Rowling Rambling I might adde Ruffling Scuffling Schambling Muffling Buffling Brangling Shifting Tricking Shambling and many more then these if I had Mr. Mountagu his eloquence and I might put them all as titles to the disputations foregoing in this point and yet should I come farre short of the excellency and worthinesse of his Disputation therefore I hope the Reader will iudge as he find s and supply what I want He will speake but once more and that shall driue the nayle to the head thus he saith Without finall perseuering in obedience they are none of Gods elect these being the appointed instrumentall causes of all their saluation Appeale page 74. This reason must be thus framed If finall perseuering in obedience be the appointed instrumentall cause of mans saluation then finall perseuering in obedience c. is the thing without which no man is of Gods elect But finall perseuering c. is the appointed instrument all cause of mans saluation I answer by instrumentall cause of saluation Mr. Mountagu must meane at least the meritorious cause of heauen which being so his sentence in plaine English is thus much Finall obedience is the meritorious cause of saluation In which sentence he agrees with the Church of Rome for the Councell of Trent hath decreed that Eternall life is propounded as wages vnto such as doe well to the end Ses 6. cap. 16. Good workes doe merit eternall life This Doctrine of the Councell is vrged and defended by Bellarmine in his Booke de lusti lib. 5. as the Reader may see to the full Hereupon wee may conclude against Mr. Mountagu in his owne words written in another case Which follow The Ape discouers himselfe by cracking of nuts Appeale p. 308. So doth this man who what and what side hee is of A Tridentine in faction and engrayned in affection that way howsoeuer pretending conformity by subscription ibid. But it may be Mr. Mountagu will say hee did not know that the Church of Rome taught thus much I answer his owne words will then refute him for thus he writeth If a man continue constant in the course of good workes he is sure of heauen causally in Bellarmines iudgement as procured by them Appeale page 210. To the parts of the Argument I answer first The assumption is denied by our Church which saith By our deeds wee cannot merit heauen nor bring vs to the fauour of God nor winne heauen Homilie of Almes-deedes second part page 326. 327. 329. Vpon this reason because then A man is a Merchant with God and so defaceth and obscureth the price of Christs blood Now our Church hath ouerthrowne his assumption there is no need that I speake further thereunto but yet that the efficacy of truth taught by our Church may fully appeare you shall heare himselfe deny this his owne assumption for thus he writeth Bellarmine saith Heauen is of workes causally wherin I differ from him Appeale page 210. There is a reward for the righteous not for workes or of workes Appeale page 208. Some man perhaps will say hee doth then contradict himselfe I answer that salueth not the wound he giueth vnto his assumption the voyce of truth in his owne mouth against himselfe is of more worth then many witnesses This part of his reason being naught the rest hath no force to inferre the conclusion yet I proceed to the rest The foresaid argument at the best and amongst his best friends is not worthy answering It is no better then the dry bones of a Hackney ridden to death many yeares past I finde it propounded and answered by Bellarmine de grat lib. 2. cap. 13. Quintum c. by Suarez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n o 22. c. by Aluarez de Auxilijs disp 37. n o 3. Tertio Deus c. n o 21. Ad tertium c. To the consequence of the proposition I answer that it is most feeble and false A man may haue euerlasting life in the euent by reason of his finall perseuering and yet not be decreed thereunto by reason of his finall perseuerance foreseene I shew it out of the said Authors thus In Predestination there is Gods will of Intention Execution This distinction I finde in Bellarmine de gratia lib. 2. cap. 14. Respondeo illud In Suarez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 18. n o 4. De deo part 2. lib. 1. cap. 14. n o 7. And in Aluarez de Auxilijs disput 37. n o 19. If any doubt of the truth of this distinction the Authors alleadged doe bring proofe enough for it and chiefly Suarez in the places alleadged in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n o 4. c. to whom I referre the Reader Supposing then that the distinction is without question I answer Gods action of execution wrought in time doth indeed represent Gods eternall will of execution for the will of execution is no more but a disposition of execution or the execution it selfe preconceiued in the minde of God as the Authors alleadged doe truely speake In this sense Mr. Mountagu saith truely So saued are So ordained by God Whatsoeuer commeth to passe commeth So to passe because God hath sayd So and no otherwise it shall come to passe Gagge page 177. The one is originall of the other and the one is euidence of the other Appeale page 61. But this is not to our purpose for we speake not of Predestination as it containes Gods will of execution but of intention The acts of God done in time doe not represent Gods eternall will of intension which is no more but a decree appointing that the thing shall bee The will of intention medleth not with the manner how the meanes shall produce the effect and how the effect shall flow from the meanes it assigneth not which is the meanes which the end as the said authors haue abundantly proued It is the first act of Gods will touching mans saluation and is not regulated by any former God was wholly free to will it or not to will it to will it vnto this man or vnto another there being nothing in the creature to restraine this liberty and determine the diuine will vnto one so that you must shew vs diuine reuelation that affirmeth the finall perseuerance of Peter was the reason to moue God to appoint him vnto glory It is not an inferēce made from an act of temporall execution that can be a sufficient ground to inioine vs to beleeue it but such reuelation there is none therefore we may conclude there was no such reason leading God to predestinate this or that man vnto glory Here I may enquire of M. Mountagu whether he hath read this answer others like vnto it or not one of thē is certainly true If he hath not read it where is his transcendent reading he so much doth vant of where is that diuine that so often calleth others ignorant poore and scummers vpon the surface and such like termes Now these poore diuines these simple
disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs In the last place I will shew the faith of Rome wherein he doth agree with them to be erronious CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending hath law right vpon his side which we say is the Church gagg p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures Cancil Trent ses 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures arti 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes And in doubtfull points that require determination we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule gagg p. 14. 15.  Generall Coūcils may er in things partaining to God arti 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters the Church must decide and setle that doubt by applying and declaring the Scriptures p. 14.  Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit gagg p. 19.  haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they may be taken out of holy Scripture arti 21. Where the Scripture is hard in case there be a doubt we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit and that in the Church gagg p. 6.   CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood which is thus explicated A Iudge is an office ordained by God to giue sentence in a doubt that is made in things revealed by God This office hath these three properties 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof Of which there is no question with him in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie The parts to be debated be three 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge c. be true or not 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not Touching the first he sayth The Word of God and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it gagg p. 15. I answer Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church p. 54. He writeth thus Vndoubtedly the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith which hath beene in all succession preserved And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent the Church held the same determination still concerning the Iudge of Controversies in faith Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given surely vnto him rather then vnto you For he is your superior in learning and authoritie he is your Diocesan whose voyce must you heare but the voyce of your Pastour And you are in the Affirmatiue giving an authoritie to the Church which he denieth you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it It is your owne rule gagg p. 17. A Nunci◠must goe to his Commission If your proofes be good your Diocesan must stand by 1. Your proofes from the word of God we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed Whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies But the Church That is the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles are those whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge c. I answer the proposition is false I shew it by many reasons 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place in which respect the proposition is false because that office is not instituted in that place And this I take as granted 2. At least the proposition resumes that that office was already instituted when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken Which is false also and I could shew it by many reasons but this one shall suffice viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office 3. The word heare may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read as well as for an appeale thereto and resting in the sentence of a Iudge yea and better also for it is most frequently vsed in that sence but little in this Againe the Text leadeth clearely to that sence but not at all to this The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church severed from other Ministers which are not governours In which sence the assumption doth need proofe but he hath brought none but his owne affirmation Besides the assumption is false by the authoritie of the Text it selfe which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly by the terme you which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and another His proofe from the word of God being dispatched The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next but he sayes nothing of it therefore I cannot answere any thing to it It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times to shew that The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith Which is vnorderly yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne Bishop Carleton in the booke alledged p. 52. c. alledgeth Councels Fathers Popes all pronouncing this sentence The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour and not to you Lastly if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church perpetually to the end of the world that it may be fit to be appealed vnto and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith in the time wherein it riseth for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde and without the second some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point and giue this for his reason to wit he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence and giue for instance as he doth gagg p. 19. He takes the Church to signifie a true not a
shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and â—eaning of his words which is the vâ—ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that sâ—â—ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the mâ—â—ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and fleshâ—â—â— the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could euâ—r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance
answer This supposeth that he did describe Iustification largely when hee said Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused but proues it not therefore it is nothing to the purpose But let it be supposed he can proue it at some other time and goe on with him to examine what he bringeth I say it is vtterly false the Scripture doth neuer take the Iustification of a sinner any other wayes but one you bring no proofe that it doth your word is not sufficient when your proofs come you shal haue answer for the authority of Caluin c. I need not much weigh in this question because I know your selfe accounts it worth nothing Caluin saith no such thing The last thing he pretendeth is that His intent was to confute the Gagger I answer This hath no force to proue that Therefore I described Iustification as comprehending Sanctification when I said it consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused For so to describe it is not the way the confute but to be confuted first because that description is false secondly in it you agree with the Gagger in an Article of his Faith decreed by the Councell of Trent Moreouer your antecedent is false you had no such intent For the thing to be refuted was Faith onely doth not iustifie so saith your aduersary which you might haue refuted without relation to the nature of Iustification for he must proue at least that somthing else besides Faith doth concur to Iustification or confesse he sayd not truely It was not required on your part to proue all other things were excluded therefore there was no need or occasion of making a description of Iustification But suppose there had beene good reason why you should haue made a description of Iustification yet the making of this description doth argue your intent was not to refute the Gagger but to establish and confirme the Gaggers position for if Iustification bee as you haue described it then without all doubt more things are required to Iustification besides Faith and Bellarmine doth dispute iust after the same manner de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Lastly vpon this description of Iustification you proceed and say man is the subiect thereof and that thereunto there are required certaine preparations to the purpose the first wherof you say is knowledge of God and his Law c. that is indeed assent vnto the Law of God which is Faith according to the Councell of Trent for you doe not speake of such a knowledge of the Law which is without an assent to the truth thereof You proceed and teach that Faith is the roote and originall of the rest of the preparations iust as the Councell of Trent doth which proues your intent was to iustifie and not to refute your aduersaries position If notwithstanding all this you will still affirme your meaning to be such as is set downe no. 4. and plead your owne authority for the proofe thereof as best able to declare what you meant then first your meaning is not exprest by your words secondly the whole course of your Doctrine saith one thing and your intent is another thirdly your meaning was without reason to guide it fourthly the Doctrine that caryeth your meaning doth destroy what you meant to build but you will deny all these foure therefore you must confesse you had no such intent After he hath thus declared what his intent was in this description he goeth on pag. 174. to shew what his intent is touching the nature and adequate being of Iustification which hee proclaimeth in these words Be it knowne vnto you that I beleeue Iustification is in strictnesse of termes Not regeneration nor renouation nor sanctification But A certaine action in God applyed vnto vs Or A certaine respect or relation Whereby wee are pardoned and acquitted of our sinnes Esteemed righteous before God And Accepted by him in Christ vnto life euerlasting I answere If this proclamation had been published by an authority sufficient to compell vs to haue assented thereunto then had it beene possible that you had giuen satisfaction but for want of that you must giue vs leaue to touch to handle to search before we take Thus therefore I proceed This great adoe is about nothing you tell vs now what you doe beleeue when you writ your second Booke Wee inquire what beleefe you did expresse by your writing in your first Booke Let this fault be remitted we will rest satisfied with this if there be sufficient cause why but alacke there is no such matter And thus I shew it You did not beleeue that Iustification is as now you pretend for if you had so beleeued you would haue expressed that beleefe because your intent was to refute the Gagger as you professe Appeale page 173. Now this beleefe had been an easie and ready way to haue refuted him seeing that the question there disputed was whether A man is Iustified by Faith onely As is euident by the 18. Chapter of your first Booke and it would necessarily follow That a man is iustified by faith onely if Iustification bee as you now describe it which I take as granted without further proofe and Bellarmine by implicaiton confesseth no lesse de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Adde quod Againe if you had then beleeued Iustification is as you describe it now then your thoughts in all likelihood would haue now beene orderly digested but here is nothing but confusednesse and thus I shew it 1 First you describe by a negatiue which Art forbids 2 Secondly you place the Genus in two things viz. action respect or relation If you would expresse one thing by those distinct termes then you intend a thing impossible for an action is an emâ—nation from a worker Respect and Relation as it is here vsed importeth an adiunct vnto a subiect If your meaning bee to expresse two things distinct in nature by these distinct termes then youâ— description is ridiculous I need not shew how 3 You say it is an action in God which signifieth an action immanent which is false Iustification is an â—ction transient and your selfe confesse it when you say Iustification is by Faith and made in an instant Gâ—gge page 146. which doe import actions wrought vpon the creatures in time You also tell vs this action iâ— applyed vnto vs which signifies an action transient which is contrary to the former and so you say and vnsay with one breath 4 You say pardon of sinnes is by a respect or relation in God Which sentence is wholly without sense For respect or relation hath not any force by which an effect should be produced neither can it bee conceiued what you meane by Respect or Relation or how pardon of sinnes should flow from or depend vpon that Respect or Relation And so much for the Genus 5 You place the speciall nature of Iustification in three things viz. First Remission of sinnes secondly Esteeming righteous thirdly Accepting to eternall
it be said some haue taught as M. Mountagu doth I answer it hath beene in a corner then He that did so Crept in at the window neither shepheard nor sheepe knew it If Mr. Mountagu will be one of them he may be for me I enuy not his happinesse nor will follow his course To conclude this argument M. Mountagu in this point agreeth with the Church of Rome in another point of their erronious faith The Councell of Trent hath decreed thus The grace of Iustification is bestowed by the Sacraments and that vnto all c. sess 7. can 4. 7. 8. The Sacrament of baptisme is the instrument all cause of Iustification without which no man is iustified sess 6. cap. 7. And this faith of the Church of Rome is explicated and defended by Bellarmine as in other places so in these 1 Of the Sacraments in generall lib. 2. cap. 3. 2 Of Baptisme in speciall lib. 1. cap. 11. Quarto proposâ—tio c. and cap. 12. Veri effectus c. Mr. Mountagu saith Euery child baptised is put thereby into the state of grace and saluation Iust as they doe And thus much for this argument and all the rest which hee pretendeth to take from the authenticall records of the doctrine of the Church of England He bringeth others from the testimonies of singular men liuing in our Church which indeed doe not deserue answer but because hee hopeth by them to helpe a lame dog ouer the stile and to vphold a cause ready to fall I will propound and examine them The first whereof is set downe Appeale pag. 28. in this forme They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew composed agreed ratified iustified and subscribed the Articles and penned the Homilies But all these haue and do assent to falling from grace Therefore the learnedst in the Church of England assent therein I answer this Sylogisme is false the middle terme is predicated in the proposition and subiected in the assumption it ought to be thus framed They that composed c. Did assent c. They that composed c. Were the learnedst c. Therefore some that were the learnedst c. Did assent I answer the assumption is a vaunt of his bragging veine and more then the parties themselues would assume or he can proue he knoweth not who composed them c. they were dead long before he was borne and there is no record of their names The proposition is false neither the Articles nor Homilie doe teach falling from grace as my answers thereunto doe plentifully witnesse His second argument of this kind is in Appeale pag. 31. set downe in these words 1 It was the Tenet of Doctor Ouerall That a Iustified man might fall away from grace and thereby incurre Gods wrath and was in state of damnation vntill he did recouer againe and was renewed after his fall 2 Which opinion was resolued of and auowed for true Catholike ancient and Oxthodoxe by the Royall reuerend honourable and learned Synode at the Conference at Hampton Court 3 The booke of the proceedings is extant which will auerre all that I say for truth against you here See the I answer I thinke he would inferre from hence I am sure hee should inferre Therefore some of the learnedst in the Church of England do maintaine falling from grace The antecedent hath three branches the third is a proofe of the two first The first branch is false I haue read the booke which reporteth Doctor Overalls opinion in pag. 41. and 42 in these words The called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election might and did sometime fall into grieuous sinnes and thereby into the present state of wrath yet They did neuer fall either totally From all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seed thereof Nor finally From Iustification But were renewed You report him to say they fell into the state of damnation which importeth a falling totally The booke reporteth him denying falling totally or finally The second branch is also false the book hath not a word that reporteth any confirmation of the opinion of Doctor Ouerall His happe was hard that amongst so many words he could not light vpon one true one and his face very audatious that durst affirme a falshood for truth against the light of the noone-day He talketh of conscience and honesty and Cheuerell and I know not what Hee must tell vs vnder which of those heads this allegation shall be ranged for he hath best skill in such language the allegation it selfe standeth vnder the censure of the reader and the allegator at the barre of the Almighty therefore I leaue this and passe to the next Hitherto I haue spoken to the matter vrged in the two arguments now must I say a word or two touching the conclusion of them both which saith Some of the learnedst c. Vnto which I haue these two things to say first he getteth nothing though it were granted him He ought to proue The Church of England teacheth his falling from grace Which will not follow vpon his conclusion because those learnedst he speaketh of may be a faction prevailing in the Church of England Secondly his intent is to say all the learned in the Church of England doe maintain falling from grace for he saith Ap. p. 28. Many in the Church of England reputed learned are of opinion Grace cannot bee lost which is as much as if hee said they haue the name of learning but haue none indeed all the learned say as I say Which sentence is a most vaine idle and insulting brag If all were vnlearned that deny falling from grace then I hope Mr Mountagu is learned that affirmes the losse of grace and that dareth sentence them all for want of learning that deny falling from grace but how learned hee is let this whole disputation shew wherein you shall finde great plenty of notorious faults against learning as false Sylogismes loose consequences notorious false premisses impertinent conclusions false allegations propositions contrary in their parts headlesse diuisions manifest contradictions a nosegay of some of them I doe here present you Thus he writeth The Church of England leaueth the question touching falling from grace at liberty vnto vs Gagge page 158. The question touching falling from grace is vndecided in the Church of England Gagge p. 171. The consented resolued and subscribed Articles of the Church of England nor yet the Booke of common Prayer and other diuine offices doe not put any tye vpon me to resolue in this question touching falling from grace Appeale page 26. Contrary whereunto he writeth as followeth That man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England Appeale page 31. That a man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England deliuered publikely positiuely and declaratorily in authenticall records Appeale page 36. The Church of England it selfe hath directly and in expresse words taught that a
Priests and Iesuits were not common Barretters of Christendome for priuate ends this controuersie on foot touching the reall presence might cease Gagg p. 251. They that in the point of reall presence doe make a difference betweene vs and the Papists were bred vp by the deuill in a faction and by him brought vp in a faction and by him sent abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Gagg p. 253. and Appeale p. 291. The onely difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours is about the manner Appeale p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ Gagg p. 256. 255. Namely whether by transubstantiation or not 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation which wee condemne Gagg p. 252. And in this viz. how it is made the flesh of Christ he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome and ours blaming them for this p. 252. and for nothing else and reprouing their proofes because they proue not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation Gagg p. 252. and 254. Out of which wee may conclude Mr Mountagu beleeueth as the Councell of Trent hath decreed touching the reall presence and the doctrine of it is his doctrine so as what the Councell saith of reseruing carying about and worshipping of the Sacrament must be accounted the faith of Mr Mountagu because the first doth necessarily inferre the second If Christ be really present then the sacrament must bee so reserued caryed worshipped And so much for the second branch If this be true then Mr Mountagu doth not dissent from the Church of England in the point of reall presence To the end hee might perswade vs that hee doth not dissent from the Church of England he telleth vs Appeale p. 289. The point of reall presence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England That is the Church of England agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence as he doth explicate himselfe a few lines after If that be so then I grant he doth not dissent from the Church of England But all the doubt will be how he will proue that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence His proofe such as it is I find set downe Appeale p. 289. c. and may be concluded in this forme Whatsoeuer is taught by the Bishops Bilson Andrewes Morton by Protestants Fortunatus Caluin Beza Sadael is the doctrine of the Church of England But the faith of the Church of Rome touching the reall presence is taught by these c. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence is the doctrine of the Church of England This forme of disputing may not bee excepted against because all his allegations in the place quoted will be to no purpose if he doth not thus dispute for the allegations doe serue to proue this assumption or can be of no vse at this time To the proposition I answer two things First The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes authorised publikely for that end and subscribed vnto as such But these mens writings are not such For no statute law or ordinance haue ratified them and commanded subscription vnto them as such Therefore your proposition is false Secondly your owne words are these Appeale p. 58. and 59. Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat as if hee were the father and founder of our faith as if our beleefe were to be pinned vnto his sleeue and absolutely to bee taught after his institutions shew me good warrant for it and I yeeld This is impossible therefore your proposition is false euen by your owne sentence his owne pen giueth Iudgement against his proposition as false that being false this reason cannot be good although his assumption were neuer so true The assumption is vtterly false and I doe admire that shame did not with-hold him from alleadging Caluin and Beza as consenters vnto the Romish faith in the point of reall presence seeing that Bellarmine in his fiâ—st Booke and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin and Beza principall opposers thereunto and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in speciall sort against Caluin and forgetteth him not in no one passage of his disputations in this point The words of the Bishops euen as he hath alleadged them are not so much as like vnto the Romish faith as hee that readeth them will presently iudge I doe not attempt to apply them to his assumption Two of them are yet liuing who will I doubt not by liuely voyce disclaime the decree of the Councell of Trent and their consent thereto touching the reall presence and so fully refute his assumption as false He inferreth further from hence on this wise If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and professeth as it is indeed I leaue you to those that must looke vnto you I answer this inference presumes too farre and comes too late I may rather inferre contrariwise If the Romish faith of reall presence bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England as indeed it is not my answer hath shewed it in part and I will shew it to the full hereafter then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith to be punished as such according to law in that case prouided I finde in his Gagge page 250. he writeth thus Our Catechisme in the Communion Booke saith expresly the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper And a few lines after he concludeth in these words The Protestant is as reall and substantiall as any Papist He seemeth to inferre the latter sentence vpon the former the meaning whereof is this Protestants acknowledge the reall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse then Papists What his intent was is best knowne to himselfe It was needfull for mee to propound it and let it bee knowne by my answer thereto that no reall presence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged which answer I will take from Bishop Iewell who hath already made it for mee in his reply vnto Hardings answere Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these Christs body and blood indeed and verily is giuen vnto vs that we verily eate it that wee verily drinke it In these words there is as much contained as Mr. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechisme But marke now what he denieth and answereth further for the explication thereof Yet we say not that Christs body is let downe from heauen or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament wee lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith wee eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood euen as verily as his body was verily broken and his blood verily