the Church hath beene in time past The Church hath beene visible particular Church for he saith in the place now alledged it is a part of the Catholike Church And againe Appeale p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome and doth range it with a Church in England France Spaine all which doe denote particular Churches That he doth consent with the Church of Rome it cannot be doubted for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith that their particular Church is the mother and mistris of all Churches Concil Trent sess 7. de Babâ—is can 3. sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. sess 22. de sacrif missae cap 8. That it doth dissent from the Church of England will easily be manifested which hath reiected by Parliament Law the Popes authoritie in all cases of government hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church without any relation to the Church of Rome hath set it downe in the booke of Articles and the common Liturgie and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie in divers places some whereof I will repeat 1. Wee haue departed from that Church saith he whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world which Church also already had departed from Gods Word and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof par 4. cap. 11. divis 1. 2. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne safetie par 5. cap. 15. divis 3. 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now and haue so gone from it as Daniell went out of the Lyons den divis 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together and they shall see that themselues haue most shanâ—â—fully gone from the Apostles and wee most iustly haue gone from them cap. 16. divis 1. 5. We haue departed from him who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. Lastly we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ nor to an Apostle And these are the reasons and causes why we haue restored Religion and forsaken these men cap. the last The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received not as a private opinion but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church For 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so otherwise he would not haue named his Booke An Apologie in defence of the Church of England which he doth 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church without the least blame 3. After this long deliberation it is reprinted with speciall direction from authoritie and to the end it might be had in every severall Parish in the Kingdome which is executed accordingly Whervnto I will adde the necessity which the church of England conceived to be of that seperation which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author as followeth 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever part 6. cap. 22. divis 1. 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse we left him wee could not come to Christ par 6. cap. 20. divis 2. 3. The holy Ghost Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome for so it is written Come away from her O my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes least you be also partakers of her plagues Answer to Hardings conclusion From whence I thus argue The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome to avoyd damnation Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church And Mr Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England Thus he writeth Appeale p. 112. I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome the neerer vnto God and truth That we ought to haue no coÌ„merce societie or accordance with Papists in things divine vpon paine of eternall damnation Much joy may he haue in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper That this proposition The Church of Rome is a true Church Is false and vntrue will appeare by my answer to his Arguments Before I come vnto that I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church which I find written Appeale p. 140. in these words It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church not a sound Church every way in their doctrine Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions yet I passe by it and come to the proposition in question which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church c. I answer his perswasion though never so absolute is no compotent rule for any divinitie question much lesse for this which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith as the Church of Rome would haue it It may be the other two reasons which he hath for this matter is the ground for this his absolute perswasion therefore I passe from this and come to the second in these words In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree I answer this is a very riddle and no proofe What he meanes by essentials what by fundamentalls with whom or what they agree he sheweth not nor are the things evident of themselues When he speaketh to humane intelligence he shall haue answer If the Trumpet giue an vncertaine sound none can prepare himselfe to battell Let vs ayme at his meaning it will open the whole Cause the better It may be by fundamentalls he meanes such Articles of faith as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation If this be his meaning I deny that they agree in fundamentals for in such
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
a writ of dotage The Bishop shall haue the Church of England that furious one and all her children to beare him company The Homilie concludeth p. 132. That Images ought to be abolished so doth the Bishop p. 383. But Master Mountagu will none of that Appeale p. 255. The reason which our Church and the Bishop doth alleadge is this viz. because they are the cause of much euill M. Mountagu saith no they are sometimes profitable Gagg p. 318. But I will follow the Church of England and the Bishop let him gang alone for me By these arguments of our Church propounded and defended against his exceptions it doth euidently appeare that Images in Churches and imployed as he appointed are vnlawfull and from thence may necessarily be inferred against the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu that Honour is not due to Images If hee doth not rest content with this proofe it stands him vpon to shew vs the diuine law which inioyneth man to giue honour to Images forasmuch as without such a law the honouring of them is an humane inuention a seruice done vnto God which he reiecteth as odious and abhominable and consequently the faith decreed by the Church of Rome and receiued by M. Mountagu touching the hauing imploying and honouring of Images is erronious CHAP. XVII Of workes of supererogation M. Mountagu The Church of England A man may doe with the assistance of Gods grace things as counselled onely and not commanded Voluntariâ— works besides ouer and aboue Godâ— commandements 1 are works of supâ—rerogation 2. Canâ—â—t bee taught without pride arrogancy and impietie A man in some one point may doe more then is exacted  A man may doe more then he needed to haue done out of strict command Gagg p. 104.  A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any law of God Gagg pag. 105.  CHAP. XVIII The former point of workes of supererogation is disputed ACcording to our former course three questions are to bee handled 1 Whether there be any such workes or no. 2 Whether in affirming of them hee consent with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissent from the Church of England therein or no. In this Chapter I haue brought no Doctrine vnder the name of the Church of Rome because hitherto I haue followed the Councell of Trent which hath decreed nothing in this point Therefore the faith of that Church in this point is to bee taken out of the Doctrine commonly receiued amongst them touching it and because there is no Author amongst them fitter to report what that is then Bellarmine I will set downe what he saith of it it is this Holy men may doe such things for Gods sake which they are not bound to doe and these are workes of supererogation de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 4. Respondeo non c. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. 9. 13. The Gâ—gger hath the same thing reported by Mr. Mountagu in his Gagge page 104. in the margin in these words Man by assistance of Gods grace may doe some things counselled and these we call worke of supererogation That hee doth consent vnto this Doctrine of the Church of Rome hee professeth plainely and fully Thus he writeth I willingly subscribe vnto the point of councels Euangelicall Gagge page 103. and further he saith of the definition of workes of supererogation which I haue reported out of him no 1. giuen by his aduersary the Gagger If these were your workes of supererogation and no otherwise I would not contend with you page 104. Hee doth agree with them likewise in explicating and setting downe the nature of a Councell euangelicall as he cals it Bellarmine saith thus of it It is a good worke shewed not commanded it differeth from a Precept in this a Precept bindeth of its owne force a Councell is committed to mans free choyce when a precept is obserued it hath the reward being not obserued it hath punishment but if a Councell bee not obserued it hath no punishment if it bee obserued it hath the greater reward de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. Iust on this manner writeth he Imperious lawes require exact obedience vpon paine of punishment Appeale page 219. A Councell is a mandat not properly but with condition left vnto a mans choyce to doe it or not to doe it page 221. lastly he saith the obedience to Councels procureth reward to him that obeyeth them Gagge page 105. and hee that keepeth them not is without danger of punishment therefore Gagge page 103. A man would thinke by this that hee would not sticke to confesse that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of workes of supererogation but indeed he doth deny it for thus he writeth You call workes of supererogation such as be laid vp in store for imployments the treasure and stocke of the Church to satisfie for other mens offences not the things done as counselled onely these are only titular those are indeed workes of supererogation which you mean but these I deny Gagge page 103. c. I answer this excuse is headlesse what hand ruled his pen when hee wrote thus passeth my skill to iudge he doth heare the Church of Rome with one consent to affirme voluntary workes are workes of supererogation and the Church of England saith the same expresly and in so many words and yet forsooth he will needs beare them both downe they giue voluntary workes the name onely of workes of supererogation but they meant it not But I pray who told him so he nameth no Author for it nor can name I am sure Well he had it by speciall illumination and therefore hee might know their meaning without them and you must beleeue him for such knowledge is certaine and cannot deceiue you Be it so he doth disagree in the name but that will not inferre his disagreement in the thing Hee hath confessed his subscription to Euangelicall Councels that is to voluntary workes as I haue shewed in the former Chapter and that is all which is sought after now we find his agreement with them in the thing let him giue what name he will vnto voluntary workes But he saith It is an errour in Diuinitie not to put a difference betwixt such workes as a man may doe or not doe without guilt of sinne or breach of law and the Papists workes of supererogation If any man not knowing or not considering the state of the question hath otherwise Written or Preached or Taught it was his ignorance or fancie or misunderstanding or misapplying Appeale page 215. I answer in stead of proofes wee haue euill language I will scumme off the froth and examine what hee saith in good sober sadnesse This is the summe of his sentence He that saith voluntary workes in the iudgement of the Church of Rome be workes of supererogation is ignorant or fantasticall Vnto which proposition I may adde this assumption and conclusion But the Church of England saith the Church of
Articles they haue no divine faith because the immediate and formall reason of that their beliefe is the authoritie of the Pope and his Councell whose sentence is humane and not divine for want of a Commission from God for that office as hath beene shewed Chap. 3. His third proofe is comprehended in these words Appeale p. 113. They hold one faith in one Lord into whom they are inserted through one Baptisme I answer this wanteth not obscuritie he seemeth to esteeme himselfe safest when he is least vnderstood I suppose he would say thus The Church of Rome teacheth the same faith which God reveald and hath the same Sacraments which Christ instituted I answer if he were as able to proue as he is readie with confidence to affirme I would grant him the question vpon this onely reason But the spight is he hath no proofe at all and his owne word is not sufficient therefore we are where we were see how handsomely he disputes In the last argument he gaue them agreement in fundamentall points of faith that is to say in some not in all points for all points of faith be not fundamentall himselfe avoucheth Appeale p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith a sodaine change there some not all here all not some The matter it selfe of this argument shall be further handled anon num 13. c. He will supply this want by the authoritie of Ianius who is neither Papist nor Arminian his words are these The Papall Church is a Church according to that it hath which belongeth vnto the definition of a Church I answer it is very doubtfull whether this sentence be truly alledged or not because it neither affirmeth nor denieth any thing of certaintie but let it passe as it is it maketh nothing for you He must say The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church For so say you But of this he hath not a word If you say he supposeth The Church of Rome hath something belonging to the definition of a Church I rejoynd he may so suppose and yet not agree with you for that supposall may be a concession in curtesie and not an affirmation of a truth which two things doe really differ in your owne judgement Appeale p. 14. when it was your owne case Of this judgement I hope you are still now the case doth not concerne your selfe And there is great diffâ—rence between something pertaining to the definition of a Church and the essence whereof you speake for that must signifie part of the essence and may signifie the generall thing wherein the Church doth agree with other societies this must be taken for the specificall and adequate being of the Church Lastly I will willingly grant him the Church of Rome hath something pertaining to the definition of a Church and that it is a Church according to it and this is all he alledgeth out of Iunius yea I will assigne him what that something is viz. It is a company of men on earth which pertaineth to the definitioÌ„ of a Church by the confession of them and our Church The 19. Article sayth the Church is a Congregation of men and so saith Bellarmine de eccle lib. 3. cap. 2. And more then so I will grant him viz. that the Church of Rome is so farre forth a Church that is to say a company of men joyned together in one societie by one coÌ„mon bond but this will profit him nothing as is manifest by the thing it selfe Thus farre all the allegations which he maketh to perswade that the Church of Rome is a true Church haue beene examined and found too weake for his absolute perswasion that it is a true Church to be grounded vpon Wherefore I haue good reason to conclude this point in his owne words Appeal p. 161. If you haue any speciall illumination or assurance by divine revelation or rather strong perswasion through affection much good may it doe you keepe it to your selfe presse it not vpon others To which I adde If you will not be advised but insist vpon so vaine a conceit you do amongst wise men but beate the arre for as much as there is the description of the Church in the Scriptures and the authoritie of the Church of England against you neither doth there want proofe for the same thing amongst the Divines of the Church of England But in stead of many I will name onely two that is your selfe and Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester no Papists Arminians nor Puritans no shallow heads that Jcumme off the surface no novellers vnacquainted with old Learning none of the brethren frantick for the holy Cause but iust to an hayre as your selfe will desire Thus you write The Pope is interessed in that Apostacie which is a departing away from Christ his Kingdome his doctrine and his Scepter Appeal p. 149. 150. It may seeme probable that the Turkish state may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Papacie in making vp that Antichrist and Antichristian Kingdome or state opposite vnto the state Kingdome of Christ Turcisme opposeth Christ openly by fiery force and Popery is opposite by fraud and guile Appeale p. 158. The Scripture is our absolute rule of faith and manners we consent and agree it is Antichristian to dissent from to reiect that rule and him an Antichrist that doth so or proposeth any thing as to be beleeved against that rule The Pope doth this let him then be an Antichrist in St. Iohns acceptance There are many Antichrists Appeal p. 160. 161. From hence thus I argue 1. That Church which is Antichristian and an Apostata that hath departed from Christ his kingdome doctrine Scepter that is no true Church But according to you the Church of Rome is Antichristian and an Apostata c. For according to you the Pope of Rome is an Antichrist and an Apostata c. And such as the Pope is such is that Church for as much as they receiue their faith from the Decree and determination of the Pope Thus writeth Suarez defide c. tracta 1. disp 5. sect 7. num 6. 9. A generall Councell in which the Pope is present either in his owne person or by his Legates and confirmed by the Pope is an infallible rule of faith And this he also there saith is a matter of faith Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church 2. That Church which opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ is not a true Church But according to you the Church of Rome opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ For according to you the Pope Papacie Popery opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church How this sore shall be healed it passeth the skill of all such whose learning exceedeth not the age of Plato It may be he hath some that is of an elder
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
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
ignaroes must giberish to him he knowes not what If hee hath read them where was his conscience when he vrged an argument so often answered and so much opposed and which is more when he tendered it barely as a thing granted without so much as one word out of the diuine reuelation to confirme it or to take away those answers which are made to it What will he plead Is Suarez Aluarez and Bellarmine some of his poore Diuines meere Gaglers Blunderers Ramblers c. not worth the answering not worth the regarding the naming If his will bee to shew himselfe ridiculous he may thus answer and to say the very truth his deeds doe thus answer though wee haue not his words for it I might goe on with this inquirie but I content my selfe with this leauing it to the iudgement of the vnderstanding reader Thus haue I applyed the answers of these authors vnto the argument which doth abundantly shew the weaknesse thereof and I might content my selfe with that but I will adde somewhat more which the argument it selfe doth lead vnto This argument set downe no 27. speaketh of Predestination and if it were a decree to giue glory onely and thereby it doth beg the question because that is denyed him by the Church of Rome and ours If he say he takes Predestination to be a decree to giue grace also then this argument must be framed thus Finall perseuering in obedience is the instumentall cause that Peter receiued grace in the euent Therefore without finall perseuering in obedience God did not appoint by Predestination to giue Peter grace The antecedent or first part is denyed by all which liue in the Church of Rome yea euen by them that would haue Predestination to glory to bee vpon the foresight of workes and they must so deny because the Councell of Trent hath decreed sess 6. Preuenting grace is giuen by God man hauing no merits cap. 5. Wee are iustified freely because none of those things which precede Iustification whether faith or workes doe merit iustifying grace it selfe cap. 8. The same thing touching the free giuing of the first Grace wee learne from our owne Church which taketh it from S. Augustine and tendreth it vnto vs in the Sermon of Fasting p. 172. In these words No man doth good workes to receiue grace by his good workes Good workes doe not bring forth grace Grace belongeth to God who doth call vs and then hath he good workes whosoeuer receiueth grace Which sentence is so full and plaine and of such authority that I shall not need to say any more to shew the insufficiency of the Argument therefore here I will end my answer therunto which also must put an end to our Disputation touching this point of Predestination because he doth not offer any further occasion By that which is past it doth appeare that he dissenteth from the Church of England in this point of Predestination and that hee hath nothing of any worth to say for himselfe or against our Church Now wee should discouer with whom hee doth consent in the point for with some he doth consent else it is a priuate fancy peculiar to himselfe With the Church of Rome he doth not consent I take that as certaine therefore he must consent with the Lutherans and Arminians I name them both because both haue shares in the businesse The Lutherans doe vrge this doctrine of Predestination but not very strictly nor as a matter vndoubtedly revealed nor doe they presse it in all the particulars brought by M. Mountagu and therefore it must bee ascribed to Arminius by vs because hee is the man whose voyce was nearest vnto vs hee vrged it with more particulars and vpon greater necessitie then the Lutherans doe he chose rather to see the Country that bred him brought him vp and aduanced him come to vtter ruine rather then hee would hold his peace or retract this sentence of Predestination I forbeare to confirme this by the particular passages written by Arminius Vorstius and other of that side because it would be tedious and without all benefit What hath passed is sufficient to shew hee teacheth falshood and vntruth Therefore here I will end the whole Disputation There be also other points of Faith in his two Bookes which oppose the doctrine of the Church of England and which deserue a reproofe but because these are propounded and handled by him in the first place and their opposition is most dangerous therefore haue I contented my selfe with the refutation of these onely reseruing the rest till some other opportunity CHAP. XXI The Conclusion of the whole Disputation claiming M. Mountagues promise ALthough it hath beene his fashion to spend many lines with much bitternesse and ill language very ill beseeming a man of gravity and a Minister yet in the issue hee promiseth fayre if you will beleeue him writing in these words Let him or any other goe honestly sincerely soberly Scholler-like to worke Let him come home to the points controuerted without Rowling Rambling Rauing ioyne issue instantly with the question where it lyeth I am for him no man more ready more willing more submisse more desirous to goe calmly to work for Gods glory the Churches tranquilitie the good and benefit of my selfe and others Thus farre hee in his Epistle to the Readâ—r set before his Answer to the Gagger neer to the end therof I answer I haue accomplished your desire you inuite to the discussion of the things you haue written I hope you will accept it in good part I haue obserued the course of disputation you haue appointed And because I would not trust mine owne Art altogether therefore haue I followed B. Iewel in his answer to Master Harding To shew your selfe a plaine man you professe further in your answer to the Gaggers Preface toward the end 1 Our faith is to be regulated by the Scriptures 2 Bring mee in any one point or all points to this rule Tye me to it try me there I fall downe and adore it I would not I will not swerue from it 3 The present doubts hang in the Church of England I doe appeale to the publike doctrine thereof let that which is against them on Gods name be branded with error and as error be ignominiously spunged out Let the author be censured as he well deserueth by authority If I be so taken with the fact or euidence be cleare against me or I be conuicted by sufficient witnesse to haue erred thus I will recall and recant whatsoeuer is so exorbitant and further will deale so with my owne writing as they did with their curious bookes Acts 19. 19. Appeale p. 9. I answer I haue performed the condition in the iudgement I hope of euery Reader able to iudge of a disputation I looke for the performance of this your promise if you faile the fault must rest vpon your selfe and so I leaue you to your owne choice But you thinke to escape that and yet
be without blame by obiecting against the persons and plea of them that stand against you Of their persons you say They are Puritanes Self-conceited Presumptuous Maligners at States Irregular Louing paritie Factious Turbulent page â— 3. Ouer precise professors p. 4. Malicious p. 5. Hornets ill affected Purer Brethren Great Rabines in Israel whose pens and pulpits be infallible in iudgement page 6. Popular-spirits Singular illuminates Simple ignoranâ—ees Classicall dictators Groners for Parochiall Popes p. 7. Partiaries p. 14. Peremptory resolued conclusiue false slanderers p. 15. Calumniators indirect dealers p. 22. Men of cheuerellised consciences Calumniators neither honest nor plaine hauing presbyterian tricks of Legerdemaine p. 23. Traducers Saint-seeming bible-bearing Hypocriticall Puritans glosers time-seruers Colluders with the State page 43. Closers in shew with our Church but teachers of things contrary to what they haue subscribed crafty pretenders to bring in Popes to euery parish and Anarchies in the State separatists from others singular a part afaction a diuision brethren of Amsterdam p. 44. A faction of nouellizing Puritanes men intractable insociable incompliable with those that will not maintaine dissentions p. 60. Men that haue whirlegiggs in their braines And be far at variance with their owne wits p. 81. Clamorous Promoters That read not ordinary protestaÌ„t writers that braule at the shadow of their owne fancies fight with shaw-fowles of their owne setting vp Talke confidently Traduce virulently mistake ignorantly page 88. Men of new learning that haue little or none old factious furious p. 90. Of the preciser cut zealous Disciples p. 95. Such whose wits be not their owne p. 96. Such as professe themselues senselesse p. 99. Ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits p. 101. Feruent ones violently precise p. 108. Of vncharitable vnchristian fiery Puritanicall zeale Malice Indiscretion Such as run a madding of transported spirits p. 110. Schismaticks conforming for preferment p. 111. Men that hold with the Hare and run with the hound of mouing violent Quicksiluer Gunpowder spirits That run into extreames Furious ones p. 112. Promoters without Christian charitie common wit sense vnderstanding honestie Such whose passions are malignant and possessed with deepe malice Shamelesse slanderes p. 129. Ignorant malicious factious poore diuines p. 138. Franticke good fellowes that are and euer will be I know what p. 139. Halfers in opinions for priuate ends rotten at the core professing conformitie but are opposites p. 142. Men partially addicted maliciously bent to calumniate Honest informers detractors p. 145. Puritanicall opposites p. 146. Men that haue set themselues to calumniate Ignorant of the point they vndertake against That cannot or will not vnderstand p. 168. Fooles opposing common reason confessed diuinity p. 185 Great Masters in Israel Lyars against their owne knowledge p. 191. Ignorant peeuish prophane p. 207. Misdeeming informers wanting sincere and honest dealing p. 209. Malicious peeuish Puritanicall p. 213. Men of poore capacitie without apprehension p. 218. Dissemblers p. 222. Such as vnderstand not the depth of the question scum vpon the surface gibberish they cannot tell for what page 248. Pigmies of this time p. 273. Younglings p. 274. Of vncircumcised lippes p. 275. Of your shorter cut singular in their owne conceits Such as ramble and are ready to grind the teeth p. 279. Furious Puritans p. 281. Ignorant insolent arrogant presumptuous 283. Good brethren seeming holy and precise Tormentors of words malicious detractors 285. Bred and sent abroad by the diuell to maintaine a faction p. 291. Neither discreet nor moderate nor vnderstanding Diuines 293. Foore men that medled beyond their lachet And were out of their element p. 295. Ignaroes intollerable insolent malicious traducers Of Puritanicall quicksiluer spirits p. 304. Such as loue faction and diuision p. 305. Counterfeiting hypocrites p. 308. Of a brasen forehead p. 319. Zealous ones charitable informers franticke fellowes frighted with Pannicke feares of vncharitable conceits p. 320. Of Predominant frensies Ignorant stupiditie p. 321. Against their plea you say It is PRiuate opinions of the Informers Classicall resolutions of the Brethren p. 6. Dismembred passages p. 15. Of pure malice indiscreet zeale Lost-wits p. 17. Mistakings for aduantage p. 20. Shreds cut out from seuerall parts laid together and patched vp for aduantage p. 22. Things broken and dismembred which doe not cohere nor insue nor follow instantly vpon each other laid together out of charitable pure intent p. 24. Passages dismembred mishapen and abused p. 26. Scholasticall points meere speculations of themselues not apt to breed danger That haue beene pursued without all danger but of tongue-tryall p. 42. Priuate imaginations of opiniatiue men ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits p. 101. Idle dreames fancies and furies p. 114. The fruits of angry and idle braines p. 115. Confusednesse p. 116. Sottish malice and ignorance p. 128. Mishapen calumnies false suggestions p. 129. The grunting of swine p. 288. I answer first in the very words of that learned holy and reuerend Bishop Iewell If I should quit him with courtesie of speech I should bee like vnto him but I thought it good to vse such temperance of words not as may best answer your eloquence but as may be most comely for the cause Thus he writeth in his Preface before his Defence against Harding no 1. Although I should grant these imputations wherof I shall speake no 2. yet should you gaine nothing And I shew it in Bishop Iewels words also I beseech you if you haue leisure hearken a little and heare your selfe talke behold your owne words so many so vaine so bitter so fiery so furious altogether in one place These be the figures and flowers of your speech yet must we thinke that you can neither stampe nor rage howbeit I trust no wise man will iudge our cause the wâ—rse for that your tongue can so readily serue to speake ill Defenc. part 2. cap. 1. diuis 1. p. 83. By such discourses he is able to proue whatsoeuer thing shall come to hand when Scriptures faile then discourse of wit must come in place and when wit and discourse will not serue then good plaine round railing must serue the turne then he flingeth now at his Informers now at his Promoters now at the Puritans Thus he iumpeth and courseth this way and that way as a man rouing without a marke thus hee sheweth a mountaine of words without substance and a house full of smoake without fire when all is done we may say of him as the poore man said that shore his Sow Here is great cry and little wooll But truth is plaine and homely and hath no need of these hablements but who so will take vpon him to maintaine vntruth must be forced to leade his Reader from the purpose to feed him with words for want of matter and briefly to doe euen as here you doe In the Preface to the Reader neere to the end To the particular imputations I answer likewise in Bishop Iewels words So terrible are you in