Gagger and subscribe to Bellarmine who maintaine that Peters faith did not faile auoid it if you can I answer and so must your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too auoide you it if you can for I say no more then what I haue learned of her and so must you also auoid it if you can for you professe to beleeue what it beleeueth and teach what it teacheth in whose faith and confession you hope to liue and dye Appeale p. 48. You haue spun a faire threed you haue hunted all this while and couered your nets close to catch your mother and your selfe in the pitfall I will doe you that fauour as to let you and the Church of England loose I will stand by it my selfe and will professe Peter lost not his faith when he denyed Christ But you must giue mee leaue to expresse my selfe which I doe thus The act of faith is either eliciate or imperate The first is the act of the soule onely remaining in it selfe not knowne to man which wee call beleeuing The second is wrought by the body also and commeth to the knowledge of men as when a man doth professe by his tongue to giue credit and trust vnto Christ Peter lost not his faith in the first kind but in the second I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart beleeue that hee was indeed the Christ and trusted vnto and relyed vpon him as such euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him Peters deniall being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distresse hee feared If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus I subscribe to them and that vpon good reason for Peter had long beleeued on Christ and had now no cause to change that beleefe therefore wee may not say he did change it vnlesse the diuine reuelation had said it which hath not a word of any such thing but looke better on your bookes and you shall find Bellarmine saith Peter lost his charity but not his faith because he was Pastor ouer the whole Church and was to teach it the true faith de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more then I say by which it appeareth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perseuerance I maintaine nor my sentence so good Popery as M. Mountagu hath deliuered contrary to his vniust challenge Appeale pag. 18. It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith to establish his owne implyed Gagg pag. 163. which is on this wise Faith is either in the end or the act But this distinction I feare not because end and act are not parts of faith neither as specialls to the generall nor as constitutiue parts making a constituted whole besides what he saith of the end of faith is a riddle which I doubt himselfe vnderstandeth not Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent or position as it lyeth I will now put the disputation into due forme and answer thereunto Thus then it lyeth If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace then you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger who say that Peter lost not his faith But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine c. where he saith Peter lost not his faith for that is Popery Therefore you must not deny that Peter lost his habit of grace I answer This whole argument is a meere caption and no proofe it supposeth that the losse of the habit of grace is denyed to Peter onely which is false and the conclusion nothing to the purpose And so he must be vnderstood for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely But I will take it as it lyeth and answer to it The weaknesse of his cause will the better appeare by my answer which is this I grant the assumption I promise you I am and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popish faith as M. Mountagu and further too For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the office to determine all controuersies in faith Yet you get nothing by it for the consequence of your proposition is naught I may say the first and not the second in the sense wherein they take it for they say he lost not his faith neither in the habit nor act by a speciall prouidence and peculiar dispensation vpon the reason and for the end as is aforesaid n o 25. but I say hee lost it not neither in habit nor act by that prouidence and dispensation which is common to him with all other men that haue receiued the habit of grace who must needs keepe their faith so long as they keepe the habit of grace because the habit of grace consisteth in faith hope and charitie Vnto this sentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary They say all men lose their faith when they lose the habit of grace onely Peter is excepted by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue shewed no 25. Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his snare and we find the snare is broken and the game is escaped and with it his whole disputation in this point of falling from grace is ended Hee tells vs of some that haue whirlegiggs in their heads Appeale pag. 81. Which is true of himselfe if it be true of any but he may bee pardoned that fault his heart was so full of anger and his pen of railing that he had no leasure to attend vpon Art and Diuinitie CHAP. XIII The point of reall presence M. Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England There is there need bee no difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church in the point of Reall presence Gag 253. Appeale 289. Our Lord Iesus Christ true God man is contained truly really substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conc Trent sess 13. c. 1 That is whole Christ body and blood together with the soule diuinity and not in a figure or vertue only can 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacramēt of our redemption by Christs death insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receiue the same the bread which wee breake is a partaking of the body of Christ and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ CHAP. XIV The point of Reall presence is debated THe order obserued hitherto must be obserued here also Three things are sought after 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in the reall presence with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth in the point of Reall presence with the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himselfe Thus he writeth There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in the point of Reall presence Gagg p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Gagg p. 251. If the
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
he vnderstands it not for then he could not distinguish sinne into mortall and veniall for all sinne in this sense is mortall If by veniall he vnderstood no more but sin not deseruing damnation by Gods not-imputing it I will grant that sinne is veniall but hee must not vnderstand it thus for so all the sinnes of the iustified are veniall or to speake in the words of the Church of England first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning Their sinnes are washed in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their damnation It remaineth therefore that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth Which being true that distinction is denyed and so he begs the question and proues it not It is also denyed that a man habitually sanctified can commit any such sinne as the Church of Rome calleth mortall and yet he proues this as he did the former euen by his owne word If you will not beleeue him you must goe look proofe other where but you must not looke it in Bellarmine for if he had brought any Mr. Mountagu would haue giuen it you in English His next branch is this Where mortall sinne is committed God is disobeyed I answer in this sentence he attributeth disobedience vnto mortall sinne adequately denying veniall sinne to be any disobedience vnto Gods law for if he did not so he must say that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sinnes as hee calls veniall for he saith as we shall see anon where God is disobeyed grace cannot consist but must needs be lost But he will not say grace is lost by veniall sinne therefore he conceiueth onely mortall sinne disobeyeth Gods law Iust as Bellarmine doth who teacheth Veniall sinne is sinne by analogy or certaine proportion and imperfectly after a certaine sort but not perfectly and simply neither is it perfectly voluntary nor perfectly against the Law but besides the Law De amiss gra lib. 1. cap. 11. Quintum c. If you aske me how Mr Mountagu proues this I answer with no worse proofe then he hath done the former branches and that is his owne very word which you need not sticke at for he is one of the learnedst in the Church of England His third branch is in these words Where God is disobeyed he will not abide I answer in what sense soeuer the word disobeyed be taken this sentence is false and must goe for such till he hath proued it which yet he hath not done nor attempted to doe let him shew vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon the committing of this or that sinne 2 This actuall sinne is of that nature that of it selfe it doth expell grace If he proue one of these the question is at an end the Diuine Oracle must haue credit If you bring not that you hunt a flea and pursue a shadow It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne till you proue that grace must giue place to sinne by the ordinance and decree of God or the nature of the things themselues There be some other things in this proofe to be examined but I passe them ouer because they depend vpon these branches which I haue answered vnto and doe stand or fall with them To conclude this argument I say It is worthy to be obserued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised vnto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that position but at the vpshot their proofes are for the thing denyed by none and they take for granted the things denyed by all which kind of disputing in it selfe is most vnsound for it is no more but as if they should say it is so because we say it is so and it is most dangerous to the Reader that is not very wary for it is most deceitfull bearing a shew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in question It may be some will vrge these places of Scripture on this sort If he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometimes doth commit such sinnes as for which in in the euent he is cast into hell then a man may lose and some doe lose the habit of sanctity But he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometime doth commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he is cast into hell Therefore c. I answer In this reason I grant the first part or consequence of the proposition because no man hath the habit of sanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell for that leades to another end and is alwayes to be crowned with glory But the assumption or second part which hath two branches is wholly false no one place of Scripture doth affirme or inferre either of these two sentences The habitually sanctified may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell Some habitually sanctified haue committed such sins as for which he is now in hell If any require me to shew that the places alledged doe not proue thus much I answer That is not my office for 1. the question is not at this present purposely disputed 2 It is their place to dispute and mine to answer let them apply the Scriptures to the purpose in an orderly forme and I will make my answer good It is enough for mee to giue them an Issue They must proue the Issue or leaue the cause behind them I will put some of their allegations into forme and answer to them which I doe thus He that may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such actuall sinne as for which hee is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell he may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall be cast into hell But the man habitually sanctified may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such sinne as for which he is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity hee shall dye therein Therefore the man habitually sanctified may commit such sinne as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell I answer although the proposition seemes not to be euidently true because God may so threaten sin to shew vnto man what the desert of sinne is and not what in the euent shall become of such a sinner yet I will not at this present insist thereupon but come to the assumption which is not true neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be so for these three words viz. Righteous Righteousnesse Iniquity may import the act and none of them can signifie the habit as the text it selfe doth euidently shew which doth interpret the word Righteous by the word Righteousnesse and Righteousnesse it calleth an Act
be nothing but grace for can it bee conceiued how our comming to saluation can bee attributed to God as his worke but by reason that hee doth giue grace Lastly it cannot bee conceiued how God should bring to saluation by Christ but by giuing of grace seeing none come to saluation by Christ but such as are members of Christ and none are members of Christ but by the meanes of grace And that it was the meaning of our Church to make finall grace one thing appointed by Predestination to be giuen vnto man it is apparent by that doctrine of the Article which followeth where it maketh Predestination to be the cause or reason wherefore God bestoweth grace and glory vpon man in the euent for thus it saith Wherefore they which bee indued with this excellent benefit viz. of Predestination be called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit they through grace obey the calling and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to saluation BY CHRIST Hereby our Church doth set forth the means appointed by Predestination wherby in course of time man shal enioy the thing appointed by Predestination and that is Iesus Christ vnder whose name all other subordinate meanes are fitly comprehended and that our Church meant so need not be doubted because it addeth other meanes of grace and saluation besides Christ in the doctrine of the Article following TO DELIVER FROM DAMNATIOM By this the nature of Predestination formerly deliuered is set out or made more plaine vnto vs for this being contrary vnto that doth make it the more manifest vnto our vnderstandings and the Scripture taketh the same course also as in many other places so in these He that beleeueth is passed from death vnto life There is no condemnation to him that is in Christ Rom. 8. 1. By damnation is not meant the state of damnation actually for that sense cannot stand with the doctrine of our Church which followeth but by damnation is vnderstood the possibilitie of being in the state of damnation preuented by the decree of Predestination for that sense doth agree very well with the doctrine of the Article which saith This decree is constant as is declared before SOME ELECTED OVT OF MANKINDE The subiect or parties predestinated are here sayd to bee man but not all men vniuersally it restraineth the same vnto some of mankinde by saying that they are elected ones and elected out of mankind 2. The subiect that receiueth Predestinatiō is described by two things The one by the name and vnder the title of man meerly without any addition whereby is signified that man conceiued in himselfe onely as an intellectuall creature without grace or works of grace is obiected vnto and set before the diuine will of Predestination and in that notion onely he receiueth the same Our Church doth not say that God waited till man had grace and then and vpon the intuition thereof he was moued to and did predestinate him That this may be the sense of our Church is cleere because it is a course agreeable and decent vnto the diuine prouidence and man himselfe and that this must be meant by our Church is certaine also for no other sense can be made therof agreeable to these words and those words that went before which say the reason mouing God to predestinate is secret to vs And grace is bestowed by predestination The other thing describing it is the word elect which signifieth an act of Gods will whereby our Church doth giue vs to vnderstand that the reason why this or that man is predestinate ariseth from Gods will and pleasure of which it is that the predestinate are singled out and seuered from the rest of mankind IN CHRIST Our Church referreth these words vnto the word elect thus Those whom hee elected in Christ In this sentence the word elect doth signifie 1. an act of Gods will 2 An act going before predestination 3 A collection of a certaine number of men from others to be predestinated vnto this or that measure of grace and glory for so it speaketh in the 17. arti saying Those whom he chose he decreed to bring to saluation The words in Christ tell vs that Gods eye was extended to the chosen ones in or through Christ Now this act of election may bee done vpon man in the intuition of Christ either as the end intended and aimed at in the act of election or as the meritorious cause thereof In the first sense wee may not take our Church seeing it saith the reason that moued God to predestinate is secret to vs wee must therefore vnderstand our Church to speake in the first sense for that is most agreeable to the course of Scripture to the dignity of Christ and to the operation of grace in man What heart is it that will not rather make it selfe subordinate vnto Christ then Christ subordinate vnto him And that our Church meant thus we haue yet better reason to thinke viz. because this whole description of predestination is takē out of the first chapter to the Ephesians where the Apostle hauing said in the fourth verse He hath chosen vs in him He concludeth in the 12 verse That we should be to the praise of his glory which sheweth that Christs glory was the end intended aimed at in the act of electiō BEFORE THE FOVNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAYD That is before the Creation The world is created either in the reall being thereof or in the decree to create Our Church speaketh not of reall creating for then it should say the decree of Predestination is before actuall Creation This it could not meane or that is as much as if it had said the decree of Predestination is eternall for before that creation there is no duration but eternitie But our Church meant not by these words to say Gods decree was eternall for it had said so in expresse words a little before and this phrase of speech doth not make that more plaine but doth rather more obscure it Our Church then speaketh of Gods decree to create and so it setteth forth the moment wherein in our apprehension man is predestinate by God and is as if it had said Gods decree of Predestination in our apprehension goes before his decree of creation And the rather all men should vnderstand our Church thus because this order is agreeable to the nature of the things themselues Predestination being more worthy of loue then Creation That being supernatural perpetuall and mans last perfection This being naturall temporary and at most but a way vnto that therefore it is more orderly to conceiue the decree of Creation to be subordinate vnto the decree of Predestination then Predestination vnto Creation If any thinke that man cannot be predestinate before he be actually made I answer in Gods will of execution it is true man cannot inioy the being of the thing appointed by Predestination before hee hath actuall being himselfe now the will of execution is not now in
is no other but them So as what you said there and what you say here ouerthroweth each other If it be them it is not these If it be these it is not them If our 17 Article in your sight hath no more but these then you see our Church doth define Predestination onely by the generall nature efficient cause and subiect matter for your fiâ—e propositions no 15. containe them onely but you dare not say you did see our Church so defining Predestination for then you professe to see a fault in our doctrine not to bee excused seeing that the nature of euery thing is set out by the speciall and formall being and end thereof not by the efficient materiall cause without them But you may not so professe for you say Our Church hath gone on in this point of Predestination warily and in great wisedome and prudence Appeale pag. 59. Besides it is most iniurious and an imputation most false Our Church hath defined Predestination in that 17 article by all the causes whereby it existeth as I haue shewed no 5. 6. which course is most agreeable to art if wee may beleeue Thomas 2 dist 27. q. 1. ar 2. ad 9. And it also hath explicated each cause to make the difinition familiar and easie vnto vnderstanding therefore we must conclude you did see more in the 17 Article then you will acknowledge If you could not see more in the 17 Article then you professe to see then you can scumme vpon the surface but not diue into the depth then haue you no cause to despise the capacitie of other men as poore nor to vaunt of your owne as able to worke wonders seeing there is more in the Article then you can see as hath beene shewed you Thus farre of your reasons to excuse your selfe of disagreeing and dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Predestination and for my answers thereunto by which I hope all doubts are so remoued that we may conclude The Church of England teacheth all otherwise in the point of Predestination then you doe Now wee should examine whether hee or our Church doe teach vs the truth in the point that wee may know which of them to follow but Master Mountagu seemeth to decline all search after that For he thus writeth You cannot relish any thing but Gods secrets you are neuer at quiet with the secrets of Gods Kingdome you can neuer let his Predestination alone that comfortable doctrine of election and reprobation is your continuall Theame It is good to be wise vnto sobriety Appeale p. 59. The sum of which words must needs be these Predestination is neither comfortable nor reuealed Therefore not to be disputed nor our common talke For that is wisdome vnto sobriety I answer The Church of England saith article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort And lest it should be doubted whether this be true or no our Church addeth a reason to confirme it in these words Because it doth establish their faith of saluation and feruently kindle their loue toward God Whether of them shall we beleeue Our Church or M. Mountagu Sâ—rely our Church is worthy of more credit For she passed her sentence with deliberation and vnpartially He with ill affection It confirmes the position with an experimented truth He with his bare word Such a dutifull child is worthy his mothers blessing that giues her the lie vpon his owne authoritie Predestination is reuealed to M. Mountagu else he would not speake of it so wise is he vnto sobrietie but it is not reuealed vnto vs for wee neuer came so neere vnto the spring head as hee hath done and indeed wee need not pretend reuelation to oppose vnto him we onely say shew vs diuine reuelation for your Predestination and wee beleeue it till then we reiect it as your own fantasie It is your boldnesse to meddle with Gods secrets or to deuise a predestination opposite to his reuelation He proceedeth with these words I professe I doe loue to meddle in nothing lesse then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination Appeale p. 60. I answer he must conclude from hence that Predestination must not be disputed Or else it is meere Gaggling If he doe thus dispute then haue wee a worthy disputation for wee haue nothing to guide vs but his owne president We must grant the consequent because the authoritie of the antecedent doth inforce it and good reason too for who would not loue and hate what hee loueth and hateth He saith our predestination is desperate I commend him for it By the last words he spake he gaue his mother the lye expresly She said is was comfortable He denyes it with a scoffe Now he saith it is desperate wherein he checks her also for our Predestination is deliuered in her words and conceiued according to her sense and true meaning as may appeare no 5. and 6. Hee scoffes at them that say the doctrine of Predestination is comfortable belike then to him it is not so But whether of these bee in better case whose iudgement may we follow our Churches or his To appeale to himselfe is a thing not equall Popular positions doe often erre priuate spirits are of weake assurance Appeale p. 8. Well then whither shall wee goe to be resolued in this point Vnto the publike Doctrine of the Church of England contained in the Booke of Articles c. he doth appeale for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England page 9. Agreed no better match no fitter Iudge Let the 17. Article speake It saith vnto such as feele the workes of their flesh mortified and their mindes drawne to heauenly things the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable But vnto persons that be curious carnall without the spirit of Christ Predestination is most dangerous for by it the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or vncleane liuing By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end and the inference is plaine and necessary Vnto the holy Predestination is comfortable If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine vnto thee then art thou carnall and without grace Mr. Mountagu is able to apply specially what our Church hath decreed vniuersally therefore I leaue that to himselfe and all other whom it may concerne contenting my selfe with a bare relation of our Churches iudgement He writeth further thus Our Church in the point of Predestination hath not determined specially Appeale page 59. of when how wherefore or whom Gagge page 179. I answer this sentence tends to the same purpose or nothing that the former did viz. to disswade from all search after the nature of Predestination If a man did not care what he said he might sort well with Mr. Mountagu there is no vntruth so apparent but some man dares aduenture to auouch it there is hardly a falshood to bee found more apparent then this sentence of his and thus I shew it Our
because I will auoyde all his suspition and imputation of faction and dissention I will alleadge the words and iudgment of other men not any of mine owne Bellarmine saith de grat lib. 2. cap. 9. after this sort No reason can be assigned on our part of Gods Predestination not onely merits properly so called but also the good vse of freewill or grace or both together foreseene of God yea also merit of congruity and condition without which he that is predestinated should not be predestinated For explication he saith further I adde On our part because on Gods part Cause may be assigned viz. In generall the declaration of his mercie and Iustice In particular God doth not want his reason why hee would predestinate vnto life this man rather then that although the same be hidden vnto vs. Thus farre Bellarmine This sentence he vndertaketh to proue in the tenth chapter following 1. by Scriptures 2. by the testimony of the Church 3. by reason founded vpon Scriptures and Fathers which hee beginneth thus Some out of mankinde are chosen vnto the Kingdome of Heauen 1. Effectually so as they come thereunto infallibly 2. Freely and before all foresight of works This proofe he makes good by the Scriptures in that chapter By the testimony of the Church in the 11. Chapter namely by the allegation of many particular testimonies and then in generall he saith All the Fathers esteemed of by the Church euen all of them without exception did manifestly teach this sentence after the heresie of Pelagius was begunne And also it was approued by the publike sentence of the Church Lastly he concludeth in these words This sentence ought to be esteemed not the opinion of some of the learned but the faith of the Chatholike Church He proues also the same doctrine of predestination by seuen reasons in the twelfth chapter euery one of them being no other but the application and accommodation of Scripture vnto the point and doth defend this sentence against opposition in the 13. 14. and 15 chapters following These testimonies of Bellarmine must bee allowed of by M. Mountagu for many reasons 1. Because hee is a Iesuit and Iesuites haue the preeminence for the present in the Church of Rome as himselfe informeth Appeale pag. 203. and Bellarmine was a man of better spirit then some of that society as himselfe auoucheth Appeale pag. 239. whom he doth there also professe to be ingenious and biddeth him well to fare He doth commend him and preferre him too before others saying Bellarmine is a man of as strong a braine and piercing apprehension as any new vpstart master in Israel of the packe Appeale p. 77. But it may be he will say Bellarmine is factious in this point I answer I will therefore fortifie Bellarmines testimony but not with the testimony of any other Iesuites though I might alleadge Suarez who is not only so full in this point as Bellarmine is but also doth exceed him in the explication and vrging thereof and that most frequently but I will forbeare that and only adde the Dominicans and because I will auoyd needlesse allegations I will content my selfe with Aluarez who in his booke de Auxiliis disp 37. n o 6. 9. c. Disp 120 n o 4. saith There can be no cause reason or condition on mans part assigned of Predestination but it is to be referred vnto the meere and vndeserued will of God Which he saith further is according to the Iudgement of Augustine approued of by many Popes and taken out of most euident testimonies of holy Scripture The testimonie of these two must needs be of great force vnto euery man that doth duely consider them because 1. They are our aduersaries whose testimony is of more waight then if they were friends 2. They are such aduersaries as purposely doe refuse to speake as we doe If then they concurre with vs in words and the thing it selfe then it is manifest the truth compels them for there is nothing else to induce them they want not euasions if any were to bee found for they are men of learning they haue parts of nature they are industrious themselues and are abundantly assisted by others neither are they ignorant that this their doctrin of predestinatiō is the opinion of Caluin To conclude this is a sentence not peculiar to themselues that is to the society of the Iesuits and the family of the Dominicans whereof they are but it is a doctrine vniuersally receiued by their learned as may appeare by Aluarez in the 37. disputation alleadged and Suaerez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 16. n o 7. and that which goes before onely some of them doe differ in the manner of handling it namely whether both grace and glory or grace onely bee thus freely predestinated Lastly it may bee truely esteemed the faith of the Councell of Trent also because that Councell knew it to bee the iudgement of Caluine whose sentence they meant to reproue in all things they could yet they decreed not a word against it and it is apparent they did not forget it because they spent so many yeares in that Councell which is a plaine argument they throughly considered all the differences betwixt them and Caluin Besides in the sixt Session and twelfth Chapter it decreeth against such as resolue with themselues that they are certainely in the number of the Predestinate iudging this to be the opinion of Caluin which is a plaine proofe that they forgot not Caluins opinion in the rest of his Doctrine touching Predestination I hope this proofe is sufficient to cleere this point from nouelty faction c. termes which it pleaseth Mr. Mountagu to giue it for what can bee more Writers ancient and latter Churches of Rome and ours agree in it confirm vrge it If this be nouelty faction puritanisme desperate detestable and horrible to the eares of pious men Mr. Mountagu is happy and his Dutchmen with him that haue chosen the contrary sentence but no reasonable man will beleeue it therefore I proceed His next flourish is in this sort The Lutherans detest and abhorre it Gagge p. 179. Strange though too true imputations are raised against it Odious things are inferred from it Appeale page 54. pressed to purpose and you cannot auoid to my poore vnderstanding their conclusions Appeale page 52. This discourse may serue to disgrace but not to disproue for hee assigneth no imputations nor consequents nor consequences nor antecedents in particular but speaks onely of such and onely auowes them vpon his owne affirmation and vnderstanding which are of little worth for his word is found false n o 11. 12. and himselfe saith his vnderstanding is poore Let him bring those particular imputations those consequents which hee saies are so odious and consequences which hee saith are so necessary and antecedents from which they flow let him shew what is imputed and vnto what and the world shall see he speakes neuer a true word Hee telleth vs of Rouing
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
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
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
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