but once made of a pure Virgin, a true and perfect man like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, Heb. 2. 17. & 4. 15. And the Council of Chalcedon, in the fifth 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, etc.) 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 jesuits 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 only a translocation, not a transubstantiation; a local motion, not a substantial mutation,] but in express words maintain a new production of Christ's body made of bread.  
Again they teach, that Christ's body in the Sacrament, is whole in the whole, and wholly in every part of the Host; which is impossible, if, according to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, he retain the properties of his humane nature; to wit, extension of parts, proportion of limbs, distinction of members, etc. Whence I argue, They, who teach that Christ hath a body invisible, indivisible, insensible, impassable, overthrow 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 invisible, indivisible, insensible, etc. Therefore the Church of Rome overthroweth the verity of Christ his humane nature, and consequently, denieth the article of his Incarnation. Fourthly, the article of Christ his Ascension rightly understood, importeth that Christ is so ascended from the earth, that he is not now upon earth, but is contained, (according to his bodily presence, and humane nature) in the heavens, Act. 3. 21. This article is not thus held by the Church of Rome; for the Romanists teach, that Christ even according to his humane nature, and bodily presence, is upon earth in every Church, on every Altar where the sacrifice of the Mass is offered, besides private houses, to which the Sacrament is carried: so that by this their Doctrine, Christ is more upon earth since his Ascension, than before. Before his Ascension he was only 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 belief, he is truly, really, and substantially in a million of places, viz. every where in their offertory, after the words of Consecration: whence I argue. They who believe and teach, that Christ God & man, according to his bodily presence, is upon earth since his Ascension into heaven, deny that he is contained in heaven, and consequently overthrow the article of his Ascension: But the Romanists believe and teach, that Christ God and man, according to his bodily presence, is upon earth since his Ascension into heaven; Therefore the Romanists deny that he is contained in heaven, and consequently overthrow the article of his Ascension. The first proposition, or major, is grounded upon the Angel's Argument, Mat. 28. 6. (He is not here, for he is risen:) the testimony of S. Peter, Acts 3. 21. (whom the heavens must contain:) S. Augustine's resolution, 
A●g. lib. 20 contra Faustum Manich, c. 11.  [Christ, according to his bodily presence, cannot be, at the same time, in the Sun, and Moon, and upon the Cross:] the inference of Vigilius, 
Lib. 4. contra Euiychetem.  (when Christ was in the flesh upon earth, he was not in heaven; and now because he is in heaven, he is not therefore upon earth.) If Christ's body could at the same time be in more places, the Angel's argument were of no force; for, (his existence in more places than one at the same time being granted) he might be risen, and in jerusalem, and yet at the same instant be there, where the Angel affirmeth he was not, to wit, in the grave. If Christ may be upon earth in his body, and in heaven at the same time, then is not he contained in the Heavens; for it implieth a contradiction, that his body should be contained in, and yet be without the Heavens at the same time. If his body may be in more places than one at once, than he might have been at the instant of his passion in the Sun, and Moon, & upon the Cross, which S. Augustine concludes to be absolutely impossible. And if Christ in his flesh may be both in heaven and earth at the same instant, Vigilius his reason hath no strength at all, to wit, (because he is in heaven, therefore he is not upon earth.) To conclude, if it be impossible that Christ his body should be at the same instant in heaven and upon earth, as the testimonies of the Angel, S. Peter, S. Augustine, and Vigilius above alleged, declare; and if all Papists teach, that Christ's body, after words of Consecration, is truly, really, and substantially upon earth handled with the hands, and eaten with the mouths of Communicants; they must needs consequently deny his bodily presence, and being at the right hand of his Father in Heaven. Fiftly, the article of the Catholic Church, rightly expounded, signifieth the whole company of Gods elect; which is the only Catholic (invisible) Church, we believe, (for the visible Church is an object of sense, and therefore not properly an article of faith.) This true interpretation of the article, the Romanists are so far from admitting, that in the Council of Constance, 
Cocl. histor. Bohemi. lib. 3.  they condemned john hus of heresy, for maintaining it. Whence I thus argue: They who make the visible Church to be the catholic Church which we believe, misbeleeve the article touching the Catholic Church; But the Romanists make the visible Church to be the Catholic Church, which we believe; Therefore the Romanists misbeleeve the article touching the catholic Church.  
The first proposition, or major, is proved by the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 7. We walk by faith, and not by sight. and Heb. 11. 1. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. The Church therefore, which we believe, cannot be the visible Church. 
Campian reason. 3.  The assumption is the assertion of all Papists, who are so far from believing, that they scoff and laugh at an invisible Church, as a mere phantasm, or Platonical Idea.  
Sixtly, the four last articles of the Apostles creed [the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting] rightly expounded, import not only, that there is a communion of Saints, and remission of sins in the Church, and a resurrection of the faithful to eternal life; [which the Devils themselves do, and cannot but believe] but that every true believer, who rehearseth these articles, doth, and aught to believe, that he hath a part in the communion of Saints, hath obtained remission of his sins, and shall at the last day rise to life eternal. 
〈…〉  This interpretation of these articles is condemned by the Papists as heretical. Whence we thus argue against them:  
They, who deny that a man is bound to believe, that he is of the number of the elect, or that his sins are undoubtedly forgiven him, etc. overthrow the four articles above mentioned, according to their true meaning.  
But the Romanists deny, that a man is bound to believe, that he is of the number of the Elect, or that his sins are undoubtedly forgiven him, etc.  
Therefore the Romanists overthrow the four articles above mentioned, according to their true meaning.  
Secondly, 
2 Error.  it is a dangerous error, to affirm, that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient Church. Which I prove, first:  
They who maintain seven Sacraments properly so called, hold not the same foundation of Sacraments, with that church which held but two only:  
But the present church of Rome maintains seven Sacraments properly so called, the Ancient church of Rome held but two only: Therefore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments, with that church.  
The first proposition, or major, if it be not evident in itself, may be thus confirmed. The five Sacraments which the Romanists add, cannot be built upon that foundation, which beareth but two only: therefore those five Sacraments are built upon another different foundation, or upon no foundation at all. The second proposition or assumption is generally proved by all Protestant writers that handle this question, with whom the Appealer professeth every where to hold fair quarter.  
Secondly, I prove it thus;  
Whosoever maintaineth an error overthrowing 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 overthrowing the nature of a Sacrament;  
Therefore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church.  
The first proposition is evident in itself; for nothing can be more fundamental to a Sacrament, then that which concerns the nature and essence of a Sacrament; nothing more destructive, or eversive then that, which overthroweth the very essence, and substance of it.  
The second proposition, is contained totidem verbis, in express 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 Council of Lateran, and the Council of Trent] in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ, but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.  
Thirdly, it is proved thus:  
Whosoever holdeth an error concerning Christ's 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 error concerning Christ's ordinance and institution of the Sacraments;  
Therefore the present Church of Rome erreth in the foundation of Sacraments, and therein differeth from the ancient Church.  
The first proposition is clear; for Christ's order and institution is the foundation of the Sacraments, and therefore an error concerning it must needs be fundamental in point of Sacrament. The second proposition or assumption, is set down in Article 30. Both parts of the Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be ministered to all christian men alike; which assertion touching Christ's ordinance, the present Church of Rome erroneously denieth, and defineth the contrary in the Council of Constance and Trent.  
Thirdly, 
3 Error.  it is a dangerous error, to affirm, that the present church of Rome is not divers from the ancient undoubted church of Christ. Which I prove. First thus,  
Whatsoever Church hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles, from Christ himself, from the Primitive and catholic church of God, and hath utterly forsaken the Catholic faith, is undoubtedly divers from the ancient true church of Christ;  
The present church of Rome hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles, from Christ himself, from the primitive and catholic church of God, and hath utterly forsaken the catholic faith.  
Therefore the present church of Rome is undoubtedly divers from the ancient true church of Christ.  
The first proposition is most evident: the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England, part 5. ch. 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch. 22. Divis. 2. This Apology of the Church of England, as it beareth the name, so it hath ever been accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England. When it was first printed in the days of Queen Elizabeth, it was commanded to be had in all Churches; and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in every Parish Church in this Kingdom, in the year of our Lord, 1611. by our late Sovereign King james, who 
* See the Preface to the King, penned by Bishop Ouerall, in the end.  gave a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop jewels works, for the most rare and admirable that have been written in this last age of the world: and also gave special 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 Bishop's life in English, and prefix it to his works, which accordingly is done in the last edition.  
Secondly, I prove it, thus;  
Whatsoever Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdom and Doctrine, is not the same with, but divers from the ancient undoubted church of Christ.  
The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdom and Doctrine;  
Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with, but divers from the ancient undoubted church of Christ.  
The first proposition cannot be denied; the assumption is the Appealers, Appeal pag. 149. In Apostasy the Turk and Pope are both interessed; both are departed away; whether we take that apostasy to be a departing away from Christ, and his Kingdom, and his Doctrine: or whether we understand apostasy and defection from the Roman Empire, etc. page 150.  
Thirdly, I prove 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 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 proved at large in the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, confirmed to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, Artic. 35. The Homilies, and by name the Homily (the second against peril of idolatry) containeth godly and wholesome doctrine. If godly and wholesome Doctrine, then certainly true.  
Fourthly, 
4 Error.  it is a dangerous error to affirm, as the Appealer doth, Answer to Gag page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa. Christ's Church and Spouse. That God hath his Church even in Rome we do not deny; but that the present Roman Church, specially since the Council of Trent, holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conventicle, or that the Papacy, that is, the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents, are Christ's Church and Spouse, the Appealer is the first Protestant that ever for aught I know, affirmed it. junius (whom he allegeth, Appeal, pag. 113. to this purpose) in his book De Ecclesiâ, is so far from supporting his assertion, that in the same book he quite overthroweth it: his words are, pag. 60. & 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit, cum 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, ideoque succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quam 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 grown to or in the Church, a plague, a dropsy, a gangrene in the body, endangering the health, feeding upon, and infesting the healthful moisture and vital blood of the Church. And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relieth, Appeal page 113. The Papal Church, (saith Franciscus junius▪ 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 Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence? why doth he not go on to the full period? the sentence is yet but lame, he hath put out but the left leg, I will put out the right leg for him, wherewith junius gives Popery a kick, and trips up the Appealers' heels: 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 evil grown to it, which we call the Papacy, in that respect it is not the Church, but a vitiate and corrupt church, and tending to ruin.  
Note here Reader, in the Appealers' defence of Popery a trick of Popery, to cite sentences by halves, alleging only that which in show makes for them, and concealing that which in truth makes against them. The meaning of the whole sentence of junius is clear enough for us, and against the Appealer: to wit, that the Church of Rome so far as it is Protestant, and holdeth some fundamental truths agreeable to the Scriptures, is a Church: but as it is Popish, and addeth many errors to those truths, consequently subverting those very truths it holdeth, it is no Church. Which I thus prove:  
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, Appeal pag. 149.) or in whole, (as many 
* See before in the Table, Artic. de Antichristo.  Pillars of our Church have 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 have heard that the Appealer in a late conference (wherein this passage, on which I have so long insisted, was objected against him) should stand at this ward, answering for himself, that these words [praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae & Sacramentorum firma semper constitit, etc. & manet enim Christi Ecclesia & Sponsa: Answ. to Gag. page 50.] were not his own words, but the words of Cassander. This his ward will not keep off the blow. For first, he allegeth this sentence in approbation thereof, and commendation of the Author: [moderate men, saith he, ibid. on both sides, confess this controversy may cease:] [he should have said, lukewarm men on both sides.] Secondly, he resteth on this passage as being a full answer to the Popish objection concerning the visibility of the Church. Thirdly, in other places of his book, Appeal page 113. and 139. and 140. he affirmeth in his own 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 persuaded, 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 Council of Trent; a part of the catholic, though not the catholic church, which we do profess to believe in our Creed: In essentials' and fundamentals they agree, holding one faith in one Lord. And p. 139 Rome is and ever 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 every way in their Doctrine. Vt Marci Antoniuses de Dominis discipulum possis agnoscere: I know well the mint where these new tenants were coined: the Appealer shows himself a tractable and respective Prebend to his late Dean, following him pene ad arras, near to the Romish Altars. That his Dean, after his relapse into Popery, in the last book, containing his poenitendam poenitentiam, et retractandam retractationem, his repentance to be repent of, and retractation to be retracted, renouncing the true religion which he had defended, laboureth to clear the present church of Rome from the imputation of heresy, because, as he saith, the wiser and learneder Ministers of the church of England teach, that the church of Rome doth not err in any fundamental articles of faith. In defectu credendi haeresis est, non in excessu; haereticus est censendus qui in fide deficit, aliquid quod scriptum est non credendo; none is qui in fide superabundat, plus quam scriptum est credendo: Heresy consists in the defect, not in the excess of believing; and he is an Heretic, who is deficient in his faith, by not believing something that is written; not he that superabounds in his faith by believing more than is written. This error (as I am informed) spreads far like a Gangreane, therefore most needful it is it be looked to in time. It is true that the Church of Rome holdeth, if not all, yet most of the fundamental and positive articles with us. It is true also, that most of their errors are by way of addition: Yet whosoever from hence will conclude, that the Church of Rome is not heretical, or erreth not in any point necessary to salvation, grossly mistaketh the matter, as will appear to any, whose judgement is not forestalled, by the demonstration of these two conclusions.  
1 That Heresy or damnable Error may be as well by adding to, as taking from the Orthodox faith.  
2 That the Church of Rome erreth not only in excess, or believing more than is needful, but also in defect and believing less.  
The first is thus demonstrated;  
Whatsoever errors are alike forbidden in Scripture under the same punishment, are alike damnable:  
Errors by adding to, and detracting from the Orthodox faith, are alike forbidden in Scripture under the same punishment;  
Therefore errors by adding to and detracting from the Orthodox faith, are alike damnable.  
The first proposition is clear by it own light. The assumption or second proposition is delivered expressly in holy Scripture. Deut. 42. Ye shall not add unto the words which I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it. Proverb. 30. 5. 6. Every word of God is pure, add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee. Galat. 1. 18. If we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you beside that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Reuel. 22. 18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things that are written in this Book.  
Secondly thus,  
Whatsoever things alike destroy the nature of faith, are alike damnable:  
Errors by addition and detraction, alike destroy the nature of Faith;  
Therefore errors by addition and detraction are alike damnable.  
The first proposition is unquestionable. The assumption I declare thus: Faith is of the nature of a rule or certain measure, to which if any thing be added, or taken away, it ceaseth to be that rule. cum credimus, saith Tertullian, 
Tertul. de Prescript. 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 believe, we desire to believe no more; for we first believe this, that there is nothing more we ought to believe. Faith is contained in a rule: to know nothing beyond it, is to know all things. Virtue is in the mean, vice as well in the excess, as in the defect. In our body the superabundance of humours is as dangerous as lack 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 use their own similitude; A foundation may be as well ovethrowne by laying on it more than it will bear, as by taking away that which is necessary to support the building. Thirdly, thus:  
The errors in faith and religion of the Samaritans, Malchamites, Athenians, Galatians, Ebionites, Nazarites, Quartadecimans, Manichees, and Nestorians, were damnable:  
But all these several errors were errors of addition;  
Therefore errors of Addition are damnable.  
The first proposition will not be gainesaied. For all these errors are branded as heretical or damnable, either by the Spirit of God in Scripture, or by the catholic christian Church. The Assumption will appear in the survey of those particular errors.  
The Samaritans feared the Lord, 
2 King. 17. 33.  and served their own Gods. The Malchamites worshipped and swore by the Lord, 
Zepha. 1. 5.  and swore by Malcham. The Athenians worshipped the true God by the name of THE UNKNOWN GOD, 
Acts 17. 23. 2.  and withal worshipped Idols. 
Gal. 4. 9  The Galatians, Ebionites, Nazarites, and Quartadecimans, believed the Gospel, yet retained also and observed the legal ceremonies, But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? saith Saint Paul of the Galatians, Ebionitae ceremonias adhuc legis retinent, pauperes interpretantur, et vere sensu pauperes: The Ebionites still keep 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 poor men, and indeed such are they, poor and simple in theirunderstanding, 
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, whilst they will be both jews and Christians, are indeed neither jews nor christians; saith S. Augustine. His scil: Quartadecimanis, Blastus accedens, judaismum vult introducere, Pascha enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse, quam secundum legem Moysis, quartadecimâ mensis; Quis autem nescit, quoniam Euangelica gratia evacuatur, si ad legem Christum redigit? Blastus adjoining himself to the Quartadecimans, would secretly bring in judaism; for he saith, the Passeover or Feast of Easter must no other wise be kept, then according to the law of Moses the fourteenth day of the Month. 
Tertul. de prescript. c. 53.  Now who knoweth not, that the grace of the Gospel is made void; if Christ be reduced to or joined with the Law? saith Tertullian. The Manichees held two chief first causes of all things, 
Cassander de reliquijs T●lag ad johan. A 〈…〉 Anno Dom. 431.  as also two souls in man: as Cassander. The Nestorians held two persons in Christ, they denied not one; As the Ephesine Council.  
The second conclusion [That the Church of Rome erreth not only in excess, or believing more than is needful, but also in defect, and believing less] is proved: First, they believe not the Articles of the Apostles Creed, according to the true and full meaning: many special points of faith, contained in the Apostles Creed, and by necessary consequence, deduced from thence, are not assented unto by the Romanists, as I showed before.  
Secondly, they believe not special and particular affiance in Christ's merits for salvation, 
Council of Trent. can. 12. 13. S●s. 6.  and consequently they believe not a justifying faith, or justification by such a faith: nay they condemn such a belief as heresy.  
Thirdly, they hold not the formal foundation of faith: for albeit they believe the Scriptures, and some points of faith deduced out of them, yet they believe them not for themselves, or the authority of the Scriptures, but because the Church hath approved and commanded them to be thus received, and believed. They believe not God and the Scriptures for themselves, but for the Pope's sake: that is, in effect, they believe Christ for Antichrist. Hence it is, that although God expressly 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 err 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 believe vice to be good, and virtue to be evil; unless she will sin against conscience. But Pope and Cardinal must pardon us, if, as we are bound, we believe and obey God rather than man, who by the Prophet Esay saith, Woe unto them that call evil good, 
Isaiah. 5. 20  and good evil, that put darkness 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 adversaries that mistake him, 
Appeal p. 139.  [Remember it lest you mistake my saying, or maliciously mistake it; the Church of Rome is a true Church ratione essentiae, and being of a Church, not a sound Church every way in their doctrine.] I remember well this memento; neither can I forget the Appealers' syllogism set down in the same page: viz.  
The Church of Rome hath ever been visible:  
The Church of Rome is and ever was a true Church, since it was a Church;  
Therefore the true Church hath been visible.  
The Appealer cannot infer the conclusion upon the premises, unless in his minor or assumption he intent to make the Church of Rome more than a true Church; he must make her the true Church, that is, not a particular Church, but the Catholic, not a member, but the whole. The minor should be thus altered, to make his syllogism current.  
The Church of Rome hath ever been visible:  
The Church of Rome is the true Church;  
Therefore the true Church hath ever been visible.  
The syllogism thus being set upon 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 syllogism made by the Appealer prout jacet in terminis, upon which he would have his friends and Informers to chew the cud, as they do after Lectures. p. 139. He deserveth himself to be sent to the University to chew the cud after a Logic Lecture, and learn to make a better syllogism. For this his syllogism is peccant tam formâ quam materiâ, in matter and form. 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 lawful expositorius syllogismus, consisting of pure singulars, and consequently in no mood) first there are four terms at least in this syllogism, to wit, [The Church of Rome, visible, the true Church, a true Church,] the true Church, and a true Church, are not one. Every particular true Church is a true Church, yet neither every particular, nor any particular Church is the true Catholic visible Church, of which the question is propounded, and debated by the Appealer. Again, the minor terminus is not in the conclusion; the minor terminus is, [A true Church since it was a Church] which if he had put in the conclusion entirely, as he ought by the rules of good syllogizing, his argument would have proved ridiculous: viz.  
The Church of Rome hath ever been visible:  
The Church of Rome is and ever was a true Church since it was a Church;  
Therefore a true church since it was a church hath been ever visible.  
Let the form pass, enough of the husk; we will now chew the grain, and come to the matter of his syllogism. First, were both the propositions true, yet the argument is fallacious: for the process is ab ignotiori ad notius, the worst kind of the beggarly fallacy petitio Principii. The visibility of the catholic Church is more known than the visibility of any one member, be it the Church of Rome: for the Catholic Church is visible and known in all the parts and members, and therefore must needs be more known than any one member. Secondly, the major is false, if it be understood in the Appealers' sense: for, during many schisms in the Papacy, and when the Pope sat at Auennian, and not Rome, when diverse Popes were deposed by Counsels for Schism and Heresy, and sometimes the Pope set up by the Counsels, was deposed by the power of Princes, as Amodius; and sometimes the Popes deposed by Counsels were reëstablished in their Popedomes by the power of Princes, as Eugenius, the Church of Rome was not so visible, as the Appealer would have it. Thirdly, if the Appealer understand by the Church of Rome (as his friends and informers, and all Protestants generally understand it, and as he must, if he say any thing to the purpose.) a Church in Rome, and the Pope's territories, or elsewhere, holding the present Roman faith, which is set down in the Council 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 years after Christ; neither is the Church holding that erroneous faith a true Church▪ Howsoever, it may please God in that Church (as he did in the Churches of the Arrians in Saint Hilary his time) to call many by the Word & Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth; 
〈…〉  quorum aures puriores erant quam doctorum ora: whose ears were purer than the teacher's mouths; who strained the milk they received from their mother, and, casting away that which was impure, drank down only the sincere milk of the word.  
I suppose the Appealer will not affirm the Arrian Churches to be true Churches; yet God had his wheat even in their floor all covered with chaff; and, I doubt not, but he ever had, and still hath many thousands even in the Roman Church itself, who never bowed the knee to that Baäl. Our question is not of them, but of their Governors and Teachers; and the outward face of their Church maintaining and practising idolatry, and enforcing as far as they can the accursed Canons of the Council 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 soundness 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 soundness 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, soundness 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 faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.  
If the Appealer by (truth) meaneth metaphysical truth, which is of as large extent as being or entity, the more he graspeth, the less he 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, than all the heretical and schismatical Churches in Christendom; they are Churches, therefore in this sense, true Churches; for Ens et verum convertuntur. In this acception, a thief is a true man, because it is true that he is a man; and the Devil a true Angel, because it is true, that he is an Angel; 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 Severus, Omnia fuit et nihil profuit: he turneth every way, and yet cannot pass; he angleth in all waters, and yet catcheth nothing; he hath spent all his oil in making salves for the foul sores of the Whore of Babylon, and yet hath left Her worse than he found Her.  

The filing up of the Writ.  
THe errors of the Appealer, both in point of Arminianism, and Popery, and of a different nature from both, being laid open in simplicity and sincerity; I first appeal from the Appealer to himself, as that Plaintiff sometime did from Philip to Philip. I appeal from the Appealer, as set on by others, to the Appealer as left to himself: from his rash, to his advised; from his former, to his latter thoughts, which are usually the wiser, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Secundae cogitationes secundiores. And if he retract his errors, I will let fall the suit: if he persist in his erroneous opinions, I refer him, together with this discovery of his errors, to the Examination and Censure of the most learned, religious, and judicious House of Convocation now sitting, to whom under his Majesty the cognizance of Doctrinal differences properly belong. 
Latius in Semipelagianismo.  Faustus Regiensis intending to refute S. Austin under another name, that he might avoid all suspicion of Pelagianisme, entitles the first Chapters of his Book against Pelagius; and under this veil of opposing S. Augustine's professed enemy, from the third chapter of his book to the end covertly carps at, and refels S. Augustine's learned Book of the Predestination of Saints. Let moderate men, and no frantic Puritans judge, whether the Appealer, as in his matter, so in his manner of writing, follow not Faustus the Demipelagian his pattern; whether pretending an answer to a Gagger of the Protestants, he intent and endeavour not to Gag the most learned and zealous Protestants; and drawing out his stile more poinenant than a Stiletto, in colour and show against the Romish enemy, he cunningly give not therewith a secret wound to his own Mother the Church of England, and the true professors of the Gospel therein. As for the Fratres Descripti, the right and left hand of the Appealer, whose Trade hath been for these many years past, to inform against the zealous and learned Defenders of the true religion established here in England under the name of Puritans, quia volunt decipi, decipiantur. But for those grave and venerable Divines, who are reported to have subscribed to the Appealers Books, [I think the Relator was mistaken in the word, he meant proscribed them] and all other ancient worthies of our Church, who yet applaud and approve these late Polemickes of the Appealer, I humbly entreat them in the words of the Orator, 
Videant Patres Conscripti ne circumscripti videantur.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Galat. 4. 16.