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
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 complaines of false iniurious vnhonest fiery frantick c. Informers and Promoters But vnder what coullours in what ranck shall this Champion be marshalled if you set him in the Vantgard he will be in the enemies front before the rest of the battell approach if you place him in the Reare you restraine his valour He complaineth the mother is stricken through the sides of a brother but here both mother and all her children stricken through the heart with one stroake together shee a dallier all them fooles or Infants What shall I say to it If this be your obedience to your Mother reverence to your Diocesan and kindnes to your friends then Of this point enough I proceed to the next CHAP. VII Mr Mountague Church of Rome Ch. of Eng Free-will is in vs subsisting not in title onely gagg p. 108. 1. There is Free-will is as true as Gospell we grant it as much as themselues gagg p. 114. There is in vs both the facultie and vse of Free-will is certain in faith and decreed in the Councell of Trent Suarez opusc 1. lib. 1. num 1. cap. 1. The grace of God doth prevent vs that we may haue a good will and worketh with vs when we haue that good will Arti 10. Freewill is a power whereby we eat c. wee assent disagree wittingly willingly without constraint Appeal p. 99. Free-will consisteth not only in the faculty of working voluntarily or of choyce willingly that is not against the will but also it includeth a power of doing and of not doing which vsually is called a dominion over his own actions or an indifferency in working in that respect that the faculty so working of its nature is not determined vnto one but can will this or another thing which is opposite thervnto and nill or not will Suar. op 1. l. 1. n. 2. c. 1 The predestinate to life be called according to Gods purpose by his spirit they through grace obey that calling Arti 17. 2. Man in the state of nature intire had bestowed on him a facultie whereby most freely and absolutely he was Lord over his own octions could doe or not doe what he pleased would gagg p. 107. 108.  If we haue any will to rise it is hee that preuenteth our will and disposeth vs thervnto Homily for Rogation 3. part p. 456. 3. That libertie was much impaired by sinne not extinct or amolished in corrupt nature such as now it is p. 108.   4. Man hath Free-will in actions of pietie and such as belong to his salvation gagg p. 109. Mans Free-will is not lost and extinct after the fall of Adam nor is a thing consisting in title onely Concil Trent sess 6. can 5.  5. We grant the generall being working and concurring of free-will with Gods grace p. 115.   6. Man hath Free-will after preventing grace in cooperation to the increase of grace p. 108. Man is disposed vnto the turning of himselfe vnto his owne Iustification by exciting and adiuvating grace in assenting and cooperating freely with the same grace  7. Man doth freely renouÌ„ce the calling of grace freely run themselues p. 112.   8. I thinke no man will deny That mans Free-will may resist the holy Ghost in preventing and operating grace not suffering him to worke the worke of grace in them so may he also against adiuvating grace Ap. p. 89. When God toucheth mans heart by the illumination of his holy spirit man doth not altogether nothiÌ„g receiving that inspiration for because he can also reiect the same Concil Trent ses 6. cap. 5. and can dissent if he will can 4.  Man being drawn he runneth as his assistance his owne agillitie and disposition is gagg p. 110.   Man being prevented by grace he then putteth too his hand to procure augmentation of that grace gagg p. 110.   CHAP. VIII The point of Free-will set downe in the former Chapter is debated IN this point as in the former three things are to be inquired of 1. Whether the propositions delivered by him be true or not 2. Whether those propositions consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether those propositions dissent from the Church of England or not Of the second and third we haue his sentence in his gagg p. 107. Appeal p. 83. where he saith The particulars in this point of Free-will controverted betweene the Church of Rome and ours are of no great moment And in his Appeal from p. 84. to 95. he indevours to proue That The Church of Rome and our Church doe agree in the particulars delivered by Mr Mountague set downe in the precedent Chapter To which I answer howsoever it be with our Church for of that hereafter from hence it doth necessarily follow that He consenteth with the Church of Rome in those his prepositions set downe in the last Chapter Because he will not deny to consent to those things which in his judgement the Church of England consenteth vnto And that indeed he consenteth fully with the Church of Rome will appeare by the sight of the doctrine on both sides set downe in the Chapter going before What it saith of the nature vse remaining causes manner of working effects adjuncts objects of free-will the same saith he he comes not short one word so that it seemeth little better then a transcription out of the Romish faith and opinion taught amongst them That he dissenteth from the Church of England a little labour of mine is required to shew it It is his taske to shew his agreement therewith for he vndertooke to defend the doctrine of the Church of England therefore he must shew that the doctrine which he defendeth is the doctrine thereof But that he cannot doe except he proue the Church of England doth consent with the Church of Rome and it seemes that he himselfe perceived so much therefore he laboureth Appeal p. 84. c. to proue their consent by this argument Whitaker Chemnitius Mollerus Perkins Sâ—ecanus Hemingius Willet the Helvetian Confession the Confession of Saxonie do agree with the Church of Rome p. 87. Therefore there is no difference between our Church and the Church of Rome Which argument is not barely alledged but accompanied with all due Circumstances First for the credit thereof that it might not come barely without authoritie he telleth vs. p. 95. 1. He examined this question between them and vs of free-will with as great diligence as he could p. 95. 2. He thought thus before and so he thinkes â—ow p. 84. 3. He confirmes the antecedent by laying downe certaine points of free-will maintained by some one that side which he calleth the most moderate amongst them p. 90. and confest by those of ours p. 87. 4. He interprets the conclusion and sayth he meanes by that Church and ours moderate and temperate men on either side p. 83. I answer If his intent be not to proue the
full Iustification 1. Sermon of salvation a little after the beginning There is nothing vpon the behalfe of man concerning his Iustification but onely a true and liuely faith 1. Sermon of Salvation a little before the end CHAP. X. The Doctrine deliuered in the former Chapter is argued THere be three things in it inquirable 1 Whether this proposition A sinners Iustification consisteth also in grace infused be true or not 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of England or not I haue set downe Mr. Mountagu his doctrine touching this point which containeth many propositions and because it might appeare how farre he agreeth with the Church of Rome I bring but one of them to be disputed because if this be foūd false against the doctrine of the Church of England then all the rest will be found false likewise and I desire to contract the disputation vnto the narrowest scantling That that first proposition is false doth manifestly appeare by the answers made vnto the disputations of Thomas Vega Soto Bellarmine Suarez Vasques and others that doe maintaine the same To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needlesse because there is nothing brought to proue it That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in euery one of his propositions is manifest to the full The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set downe also in the former Chapter will shew it And that not onely in the Iustice that doth concurre vnto Iustification and all other things which depend thereupon but also in the nature and being of the remission of sinnes as shal be declared no. 23 c. Which must be obserued because it is a matter of great importance it is little obserued and maketh vp his agreement with them and his disagreement with the Church of England in euery part and parcell of this point teaching in all things as they doe in nothing as the Courch of England doth That he doth disagree from the Church of England the very reading of the doctrine of them both set downe in the last Chapter will declare Our Church placeth our whole Iustice and adequate nature of Iustification in remission of sinnes he placeth it also in grace infused It maketh remission of sinnes one thing he another as shall bee shewed hereafter no. 26. c. Notwithstanding all which euidence he laboureth in his Appeale pag. 168. and 188. to perswade the world that He consenteth not with the Church of Rome nor dissenteth from the Church of England But all his labour is in vaine the contradictory will proue true as this discourse will declare He pleadeth for himselfe two things First by grace infused hee meant and intended onely concommitanter that is grace concurreth with remission of sins in a iustified man pag. 168. 169. 170. Secondly in that description hee went not punctually to worke but described Iustification at large for that act of God of remission of sins and the necessary and immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that Appeale pag. 172. 178. He chargeth such as do not vnderstand that proposition in this sense with ignorant or wilfull mistaking his meaning or obstinate refusall of satisfaction Appeale pag. 168. 172. I answer All this is a faire shew put vpon a foule cause a meere pretence without shew of truth I will make it appeare first by my answers to the argumēts he brings to proue hee meant thus And then by proofes from the things themselues This was not his intent but his words must be vnderstood as they lie without interpretation His first argument p. 168. is to this effect I did attribute grace infused to Iustification secondarily Therfore I intēded grace infused is in a iustified man I answer This reason is reasonlesse There is no shew in the Consequence the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to thinke you meant so neither doe you shew how it should Againe your owne words doe proue you meant not that by the word secondarily but that grace infused doth constitute Iustification in a second notion For if Iustification be a motion between two termes the one of sinne wherein a man was the other of grace whereto a man is brought and that is the first this the second then grace doth constitute Iustification in a second notion but you teach the first Gagge pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be vnderstood to meane the last In the next place he telleth vs that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught that a man iustified is sanctified also I answer This proueth not that hee meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is iustified but supposeth that he did meane so and sheweth why hee did meane so therefore it is nothing to the purpose Besides it is vtterly false he had no purpose to say any such thing for the question then in hand was whether faith only doth iustifie which could not yeeld him any occasion to say Grace was in a iustified man they being two things euery way distinct and without the shew of affinity Againe neuer any Papist liuing did write or say that we denie a iustified man to be sanctified also therefore you had no occasion thus to say In the last place pag. 171. he hath these words If a iustified man bee also sanctified then might I allow one common word to containe expresse both the parts I answer 1. This supposeth he meant as hee pretendeth sheweth the reason why hee comprehended two things distinct in nature vnder one name but proues not that hee meant to say as hee pretendeth 2. He bestoweth much labour and spares for no cost to proue the first part of this reason but to no purpose for that was neuer denyed by any man in the Church of England nor in any other Church that ioyneth in faith with it But the consequence is vtterly false for these two parts are not essentiall vnto that whole which you call Iustification Therefore when you make one word to containe thē both the sentēce is vntrue disagreeable to art and a monster in nature He is vnskilfull that puts a childs-shooe vpon the foot of Hercules that addeth to the statue of a man the limmes of a beast and iust so doe you in this place if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification vnder the name of Iustification And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse and this too much too for of three things two of them are wholy besides the matter and voyd of truth in themselues the third disproued by his owne plaine testimony In the behalfe of the second part of his excuse hee saith page 172. Iustification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sinnes and largely for that act of God and the necessary immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that c and the like doth Caluine Perkins Beza I
said to the point it selfe will come afterwards when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed no. 31. § But how Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this point which hee harpeth so much vpon which doth also euidently shew that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point Wherefore I leaue it and proceed So confident is he in this fancied victory that from thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputation in these words If they meant no otherwise then thus as I conceiue they did not I see no reason to dissent from them There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereunto then to returne you your owne words Appeale â—ag 184. You cite no words name no place send me to no text page nor particulars by any direction that I may know where to finde what you intend a meere tricke of iugling companions Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent which I dare say will not downe nor digest with you aâ— opposing your conceit or rather dreame or wilfull peruerting the meaning of the Councell the which because I haue a fit time I will not let it alone till another Where you say If they meant your meaning is to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent where It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ Sess 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne into the state of grace cap. 4. That you referre vs hither or vnto no other place in the Councell I take for granted Where you say if they meant no more but thus your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before viz. He that is iustified is also regenerate Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part I let passe the consequence of your proposition and come to your assumption which must bee set downe in these words But the Councell of Trent in these places Sess 6. c. 3. and 4. c. meaneth no more but that a iustified man is also sanctified Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring vs the proofe of it in these words As I conceiue they did not Now all parts of the argument are set right I answer to it The assumption is false yea so odiously false as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese or that had conscience to declare the truth when hee vnderstood it This might be made to appeare by diuers passages in the Councell of Trent but I will content my selfe onely with these three 1 Sanctification is by grace infused Iustification it selfe is sanctification Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent cap. 7. In which 1. it speaketh of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters 2. By Iustification it selfe it meaneth the quidditie essence and being of Iustification both which are manifest of themselues they need no proofe And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused is likewise as certaine 2 The onely formall cause of Iustification is the very being thereof Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iustification Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iustification The proposition is a principle in nature and agreed vpon for truth therefore may not be questioned The assumption is the expresse words of the Councell of Trent in the 7. Chapter 3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification then it is by remission of sins onely excluding grace infused But the being of Iustification is not by remission of sinnes onely excluding grace infused Therfore the being of Iustification is by grace infused The consequence of the proposition is so necessary that it cannot be questioned The assumption is the words of the couÌ„cel c. 7. caÌ„ 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption he will supply by the proofe thereof which forsooth is his owne conceit he conceiued they meant not otherwise than thus therfore you must coÌ„ceiue so to Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 178. Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so nay because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded he said it did not so much as seeme white vnto him Your opinions are your owne you will opine what formerly you haue thought so doe for me and there an end But I cannot so let it passe because you keepe not these conceits at home but so much are you filled with them that you must needs vent them or burst And you cannot bee contented with that but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you and more then so wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome in the point of Iustification that haue dissented for many ages till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world Therefore vnto his conceit I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen that haue liued in the Church of Rome till the Councell of Trent all agreeing in this one sentence Grace infused is essentiall vnto Iustification And shall we thinke the Councell of Trent would determine against theÌ„ Surely no Besides the Councell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order Peter Lombard Richard Altisiodore Albert and Alexander the Predecessors of Thomas not attaining thereunto yet consented with him in this thing Since the Councell of Trent all on that side without exception doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustification in grace infused I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares deliuering their iudgments singly and afterwards decreeing the same in a Councell ioyntly and last of all the same decree so interpreted and defended vniuersally but I leaue it and conclude in his owne words Appeale p. 248. You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the question but scumme vpon the surface and gibberish you cannot tell for what And thus much is enough and too much to haue said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustification In which also I wil content my selfe
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
words were spoken onely to the young man And he that readeth his Confirmation of his 5 argument shall find it so If you will proue the doing of voluntary workes by our owne confâ—ssion you must bring vs things true and not falshood against the light of the Sunne Yet so ioyous confident and iocund is hee in this argument as if all were his owne as if hee had spoken nothing but what was as true as Gospell therefore he proceedeth on this wise If you doe not sell all that you haue and giue it to the poore you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble If you demand of him wherein that dissimulation should lye he is not to seeke for answer thus he doth shew it you You would perswade men of a case of necessity that your selues may feed fat vpon their folly I answer when I read this passage I could not but stand amazed and my heart within mee became cold to see the libertie that an angry minde and an euill tongue will take but staying my sâ—lfe a while at last I remembred him that said I will lay my hand vpon my mouth and him that was a lambe dumbe before the shearer that opened not his mouth That indured such speaking against of sinners This gaue me satisfaction for the iniurie of this euill sentence touching the Author whereof I say no more but this Lord forgiue him for hee knoweth not what he doth and so I might put an end to this whole point But stay he must talke a few cold words with you before you part and these be they He that said a man may doe more than he is commanded was no Papist they that say it is Popery are men of poore capacitie not apprehending what is popery what is not they misdeeme mistake misname popery Appeale p. 217. 218. I answer this suteth well with the last passage both of thâ—m together doe witnesse without exception that Mr Mountagu is a carefull obseruer of Councels for these sentences be vnmeasurable railings and I am sure they were neuer coÌ„manded and I presume neuer coâ—ncelled by God He must shew vs then who gaue him a law for them or whose Councells they are By Popery he must meane the erroneous faith of Rome That being so his bitternesse is ioyned with falshood a sweet Garden that yeeldeth such flowers That it is he faith of Rome is already agreed on That it is erroneous hath beene hitherto inquired of in this question It was your duty to haue shewed vs your voluntary works in the Scripture but you haue not therefore we must resolue you cannot If they be not there you must confesse they be erroneous Therefore the vnderstanding and capacitie of them that deny them was rich enough to finde out your Popery and giue the right name to it I could giue him that vrgeth Popish voluntary works such titles as he doth iustly deserue and which might equall those which he vniustly giues to such as refuse them but I leaue them as fittest for his eloquence and such Reuilers to the dispose of him that hath pronounced a woe vnto such as are strong to doe euill CHAP. XIX Of Predestination Master Mountagu The Church of England I conceiue of Gods act or decree of Predestination after this sort Appeale p. 61. to 65. 1 God decreed to create man 2 He created man good 3 Man fell from that good 4 By that fall hee was plunged into Perdition 5 God saw him and had compassion of him 6 He stretched out deliuerance to theÌ„ in a Mediatour 7 Drew them out which tooke hold of Mercy this I must professe Predestination to life is the euerlasting purpose of God whereby before the foundations of the world were laid hee hath constantly decreed by his Councell secret to vs to deliuer from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST out of mankinde and to bring them by Christ to euerlasting saluation as vessells made to honour CHAP. XX. The point of Predestination is debated THis Chapter examineth two questions onely 1 Whether his doctrine of Predestination bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in it with the Church of England c. We omit to enquire whether he consenteth with the Church of Rome or not because the Counsell of Trent hath decreed nothing that I can finde touching the nature of Predestination and the most common opinion of their Schooles dissenteth not from the Church of England Some doe dissent as Occham and others with him in former times And in latter times Gabriel Vasquez and some others with him but the difference is rather in Position and manner of speaking then really and in the thing The disputation in this Chapter is restrained vnto the second onely for of this point he saith Appeale page 61. Take it as I conceiue it and so shall professe it vntill I am informed and ascertained that the Church of England teacheth all otherwise then I conceiue of it This sheweth you lose but labour when you attempt to draw him from his opinion by any arguments taken from Scripture or mans writings bring him the Church of England and it sufficeth if you bring not that he is still where he was The doctrine of the Church of England is not concealed from him nor is the sense obscure hee needeth not dig deâ—pe to finde it there is none worse then hee that will not vnderstand Before I can shew what the Church of England teacheth and how hee dissenteth there-from I must take a view and haue a clâ—ere vnderstanding of the things deliuered by him In which there is seuen distinct branches as the reader may see in the former Chapter The seuenth branch hath these words He drew them out which tooke hold of mercy This branch doth appertaine to Predâ—stination for it concerneth mans ordering vnto his last end and perfection The other sixe belong not thereto for they speake of mans being and the causes thereof and things pertaining thereto They haue not a word of ordering man to any end If this seuenth branch bee framed according to Art it will stand thus Predestination to life is an act or decree of Gods will whereby he purposed to draw them out of the state of perdition which tooke hold of mercy In this frame wee haue the thing defined and that whereby it is defined I restraine the question vnto Predestination to life because our Church doth so Artic. 17. and the Scriptures are more frequent in that and no meruaile why because the Scriptures were written for the direction and consolation of them that shall goe to heauen I haue framed it altogether by his owne direction the question of Predestination is put so by himselfe as I will now shew Appeale page 38. hee calleth it an act or decree of God which must needes be an act of his will and so hee termeth it Appeale page 61. This act is immanent not transient for he saith in the same place hee conceiues it setting by all
question but the will of intention onely man may be predestinated in the will of intention before he hath an actuall being for God may so decree when man is but in possibility to be as Suarez well obserueth AS VESSELS MADE TO HONOR In this last branch our Church assigneth the end of Predestination the manner how it floweth from the same The end is signified by these words made vnto honour by honor is signified both the glory honor giuen vnto God by declaring his attributes as prouidence and loue vnto the reasonable creature as also the honour which the creature receiueth from God in beholding him face to face wherein the true and proper nature of blessednesse consisteth That being the supreame this the next end of Predestination And that our Church doth meane thus there is no cause of doubt because it agrees well with the present words and the thing it selfe It openeth the manner how the one floweth from the other by saying as vessels made to honour wherein the Predestinate are likened vnto vessels that receiue honour vnto themselues and are instruments in honourable offices vnto God In saying as vessels our Church sheweth that this end issueth from the act of Predestination immediately and of the thing it selfe There is nothing in man added vnto the diuine will of Predestination to make it fit and apt for these effects for such is the condition of a vessell it cannot say to the Potter thou hadst sufficient reason out of my selfe why thou shouldest make mee a vessel vnto honor neither can it challenge the Potter for iniury vnto it if he doth make it a vessell not vnto honour Lastly our Church saith the Predestinate are made vnto honour to wit by Predestination wherby efficiency of euery kinde is attributed vnto Gods will no part of this honour is yeelded vnto the Predestinate himselfe for then it must haue diuided the act of making to honour betweene God and the Predestinate but this it doth not but giueth that act onely to Gods will of Predestination And thus haue I gone ouer the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it doth appeare that our Church opposeth Mr. Mountagu his Predestination so fully as nothing more can be required Mr. Mountagu saith 1 Glory onely is decreed by Predestination 2 Man was in perdition before he was Predestinate 3 Man had finall grace before he was predestinate 4 Mans finall grace moued God to predestinate him Our Church saith 1 Finall grace and glory is appointed to man by Predestination 2 Man was Predestinate before his actuall being was decreed 3 Predestination is of Gods will the reason thereof is not from man nor knowne to vs. Notwithstanding this proofe hee will make you beleeue that our Church opposeth this Doctrine of Predestination Hee bringeth his first reason for that purpose Appeale page 59. thus to be concluded That which is opposed by many of the learned and most conformable in the Church of England that is opposed by the Church of England But this sentence Predestination is without relation to faith c. is opposed c. Therefore this sentence c. is opposed by the Church of England I answer I will speake to the point in question and let the rest passe The proposition or first sentence of this reason is false by his owne rule Appeale page 48. and 49. where he saith The presumptions of seruants are not the Lords directions euery one that Prateth Readeth Lectureth Preacheth or Professeth must not looke to haue his discourses taken as the dictates or Doctrines of our Church yes saith Mr. Mountagu page 59. If they be of the learned and most conformable in our Church nay saith Mr. Mountagu pag. 49. Our Mother hath sufficiently made knowne her minde in Bookes that are publike promulgated authorised and subscribed these are those passages at which the lisping Ephramites are to be tryed Some that be learned in our Church doth oppose that sentence and so farre I grant the assumption but their number exceeds not If Mr. Mountagu conceiueth otherwise hee is one of the Duke of Burgundies spies that taketh a field of Thistles for an army of Pikes page 320 and so the assumption is false that speaketh of many Those some doe oppose indeed but priuately and in a corner Let him shew where euer that sentence was opposed in Print or in publike place without controle therefore their opposing is not our Churches opposing His next reason is thus Appeale page 59. 73. If our Church it selfe doth teach that a man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God then it opposeth that Doctrine of Predestination But our Church doth so teach directly and in expresse words I answer He makes this matter like a Pedlers Horse that is acquainted with euery doore a Knight of the Post to depose in euery cause In this cause his witnesse is false his Pedlers ware will not sell Our Church doth not so teach Mr. Mountagu the Gagger being witnesse saith expresly Our Church hath left it vndecided and at liberty p. 158. and 171. and I haue proued our Church doth not teach it Chap. 11. 12. It is bold importunity to vrge that for true which himselfe denieth to be true but better that then nothing It may perhaps be beleeued by some where silence is a sentence of guiltinesse He telleth vs further page 59. Our Church hath gone on in these high points in great wisedome not concluding vpon Gods secrets I answer I grant thus much Let him goe on in the words of our Church and sticke to them and it sufficeth but what he would inferre from hence I know not I am sure he may inferre thus Therefore himselfe in dissenting from our Church hath not done wisely His third argument I finde Appeale page 72. which is to this effect That which was stiled against the Articles of Lambeth a desperate Doctrine at the Conference at Hampton Court before his Maiesty without reproofe or taxation of any is not the Doctrine of the Church of England But this Doctrine of Predestination was so stiled viz. by Doctor Bancroft c. without reproofe of any I answer the proposition is as probably false as true such a fault might be let passe for diuers reasons of state and obseruance The assumption is a manifest vntruth The Booke that reporteth that Conference will shew it for it reporteth that speech of Bishop Baneroft page 29. in these words Many in these dayes neglecting holinesse of life presuming too much of persisting of grace laying all their religion vpon Predestination If I shall be saued I shall be saued which he termed a desperate Doctrine Here is not a word of Mr. Mountagues tale According to him the Doctor saith thus this sentence Predestination is without relation to mans faith Is a desperate Doctrine According to the Booke the Doctor saith this sentence The Predestinate may neglect holinesse of life because if he shall be saued he shall be saued