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
submit themselues to the office of application and exposition of things already revealed this being inferior as the building that superior as the foundation that being performed without labour and industry this not without much of both that being an immediate continuation of Christs ministery this mediate none of which may be admitted without speciall direction in the Word of God wherein there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit Moreover although this exception were not taken yet the proposition is false These words may be spoken to such as haue not that office this leading into all truth and that office of applying and expounding things revealed doth not necessarily goe together The word leading may signifie no more but an act of doing so much as is required on Gods part which hath not alwayes the event accordingly but oftentimes is frustrate by mans default 2. The words all truth may import no more but that whole which is required vnto the salvation of every particular man so necessarily that without it that cannot be had The assumption is no better the Text alledged hath not one word touching a generall Councell If it be replyed that those words were spoken to the Apostles and from them to the Pastors of the Church which succeed them and because those Pastors cannot consult and giue sentence touching a thing in question except they meet together therefore these words were spoken of a generall Councell To this I rejoyne The Text thus explicated yeeldeth these questions 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church 2. In what respect those Pastors doe succeed the Apostles 3. Who hath the authoritie to gather the Pastors of the Church together 4. Whether all or some and what number of Pastors haue authoritie to determine 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength all which questions are no lesse doubtfull then the conclusion which the Text is brought to proue whereby it doth beg the question but proues it not His second proofe must be thus framed They with whom our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mâ—t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures But with a Councell truly generall our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Councell truly generall c. I answer this place of Scripture doth yeeld these questions 1. What is meant by Christs presence 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting or the thing whereabout they meet 3. Whether that promise extend also vnto a greater number 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet Pastors or not Pastors Every one whereof is no lesse difficult to be determined by the word of God then the present question therefore he doth beg the question and not proue it Farther answer then this there needs none vnto this argument seeing that no proofe can be more base and impotent then that which depends vpon things equally or more doubtfull then the thing to be proved Other proofes then these two he hath not in this point and these two are vrged by Bellarmine de Concil cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. as his maine strength in this question and haue been answered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full but they were poore Divines Mr Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them CHAP. V. Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng There ever was and will be ever vpon earth a visible Church some-where or other with visible cognisances markes and signes to be discerned by viz. Gods Word preached Sacraments ministred Priesthood and ordination Appeale p. 135. Vnto which complaints may be made Gagg p. 49. I Haue nothing to set downe in this point vnder the name of the Church of England because I doe not find any thing decreed therein by our Church neither could it well for as much as in this point the Negatiue onely is defended against the Church of Rome That affirmeth a visibilitie which the Church of England denieth which Negation is implyed in the 19. Article wherein the visibilitie of the Church assigned by the Church of Rome is acknowledged in some things and it is silent for the rest which is as much as if it did say in these things we confesse the Church is alwayes visible and other visibilitie we doe deny According to order here must be inquired 1. Whether that proposition be true or not 2. Whether that proposition doe consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition doâ— dissent from the Church of England or not Before any of these can be disputed his sentence touching the visibilitie of the Church must be vnfolded that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question Which may be done thus It hath these two parts 1. The Church is visible 2. This visibilitie consisteth in the inioying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood ordination abilitie to heare complaints That the Church is visible in the injoying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood and ordination so farre as they are required of necessity vnto the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in question so much is granted on all sides The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19. Article in these words The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessitie are requisite to the same All the question is about the last branch viz. Whether the Church doe inioy all her officers with that freedome that it may be able and fit to determine every doubt that ariseth touching either faith or manners as appeares num 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition set downe by himselfe gagg p. 49. There ever was and will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made Now the question is truly put the next labour must be to inquire of it those 3. wayes which are set downe That it doth consent with the Church of Rome himselfe confesseth when he saith gaggp p. 50. This Controversie to wit of the visibilitie of the Church taught by the Church of Rome and denied by others may cease If he did not agree with them he would haue held it on foote there being so good reason for it they maintaine it as a ground of an Article of their faith and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it And Bellarmines doctrine doth shew it de Ecclesia lib. 3. where he writeth thus The true Church is visible cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subiected vnto lawfull Pastors in the profession of the Christian faith and the vse of Sacraments cap. 2. Nostra autem c. The Church is therefore visible because of this
disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs In the last place I will shew the faith of Rome wherein he doth agree with them to be erronious CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending hath law right vpon his side which we say is the Church gagg p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures Cancil Trent ses 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures arti 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes And in doubtfull points that require determination we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule gagg p. 14. 15.  Generall Coūcils may er in things partaining to God arti 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters the Church must decide and setle that doubt by applying and declaring the Scriptures p. 14.  Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit gagg p. 19.  haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they may be taken out of holy Scripture arti 21. Where the Scripture is hard in case there be a doubt we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit and that in the Church gagg p. 6.   CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood which is thus explicated A Iudge is an office ordained by God to giue sentence in a doubt that is made in things revealed by God This office hath these three properties 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof Of which there is no question with him in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie The parts to be debated be three 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge c. be true or not 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not Touching the first he sayth The Word of God and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it gagg p. 15. I answer Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church p. 54. He writeth thus Vndoubtedly the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith which hath beene in all succession preserved And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent the Church held the same determination still concerning the Iudge of Controversies in faith Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given surely vnto him rather then vnto you For he is your superior in learning and authoritie he is your Diocesan whose voyce must you heare but the voyce of your Pastour And you are in the Affirmatiue giving an authoritie to the Church which he denieth you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it It is your owne rule gagg p. 17. A Nunci◠must goe to his Commission If your proofes be good your Diocesan must stand by 1. Your proofes from the word of God we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed Whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies But the Church That is the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles are those whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge c. I answer the proposition is false I shew it by many reasons 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place in which respect the proposition is false because that office is not instituted in that place And this I take as granted 2. At least the proposition resumes that that office was already instituted when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken Which is false also and I could shew it by many reasons but this one shall suffice viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office 3. The word heare may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read as well as for an appeale thereto and resting in the sentence of a Iudge yea and better also for it is most frequently vsed in that sence but little in this Againe the Text leadeth clearely to that sence but not at all to this The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church severed from other Ministers which are not governours In which sence the assumption doth need proofe but he hath brought none but his owne affirmation Besides the assumption is false by the authoritie of the Text it selfe which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly by the terme you which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and another His proofe from the word of God being dispatched The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next but he sayes nothing of it therefore I cannot answere any thing to it It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times to shew that The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith Which is vnorderly yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne Bishop Carleton in the booke alledged p. 52. c. alledgeth Councels Fathers Popes all pronouncing this sentence The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour and not to you Lastly if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church perpetually to the end of the world that it may be fit to be appealed vnto and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith in the time wherein it riseth for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde and without the second some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point and giue this for his reason to wit he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence and giue for instance as he doth gagg p. 19. He takes the Church to signifie a true not a
the Church hath beene in time past The Church hath beene visible particular Church for he saith in the place now alledged it is a part of the Catholike Church And againe Appeale p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome and doth range it with a Church in England France Spaine all which doe denote particular Churches That he doth consent with the Church of Rome it cannot be doubted for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith that their particular Church is the mother and mistris of all Churches Concil Trent sess 7. de Babâ—is can 3. sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. sess 22. de sacrif missae cap 8. That it doth dissent from the Church of England will easily be manifested which hath reiected by Parliament Law the Popes authoritie in all cases of government hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church without any relation to the Church of Rome hath set it downe in the booke of Articles and the common Liturgie and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie in divers places some whereof I will repeat 1. Wee haue departed from that Church saith he whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world which Church also already had departed from Gods Word and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof par 4. cap. 11. divis 1. 2. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne safetie par 5. cap. 15. divis 3. 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now and haue so gone from it as Daniell went out of the Lyons den divis 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together and they shall see that themselues haue most shanâ—â—fully gone from the Apostles and wee most iustly haue gone from them cap. 16. divis 1. 5. We haue departed from him who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. Lastly we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ nor to an Apostle And these are the reasons and causes why we haue restored Religion and forsaken these men cap. the last The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received not as a private opinion but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church For 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so otherwise he would not haue named his Booke An Apologie in defence of the Church of England which he doth 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church without the least blame 3. After this long deliberation it is reprinted with speciall direction from authoritie and to the end it might be had in every severall Parish in the Kingdome which is executed accordingly Whervnto I will adde the necessity which the church of England conceived to be of that seperation which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author as followeth 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever part 6. cap. 22. divis 1. 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse we left him wee could not come to Christ par 6. cap. 20. divis 2. 3. The holy Ghost Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome for so it is written Come away from her O my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes least you be also partakers of her plagues Answer to Hardings conclusion From whence I thus argue The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome to avoyd damnation Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church And Mr Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England Thus he writeth Appeale p. 112. I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome the neerer vnto God and truth That we ought to haue no coÌ„merce societie or accordance with Papists in things divine vpon paine of eternall damnation Much joy may he haue in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper That this proposition The Church of Rome is a true Church Is false and vntrue will appeare by my answer to his Arguments Before I come vnto that I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church which I find written Appeale p. 140. in these words It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church not a sound Church every way in their doctrine Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions yet I passe by it and come to the proposition in question which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church c. I answer his perswasion though never so absolute is no compotent rule for any divinitie question much lesse for this which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith as the Church of Rome would haue it It may be the other two reasons which he hath for this matter is the ground for this his absolute perswasion therefore I passe from this and come to the second in these words In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree I answer this is a very riddle and no proofe What he meanes by essentials what by fundamentalls with whom or what they agree he sheweth not nor are the things evident of themselues When he speaketh to humane intelligence he shall haue answer If the Trumpet giue an vncertaine sound none can prepare himselfe to battell Let vs ayme at his meaning it will open the whole Cause the better It may be by fundamentalls he meanes such Articles of faith as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation If this be his meaning I deny that they agree in fundamentals for in such
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
he vnderstands it not for then he could not distinguish sinne into mortall and veniall for all sinne in this sense is mortall If by veniall he vnderstood no more but sin not deseruing damnation by Gods not-imputing it I will grant that sinne is veniall but hee must not vnderstand it thus for so all the sinnes of the iustified are veniall or to speake in the words of the Church of England first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning Their sinnes are washed in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their damnation It remaineth therefore that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth Which being true that distinction is denyed and so he begs the question and proues it not It is also denyed that a man habitually sanctified can commit any such sinne as the Church of Rome calleth mortall and yet he proues this as he did the former euen by his owne word If you will not beleeue him you must goe look proofe other where but you must not looke it in Bellarmine for if he had brought any Mr. Mountagu would haue giuen it you in English His next branch is this Where mortall sinne is committed God is disobeyed I answer in this sentence he attributeth disobedience vnto mortall sinne adequately denying veniall sinne to be any disobedience vnto Gods law for if he did not so he must say that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sinnes as hee calls veniall for he saith as we shall see anon where God is disobeyed grace cannot consist but must needs be lost But he will not say grace is lost by veniall sinne therefore he conceiueth onely mortall sinne disobeyeth Gods law Iust as Bellarmine doth who teacheth Veniall sinne is sinne by analogy or certaine proportion and imperfectly after a certaine sort but not perfectly and simply neither is it perfectly voluntary nor perfectly against the Law but besides the Law De amiss gra lib. 1. cap. 11. Quintum c. If you aske me how Mr Mountagu proues this I answer with no worse proofe then he hath done the former branches and that is his owne very word which you need not sticke at for he is one of the learnedst in the Church of England His third branch is in these words Where God is disobeyed he will not abide I answer in what sense soeuer the word disobeyed be taken this sentence is false and must goe for such till he hath proued it which yet he hath not done nor attempted to doe let him shew vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon the committing of this or that sinne 2 This actuall sinne is of that nature that of it selfe it doth expell grace If he proue one of these the question is at an end the Diuine Oracle must haue credit If you bring not that you hunt a flea and pursue a shadow It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne till you proue that grace must giue place to sinne by the ordinance and decree of God or the nature of the things themselues There be some other things in this proofe to be examined but I passe them ouer because they depend vpon these branches which I haue answered vnto and doe stand or fall with them To conclude this argument I say It is worthy to be obserued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised vnto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that position but at the vpshot their proofes are for the thing denyed by none and they take for granted the things denyed by all which kind of disputing in it selfe is most vnsound for it is no more but as if they should say it is so because we say it is so and it is most dangerous to the Reader that is not very wary for it is most deceitfull bearing a shew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in question It may be some will vrge these places of Scripture on this sort If he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometimes doth commit such sinnes as for which in in the euent he is cast into hell then a man may lose and some doe lose the habit of sanctity But he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometime doth commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he is cast into hell Therefore c. I answer In this reason I grant the first part or consequence of the proposition because no man hath the habit of sanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell for that leades to another end and is alwayes to be crowned with glory But the assumption or second part which hath two branches is wholly false no one place of Scripture doth affirme or inferre either of these two sentences The habitually sanctified may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell Some habitually sanctified haue committed such sins as for which he is now in hell If any require me to shew that the places alledged doe not proue thus much I answer That is not my office for 1. the question is not at this present purposely disputed 2 It is their place to dispute and mine to answer let them apply the Scriptures to the purpose in an orderly forme and I will make my answer good It is enough for mee to giue them an Issue They must proue the Issue or leaue the cause behind them I will put some of their allegations into forme and answer to them which I doe thus He that may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such actuall sinne as for which hee is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell he may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall be cast into hell But the man habitually sanctified may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such sinne as for which he is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity hee shall dye therein Therefore the man habitually sanctified may commit such sinne as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell I answer although the proposition seemes not to be euidently true because God may so threaten sin to shew vnto man what the desert of sinne is and not what in the euent shall become of such a sinner yet I will not at this present insist thereupon but come to the assumption which is not true neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be so for these three words viz. Righteous Righteousnesse Iniquity may import the act and none of them can signifie the habit as the text it selfe doth euidently shew which doth interpret the word Righteous by the word Righteousnesse and Righteousnesse it calleth an Act
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
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
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
Booke will finde If wee receiue these points of Popery hitherto discussed then must we receiue all the rest of the Popish faith for these are no truer then they nor are these receiued by any which doth not receiue them If wee receiue all Popery then wee giue place to the rabble of their Monkes and Friers c. where they are entertained great possessions much goods many people are seuered from the vse of the State and appropriated vnto the vse and benefit of the Pope and State of Rome by which meanes our owne State is much disabled to maintaine it selfe against forraigne opposers and a forraigne State inioyeth a great addition to defend it selfe and to offend yea to subiect ours vnto the will of the Pope and State of Rome which things I doubt not will be confessed on all hands to be no small danger to our State and this shall suffice for this time to shew the dangers that doe perpetually attend vpon this faith of Rome which you perswade vs to receiue You tell vs you are a Patriot equall to the best you shew vs wherein by saying thus I imbrace the totall doctrine and discipline of the Church of England and will maintaine it to bee ancient Catholike Orthodoxe and Apostolicall Appeale page 111. I trust to make good against any and all whosoeuer that the Church of England is so conformable vnto purest antiquity in the best times that none can be named in all points more conformable Appeale page 48. You must giue me leaue to answer hereunto in your owne words which I finde you haue written concerning some viz. You doe conforme onely for preferment hold with the Hare and runne with the Hound Appeale page 111. and 112. you are rotten at the core page 142. your goodly glozings and time-seruing colludings with the State are but like Watermen looking one way rowing another page 43. and 44. Your selfe at least cannot be offended with mee for applying those words of yours vnto your selfe for it is but Iustice to fill you in the same cup you haue filled vnto others Neither may it bee ill taken of any other for you may be of that number notwithstanding this protestation because that I may vse your owne words you must remember All your words are not Gospell Appeale page 272. Therefore vntill I may perceiue that you manifest what you protest by reall practice you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble in the point and would perswade men that you are not to bee distrasted that your selfe may feed fat vpon their folly Appeale page 222. I finde you also writing thus of some Your holy cause you see will not succeed by opposition therefore you come vp and seeme to close with the Church of England in her Doctrine and discipline but indeed you infuse secretly and instill cunningly a forraigne Doctrine pretended craftily to be our Churches so that aâ— length you may winde in forraigne discipline and the rest of forraigne Doctrine Appeale page 43. and 44. If you conceiue thus of others it is like enough you saw it first in your selfe for there is none so suspicious of another as he that is guiltie You know our English Prouerbe The Mother would neuer haue sought her Daughter in the Ouen but that her selfe had beene there first you can apply what I exemplifie to speake in your owne language Appeale page 320. yea it is more then likely that this was your intent For you waue the Doctrine of the Church of England Teach contrary to that which you haue subscribed as you challenge others Appeale page 44. which you would neuer haue done but for some speciall end and no other end can be assigned but this and vnto this end it serueth fitly If I should reason thus The learnedest the most conformable the renowned rewarded c. yea the faith it selfe of the Church of England is for Popery Therefore Popery is the true faith Then euery man will be ready to embrace the faith of Rome and good reason too seeing this testimony wanteth nothing to giue it authority the party himselfe a friend nay more a Brother that hath beene borne bred and brought vp in the confession of the Church of England that hath learned loued admired and proposed to himselfe to follow indeclinable the Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England Appeale page 111. No new vp-start Master in Israel But one that adhereth and consenteth vnto the Apostles and their true successors immediate and mediate Appeale page 45. and 46. The Doctrine of the Church of England is proposed in Synods confirmed by law commanded and established by act of Parliament Appeale page 111. As the qualitie of your person pretence so your outward condition in our State and Church doe serue very fitly to bring in Popery for you are knowne vnto and approued by his sacred Maiesty King Iames as you doe solemnly informe vs in the Preface to your Appeale and in the Booke it selfe page 43. You are beholding vnto and fauoured by men of principall ranke in the gouernement of our Church and common-wealth as wee learne from your Epistle set before your Treatise of the Inuocation of Saints neere to the end thereof You are indeed rewarded with preferments many for number great for value Who would deny his consent vnto Popery when it is brought by a messenger thus accomplished You are a Minister and a Preacher therefore when you bring in Popery you goe compendiously to worke for you are like enough to gaine and draw your Parishioners with you at least to make them more feasable then other waies they would be as yourselfe writes in the third page of your Preface to the Reader set before your Gagge You are a Preacher vnto many congregations therefore you must needes draw the more people after you and they draw others for we see by experience things new and strange stay not alwaies with them that receiue them first Moreouer by Preaching Popery they may be accommodated according vnto the disposition of seuerall men hee that is inclinable thereunto may bee followed seriously plied at all times He that is auerse may bee obserued and delt withall as opportunity is offered Lastly preaching is of greatest efficacie for it commeth vnder the name of Gods ordinance it is more fit to enter into and preuaile vpon the thoughts of man than any other course like as the small raine resâ—eth vpon entreth into and softeneth the earth more then the great and hastie showers By preaching popery may be let in softly without noise slowly without violence like as liquid bodies are distilled by a soft fire being once entred taketh faster hold like vnto a screw that is not heard when it entreth nor can be pulled out when it hath taken hold This course to bring in popery was now requisite for all violence was in vaine no attempt that way could preuaile it made vs more warie and resolued against it like the boisterous winde that causeth a man to lay faster hold vpon his clothes to keepe them about him What disputations haue they had to prevaile against vs for continuance multitude of years for learning and subtlety What deuices haue they vsed to keepe ours from them to conuey theirs vnto vs Cunning counsells to grace it desperate Ianizaries to conuey it into euery Kingdome Prouince diuision familie houshold singular person if it were possible What wars and trecherie haue they omitted the Histories of Wicklife Hus Ziska Henry the second King Iohn and Queene Elizabeth besides many others will shew More of any of these are not needfull nor can be expected yet what haue they gotten haue they won a party vnto their faith or one man to beleeue as they doe Surely this they haue gained enen a garment dyed red in the blood of the Saints and a name but not of the sonnes of Abraham who neuer had the glory of heresie and poison of false doctrine cruelty trechery murder vsurpation Now now therefore is the time when you must change your copie turne ouer a new leafe bethinke your selfe of a new course turne your threatnings into flatterings your loud sound into still voices your long disputations into distilled dropping your enmity into pretended friendship your conioyned armies into seuered corner creepers your armour into Gownes your swords into sithes your bills into mattocks Finally let no voice of warre be heard in your streets Sound and resound lift vp like a trumpet the voice of Peace tune your instruments to make that harmony to bee more delightfull then the sweet Singer of Israel and then perhaps you may gaine him vnto your side whom God hath giuen ouer to beleeue lyes but for the rest they will and alwaies shall haue iust cause to say as we now doe The snare is broken we are escaped thanks be vnto God I might giue satisfaction to euery one of his particular railings for there is sufficient for it but I will not burthen the reader so much This that I haue said is sufficient because these things being thus none of his other bitter invectiues can bee true Though they were true yet doe they make either wholly against him or nothing at all for him I conclude this whole discourse in the words wherein Bishop Iewell concluded his to Master Harding pag. 652. Deceiue not the simple they are bought with price they are the people of God for whom Christ hath shed his blood Your shifts be miserable you trouble your selfe as a Bird in the lyme The more ye stirre the saster ye cleaue the longer ye striue the weaker ye are ye cannot bridle the flowing Seas ye cannot blind the Sunne beames Kicke not still against the spurre Giue vnto the glory of God will ye will ye the truth will conquer God giue vs both humble hearts and the people eyes to see that all flesh may be obedient to his will Amen FINIS
salvation ceaseth he is where he was as if grace had never wrought vpon him Now that this is iniurious vnto God is so manifest that it needs not be proved seeing the greatest share of mans abilitie to doe those things that shall lead him to heaven is given to man himselfe the lesser vnto God That man may be saved it is of God who beginneth and joyneth with man vnto the doing of that which he could not doe of himselfe But that this power is brought vnto act is attributed to man himselfe and the onely libertie of his own will Grace doth nothing by any effectuall efficiency vpon the will determining the same to God or restraining it from the contrary To conclude seeing that I haue performed the condition of your promise at num 5. If you can make it appeare c. I doe now expect the performance of your promise which you made in these words I will 1. yeeld 2. Thanke you for your instructions 3. Turne over a new leafe 4. Oppose the Church of Rome in this Article as farre as any Every honest man will be as good as his word and so I hope will you In the last place those 10. propositions taught by Mr Mountague and set downe in Chapter 7. must be examined whether they be true or no. The first of them begins thus Free-will is in vs subsisting not in Title onely This proposition in the termes wherein it lyeth is true for by the facultie of the will and the electiue and free power thereof man is really distinguished from all other creatures What shall be said to it in his sence shall be declared num 16. The second beginneth thus Free-will is a power c. The first branch of this descriptiō of free-will is true and cannot be denyed The second branch that placeth it in a facultie of doing freely and in an absolute dominion over his own actions c. is vtterly denyed by reason he is not able to proue it He bestirres himselfe to proue the first branch of his description or the first proposition according as he will be vnderstood by experience and the authoritie of Scot. Appeal p. 99. But of this second branch he hath not a word which argues he can bring none for it seeing this doth need it more then that Secondly if man hath this freedome and dominiō then God hath lesse charge providence and government over the actions of men then over any other created effects for in them God is the onely principall efficient of the worke they are instruments to worke in subordination vnto and by the force of him But man is hereby made a principall efficient of his workes superior or at least equall vnto God by giving vnto him freedome and absolute dominion over himselfe to doe as he will God made man and gaue him his being he yeeldeth him his concourse whereby he doth sustaine him in his being All this while God is no efficient of mans actions except very remotely Man by his being hath a dominion over himselfe and freedome to doe as he will hereby he is an efficient next and principall vnto his owne actions if not the onely efficient for mans actions haue relation to the force of man in the doing of them but they haue no relation vnto God at all The effect may say by mans power I had my being and by Gods power man had his being But it may not be granted that God hath no providence over mans actions or lesse providence then over the actions of other creatures for the Scripture is plaine and full to the contrary Thirdly there is no necessitie why this freedome and dominion should be given to the will for as much as the properties given to the will in the other part of the description is enough to make it a free facultie Which I say not of my selfe I learne it from Suarez opusc 1. cap. 1. num 2. And he sayth that many graue and ancient Divines yea Thomas and some of the Fathers are of that Iudgement At least Mr Mountague ought to cōtent himselfe with that libertie of the will and not to striue for this dominiō because the church of Rome doth forbeare to call that by the name of free-will least it should agree in manner of speaking with the hereticks of this time as Suarez avoucheth in the place last alledged The third proposition hath these words That libertie was c. I answer If by libertie you meane the vse of the facultie in supernaturall actions then the proposition is false for man by sinne lost grace as you truely teach gagg p. 108. And without grace mans will is not capable of doing supernaturall actions which for their essence first and specificall nature are beyond the abilitie of the force of the Created facultie and which cannot be done without the grace of God as Suarez teacheth opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 1. num 1. 2. 3. And proveth cap. 15. num 20. And in this sence we must vnderstand those Divines which teach the losse of free-will by Adams sinne Therefore the Councell of Trent and Mr Mountague with it pursue their owne shadow when they decreed as against an adversary when indeed they had none Which is further confirmed thus If libertie be taken to signifie the facultie it selfe then that third proposition is granted and that vpon the same reason himselfe alledgeth out of the Councell of Trent gagg p. 108. Adam by sinne lost not his nature The fourth fift and sixt propositions containe thus much Mans free facultie and the free vse thereof is in him that hath grace I answer the free facultie and grace are both together in one man and so farre this proposition is true 2. If the vse of that free facultie be committed vnto the dominion and dispose of the will it selfe then the proposition is false It can never be proved that the vse of the free facultie of the will is left vnto the dispose and dominiō of the will it selfe but the dominion and dispose thereof is reserved vnto the Lord God and he sayth no lesse when he promised to take away the stony heart and giue a heart of flesh and to imprint his lawes therin Let Mr Mountague shew where God saith to a man prevented by grace I haue made thee able to doe holy workes if thou wilt I commit thy selfe vnto thy selfe goe forward or backward as thou wilt there I will rest I will take no further care of thee nor haue no further command over thee but this cannot be done therefore I may conclude the proposition thus vnderstood and so he doth vnderstand it is false But if the vse of the free facultie be committed vnto the Lord God to dispose of as he please so as mans obedience vnto grace that calleth be given to grace as the Church of England speaketh Arti 17. and the entitie of mans nature be vsed by grace onely as an instrument thereunto then I grant this proposition is true The
vse of the free facultie is in him which hath grace But in this sence he cannot vnderstand it for then mans actions cannot be so free as he pretendeth in the seventh and eighth propositions following In this sence free-will is meerly titular having a name without the thing as we vse to speake when a man inioyeth a thing but hath no vse of it and in this sence our Divines haue sayd true who affirme mans freewill is in title onely so also is it most truly affirmed of them that say mans will is a serving not a free-will The seventh and eight proposition containeth thus much He that assenteth c. assenteth freely and can deny his assent if he will c. The word can in this proposition doth signifie a power of vsing the free facultie with indifferency in the very instant in which a man doth worke and so Suarez doth vnderstand it opusc 1. lib. 1. cap. 1. num 8. And so must the Councell of Trent be vnderstood sess 6. cap. 5. For all other senses thereof are violent and extorted not agreeing with the phrase vsed by the Councell of Trent nor their intent in decreeing If Mr Mountague can proue this let him take all for me I will not oppose the Councell of Trent and himselfe a Disciple thereof in this question of free-will If he cannot proue it why doth he put himselfe into Gods seat by intruding and vrging Articles of faith I am out of doubt he cannot proue it for Suarez hath attempted many things and heau'd at it with both his shoulders but all in vaine it may be Suarez hath no old learning nor Logick so good as Ramus taught in Cambridge no Metaphysicks at all but is ignorant in this questiō He could Preach Lecture brawle and prattle a little in a Pulpit but dispute he could not set him to an argument and you breake his braines but be it knowne vnto you all these things are otherwise with Maister Mountague therefore what Suarez could not he can doe and that you shall see in his gagg p. 112. Thus he disputeth In Mathew 23. and 37. there is an opposition of mans wilfulnesse vnto Gods will God would Iudah would not Therefore freely men renounce the Calling of grace and freely runne I answer the last branch of the conclusion which speaketh of running with Gods grace cannot follow vpon the Antecedent because mans will in sinfull acts is an efficient after a different sort and in another manner then it is in supernaturall actions In them it is a principall efficient that is sinneth of it selfe in these it is a subordinate efficient as your selfe teach Appeal p. 94. therefore sinne doth flow from the will one wayes and supernaturall actions another The first branch in the conclusion doth not follow vpon the Antecedent which hath not a word of freedome libertie or dominion in resisting but barely chargeth them with the eliciated act of resisting If it be replyed that resisting is an act of the will and every act of the will hath that freedome and dominion I rejoynd this reply is refuted already num 14. Therefore it comes too late to take away my answer The Antecedent by the word Call doth vnderstand the Calling of God and the inward calling by grace otherwise there can be no shew of goodnesse in the consequence If you would haue vs beleeue that our Saviour did speake of that kind of calling you ought to haue proved it because it may be vnderstood of the outward calling by the Ministery of our Saviour but because you haue not proved it your argument at the vpshot is resolved into your owne authoritie and so is of no worth He saith in his gagg p. 112. that many other places of Scripture doe serue this purpose but he does not name nor vrge any in particular therefore they can receiue no answer He hath two other Arguments by collection and a third from Acts the 7. 51. the words wherof be these Appeal pag. 89. c. You resist the holy Ghost In this argument he raiseth his confidence because the very word resist is vsed there I answer a poore foundation for confidence It hath the same fault the former had it affirmeth of resisting simply our question is of freedome in resisting so it is nothing to the purpose You vnderstand it of the work of grace in the soule but you proue it not it may be vnderstood of their resisting of the outward Preaching of the Gospell therefore we haue your owne authoritie and no more we haue no reason to thinke that God inwardly enlightned c. all these persons that are sayd to resist the holy Ghost The next concludeth thus In whom there is concupiscence he may resist and rebell against the law of the spirit But in a man regenerate there is concupiscence Therefore a regenerate man may resist the spirit of God I answer This conclusion is nothing to the purpose for our question is of the preparation vnto the habit and freedome in resisting but this conclusion is of a man habituated and of resisting simply If it be vnderstood of resisting freely then the proposition is false For Concupiscence hath nothing to doe with freedome of will this is a perfection given by Creation that is a defection procured by sinne His last Argument is in these words If a man iustified may fall away from grace then he may resist the grace of God offered But the first is the doctrine of the Church of England Therefore a iustified man may resist the grace of God offered I answer this conclusion hath the very same fault which the former had Besides it sayth grace is offered to a justified man how that can be true himselfe must declare for a justified man hath grace already vnto such a man grace cannot be offered The consequence of the proposition is naught losing of grace hath no affinitie with resisting of grace that signifies the absence of a thing inioyed this the repelling thrusting backe of a thing offered but not received The assumption is also false as shall be proved cap. 12. His ninth proposition sayth Man being drawne c. By mans running he seems to vnderstand a running by the force of the created faculty for the words wil beare that sence and he sayth further in the same proposition man doth run as his owne agillitie is he sayth further gagg p. 108. the whole question in the point of free-will is concerning the force of the created facultie In this sence that ninth proposition is false and to be detested It seemes he perceived thus much therfore in his Appeal p. 91. 94. he labours to cure that vlcer by saying Supernaturall actions are true and reall operations of mans soule but the soule is elevated actuated to that height by grace of which it is that mans will is a subordinate agent vnto grace Which declaration comes very short therefore I will adde a passage in Suarez which doth expresse the same
full Iustification 1. Sermon of salvation a little after the beginning There is nothing vpon the behalfe of man concerning his Iustification but onely a true and liuely faith 1. Sermon of Salvation a little before the end CHAP. X. The Doctrine deliuered in the former Chapter is argued THere be three things in it inquirable 1 Whether this proposition A sinners Iustification consisteth also in grace infused be true or not 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of England or not I haue set downe Mr. Mountagu his doctrine touching this point which containeth many propositions and because it might appeare how farre he agreeth with the Church of Rome I bring but one of them to be disputed because if this be foūd false against the doctrine of the Church of England then all the rest will be found false likewise and I desire to contract the disputation vnto the narrowest scantling That that first proposition is false doth manifestly appeare by the answers made vnto the disputations of Thomas Vega Soto Bellarmine Suarez Vasques and others that doe maintaine the same To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needlesse because there is nothing brought to proue it That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in euery one of his propositions is manifest to the full The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set downe also in the former Chapter will shew it And that not onely in the Iustice that doth concurre vnto Iustification and all other things which depend thereupon but also in the nature and being of the remission of sinnes as shal be declared no. 23 c. Which must be obserued because it is a matter of great importance it is little obserued and maketh vp his agreement with them and his disagreement with the Church of England in euery part and parcell of this point teaching in all things as they doe in nothing as the Courch of England doth That he doth disagree from the Church of England the very reading of the doctrine of them both set downe in the last Chapter will declare Our Church placeth our whole Iustice and adequate nature of Iustification in remission of sinnes he placeth it also in grace infused It maketh remission of sinnes one thing he another as shall bee shewed hereafter no. 26. c. Notwithstanding all which euidence he laboureth in his Appeale pag. 168. and 188. to perswade the world that He consenteth not with the Church of Rome nor dissenteth from the Church of England But all his labour is in vaine the contradictory will proue true as this discourse will declare He pleadeth for himselfe two things First by grace infused hee meant and intended onely concommitanter that is grace concurreth with remission of sins in a iustified man pag. 168. 169. 170. Secondly in that description hee went not punctually to worke but described Iustification at large for that act of God of remission of sins and the necessary and immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that Appeale pag. 172. 178. He chargeth such as do not vnderstand that proposition in this sense with ignorant or wilfull mistaking his meaning or obstinate refusall of satisfaction Appeale pag. 168. 172. I answer All this is a faire shew put vpon a foule cause a meere pretence without shew of truth I will make it appeare first by my answers to the argumēts he brings to proue hee meant thus And then by proofes from the things themselues This was not his intent but his words must be vnderstood as they lie without interpretation His first argument p. 168. is to this effect I did attribute grace infused to Iustification secondarily Therfore I intēded grace infused is in a iustified man I answer This reason is reasonlesse There is no shew in the Consequence the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to thinke you meant so neither doe you shew how it should Againe your owne words doe proue you meant not that by the word secondarily but that grace infused doth constitute Iustification in a second notion For if Iustification be a motion between two termes the one of sinne wherein a man was the other of grace whereto a man is brought and that is the first this the second then grace doth constitute Iustification in a second notion but you teach the first Gagge pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be vnderstood to meane the last In the next place he telleth vs that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught that a man iustified is sanctified also I answer This proueth not that hee meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is iustified but supposeth that he did meane so and sheweth why hee did meane so therefore it is nothing to the purpose Besides it is vtterly false he had no purpose to say any such thing for the question then in hand was whether faith only doth iustifie which could not yeeld him any occasion to say Grace was in a iustified man they being two things euery way distinct and without the shew of affinity Againe neuer any Papist liuing did write or say that we denie a iustified man to be sanctified also therefore you had no occasion thus to say In the last place pag. 171. he hath these words If a iustified man bee also sanctified then might I allow one common word to containe expresse both the parts I answer 1. This supposeth he meant as hee pretendeth sheweth the reason why hee comprehended two things distinct in nature vnder one name but proues not that hee meant to say as hee pretendeth 2. He bestoweth much labour and spares for no cost to proue the first part of this reason but to no purpose for that was neuer denyed by any man in the Church of England nor in any other Church that ioyneth in faith with it But the consequence is vtterly false for these two parts are not essentiall vnto that whole which you call Iustification Therefore when you make one word to containe thē both the sentēce is vntrue disagreeable to art and a monster in nature He is vnskilfull that puts a childs-shooe vpon the foot of Hercules that addeth to the statue of a man the limmes of a beast and iust so doe you in this place if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification vnder the name of Iustification And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse and this too much too for of three things two of them are wholy besides the matter and voyd of truth in themselues the third disproued by his owne plaine testimony In the behalfe of the second part of his excuse hee saith page 172. Iustification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sinnes and largely for that act of God and the necessary immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that c and the like doth Caluine Perkins Beza I
sentence iustification considered in it selfe and without any person receiuing the same is said to consist in grace In the second sentence not Iustification in it selfe nor with the partie receiuing it but the partie iustified conceiued otherwise then as he is iustified is said to possesse or inioy grace infused together with his iustification Therefore by the first sentence you did not meane the second 2 If by this sentence Iustification consisteth in grace infused he meant to describe Iustification as it comprehendeth the whole state and condition of a man regenerate reconciled to God then he agreeth fully with the Church of Rome which taketh it so For It describeth Iustification to be A translation from that state in which man was borne a Sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace and adoption of the sonnes of God Councell of Trent sess 6. cap. 4. And more fully it saith Iustification it selfe is not onely remission of sinnes but also sanctification and renouation of the inward man by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts from whence a man is iust of vniust a friend of an enemie and heire according to the hope of euerlasting life cap. 7. But by that sentence he meant so to describe c. as is before set downe no. 7 Wherein also he placeth his confidence Appeale page 172. to giue satisfaction if any will be taken Therefore when hee saith Iustification consisteth in grace infused he agreeth with the Church of Rome Now at the last we are come to a finall conclusion touching the consisting of Iustification in grace infused wherein after many turnings windings and shiftings now this waies then that waies some vnto the matter some besides the matter we are come by his owne direction and the euidence of the thing it selfe vnto this conclusion that hee agreeth with the Church of Rome In the next place we must inquire Whether hee agreeth with the Church of Rome and dissenteth from the Church of England in assigning of the nature of remission of sins Touching which thus he saith Both forgiuenesse of sinnes and grace infused are the act of Gods spirit in man To the same effect the Councell of Trent decreeth in these words Grace bestowed in Baptisme doth take away whatsoeuer hath the true and proper nature of sin sess 5. These sentences of the Councell and Mr. Mountagu doe fully agree He saith the spirit It saith grace He saith the spirit in man It saith grace receiued Hee saith remission of sinne is the act of the spirit It saith grace taketh away the true and proper nature of sinne all which words are of the same value and signification All the Interpreters of the Councell doe extend this decree vnto all sinnes as well personall as originall and that vpon good reason as I suppose Likewise what the Councell saith of grace bestowed in Baptisme They apply also to the habit of grace receiued out of Baptisme because it is the same habit which is receiued by Baptisme without Baptisme which doth make their agreement cleare to the full Moreouer the most common opinion of the Expositors of the Councell doe further say as Bellarmine doth de Iustific lib. 2. cap. 16 Habituall grace hath foure formall effects the first whereof is to purge sinne And thereby they make remission of sinne a physicall worke of grace as when one pinne is driuen out by another or one colour is blotted out by another Some others but they are not many are of opinion that grace doth remit sin by the way of merit but the first opinion is most agreeable to the Councell of Trent which in that decree cannot bee vnderstood of taking away sinne by the way of merit because habituall grace bestowed vpon children cannot bring forth workes and no workes no merits besides if grace did merit remission of sinnes then a man might haue grace for sometime and yet not haue his sinnes remitted For there may fall out sometime after a man hath receiued grace wherein hee hath no opportunity vnto the doing of a meritorious worke Vnto which opinion Mr. Mountagu his words doe greatly incline for he saith Iustification by grace and remission of sinnes is the act of Gods spirit Which is as much as if he had sayd in what sort grace doth make iust in that sort grace doth remit sinne else he could not comprehend them both vnder one act but must haue referred them vnto two acts Now it is agreed vpon by al Bellarmine hath it in the place last alleadged That to make iust is a formall effect of habituall grace And accordingly to remit sinne is a formall effect of habituall grace Againe he saith The soule of man is the subiect of Iustification In these words he speaketh of the soule not simply as being the obiect of an outward worke but as the subiect receiuing remission of sinnes into it and how man should receiue remission of sinne by grace into his soule and that remission not be a formall effect of grace cannot possibly be shewed Lastly if in his opinion sinne doth expell grace formally then he must be of opinion that grace doth expell which is to remit sinne formally But he hath the first Appeale p. 173. where he saith The propertie of those sinnes that are more eminent notorious enormious is to wast the conscience Where wasting the conscience must signifie the putting away of grace for what is there in the conscience that can be wasted by sinne but grace and the act of wasting must be a formall act because sinne is conceiued in such a case to rest and remaine in stead of grace Therefore hee must be conceiued to be of opinion that remission of sinne is a formall effect of grace By this I hope it doth appeare that hee agreeth fully with the Church of Rome But to auoyd all scruple it is requisite that I remoue one obiection which may be made after this manner Hee placeth remission of sinnes in the pardon and not-imputation of sinnes Gagge page 143. and in absolution therefrom Appeale pag 169. Therefore he maketh not remission of sinnes a formall effect of grace I answer hee may say both and yet agree with them for although the Councell of Trent sess 6. can 11. and cap. 7. hath but implyed not expresly decreed this manner of remitting sinnes yet all the Interpreters by one consent doe teach both expresly except onely Gabriel Vasquez in 1m. 2 ae disp 204. per tot yea he must hold the latter though he doth hold the former for pardon c. is required also vnto the perfect doing away of sinne as Thomas teacheth 3. part q. 22. art 3. C. And Suarez proueth at large de grat lib. 7. cap. 13. and 14. And thus much I hope is sufficient to shew his consent with the Church of Rome I come now in the next place to shew his dissent from the Church of England in this point of remission of sinnes What the Church of England hath decreed in
the point I will set downe and then apply it It saith Good workes cannot put away our sinnes Artic. 12. In which sentence there is a direct contradiction put vnto the Doctrine last recited out of Church of Rome and M. Mountagu The terme put away must signifie that putting away which is called remission and not satisfaction for this doth make recompence for sinne but doth not put away sin which importeth the destroying of the being remaining of sin it selfe By denying the puting away of sinne to good workes the meriting of remission of sinne by grace and the effects therof is denyed for otherwise then so good workes are not fit nor able to put away sin and himselfe speaks thus of it Gagg p. 156. Now forasmuch as good workes are the fruits of a liuely faith as the Article speaketh that is of the habit of grace the remission of sinnes that it denyeth to good workes it denyeth to the habit of grace and therein it denyeth that remission of sinne is a formall effect or physicall worke of grace forasmuch as the remission of sin can be no other effect or operation of the habit of grace but formall and Physicall The Homilie of Almes pag. 329. teaches the same thing expresly which is a proofe sufficient that M. Mountagu doth dissent from the Church of England and no dissent in a matter of this kind can be greater then a contradiction Our Church doth teach positiuely what remission of sinnes is wherein it doth assigne a nature contrary to that which the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu doe giue vnto it If I make that appeare I doubt not then to say M. Mountagu dissenteth from the Church of England I doe it thus The true knowledge of the remission of sinne consisteth in the true vnderstanding of these two things viz. 1. what is meant by sinne which is said to be forgiuen Secondly what act of God it is by which it is forgiuen Sinne of which a man may be denominated a sinner may be conceiued two waies first for the act of sin past secondly for the will of sinning as Thomas hath truely obserued 3. part q. 61. art 4. C. The will of sinning is not the obiect of that act which the Scripture calleth remitting because the will of sinning importeth an indisposition vnto good and an aptnesse to sinne remaining in the will from whence the Scripture doth not denominate a man a sinner but from the act of sinne The act of sinne past is the obiect of remission as is confessed on all sides The Councell of Trent hath decreed it Sess 6. cap. 5. where it maketh such as are turned from God by sinne the men that are iustified So doth all the expositors of the Councell with one consent make the act of sin the thing remitted and from which a man is iustified Bellarmine hath it de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 16. with whose testimony I will rest contented others may say the same thing but not more nor more cleerly then he hath done The Church of England teacheth it in the first Homilie of saluation where it nameth a little after the beginning sinnes forgiuen by the name of trespasses and againe sins from which man is washed and which are not imputed it calleth sinne in act or deed The act of God whereby the sinnes of man are remitted is set out by the Church of England by diuers titles according to the course and phrase of Scripture but of them all one is the most fit and of best signification for this present occasion viz. The not-imputing of sinne which it vseth in the first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning the words lie thus Man is washed from his sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall be imputed to their damnation In which sentence washing away the spots of sinne which is the act remitting sinnes is resolued into the act of not-imputing where it saith so washed as not imputed Hee must not deny this Homilie to be the Doctrine of the Church of England for hee doth auouch it to bee such in his Appeale pag. 190. and 194. If it be said the Church of England doth assigne other acts of remitting sinne besides this in vsiâ—g other titles I answer though it do vse other titles yet not assigne any other act but this for this doth extend as largely as them all and they doe but â—xplicate this therefore wee may conclude in the doctrine of the Church of England The not-imputation of sinne is the sole and onely act whereby sinnes are remitted Touching this act ariseâ—h all the difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church with which Church of Rome M. Mountagu consenteth both of them assigning such an act of God as doth really differ and put a contrariety vnto this The Church of Rome teacheth 1. that sinne is remitted by a created being namely the habit of grace 2. That remission of sinne is wrought in the soule of man 3. That the manner how sinne is remitted by grace is formall and physicall as a painter that couereth a thing deformed with beauty and good shape Our Church maketh 1. the Creator directly and immediately the worker thereof 2. It placeth the thing effected not in man but in the outward estate and condition of man 3. The manner of working to be meerly efficient viz. God out of his prerogatiue Royall discharging our account Not putting our sinnes to our reckoning And thus much is sufficient to proue his totall agreement with the Church of Rome and disagreement with the Church of England in the nature of Iustification and therewith I might put an end vnto this whole point But I will goe a little further to the satisfying of the point propounded n o 12. c. Wherein my labour will not be lost for that which I shall say will serue aboundantly to shew 1. how diuinely the Church of England hath determined in this point 2. How little reason he had to depart from the doctrine of our Church in this point 3. The great reason that euerie man hath to striue for the doctrine of the Church of England in this point as for the faith once deliuered to the Saints Against this doctrine of the Church of England the Church of Rome as may well be conceiued doth thus dispute If no other act doth concurre vnto the remitting of sinne but the act of not-imputing of sinne then a man after remission of sinne remaineth a sinner truely and alwaies foule and vncleane But a man after remission of sinne remaineth not a sinner truely foule and vncleane Therefore besides the act of not-imputing of sinne there is required some other act vnto the remission of sinne viz. The infusion of grace whereby the true and proper nature of sinne is taken away rooted out and abolished This argument is framed out of the 4. and 9. arguments of Bellar. de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and also taken out of those places
of Bellarmine alleadged no. 13. the antecedent part of the proposition is found de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. where he alledgeth a passage out of Chemnitius containing the same doctrine which I haue cited out of the 9 Article and the Homilie at no. 13. out of which he inferreth that we say that sinne is remitted because it is not imputed and wee acknowledge not that it is taken away And in his disputation de Iusti lib. 2. c. 9. Praeterea and cap. 11. Illud autem c. the same thing is repeated The consequent part of the proposition and the inference thereof from that antecedent is in de Iusti lib. 2 cap. 7. Secundo c. Tertio c. I haue assumed negatiuely the consequent part of the proposition because they deny the antecedent part of the proposition and as Bellarmine saith in that place de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. The Councell of Trent Sess 5. can 5 decreed against it The assumption it selfe is their own doctrine as will be confessed on all sides The proofe of the consequence seemeth to be these two things 1 The act of not-imputing doth not take away sinne Confessed by our doctrine no. 13. that saith originall sinne is in the iustified and in it selfe is sin properly and the spots of actuall sin doe likewise remaine 2 By the remaining of sinne that in it selfe is damnable a man is foule vncleane and a sinner truly Now that I haue set their disputation in true form and order I might say If M. Mountagu will maintain his doctrine of remission of sinnes no 23 c. then he must dispute thus too be a worthy child to his mother and a famous refuter of the Gagger If he will not dispute thus he must reuoke that as false in it selfe and a stranger to the Church of England Vnto this argument many Diuines doe answer as he alleadgeth Appeale p. 169. In these words We are far from this absurd opinion for wee teach with the action of God remitting sinne concurreth another action of diuine grace enabling man to forsake and mortifie euery greater sinne which God hath pardoned But how fit this answer is to giue satisfaction to any part of that argument I leaue vnto others to iudge because 1. Bellarmine doth confesse no lesse then is in that answer de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 6. at the beginning 2. It seemeth not fit to bee applyed to the consequence of the proposition for that speaketh of doing away of sinne already committed but this answer speaketh of preuenting sinne not yet committed neither doth it appertain to the assumption which doth not charge vs with the holding of any opinion whatsoeuer Other Diuines doe answer otherwise I will name one in stead of all namely Doctor Abbot in defence of M. Perkins of inherent Iustice 2. part p. 421. his answer is long but I will contract it into so short a roome as I may vsing his owne words Wee say saith hee a man may bee formally iust in qualitie law In course of law and iudgement the forme of iustice is not to bee subiect to crime or accusation and he is formally iust against whom no action or accusation is lyable by law in this sort a man becommeth iust by pardon and forgiuenesse because pardon being obtained the law proceedeth no further and all imputation of the offence in law is taken away as if it had neuer beene committed and this is the state of our iustice in the sight of God our sinnes are forgiuen vs and thereby no accusation is liable against vs. Before I apply this to the argument It must be obserued that the word pardon in this testimony is of the same value and signification with the word not-imputing vsed in the argument for by pardon hee vnderstandeth such an act as whereby the imputation of the offence in law is taken away and to take away the imputation of the offence is not to impute the offence This answere lyeth against the consequence and the proofe thereof affirming that the act of not-imputing sinne doth take away sin and proueth that affirmation which proofe I may dispose thus Whereby we are made formally iust before God that takes away all sinne This proposition is a manifest truth agreed vpon by all parties But not-imputation of sinne is that whereby wee are made formally iust before God For By it all crime action or accusation and offence in law is taken away as if it had neuer beene committed the law proceedeth no further which is formall iustice in law and our formall iustice before God Therefore the not-imputation of sinne doth take away sinne I might proceed further to shew the insufficiency of the argument but I forbeare so to doe this that I haue said is sufficient to iustifie and explicate the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the nature of remission of sinnes and iustification which is as much as I intended and this place requires If Mr. Mountagu notwithstanding all this will insist and say his words alleadged no 23. c. are forced beyond his intent and that in his iudgement there is no other act in remission of sinne but pardon or not-imputation he must looke vnto it for as Bellarmine affirmeth de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 1. 6 That opinion is proper to Caluine If that bee true as it is most true how can hee thinke it is the Doctrine of the Church of England For as himselfe saith Appeale page 72. The Doctrine of the Church of England is not likely to be vpon the party of a faction that hath so long had a schisme on foote against it to bring in Geneuanisme into Church and State c. If it bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England what doth it in Mr. Mountagu his Booke that voweth to thrust out all priuate opinions as Irchins to their holes where they were bred and Bastards to the Parish where they were borne and to the whipping post according to law and like a valiant and true Champion to defend the Doctrine of his Mother the Church of England Therefore I may conclude let him turne himselfe which wayes he will he shall finde himselfe to agree either with the Church of Rome or with Caluine if with them then is hee a Papist if with him then doth hee take the course to bring in Popes into euery Parish as himselfe inferreth and which thing himselfe curseth with a heauy and bitter curse Appeale page 44. I hope hee will be rather a Papist then a Caluinist cursed to hell with his owne mouth I should now shew that this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous but hee hath brought nothing to proue it true therefore I haue nothing to answer The Councell of Trent in the decree already reported no 23. saith three things viz. first notimputation doth not take away sinne secondly sinne is abolished and taken away thirdly the habit of grace doth take away sinne Bellarmine bestoweth great paines to proue
shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and â—eaning of his words which is the vâ—ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that sâ—â—ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the mâ—â—ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and fleshâ—â—â— the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could euâ—r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance
is matters of manners all of them are not matters of faith and therefore they doe not all containe resolutions of faith but some of them bee matters of manners He grants them to be godly therfore true for falshood cannot tend to godlinesse They are subscribed in some things therefore in this that I haue alleadged because it is not a rhetoricall enforcement nor a Tropicall kinde of speech but the conclusion enforced which is set downe in words that haue no other sense but as they lie without interpretation This is enough to proue my proposition and thus I dispute from it Euery exhortation propounded inforced esteemed godly commanded to be subscribed vnto by our Church is the Doctrine of our Church But the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15 is an exhortation propounded inforced c. by our Church Therefore the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of England Thus hee confirmeth the obiection which hee is desirous to thrust off The sight of truth may bee hindered but the being of truth cannot be defeated hee that attempteth to conceale it in the euent makes it more apparent Now we come to see what truth there is in his Doctrine touching Images but I finde no proofe for that It may be hee expecteth arguments to proue that Images in Churches are vnlawfull and that no honor is to be giuen vnto them but that should be vnorderly for hee that will haue vs beleeue that wee are bound to giue honour to Images by the diuine reuelation ought to shew vs record for it and mee thinkes it had beene comely for him to haue borrowed proofes from Bellarmine de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9. 10. and 11. 12. As well as hee fetched positions from the Councell of Trent To answer Bellarmine is but labour lost for I know not how farre hee will ioyne with him in his proofes and it would be too tedious for he brings much more then will sort with this occasion and present businesse Let Mr Mountagu vrge what he liketh best and hee shall haue answer till then I rest satisfied with the Homilie that disputeth thus against Images in Churches 1 If the worshipping of Images doe alwaies befall Images set vp in Churches then it is vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches But the first is true perpetuall experience doth shew it and the affinity that is betweene mans corruption and the worshipping of Images doth procure it pag. 128. Therefore the last is true also 2 That thing which is vsed in order vnto supernaturall actions and is not warrantd in the diuine reuelation for that end is vnlawfull But Images in Churches are so vsed and are not warranted c. pag. 88. Therefore Images in Churches be vnlawfull Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetoricall enforcements and no Doctrine of the Church of England I will saue him that labour I doe alleage those arguments for the truth that is in them not for the authoritie that doth commend them Let him shew wherein they be vntrue or confesse they are true and it sufficeth But he is not able to shew this and therefore wee may safely conclude this man was strangely transported when he wrote on this manner in these words If the Church of Rome had giuen no more to Images but an historicall vse our Church would not haue departed from them about that point as I suppose for so our doctrine is Appeale p. 251. Our strictest writers doe not condemne it p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed but they are singular illuminates let them gang alone I answer what the doctine of our Church is in this point of Images I haue declared in the foregoing Chapter If you can bring any record for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England that putteth vpon Images this historicall vse namely of suggesting vnto mouing or affecting the mind euen in pious and religious affections which you father vpon it p. 253. you may doe well to bring it forth that the world may see it But because you cannot I must intreat you to take the words of Bishop Iewell vnto Harding in the defence of his Apology p. 350 without offence which are as followeth Leaue leaue this hypocrisie dissemble no more it is not manly your credit faileth ouermuch your word is no sufficient warrant If you will fall into your wonted fury it is the Bishop that must beare it They are his words not mine and vttered vpon the like occasion that you offer here I could adde a farther refutation and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of England by the testimony of Bishop Iewell but I defer it vnto the next passage where the reader shall find it He wanted proofes for his doctrine of Images but hee will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof and negation of the contrary For thus hee writeth There is no Popery in the historicall vse of Images Appeale pag. 252. I answer There is Popery in it for it is the faith of the Church of Rome as I haue shewed in the chapter going before and it is contrary to the word of God as I will shew anon both which are sufficient to make it Popery euen in your owne iudgement for thus you write Popery is contrary to the word of God Appeal p. 310. But he doth deny that this vse of Images is contrarie the word of God for thus he writeth 1 The historicall vse of Images is true doctrine in it selfe Appeale p. 251. 2 That Images may be made for ornament memory history no law of God forbiddeth Appeale p. 265. I answer Bishop Iewell is a witnesse so competent to shew vs what is true or not true what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case that I shall need to produce none but him Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article p. 378. c. 1 The first end of Images is the attaining of knowledge although perhaps somewhat may bee learned by them yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attaine knowledge Saint Paul saith faith commeth by hearing not by gazing This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people for where greatest store of such Schoolemasters be there the people are most ignorant superstious and subiect to Idolatry 2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently moue the mind but euery thing that may moue the mind is not meet for the Church of God Gods house is a house of prayer not of gazing Whoeuer adoreth or maketh his prayer beholding an Image is so moued in his mind that hee thinketh the Image heareth him and hopeth it will performe his prayer Alleadged out of S. Augustin p. 318. 3 Touching remembrance it is like the first and therefore is already answered Thus farre the reuerend Bishop If old learning can satisfie this illumination the Bishop must gang alone If it cannot old learning shall haue
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