pretended Church which they doe not And againe Appeale p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop but without the Pope as head but they doe not so By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone To this I answer this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging and in the subject that receiveth it abstracted from particulars namely that Church and differs only in the assigning in particular which is the Church Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question and that is enough But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full which vnderstands by the word Church a true not a pretended Church and the Pastors of the Church not the Pope onely For it calls that Church in the words immediately going before the Mother of all beleevers Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church nor to the Pope alone Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church by the word Pope but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommodation as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is That office of teaching which belongs to the Church belongs to the Pope and his Councell But this office of teaching viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies belongs to the Church Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell The proposition they say is true because Teaching is formally in the Pastors otherwise then by them the Church cannot teach It must be a Councell because the Pastors singly may erre The Pope must be joynd with them because it belongs to him to gather direct and confirme Councels In the assumption of this reason he consenteth with the Church of Rome and that is the principall part of this Argument In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre That this â—â—ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church vniversally and to the Pope as one of them and that in a Councell He onely denieth the Popes authoritie to call direct and confirme Councels which is the last and least part of this Argument All which being considered we may safely conclude that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies with the Church of Rome The third thing to be debated in this question he resolveth gagg p. 13. 14. 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England and doth alledge the 21. Article for it saying the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith But all this is vntrue I haue set downe that Article in the former Chapter the sight whereof will avow it Yea the Article is full for the contrary For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more Which it must haue done if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge to apply and interpret the Scriptures 3. It restraines the force of the sentence of the Church To examination and tryall by the Scriptures But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge which must be received as the dictates of the holy Spirit The Conclusion is He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England CHAP. IIII. M Mountague The Church representatiue caÌ„not erre in points of faith gagg p. 48. Ch. of England Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God arti 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow I haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome because I find not the Councell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controversies as shall appeare in the particular passages following This being premised I proceed to examine 1. Whether this proposition the Church represensatiue cannot erre in points of faith be true or not 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England or not First the sence of these termes 1. Church representatiue 2. erre 3. points of faith must be set downe 1. By Church representatiue he vnderstands a Councell truely generall Appeale p. 121. 2. By error he meanes an abberration from a rule Appeale p. 6. viz. the Scriptures gagg p. 13. 3. By points of faith is meant every sentence to be assented to as true vpon the authoritie of God the revealeâ— thereof Not erring in points of faith supposeth a sentence to be given which is the subiect of not erring in delivering whereof they cannot erre According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words A Councell truely generall in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition cannot vary from the Scriptures That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition himselfe confesseth gagg p. 48. where of it he saith So say they so say we And Bellarmines words doth shew it Which writeth thus The Church representatiue cannot erre de eccle lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done Nostra c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word For he maketh that the first foundation of our faith and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof de verbi dei interpret lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc c. Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just Notwithstanding he denieth Appeale p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist that is as I conceiue that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point and giues this reason for it Points of faith be fundamentall or accessory gagg p. 48. Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as the reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man Appeale p. 123. In points accessory there may be error but none in points fundamentall gagg p. 48. Of points fundamentall onely doe I speake and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie Appeale p. 123. I answer this explication serues well to puzzell the Reader but hath no force to cleare Mr Mountague from agreeing with the Ch of Rome for many reasons The terme fundamentall is borrowed We shall then know the true sence of it when we know what a foundation is in proper speech A foundation is that part whervpon the rest of the building is placed Fundamentall points of faith must be like vnto this they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded which is borne vp and sustained by such points of faith Things accessory are such as are attendants not things principall in being or causalitie
This being considered I say 1. First the distinction it selfe is naught No points of saith be accessory all are fundamentall in as much as the whole divine Revelation and every particular proposition thereof is the foundation of our salvation which is built therevpon And so saith the Homilie of reading the Scriptures 1. part where it calleth the Word of God the foundation wherevpon the wise builder doth build And the Apostle doth say no lesse when he saith We are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles c. Eph. 2. 20. And the thing it selfe doth fay the same for as much as there is no sentence in the divine Revelation but doth conduce to everlasting happinesse 2. His description of a fundamentall point of faith is of his own devising without warrant of the thing it selfe or any other Author He doth alledge Appeale p. 128. Bishop Morton for his Author thereof but falsely The Bishop even as he hath alledged him hath not one word of a fundamentall point of faith that hath any place in this question 3. The description as it lyeth is not intelligible how a foundation can be as essentiall to the thing built therevpon as the soule is to man passeth humane vnderstanding seing mans soule is the primary essence of man a foundation is but part of the matter whereof the building is made Againe what he meanes by beliefe needs a second explication there is nothing in his discourse that shews it 4. To what the points of faith be fundamentall he shewes not this therefore must be vnderstood because points of faith are fundamentall divers wayes 1. Some points are fundamentall to other some viz. this point There is a God is fundamentall to all other points of faith The like instance may be given in many other points wherin the primary are the foundations to the secondary points of faith 2. Points of faith are the foundations to our salvation 3. Points of faith are the foundation to the Church in as much as the Preaching of the pure Word of God therein doth serue vnto the being of a Church in the Iudgement of the Church of England Arti 19. He yeeldeth vs another description Appeale p. 116. in these words Points fundamentall be such as are immediate vnto faith He proues this as he did the former just never a whit We must beleeue it to be thus because he saith it We must guesse at his meaning for he doth not tell it vs. I thinke by immediate vnto faith he meanes such points as are obiected vnto faith first before others such as these viz. That there is a God is beleeved before all other points that concerne vertue and happinesse That there is a divine Revelation is beleeved before all other that concerne supernaturall holines and happines That there is a Mediator the man Christ is beleeved before all others that doe directly tend to salvation He being thus vnderstood his description is false for the primary or first obiecting vnto saith giues them not any thing like to the foundation of a building It is the succeeding Articles of faith which doth suppose the precedent that make the preceding to haue the likenesse of a foundation This Article That there is a God is a foundation to all others vniversally because all of them doe follow and suppose this 2. Some Articles are fundamentall which are not obiected first vnto faith for that there is a divine Revelation is not obiected first vnto faith yet it is the foundation vnto all other Articles of divine faith The like instance may be given of many other Articles which are foundations in the like sort which yet are obiected vnto faith many degrees after the first He doth explicate these fundamentalls by these properties viz. The knowledge and beliefe of them is absolutely necessary to salvation no man can be saved that doth not know and beleeue them That some points haue these properties I grant and namely those three I haue alreadie spoken of but that these properties are so peculiar vnto fundamentalls as that they belong vnto them all and vnto none but such which is the thing he intendeth he hath not proved nor can Besides this necessary order between some points of faith and heaven doth not make them fundamentall because that necessitie ariseth from the things themselues in respect that they are the entrance into the way to heaven 5. The application of the distinction is false He doth not conceiue the Church to be infallible in fundamentalls For if he did then also he doth giue the Church authoritie to Iudge in fundamentalls because that goeth with this But he doth not giue the Church that authoritie but denieth it vnto them Which I proue by his owne testimony 1. In his Appeale he disputeth p. 126. in this forme and in these words Councels are to determine things which be of doubtfull issue Fundamentalls are no such Out of which proposition and assumption this conclusion issueth Therefore Councels are not to determine points fundamentall 2. Out of his Gagg and Appeale I argue thus In Divinitie questions and controverted matters the Church is Iudge gagg p. 14. 28. Fundamentalls are not divinitie questions nor controverted matters For Fundamentalls be plainely delivered in Scripture Appeale p. 125. Therefore the Church is not Iudge in fundamentalls Although these things which I haue answered be sufficient I hope to take away the reason which he pleadeth to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie yet I will adde a reason from his owne testimony and the thing it selfe to proue that his agreement on this manner If he doth giue to the Church infallibility in points fundamentall all points of faith be fundamentall then he doth agree with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie For the Church of Rome doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in all points of faith But he doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in points fundamentall And all points of faith be fundamentall 1. To mans salvation 2. One to another 3. To the Church as shall be proved if need require Therefore he doth consent with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie And thus much shall suffice touching the second point That he doth dissent from the Church of England the words on both sides set downe in the beginning of this Chapter doe sufficiently shew so that to beâ—â—ow further labour therein is indeed altogether lost yet notwithstanding that it may appeare to be so without all exception I will answer to those proofes which he alledgeth to excuse himselfe therefrom which are as followeth Appeale p. 128. The first whereof must be framed thus That possibilitie of erring which Arti 19. ascribeth to generall Councels is in things wherein they haue erred For It avou cheth that generall Councels haue erred But in fundamentalls they haue never erred because there is no such extant Therefore the Article doth not
ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls I answer this argument proues nothing but begs the question in that 1. It takes as granted some points of faith be fundamentall other some are not which is denied him 2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion The proposition is also false the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring without limitation either indefinite or assigned It saith Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God If this proposition be vnderstood to speake not of all but of some things pertaining to God then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie but that may not be granted for that is a delusion no decision The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not for that proposition is not a limitation of a Councels erring but a proofe that Councels may erre on this wise Councels haue erred Therefore Councels may erre If it be replyed that this reason is not good except erring in the consequent be taken in that sence wherein it is vsed in the Antecedent I rejoynd the argument is good although erring in the antecedent be taken for erring in some things and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith is not free at all The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus That which hath not erred hither to cannot erre hereafter c. But this proposition is manifestly false because freedome from error and infallibilitie in Iudgement is not made by not erring in time past but by a speciall peculiar providence of God which they may want at some other time who in the thing haue not erred in time foregoing His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God and those are not all fundamentalls then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall I answer this reason hath the fault that the former had it presumes that points of faith are some fundamentall some not fundamentall which is denied and therefore it begs the question 2. I will grant the distinction for this time and say further the word only must be added to the latter part of this reason otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose that being added I deny the consequence because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God as I haue proved in my answer And I proue further by your own testimony thus If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doe not meane all but some things then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct without far-fetched obscure interpretations casie even perspicuous of it selfe fitted for the vse capacitie instruction of the simple and ignorant who are not capable of obscurities But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine direct c as your selfe doth truly affirme Appeal p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doth meane vniversally all things pertaining to God His third reason is in the same p. 124 thus The Article speaketh of debating and discussing I speake of deciding and determining Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false Ordeining is deciding and determining The Article speaketh of ordaining Thus it argueth Councels may erre Therefore things ordained by them not taken out of Scripture haue no authoritie Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversie I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the words plainly delivered in Scripture must signifie things not in coÌ„troversie That being granted the second branch in the antecedent is false He himselfe other-where delivereth the contrary Those things whereof the Church must Iudge are the things where in according to him the Church is free from error But things in Controversie are those according to him whereof the Church must Iudge See what he saith gagg p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed more obscure and involved And p. 14. In controverted matters if a question be moved the Church must decide and settle that doubt In plainâ— cases no deciding Iudge shall need but such as are ambiguous must be determined by the Iudge c. Therefore according to him in things in Controversie the Church is free from error and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter he layeth downe in his Appeale p. 160. in these words There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it Things that are straight and direct and according to that rule confessedly need not application are not commonly brought to be applyed to that rule but things of different or doubtfull standing these need application and are applyed by the perpetuall practice of the Catholike Church And thus haue I ended all the reasons which he bringeth to excuse himselfe from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point which are too weake to excuse him therefore I may safely conclude He doth dissent from the Church of England touching the infallibilitie of the Church Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory and this it is A Councell truely generall in giving sentence of a divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures His proofes for it we find set downe in his Appeale p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture the former on this wise They to whom the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinitie question vary from the Scriptures But to a Councell truly generall the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore a Councell truly generall in giving sentence of a divinitte question cannot vary from the Scriptures I answer There is no whole part in this argument Not in the proposition which supposeth that These words Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge whether this or that sentence in Divinitie be agreeable to the Scriptures or not But this supposition is of his owne making and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before wherein it doth appeare by my answer to him That office was never committed to any Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg but not demonstrate the question For further refutâ—tion thereof I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office then the Apostles had it For those words were spoken to the Apostles I take as granted But the Apostles had it not for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand It cannot be imagined that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing and
stamp and by it can shew how a church may be a runn away from Christ and a houshold servant vnto Christ How that church which reiecteth Christs law kingdom Scepter and in that respect is a rebell doth also at the same instant reteine obey and yeeld subiection vnto Christ his kingdome and Scepter And this he must doe or els confesse what he built in one place he destroyeth in another This he cannot doe because Christ his kingdome nor his Scepter cannot be devided into parts nor the Church extended therevnto as vnto parts neither can the doctrine of Christ be so obiected vnto the faith and obedience of the Church as that it may reiect some part thereof and beleeue other some but it must obey and beleeue every part thereof actually and intentionally or nonâ— at all There is one God one faith one hope one Baptisme not deviding but composing Christ in his members and profession are his owne words Appeale p. 43. Therefore by his owne authority I may safely conclude against his owne proposition now in question The Church of Rome is not a true Church Bishop Carleton writeth thus in his Booke called Directions to know the true Church The Church of Rome which now is is not the true Church of Christ p. 78. 92. The Church of Rome as now it stands hath no communion with the Catholike Church p. 88. 100. The present Church of Rome is no Church of Christ but an assemblie I say not of heretikes but of farre worse and more dangerous then any heretikes heretofore haue beene p. 65. Touching the danger that they are in which haue communion with the Church of Rome in the Popish doctrine and the receivers thereof he writeth thus These traps are layd with great subtiltie to inthrall their soules let them at least that are seduced lift vp their eyes and see the snares that are provided to catch them and behold the danger that is before them if they will wilfully fall into these snares then may they blame themselues for their owne destruction p. 63. 64. The damage redoundeth to the destruction of their soules This thing the simple people ought more carefully to looke to more exactly to prevent then any damage that can grow in their worldly state p. 43. The meanes to be saved are now taken away by these that are now in the Church of Rome p. 84. Which testimony as it is free from all exception that might any wayes disable it so also it caries with it many circumstances of credit especially to Mr Mountague for he saith Appeal p. 69. Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance since is his reverend and much reverenced Diocesan his superior in learning and authoritie A thing much vrged by himselfe Appeal p. 28. Vnto all men I find these circumstances yeelding credit vnto him Our Church and state doth take knowledge of him for learning and vertue for it imployed him for our Church in the Synode of Dort and that as the principall of our Divines that were sent thither are Mr Mountague his owne words Appeal p. 69. Since that our Church hath advanced him vnto Diocesan authoritie Lastly his testimony agreeth fully with the testimony of Bishop Iewell set downe before whose doctrine is indeed the doctrine of our Church the booke it selfe is dedicated vnto his Maiestie that now is and thereby hath a Royall Confirmation and Protection But which is most of all this testimony is commended by cleare and evident demonstration which out of the sayd booke is thus to be framed Every particular assemblie that holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church is no true Church of Christ but an assembly of heretickes p. 5. For the Church is but one not two nor many p. 4. But the Church of Rome hath broken off this vnitie with the Catholike Church p. 5. Therefore the present Church of Rome is no church of Christ but an assemblie of heretickes p. 65. The assumption of this argument he proveth thus The Church is one 1. by the vnitie of the body 2. by the vnitie of the head 3. by the vnitie of the spirit 4. by the vnitie of faith p. 6. But the church of Rome doth not hold the vnitie by the body p. 8. nor the vnitie of the head p. 13. nor the vnitie of the spirit p. 19. nor the vnitie of faith p. 22. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church Although all those are necessarily required to proue a Church to hold vnitie with the Catholike Church as he saith p. 6. he bringeth proofes that the church of Rome holdeth not vnitie in any one of them in the severall places which I haue quoted yet I will content my selfe to bring his proofe for the last because as he truely also saith where one of them is found all of them are found p. 7. And contrariwise His proofe for the last standeth thus They that hold the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church they haue the same rule of faith with the Catholike Church p. 34. 39. For The faith of the Church is said to be one because the rule of faith is one and the same from the beginning of the Church to the end p. â—4 But the Church of Rome holdeth not but hath changed that rule of faith p. 32. 49. For Whereas the rule of faith was ever confessed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures now in the Councell of Trent vnwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith and so they teach that the whole rule is in the Scriptures and traditions p. 33. 49. 50. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church I might adde the severall proofes which this reverend Author bringeth to proue the severall parts of this argument but I forbeare it because the principall doubt lyeth in this that he saith The Scripture is the rule of faith And The Church of Rome hath changd that rule Which needeth no proofe because Mr Mountague avoucheth the same Appeale p. 16. On this wise There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it c. The Scripture is an exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from and reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule Which is no lesse then as if he had said expresly The Scripture is the rule of faith and the Church of Rome hath changed it made a word of God of their owne invention Which are the Bishops words in the place alledged In that booke is set downe a second argument for the same purpose thus to be framed They that haue changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith haue changed that whereby the Church is knowne to be a Church But the Church of Rome hath changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith p. 64. 73. For The written Word of God doth suffice to end all controversies of faith and is the Catholike
determination of the Iudge of Controversies in faith p. 54. They teach that men must beleeue nothing but that which the Church teacheth by the Church they meane themselues who are their teachers p. 39. They tell vs that the rule of faith is that which the Church teacheth p. 47. 48. Therefore the Church of Rome hath changed that wherby the Church is knowne to be a Church Vnto these two he bringeth a third to this effect That Church wherein the foundation of the Church is changed ceaseth to be a true Church of Christ But in the Church of Rome the foundation of the church is changed For in it the rule of faith is changed which is the foundation of the Church And the Church is built vpon this foundation that is vpon the faith contained in the Scriptures Therfore the Church of Rome ceaseth to be a true church Vnto this testimony I may adde these three more viz. Doctor Reynolds in his Verses vpon the third conclusion handled in the Schooles Novemb. 3. 1579. Doctor Whitaker in his disputations of the Church quest 6. cap. 1. and Mr Perkins in his Prologue to the Reformed Catholike all which doe avouch our departure from the Church of Rome vpon paine of damnation It may be Mr Mountague will except against these three as incompetent to testifie against him for of the two first thus he saith Doctor Reynolds all his excellencie was in his reading Appeal p. 123. And of Doctor Whitaker he saith that he was a thorow man and an earnest promoter of novell opinions against other learned Divines Appeal p. 71. And of them all three that they were Puritans delighting in contention To which I answer These exceptions may truely be sentenced by Bishop Iewell in his reply vnto Master Hardings answer the 8. Article and the 1. division set downe in these words He as a man overmuch obedient vnto his affections breaketh vp his way with vnsavory and bitter talke and as a Cocke that is well pampered with Garlick before the fight he seeketh to overmatch his fellow rather with ranknesse of breath then with might of body But these Bookes will keepe that credit which was first given them by the principall Doctors of the severall Vniversities who allowed them for Printing and which since they haue gotten by the vse which the Church hath had of them which is sufficient against Mr Mountague whose Bookes were no sooner seene but they had an hundred to detest them for one of our Church which did like them but most of all in as much as they proue this their sentence on this manner by an Argument vsed by the Homilie aforesaid p. 428. That Church whose faith is erronious that must be avoyded But the Church of Rome is a Church whose faith is erronious Therefore the Church of Rome must be avoyded Which argument doth convince so evidently that I presume he will not except against any part thereof but if he doe there is sufficient in Mr Mountague himselfe besides other where to fortifie it against the same Thus he writeth Appeal p. 160. 161. The Scripture is our exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from an reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule From whence I thus argue They that reiect the exact and absolute rule of faith and manners their faith is erronious For Their faith is an aberration from the Scriptures the rule of faith And that aberration is error in points of faith Appeal p. 7. But the Pope that is the Church of Rome doth reiect that rule of faith Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious Secondly thus They whose faith dissenteth from the rule of faith their faith is erronius For Error in points of faith is against the rule of faith Appeal p. 7. But the faith of the Pope that is of the Church of Rome dissenteth from the rule of faith For It proposeth things as to be beleeved against that rule Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious If he reply that all this is to be vnderstood of some points of faith not of all of some part of the rule not of the whole I rejoynd his words are without limitation or distinction thus The Pope doth dissent from and reiect the rule of faith And giue this for proofe namely in that it Proposeth any thing as against that rule Againe faith is one as himselfe truely affirmes Appeal p. 43. and the rule of faith is one as faith it selfe is one These things are evident I need not bring further proofe for them All which being duely considered I doubt not but even Mr Mountague himselfe will giue sentence That The Church of Rome hath not the essence and being of a true Church One thing more in this question must be remembred Thus he writeth Appeal p. 83. This proposition We must for ever vpon paine of damnation dissent from the Church of Rome in all things and haue no peace at all with them Is a strange Bugbeare I answer the sence hereof must be first had before the truth can be judged of By Bugbeare is meant a fiction or pretence vsed vnto Infants to keepe them in awe and they are so vsed by the way of dalliance because Infants haue not the vse of reason and thereby are vncapable of government by meanes that are of a higher nature they that cannot judge of truth nor taste of substance must be led with shews and fed with fancies It may be doubted whether this was his meaning or not perhaps his words are extended beyond his intent may some man say vnto whom I answer he meant to say no lesse then thus and I find it by himselfe In his Preface to the Reader before his Gagg a little after the beginning he bringeth his adversary saying There is no salvation to Protestants which he doth call terrible shawe-fowle to skare poore soules that haue not the facultie of discerning cheese from chalke horrible affrights tâ— put yong children out of their wits that cannot distinguish a visnomie indeed from a visor Where he giues the same sence to shawe-fowle that I giue here to Bugbeare which two words signifie the same thing according to himselfe in the place last alledged And thus stands the case with the Church of England and these graue and learned men whose words and proofes I haue alledged and all other of our Church to whom they haue written in this sentence of Maister Mountague But this is an imputation more odious then humane eares can beare with Patience What Is our Church a dallier with her children and that in a matter in nature so high Of consequence so great Doth shee sport her selfe befoole her children with Gods Word and their salvation Are all her children such silly Infants that for want of true reason must be governed by shadows No marvaile though his Diocesan fares no better where his Mother speeds so ill
with it hee holds his peace The old prouerbe is the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltinesse Which seldome times proues vntrue what hee is of certainty is knowne to God and himselfe hee standeth or falleth to his owne master it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofes wherefore I leaue this and proceed We haue no reason to suppose that the Church of England was euer of opinion that the habit of grace can be lost for if it were then must it also beleeue that 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified 2 Some sins are mortall other some veniall 3. The habit of Iustice and the works thereof be perfect Iustice and adequate vnto the diuine Law 4. Purgatory Pardons Masses Trentals Dirges c. be profitable vnto some that be dead but we know by perpetuall experience that our Church abhorreth and the professors of her faith publikely and priuately protest their detestation of all these Articles of the popish faith therefore we haue a cloud of witnesses that do all testifie that the Church of England maketh the losing of the habit of grace no part of her faith Moreouer in the 22. Article it doth expresly disclaime the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons Lastly This point of falling from grace hath beene commonly and vniuersally reiected as well by Ministers as priuate men and no man questioned in the least sort for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church which is a most evident proofe that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued If it be answered some in our Church haue taught falling from grace I reply It is true some haue so done but they haue beene but a few and cryed down too by the most and thrust off with no small signe of dislike from authoritie I haue his owne testimonie three times yeelded Gag p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming that our Church hath left this question vndecided which against him is a proofe without question that his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England And yet behold Hee would perswade that his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England delâ—uered not in ordinary tracts and lectures but publikely positiuely and declatorily and for proofe hereof he saith he will bring vs record thereof Appeale pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles c. Appeale p. 37. Appeale p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promise In the 16. Article we read After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart away from grace and fall into sinne That the full force of this argument may appeare and my answer may bee directly and fitly applyed thereunto it is needfull that I put it into due forme and thus it will stand Whatsoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church But that a man may depart from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England I answer if he will stand to his proposition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient and a Champion most valiant vnto his mother the Church of England Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome are but faint-hearted cowards in comparison of him The greatest part of the acts in Councels doe not appertaine vnto faith The disputations that goe before the reasons that be added nor the explications that are brought doe not appertaine to faith but onely the naked decrees and of them not all but onely such as are propounded as matter of faith So saith Bellarmine de Concil auct lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est c. and no Papist euer durst giue more then thus yet Mr. Mountagu dares giue to the Church of England more then this Euery sentence in the Articles with him is matter of faith and so he doth equall them vnto the scriptures to whom it belongeth that euery sentence be a matter of faith as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place last alleadged If he will disclaime that proposition his argument falleth of it selfe To answer more specially that Article comprehendeth two conclusions viz. 1 The baptised may sinne 2 The baptised sinner may receiue forgiuenesse These two haue their seuerall proofes to wit 1 He may depart from grace Therefore sinne 2 He may repent Therefore haue forgiuenesse Euery one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Your proposition so vnderstood is true but your assumption is false Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article But suppose that euery sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England yet this Article will not profit you for A man may depart from grace by neglecting to obey it by losing it In the first sense I grant the Article doth teach departing from grace but in this sense the Article hath nothing in fauour of you much lesse hath it your falling from grace in expresse words for yours is of losing the habit of grace If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that sense I reioyne it may bee so taken in this place because he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies first neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace before hee commits sinne and this I take as granted Therefore you must proue that the Article doth vnderstand it otherwise then so else it can haue no stroke in your businesse Let it be admitted in courtesie that the Article speaketh of the losse of grace yet it will come farre short of your purpose for it cannot speake of the losse of the habit of grace I proue it from the Article it selfe and your owne doctrine thus The habit of grace is lost by sin So say you Grace in the Article is not lost by sinne But contrary Grace is lost therefore sinne committed So saith the Article Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace By this it is most euident and past doubt that there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the losse of the habit of grace But pardon him this mistake I will giue my word for him hee neuer studied the Article to find the true sense of it Doe you thinke his studie so meane as that he would condiscend so low as to English Articles I assure you no. I tell you and he tells it me Appeale pag. 11. Hee neuer studied Bastingius Chatichisme Fenners diuinitie Bucanus Trelcatius Polanus and such like His learning is all old The Apostles Canons Polycarpus Denis Linus Cletus Clemens Annacletus Amphilochius and others of their time are his puefellowes and hourly companions And he hath good reason for it too The neerer the fountaine the clearer the streame the further off the fouler pag. 12. His second argument beginneth Appeale p. 32. and is thus to be framed Whatsoeuer is
false that 16. Article doth not say A man may recouer the grace he hath lost But The expresse words of the Article are By the grace of God wee that fall into sinne may amend our liues Which two sentences doe most really differ This man is very willing to abuse the vnderstanding that dareth thus boldly falsify words vpon record against the sight of the eye His fourth argument is set downe Appeale page 36. and thus he beginneth 4 In the publike seruice of our Church you shall finde also as much as falling from grace commeth too I answer he promised positiue and declaratory Doctrine and expresse words affirming his falling from grace and now he paies vs with consequences a fault you reproued very often and many a faire title you gaue your aduersary the Gagger for it Turne backe againe and take a view how many of them belong to your selfe Was there euer any man so senslesse as to send vs to seeke the faith of our Church in consequences Or does hee thinke to finde any so voyd of reason as to beleeue him Surely no for that were a worke endlesse If the faith of our Church be in this consequence why not in second vpon the first and a third vpon the second c And this is enough to satisfie the whole but lest he should haue an ill conceit of himselfe if I should cut him off thus shortly therefore I will set downe what that is which he telleth vs is as much as falling from grace commeth too and this it is Euery Childe duely Baptised is put into the state of grace and saluation by that lauer of regeneration Which must be acknowledged and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England being taught first in the forme of priuate Baptisme secondly in the Catechisme thirdly in the rubricke before the Catechisme I answer first this is Bellarmines second reason for this point de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly these are not records of the faith of our Church no publike act of our Church hath made them such Besides the Bookes themselues be incompetent for that vse the one being a forme of administration of Prayers and Sacraments the other short precepts for the instruction of Infants Hee was neere driuen when hee catched at this shadow Moreouer hee affirmeth most falsly where he saith this sentence Euery one duely Baptised is by Baptisme put into the state of grace and saluation is taught in the places quoted The words of the places themselues will shew it neither is there any such thing meant or intended in them It may be he will reiect this answer because I make it I reply in his owne words Appeale p. 277. If you will not admit the answer I can name you one who will say and approne as much whom you dare not deny to be of credit or stile as you doc some others Appeale page 294. A poore man that doubtlesse was out of his element and medled beyond his latchet I meane Bishop Iewell whose words are these In the Sacrament of Baptisme by the sensible signe of water the inuisible grace of God is giuen vnto vs Artic. 5. diuis 8. folio 250. Little ones being Baptised and so the members of Christ Artic. 8. diuis 16. folio 291. Thus farre Bishop Iewell is for Mr. Mountagu but let him interpret himselfe and make vp his iudgement full touching the vse of the Sacrament and then wee shall finde him directly against him and for that end he saith thus We confesse that Christ by the Sacrament of regeneration hath made vs flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that we are the members and hee is the head This merueilous coniunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith afterward the same incorporation is assured vnto vs and increased in our Baptisme wherein must be considered that the holy mysteries doe not begin but rather continue and confirme this incorporation Artic. 1. diuis 13. folio 27. It may be here demanded how this iudgement of Bishop Iewell doth proue against Mr. Mountagu I answer thus If in his iudgement the Doctrine of the Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptisme no more but the renewing and confirmation of our incorporation into Christ and grace by Christ then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptisme and the Catechisme doe not meane to say Euery Child baptised is thereby put into the state of grace and saluation For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England set downe in those places or in any other neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then hee did conceiue it to be But that hee did so conceiue of it his words doe shew and he addeth that our incorporation is begun first and afterwards assured and increased in our Baptisme which doth not begin it which is so plaine full and direct a contradiction vnto Mr. Mountagu as the mind can deuise or words expresse If yet this testimony will not serue let the Church of England in the 25. and 27. Articles tell vs what effects it doth giue vnto the Sacraments where it assigneth To the Sacraments in generall that they are 1 Tokens of Christian profession 2. Signes of Gods good will 3. He doth by them quicken and confirme our faith Of Baptisme in speciall our Church saith 1 It is a signe of regeneration 2 An instrument wherby we are grafted into the Church 3 By it the promises of forgiuenesse of sinne and adoption are sealed 4. Faith is confirmed and grace increased These no more but these are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme assigned by our Church it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptisme If it be answered the Liturgie and Catechisme is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles I reply so to say is wholly without authority fondly without shew of reason The Articles were made vpon great deliberation and of purpose to settle an vnitie in matter of Religion therefore it would not omit principall points and set downe others that are subordinate and not called into question If the professors of the faith of our Church publikely and priuately in writing and by word of mouth haue taught and beleeued of the Sacraments no otherwise then is laid downe in the Articles and is maintained by Bishop Iewell and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome then may we well say that the Church neuer meant to set downe any other faith but that for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith nor the mother so carelesse of her faith as to suffer it to be corrupted and her intent to be changed Forasmuch as she could not be ignorant what was done nor wanted power to redresse things done amisse If
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
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
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
and an essence really subsisting when he did administer the sacrament to his Disciples and said This is my body c. then the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament But Christ gaue substance and an essence really subsisting c. Therefore the body of Christ is really present I answer The word substance c. in this place may be taken for the substance of Bread and wine or for the substance of Christs body That Christ gaue the substance of bread and wine I grant and so the assumption is true and hee must grant it likewise or else say with the Councell of Trent Sess 13. can 2. That it doth not remaine but is changed c. which I presume he will not doe But the word substance being thus vnderstood he must thus argue Hee gaue the substance of bread therefore the substance of his body was present These two doe hang together like harpe and Harrow so the consequence of the proposition is naught If by the word substance hee meant Christs body then the substance of his body is affirmed to be giuen but not explicated how hee gaue it nor proued yet that he gaue it This is his old vaine you must go seeke his meaning for the sense and take his word for the truth or else his is no man of this world I will bestow some paines to finde out both To giue may be after an humane sort that is when I deliuer a thing in my possession into the possession of another I had it then another hath it now hee is seized I am dispossessed of it If Christ gaue the substance of his body thus then the substance of his body was present But Christ did not giue the substance of his body on this manner If hee will say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sort hee must proue it by the word of God for it is impossible vnto naturall vnderstanding that Christ should deliuer the substance of his owne body out of his owne possession into the possession of his Disciples Furthermore Giuing may be after an heauenly and spirituall manner that is to say vnto faith If he say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sense Then he saith true and thus he must say or disclaime the faith of the Church of England for so saith our Church in the 28 Article But then Christ might so giue and yet not be really and substantially present in the Sacrament For we lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God Thus spiritually with the mouth of our faith we eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood c. as I haue alledged out of Bishop Iewel in his reply to Harding p. 238. see Defen Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this answer I hope no man will require mee to proue that Christ is not really present in the Sacrament that belongs not to me but because they affirme that hee is present and tels vs we must beleeue that God hath reuealed it therefore it is enough for vs to call for a sight of that diuine reuelation and in the meane time to with-hold our beleefe thereof euen vpon that ground which Bishop Iewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology part 2. cap. 12. diuis 1. p. 220. namely Christ nor his Apostles neuer taught nor the Primitiue Church neuer beleeued that reall presence Thus haue I ended this argument and the whole point of reall presence and I hope haue made it appeare that it is neither the doctrine of the Church of England nor a true doctrine CHAP. XV. The point of Images Master Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England Images and Idols may be two things vnto Christians they are not vnlawful in all manner of religious imployment The Images of Christ of the Virgin Marie and other Saints may bee had and kept in Churches honour and worship is due and must be yeelded vnto them Taken out of the Homilies against perill of Idolatry printed 1576. the second Tome The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may bee set vp in Churches Not that any diuinity or power is beleeued to bee in them for which they are worshipped or that anie thing is desired of them or that a trust is placed in them The words Idoll and Image bee words of diuers tōgues and sounds yet vsed in the Scriptures indifferently for one thing alwayes p. 27. to bring Images into the Churches is a foule abuse and great enormitie page 27. Be forbidden and vnlawfull p. 84. Not things indifferent nor tolerable pag. 96 97. There is a respect due vnto and honour giuen relatiuely vnto the picture of saints Christ they may be vsed for helps of piety in rememoration and more effectuall representing of the prototype Gagg p. 318. For the instruction of the vnlearned renewing the remembrance of the history and stirring vp of deuotion Gagg p. 300. But because the honour that is exhibited vnto them is referred to the prototype which they represent so as by the Images which wee kisse and before whom we vncouer the head kneele downe we adore Christ worship Saints whose images they beare Bishops ought diligently to teach so as 1 The people be trained vp in the articles of faith by the histories of our redemption expressed in pictures or other similitudes 2 Be put in mind by Images of the benefits and gifts which are bestowed vpon thē by Christ 3 To giue thankes to God for the Saints by whom mirales are wrought and good examples set before them and to follow their life manners  For instance in remembring more feelingly and so being impassioned more effectually with the death of our Sauiour when wee see that story represented vnto vs by a skilfull hand Appeale p. 254. Concil Trent Sess 25. de inuoca c.  CHAP. XVI The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed HEre we enquire of three things 1 Whether his doctrine of Images bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth therein with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth therein from the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is sufficiently testified by their words and his He saith Images may be had in Churches and Honour is due and to be giuen vnto them So saith the Councell He saith Honour is due and giuen relatiuely The Councell saith The honour exhibited to Images is referred to the prototype which is the same with his He saith They may be vsed for the instruction of the ignorant recalling the memory of the history and stirring vp of deuotion The Councell saith The articles of faith may be learned by them men put in mind of the benefits by Christ and stirred vp to giue thankes for the miracles and to imitate the vertuous actions wrought by the Saints Which differeth nothing from him He concludeth the point of Images thus Let practice
Rome cals voluntary workes workes of supererogation Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome as I haue shewed out of Bellarmine n o 1. Therefore the Church of England and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantasticall 2 O Mr Mountagu who doe you make your selfe to be doe you know the faith of Rome better then your Mother nay better then your selfe you subscribed that Article and thereby professed those words of her to bee true is the other end of your tongue turned outwards that you now vnsay what you said then did you then know and now are ignorant But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and your selfe doe you thinke to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fooles that vnderstand not their owne faith but you would bee thought farre from this therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts 3 The proposition doth suppose that Workes laid vp in store to satisfie for other mens offences called the treasure of the Church are the Papists workes of supererogation And so hee speaketh expresly Gagge page 103. 105. 106. 〈◊〉 this is a meere presumption without truth auouched barely vpon his owne word without tendring any proofe You must proue what you say or else you bring words of the wind Against you I proue thus 1 That which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others is not workes but the value and price of workes viz. satisfaction Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Propos 4 Propos cap. 3. 1 Propos Therefore that which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others cannot be their works of supererogation But let vs suppose that the voluntary workes themselues be so laid vp yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation and thus I shew it If voluntary workes laid vp in the treasury of the Church be therefore their works of supererogation then works done according to Moses Law are also their works of supererogation for the satisfaction arising froÌ„ them is also laid vp in the treasury of the Church to satisfie for other as Bellarmine teacheth de Indulg lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo non est But that works done according to the Morall Law are not their works of supererogation I take as granted Of his agreement or disagreement with the church of England in the point of voluntary works you need not make a question for if you will beleeue him The Church of England Hath no doctrine against Euangelicall counsels Gag page 103. For now voluntary works and euangelicall counsells are the same as wee haue heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad c. and as himselfe doth expound it out of Philastrius and Nazianzen Gag p. 10. But this imputation is an vntruth so â—oule that it deserueth no other answer but his owne words Blush for shame Gagg p. 250. For the Church of England saith expresly Voluntarie workes besides ouer and aboue Gods commandements cannot be taught Arti. 14. And further it saith Man cannot for Gods sake doe more then of bounden duty is required which is as much as if it had said There be no voluntary workes at all But it may be he will say yee doe him wrong hee speaketh not absolutely but so farre as he knoweth I answer Those are his words indeed but marke the sense those words seeme to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his deniall for is it credible that he could not read this Article Or that hee did not know 1. That the Church of England had made this Article 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those workes indeed which it doth deny in words Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Surely none of these may bee conceiued Therefore we may conclude as a thing very probable that his intent was to auouch that denyall vpon his owne knowledge Now the Iudgement of our Church and of Master Mountagu in the point of voluntary workes is fully known that they are contradictory it may be concluded he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary workes But before I passe from it one thing is worthy observation viz. Mr. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories He subscribed the Article that saith there is no voluntary workes and he subscribed that there is voluntary works Gagg p. 103. c. Can any man tell what this man would doe to bee Chiefe muftie I doubt himself cannot But pardoÌ„ him his ends were contrary He must subscribe the Article or misse aduancement He must subscribe the other or be no reconciler He meant to attaine both Hee hath gotteÌ„ the first he professeth himself for the second Appeale pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his bookes therefore it was reason he should subscribe on both sides In the first he subscribed to what protestants are in the second to what they ought to be I should now come to dispute the question whether A man may doe voluntary workes Wherein I might first proue the negatiue but it seemeth better to resolue with M. Mountagu Appeale pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seeeke or goe about to beetle it into his braines because he saith Appeale pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion there are Euangelicall counsels And hee resolueth Appeale pag. 224. to ioyne in opinion with them And he giues this reason for it Appeale p. 240. I am tyed not to preach or publish otherwise according to the Cannons prescribed vnto Ministers in such cases Anno 1571. Knowing it to be the resolued doctrine of antiquitie as I doe I am not excusable if I transgresse the Cannons But notwithstanding because hee may change his mind therefore I will proceed and proue There be no voluntary workes My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleadged n o 6. c. Whose authoritie onely ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu because hee hath subscribed those words of the Article as true and hath vowed to forsake all others and follow his mother the Church of England Appeale pag. 183. And the rather because those words doe so plainely and fully deny voluntary workes My second argument shall bee the same which I find in the Article on this sort to be framed Whosoeuer teacheth voluntary workes they be proud arrogant and impious For saith the Article Voluntary workes cannot be taught without pride arrogancy and impietie But no man may be proud arrogant and impious Therefore voluntary workes may not be taught It may be obiected that the first part of this reason is extended too far because it reacheth vnto antiquitie And also it doth passe too hard a sentence vpon such as teach voluntarie workes I answer both parts of this obiection be false and the respect we owe vnto the first composers and confirmers of that Article doth bind vs to thinke so for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu and gouerne their passions
better then hee can gouerne his Besides the thing it selfe doth say no lesse Neuer any Father taught the popish voluntary workes If M. Mountagu will say the contrary He must shew those fathers that teach of voluntary workes as Bellarmine doth de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. and 8. which he is neuer able to doe Against the second part of the obiection the Article disputeth thus They that teach that men render vnto God so much as they are bound and more also they are arrogant and impious For They take vpon them more then is true against the word of God which saith when you haue done all that are commanded to you say wee be vnprofitable seruants Luke 17. 10. But they that teach voluntary workes teach that men doe render vnto God so much as they are bound and more also And so doth Bellarmine expresly teach de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6 Secundo Comparando and cap. 12. at the very end thereof and in many other places Therefore they that teach voluntary workes are arrogant and impious If Mr. Mountagu can satisfie the premisses of this argument he may auoid the conclusion but I despaire of that for hee must ioyne with Bellarmine in the assumption because he that keepes not the law cannot doe voluntary workes which is more then a man is bound too seeing those proceed from a common inioyned and limited perfection of loue As we learne from Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6. Tertio Comparando and Mr Mountagu himselfe teacheth no lesse when he saith obedience to Councels proceeds from grace therefore of loue He saith they are left to a mans choyce therefore his loue is voluntary and vnlimited He saith also these works are worthy of more praise therefore they proceed out of a higher degree and perfection of loue Gagge page 103. And that the doer of these workes doth keepe the law the thing it selfe doth testifie for he that is able to doe workes of greater perfection must needs be able to doe workes of lesse seeing the lesse is comprehended in the greater besides hee that commeth short of keeping the Law how can hee goe beyond the Law in louing God by doing workes left vnto his choyce If any man will say he may doe these voluntary workes and yet come short of doing the workes of the Law as Mr. Mountagu doth Gagge page 104. hee must shew me the man that did so and the actions wherein they did so and proue it sufficiently else I must beleeue our Church Artic. 14. and the things themselues that say the contrary He cannot auoyd the proposition for Bellarmine cannot though he hath done his best for that purpose de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. Respondeo Petrum c. as he that readeth it may see and I will shew Bellarmine answereth to this argument thus The Lord doth not say Luke 17. and 10. you are vnprofitable But willeth them to say wee are vnprofitable seruants For It is his will that we should be humble and not boast of our merits Himselfe saith afterwards Thou good seruant and faithfull But he cals him onely vnprofitable that disobeyeth the Law and is cast into vtter darkenesse Mat. 25. 26. 30. verses I reply this answer as it lyeth is nothing to the purpose it doth not gainesay any part of the argument yet I will bring the particulars and see how they may be applied to the purpose He saith Our Lord bid them say they were vnprofitable himselfe did not say so I grant this neither does the argument say otherwise It may be he would inferre from hence Therefore they say they are vnprofitable seruants but are not If this conclusion were true the answer would bee sufficient and the argument of no force but this part of his answer cannot inferre this conclusion for then our Lord should teach him to lye which Bellarmine dareth not affirme yea from thence it may bee truely inferred that they were indeed vnprofitable seruants but Christ is the teacher of truth and in bidding them say they were vnprofitable it is as much as if hee had said himselfe they were indeed vnprofitable for hee would not put any sentence into mans mouth which himselfe would not affirme these things I take as granted and offer no proofe for them He saith 2 It is his will we should be humble and not boasters I grant this also neither doth the argument say the contrary It may be he brings this to proue That The foresaid confession was not according to truth But it doth not proue it for humility and false speaking doe not goe together It doth rather inferre the contrary he would haue vs humble therefore he would haue vs speake the truth for both of them are vertues proceeding from the spirit of truth and there is no greater signe of humility then when men confesse their failings truely He saith further 3 They that so confesse are called good seruants and faithfull Let this be granted also and it will agree well with euery part of the argument I suppose his intent is to say Therefore they that did thus confesse were indeed profitable seruants But this doth not follow from that for our Sauiour might call them good though they failed in some things wherein they were vnprofitable seruants and yet speake according to truth for his seruants are accepted of him to all purposes of loue no lesse effectually then if they were absolutely good and vnprofitable in nothing Againe he blotteth out their failings whereby they are vnprofitable out of his Booke whereof it is that they are not imputed vnto them and they stand before God as if they had neuer failed Lastly such doe inioy the habit of grace and bring forth the fruits thereof by which they are truely good and from whence they may truely haue the name of good and faithfull seruants He saith fourthly They onely that disobey the Law and are cast into vtter darkenesse are called vnprofitable seruants This sentence hath not to doe with the argument any more then the former and it is false in it selfe Others also that doe not so disobey the law as that they are therefore cast into hell may bee called vnprofitable seruants which I proue by this argument The Saints are truely called vnprofitable seruants because euery breaker of the Law may truely be called an vnprofitable seruant But the Saints doe so breake the Law that they are not therefore cast into condemnation Therefore some that doe so breake the Law that they are not therefore cast into condemnation are called vnprofitable seruants That the Saints doe breake the Law is cleare by 1 Ioh. 1. 8. 10. and that therefore they are not cast into condemnation it is as certaine by Rom. 8. 1. But these two i. e. the sanctified and vnsanctified are called vnprofitable seruants in a different sense They that goe to hell haue that name totally vniuersally and finally they neuer haue the name of good seruants for they are totally and finally
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
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
seated in him then he beleeueth that thereby those sinnes are so done away that no being thereof remaineth and that all the powers and faculties of man are disposed and fitted vnto obedience as amply and largely as the Law appointeth and prescribeth obedience and consequently is in danger of damnation for such a man resteth in his owne Iustice to keepe him from hell and to order him to heauen and thereby trusteth vnto a sliding foot and a broken tooth for asmuch as God hath laid out the way vnto them in another line Hee that beleeueth that the continuance of grace whereby man is fitted vnto holinesse in this life and happinesse in the life to come by Gods appointment is so contingent and vncertaine that euery man that hath it may be and some men are depriued thereof and left in the state wherein hee was first borne and wholly destitute of all inward fitnesse to holinesse and happinesse he is in danger of damnation for such a one beleeueth that some men at this instant are in the way to heauen and holinesse beautifull and glorious in the eyes of God but in a moment ignominious and hatefull vnto God and in themselues tending vnto nothing but wickednesse and damnation and consequently is or may bee in this condition of in and out euery moment and instant of his life so also he beleeueth that all men may and some men doe retaine their sanctitie in their inward disposition and outward actions for many yeares but in the last moment of their life are depriued thereof and are cast into hell Which faith can in no sort agree vnto the ioy and consolation of heart which the sanctified doe enioy Nor vnto that loue of God and the righteousnesse of his Kingdome which euery such a man doth find by experience Nor vnto that great loue and delight which God beareth vnto and taketh in his Saints so largely expressed in the Scriptures Nor vnto the diuine prouidence which gouerneth the world with infinite wisdome He that beleeueth Images are profitable to the stirring vp of deuotion and may bee had in Churches and imployed for that vse is in danger of damnation for such a man will not cease till he hath them and so imploy them and thereby is in danger of worshiping of them through their fitnesse and mans corruption and hee that doth worship them doth commit idolatry and idolatry is punishable with damnation He that beleeueth honour is due to Images beleeueth that in giuing honour vnto them hee doth an action supernaturall acceptable to God and that leadeth to heauen seeing that no honour can be due vnto them but by Gods reuealed appointment and consequently he is in danger of damnation because such a man indeuoureth to serue God and to come to heauen by an obedience deuised by himselfe forasmuch as God hath not appointed any honour to bee giuen to Images Hee that beleeueth that Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament will honour the Sacrament with honour due to God which that I may speake in the words of Bishop Iewell in his Reply the 8. Article p. 283. cannot bee attempted without great danger for it is Idolatry seeing Christ is not there really and substantially and all Idolaters shall haue their portion in the second death Reuel 21. verse 8. Hee that beleeueth hee assenteth vnto God that calleth and exciteth freely so as hee can reiect and dissent from that calling and excitation if hee will is in danger of damnation for such a one beleeueth that he so consenteth out of the liberty and dominion that his will hath to doe or not to doe to consent or dissent and not yeeld that consent in obedience vnto any preuiall worke and true efficiency of grace disposing him thereunto and consequently that himselfe doth first and originally make the difference betweene himselfe and another that dissenteth from that grace of God that calleth and that he hath of himselfe something which he hath not receiued whereof he may boast contrary to the word of God that saith Who hath made thee to differ from another And what hast thou that thou diddest not receiue Now if thou diddest receiue it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not receiued it 1 Cor. 4. and 7. verse By the like deduction the danger of your Doctrine of Predestination will appeare which is no lesse against the place of the Apostle now alleadged then the point of Free-will for the Apostle speaketh in termes that comprehend Gods purpose or decree eternall as well as actions wrought in time I might shew the like danger to arise from the rest of the points deliuered by you and vrge the danger of these other waies but I thinke this sufficient to make it apparent that they are dangerous vnto a mans soule Touching the danger which of themselues they are apt to breed vnto our outward estate I shall need to say little because what you say of your selfe Appeale page 42. I say for my selfe I am loath to touch here or to meddle beyond my slipper the State is not the subiect of my profession I pray for the prosperity of Prince and Policie but let their courses alone to whom they concerne Yet notwithstanding I hope I may with license and good leaue alleadge what is manifest to all men and deliuered by your selfe Thus you write Popery is for tyranny Appeale p. 321. And so say I with the generall consent of all those that know Popery and are not subiect thereunto By tyranny you meane tyranny ouer Kingdomes for you oppose it in the place alleadged vnto Anarchie now I hope euery man will say Tyranny is a notorious euill to any State or Kingdome If you had not said thus the thing it selfe would haue said it for you for Tyranny is where one man doth rule the whole by an vnbrideled and vnlimited will and pleasure Now this the Pope claimeth ouer all Kingdomes whose will is accounted a law to whom no man may say This is not well done nor call his actions into question If you say you haue not taught this therefore your Popery is not for tyranny I answer this must follow vpon the Popery which you haue taught for you giue to Councelâ— an authoritie to determine matters of faith and require all men to receiue their sentence as the dictates of the holy Ghost You allow the Church of Rome a share in such Councels by granting that it hath the essence of a true Church you also allow the Pope himselfe a place in those Councels Vpon which it will follow that the Pope must call direct and confirme all such Councels and consequently that the Pope hath such authoritie ouer temporall States and Kingdomes as is aforesaid for that authority of the Pope ouer Councels hath bred and confirmed this authoritie of his ouer temporall States and Kingdomes as he that readeth Bellarmine de Rom. Ponti lib. 5. cap. 1. Tertia sententia c. and cap. 6. to the end of that