pretended Church which they doe not And againe Appeale p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop but without the Pope as head but they doe not so By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone To this I answer this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging and in the subject that receiveth it abstracted from particulars namely that Church and differs only in the assigning in particular which is the Church Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question and that is enough But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full which vnderstands by the word Church a true not a pretended Church and the Pastors of the Church not the Pope onely For it calls that Church in the words immediately going before the Mother of all beleevers Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church nor to the Pope alone Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church by the word Pope but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommodation as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is That office of teaching which belongs to the Church belongs to the Pope and his Councell But this office of teaching viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies belongs to the Church Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell The proposition they say is true because Teaching is formally in the Pastors otherwise then by them the Church cannot teach It must be a Councell because the Pastors singly may erre The Pope must be joynd with them because it belongs to him to gather direct and confirme Councels In the assumption of this reason he consenteth with the Church of Rome and that is the principall part of this Argument In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre That this â—â—ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church vniversally and to the Pope as one of them and that in a Councell He onely denieth the Popes authoritie to call direct and confirme Councels which is the last and least part of this Argument All which being considered we may safely conclude that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies with the Church of Rome The third thing to be debated in this question he resolveth gagg p. 13. 14. 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England and doth alledge the 21. Article for it saying the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith But all this is vntrue I haue set downe that Article in the former Chapter the sight whereof will avow it Yea the Article is full for the contrary For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more Which it must haue done if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge to apply and interpret the Scriptures 3. It restraines the force of the sentence of the Church To examination and tryall by the Scriptures But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge which must be received as the dictates of the holy Spirit The Conclusion is He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England CHAP. IIII. M Mountague The Church representatiue caÌ„not erre in points of faith gagg p. 48. Ch. of England Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God arti 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow I haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome because I find not the Councell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controversies as shall appeare in the particular passages following This being premised I proceed to examine 1. Whether this proposition the Church represensatiue cannot erre in points of faith be true or not 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England or not First the sence of these termes 1. Church representatiue 2. erre 3. points of faith must be set downe 1. By Church representatiue he vnderstands a Councell truely generall Appeale p. 121. 2. By error he meanes an abberration from a rule Appeale p. 6. viz. the Scriptures gagg p. 13. 3. By points of faith is meant every sentence to be assented to as true vpon the authoritie of God the revealeâ— thereof Not erring in points of faith supposeth a sentence to be given which is the subiect of not erring in delivering whereof they cannot erre According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words A Councell truely generall in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition cannot vary from the Scriptures That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition himselfe confesseth gagg p. 48. where of it he saith So say they so say we And Bellarmines words doth shew it Which writeth thus The Church representatiue cannot erre de eccle lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done Nostra c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word For he maketh that the first foundation of our faith and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof de verbi dei interpret lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc c. Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just Notwithstanding he denieth Appeale p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist that is as I conceiue that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point and giues this reason for it Points of faith be fundamentall or accessory gagg p. 48. Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as the reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man Appeale p. 123. In points accessory there may be error but none in points fundamentall gagg p. 48. Of points fundamentall onely doe I speake and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie Appeale p. 123. I answer this explication serues well to puzzell the Reader but hath no force to cleare Mr Mountague from agreeing with the Ch of Rome for many reasons The terme fundamentall is borrowed We shall then know the true sence of it when we know what a foundation is in proper speech A foundation is that part whervpon the rest of the building is placed Fundamentall points of faith must be like vnto this they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded which is borne vp and sustained by such points of faith Things accessory are such as are attendants not things principall in being or causalitie
This being considered I say 1. First the distinction it selfe is naught No points of saith be accessory all are fundamentall in as much as the whole divine Revelation and every particular proposition thereof is the foundation of our salvation which is built therevpon And so saith the Homilie of reading the Scriptures 1. part where it calleth the Word of God the foundation wherevpon the wise builder doth build And the Apostle doth say no lesse when he saith We are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles c. Eph. 2. 20. And the thing it selfe doth fay the same for as much as there is no sentence in the divine Revelation but doth conduce to everlasting happinesse 2. His description of a fundamentall point of faith is of his own devising without warrant of the thing it selfe or any other Author He doth alledge Appeale p. 128. Bishop Morton for his Author thereof but falsely The Bishop even as he hath alledged him hath not one word of a fundamentall point of faith that hath any place in this question 3. The description as it lyeth is not intelligible how a foundation can be as essentiall to the thing built therevpon as the soule is to man passeth humane vnderstanding seing mans soule is the primary essence of man a foundation is but part of the matter whereof the building is made Againe what he meanes by beliefe needs a second explication there is nothing in his discourse that shews it 4. To what the points of faith be fundamentall he shewes not this therefore must be vnderstood because points of faith are fundamentall divers wayes 1. Some points are fundamentall to other some viz. this point There is a God is fundamentall to all other points of faith The like instance may be given in many other points wherin the primary are the foundations to the secondary points of faith 2. Points of faith are the foundations to our salvation 3. Points of faith are the foundation to the Church in as much as the Preaching of the pure Word of God therein doth serue vnto the being of a Church in the Iudgement of the Church of England Arti 19. He yeeldeth vs another description Appeale p. 116. in these words Points fundamentall be such as are immediate vnto faith He proues this as he did the former just never a whit We must beleeue it to be thus because he saith it We must guesse at his meaning for he doth not tell it vs. I thinke by immediate vnto faith he meanes such points as are obiected vnto faith first before others such as these viz. That there is a God is beleeved before all other points that concerne vertue and happinesse That there is a divine Revelation is beleeved before all other that concerne supernaturall holines and happines That there is a Mediator the man Christ is beleeved before all others that doe directly tend to salvation He being thus vnderstood his description is false for the primary or first obiecting vnto saith giues them not any thing like to the foundation of a building It is the succeeding Articles of faith which doth suppose the precedent that make the preceding to haue the likenesse of a foundation This Article That there is a God is a foundation to all others vniversally because all of them doe follow and suppose this 2. Some Articles are fundamentall which are not obiected first vnto faith for that there is a divine Revelation is not obiected first vnto faith yet it is the foundation vnto all other Articles of divine faith The like instance may be given of many other Articles which are foundations in the like sort which yet are obiected vnto faith many degrees after the first He doth explicate these fundamentalls by these properties viz. The knowledge and beliefe of them is absolutely necessary to salvation no man can be saved that doth not know and beleeue them That some points haue these properties I grant and namely those three I haue alreadie spoken of but that these properties are so peculiar vnto fundamentalls as that they belong vnto them all and vnto none but such which is the thing he intendeth he hath not proved nor can Besides this necessary order between some points of faith and heaven doth not make them fundamentall because that necessitie ariseth from the things themselues in respect that they are the entrance into the way to heaven 5. The application of the distinction is false He doth not conceiue the Church to be infallible in fundamentalls For if he did then also he doth giue the Church authoritie to Iudge in fundamentalls because that goeth with this But he doth not giue the Church that authoritie but denieth it vnto them Which I proue by his owne testimony 1. In his Appeale he disputeth p. 126. in this forme and in these words Councels are to determine things which be of doubtfull issue Fundamentalls are no such Out of which proposition and assumption this conclusion issueth Therefore Councels are not to determine points fundamentall 2. Out of his Gagg and Appeale I argue thus In Divinitie questions and controverted matters the Church is Iudge gagg p. 14. 28. Fundamentalls are not divinitie questions nor controverted matters For Fundamentalls be plainely delivered in Scripture Appeale p. 125. Therefore the Church is not Iudge in fundamentalls Although these things which I haue answered be sufficient I hope to take away the reason which he pleadeth to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie yet I will adde a reason from his owne testimony and the thing it selfe to proue that his agreement on this manner If he doth giue to the Church infallibility in points fundamentall all points of faith be fundamentall then he doth agree with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie For the Church of Rome doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in all points of faith But he doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in points fundamentall And all points of faith be fundamentall 1. To mans salvation 2. One to another 3. To the Church as shall be proved if need require Therefore he doth consent with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie And thus much shall suffice touching the second point That he doth dissent from the Church of England the words on both sides set downe in the beginning of this Chapter doe sufficiently shew so that to beâ—â—ow further labour therein is indeed altogether lost yet notwithstanding that it may appeare to be so without all exception I will answer to those proofes which he alledgeth to excuse himselfe therefrom which are as followeth Appeale p. 128. The first whereof must be framed thus That possibilitie of erring which Arti 19. ascribeth to generall Councels is in things wherein they haue erred For It avou cheth that generall Councels haue erred But in fundamentalls they haue never erred because there is no such extant Therefore the Article doth not
ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls I answer this argument proues nothing but begs the question in that 1. It takes as granted some points of faith be fundamentall other some are not which is denied him 2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion The proposition is also false the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring without limitation either indefinite or assigned It saith Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God If this proposition be vnderstood to speake not of all but of some things pertaining to God then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie but that may not be granted for that is a delusion no decision The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not for that proposition is not a limitation of a Councels erring but a proofe that Councels may erre on this wise Councels haue erred Therefore Councels may erre If it be replyed that this reason is not good except erring in the consequent be taken in that sence wherein it is vsed in the Antecedent I rejoynd the argument is good although erring in the antecedent be taken for erring in some things and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith is not free at all The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus That which hath not erred hither to cannot erre hereafter c. But this proposition is manifestly false because freedome from error and infallibilitie in Iudgement is not made by not erring in time past but by a speciall peculiar providence of God which they may want at some other time who in the thing haue not erred in time foregoing His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God and those are not all fundamentalls then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall I answer this reason hath the fault that the former had it presumes that points of faith are some fundamentall some not fundamentall which is denied and therefore it begs the question 2. I will grant the distinction for this time and say further the word only must be added to the latter part of this reason otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose that being added I deny the consequence because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God as I haue proved in my answer And I proue further by your own testimony thus If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doe not meane all but some things then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct without far-fetched obscure interpretations casie even perspicuous of it selfe fitted for the vse capacitie instruction of the simple and ignorant who are not capable of obscurities But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine direct c as your selfe doth truly affirme Appeal p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doth meane vniversally all things pertaining to God His third reason is in the same p. 124 thus The Article speaketh of debating and discussing I speake of deciding and determining Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false Ordeining is deciding and determining The Article speaketh of ordaining Thus it argueth Councels may erre Therefore things ordained by them not taken out of Scripture haue no authoritie Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversie I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the words plainly delivered in Scripture must signifie things not in coÌ„troversie That being granted the second branch in the antecedent is false He himselfe other-where delivereth the contrary Those things whereof the Church must Iudge are the things where in according to him the Church is free from error But things in Controversie are those according to him whereof the Church must Iudge See what he saith gagg p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed more obscure and involved And p. 14. In controverted matters if a question be moved the Church must decide and settle that doubt In plainâ— cases no deciding Iudge shall need but such as are ambiguous must be determined by the Iudge c. Therefore according to him in things in Controversie the Church is free from error and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter he layeth downe in his Appeale p. 160. in these words There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it Things that are straight and direct and according to that rule confessedly need not application are not commonly brought to be applyed to that rule but things of different or doubtfull standing these need application and are applyed by the perpetuall practice of the Catholike Church And thus haue I ended all the reasons which he bringeth to excuse himselfe from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point which are too weake to excuse him therefore I may safely conclude He doth dissent from the Church of England touching the infallibilitie of the Church Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory and this it is A Councell truely generall in giving sentence of a divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures His proofes for it we find set downe in his Appeale p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture the former on this wise They to whom the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinitie question vary from the Scriptures But to a Councell truly generall the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore a Councell truly generall in giving sentence of a divinitte question cannot vary from the Scriptures I answer There is no whole part in this argument Not in the proposition which supposeth that These words Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge whether this or that sentence in Divinitie be agreeable to the Scriptures or not But this supposition is of his owne making and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before wherein it doth appeare by my answer to him That office was never committed to any Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg but not demonstrate the question For further refutâ—tion thereof I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office then the Apostles had it For those words were spoken to the Apostles I take as granted But the Apostles had it not for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand It cannot be imagined that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing and
16. The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may be set vp in Churches Respect is due and honour given Relatiuely vnto them They may be vsed for helps of pietie To represent the prototype Instruct the vnlearned renew remembrance cap. 15. p. 94. 95. 17. A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any Law of God cap. 17. p 107. These workes are left to a mans choyse They procure reward to him that doth them and he that doth them not is without danger of punishment therfore cap. 18. num 2. p. 109. They are to be found in Virginitie and wilfull Povertie cap. 18. num 12. p. 120. 18. Finall persevering in obedience is the instrumentall cause of mans salvation cap. 20. num 27. p. 161. 162. The poynts of the false Faith of Arminius doe follow 1. I Conceiue of predestinatiō that it is Gods act of drawing them out which tooke hold of mercy cap. 19. p. 126. 127. cap. 20. num 3. 4. num 7. p. 139. 2. Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that grace Man being drawne he runneth as his assistance his owne agilitie and disposition is cap. 7. p. 53. cap. 8. num 22. 23. The heads of every Chapter are as follow MAister Mountague hath corrupted the faith of our Church cap. 1. The point of the Iudge of Controversies propounded cap. 2. discussed cap. 3. The poynt of the Churches not erring cap. 4. The poynt of the Churches perpetuall visibilitie cap. 5. The Church of Rome is a true Church cap. 6. The poynt of Free-will propounded cap. 7. debated cap. 8. The poynt of Iustification propounded cap 9. argued cap. 10. The poynt of falling from grace propoūded c. 11 argued cap. 12. The poynt of Reall presence propoūded cap 13. debated cap. 14. The poynt of Images propounded cap. 15. discussed cap. 16. The poynt of Workes of Supererogation propounded cap. 17. disputed cap. 18. The poynt of Predestination propoūded cap. 19. debated cap. 20. The Conclusion of the whole claiming Master Mountague his promise cap. 21. CHAP. I. Maister Mountague hath corrupted the Faith of the Church of England THE whole Disputation following serveth to proue this sentence by shewing wherein and by what he hath corrupted it This sentence presumeth that the Church of England hath published her faith which will not be denied because the Records thereof cheifly the Booke of Articles are or may be in every mans hand That he hath corrupted it will easily be granted too if I shew that vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine of the Church of England and defence thereof he hath brought in the erronious faith of the Church of Rome and Arminius And this I will performe first by answering his generall plea to excuse himselfe therfrom in this Chapter and then by setting downe the particular points wherein and whereby he hath corrupted it in the rest of the Chapters following First he pleadeth not guiltie of both accusations of Arminianisme and Popery Appeale p. 9. I reply vnto him I will joyne issue with him herein and make it good that he is guiltie He would argue his innocency on this manner 1. I disavowed the name and title of Arminian for I will not pinne my beliefe vnto any mans sleeue I answere if you joyne in that faith whereof he was the author you cannot avoyd to beare his title no more then others that haue sided in the like case Every artist beareth the name of that art which he professeth but you joyne in faith with him as afterwards shall appeare therefore you must beare his title 2. He saith he never read word in Arminius p. 10. I answere this will not thrust off his title For of them that were called Arrians many thousands never read word in Arrius It is communion in his faith not his writings that procures that title He would proue himselfe innocent of the Popish faith on this manner I nor am nor haue beene nor intend to be a Papist of state or of Religion p. 111. I answer his thoughts may change and so he may be what he doth not now intend to be The liking of some points first is a good beginning and a fayre way to like all at last We doe not inquire what you are or intend to be but what you haue done Therefore this plea is nothing to the purpose He would proue he neither is nor meanes to be a Papist by two reasons the first is The originall grounds of Popery haue no warrant from revealed truth p. 111. The second is he hath handled them as few besides himselfe hath done in so exasperating a stile p. 110. I answer this proues the thing which is not in question therefore deserues not be answered but to them I say you haue left a dore open for the first to escape You say you are not tyed to your owne opinion Gagg p. 328. If your judgement change you are as ready for Popery and will judge it no lesse warranted by revealed truth then now you doe the contrary You tell vs of some that draw one way and looke another You may be one of them for any thing is done are so too in all likelihood For rayling at them doth not shew you had no favour to them because the contention of friends many times is the bitterest and odious rayling was the fittest curtaine to conceale your friendship to them where open friendship would presently haue beene detested If circumstances will argue your guiltinesse I can vrge you with some store 1. Your writing is crabbed and hardly intelligible full of raylings and debasing of others extolling vaunting of your selfe advancing the credit of Popish Writers debasing the reputation of many of precious accompt in all the Protestants Churches 2. You often times leaue the question between you and the Papist to quarrell with Protestants 3. You grant your Adversary many points of his faith and faine a difference where there is none 4. You drop in the Popish faith here some and there some as if you would but you are not willing to be seene If they were together every one would perceiue them being in sunder a wise man might be overtaken by them 5. You bring in points of speculation that will finde lesse opposition but being received will draw on matters of practice 6. You professe your selfe for reconciliation which can be vnderstood of none but with the church of Rome Appeale p. 292. Touching the matter it selfe thus he saith I call therin for tryall for it by God and my Countrey the Scriptures and the Church of England dare any ioyne Issue with me vpon this they dare not p. 9. I answer I dare and doe accept the Challenge And that the proceedings may be orderly I will set the doctrine of Mr. Mountague in the first place of the Church of Rome in the second and of the Church of England in the third Then I will shew his
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
the Church hath beene in time past The Church hath beene visible particular Church for he saith in the place now alledged it is a part of the Catholike Church And againe Appeale p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome and doth range it with a Church in England France Spaine all which doe denote particular Churches That he doth consent with the Church of Rome it cannot be doubted for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith that their particular Church is the mother and mistris of all Churches Concil Trent sess 7. de Babâ—is can 3. sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. sess 22. de sacrif missae cap 8. That it doth dissent from the Church of England will easily be manifested which hath reiected by Parliament Law the Popes authoritie in all cases of government hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church without any relation to the Church of Rome hath set it downe in the booke of Articles and the common Liturgie and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie in divers places some whereof I will repeat 1. Wee haue departed from that Church saith he whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world which Church also already had departed from Gods Word and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof par 4. cap. 11. divis 1. 2. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne safetie par 5. cap. 15. divis 3. 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now and haue so gone from it as Daniell went out of the Lyons den divis 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together and they shall see that themselues haue most shanâ—â—fully gone from the Apostles and wee most iustly haue gone from them cap. 16. divis 1. 5. We haue departed from him who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. Lastly we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ nor to an Apostle And these are the reasons and causes why we haue restored Religion and forsaken these men cap. the last The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received not as a private opinion but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church For 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so otherwise he would not haue named his Booke An Apologie in defence of the Church of England which he doth 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church without the least blame 3. After this long deliberation it is reprinted with speciall direction from authoritie and to the end it might be had in every severall Parish in the Kingdome which is executed accordingly Whervnto I will adde the necessity which the church of England conceived to be of that seperation which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author as followeth 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever part 6. cap. 22. divis 1. 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse we left him wee could not come to Christ par 6. cap. 20. divis 2. 3. The holy Ghost Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome for so it is written Come away from her O my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes least you be also partakers of her plagues Answer to Hardings conclusion From whence I thus argue The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome to avoyd damnation Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church And Mr Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England Thus he writeth Appeale p. 112. I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome the neerer vnto God and truth That we ought to haue no coÌ„merce societie or accordance with Papists in things divine vpon paine of eternall damnation Much joy may he haue in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper That this proposition The Church of Rome is a true Church Is false and vntrue will appeare by my answer to his Arguments Before I come vnto that I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church which I find written Appeale p. 140. in these words It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church not a sound Church every way in their doctrine Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions yet I passe by it and come to the proposition in question which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church c. I answer his perswasion though never so absolute is no compotent rule for any divinitie question much lesse for this which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith as the Church of Rome would haue it It may be the other two reasons which he hath for this matter is the ground for this his absolute perswasion therefore I passe from this and come to the second in these words In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree I answer this is a very riddle and no proofe What he meanes by essentials what by fundamentalls with whom or what they agree he sheweth not nor are the things evident of themselues When he speaketh to humane intelligence he shall haue answer If the Trumpet giue an vncertaine sound none can prepare himselfe to battell Let vs ayme at his meaning it will open the whole Cause the better It may be by fundamentalls he meanes such Articles of faith as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation If this be his meaning I deny that they agree in fundamentals for in such
Articles they haue no divine faith because the immediate and formall reason of that their beliefe is the authoritie of the Pope and his Councell whose sentence is humane and not divine for want of a Commission from God for that office as hath beene shewed Chap. 3. His third proofe is comprehended in these words Appeale p. 113. They hold one faith in one Lord into whom they are inserted through one Baptisme I answer this wanteth not obscuritie he seemeth to esteeme himselfe safest when he is least vnderstood I suppose he would say thus The Church of Rome teacheth the same faith which God reveald and hath the same Sacraments which Christ instituted I answer if he were as able to proue as he is readie with confidence to affirme I would grant him the question vpon this onely reason But the spight is he hath no proofe at all and his owne word is not sufficient therefore we are where we were see how handsomely he disputes In the last argument he gaue them agreement in fundamentall points of faith that is to say in some not in all points for all points of faith be not fundamentall himselfe avoucheth Appeale p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith a sodaine change there some not all here all not some The matter it selfe of this argument shall be further handled anon num 13. c. He will supply this want by the authoritie of Ianius who is neither Papist nor Arminian his words are these The Papall Church is a Church according to that it hath which belongeth vnto the definition of a Church I answer it is very doubtfull whether this sentence be truly alledged or not because it neither affirmeth nor denieth any thing of certaintie but let it passe as it is it maketh nothing for you He must say The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church For so say you But of this he hath not a word If you say he supposeth The Church of Rome hath something belonging to the definition of a Church I rejoynd he may so suppose and yet not agree with you for that supposall may be a concession in curtesie and not an affirmation of a truth which two things doe really differ in your owne judgement Appeale p. 14. when it was your owne case Of this judgement I hope you are still now the case doth not concerne your selfe And there is great diffâ—rence between something pertaining to the definition of a Church and the essence whereof you speake for that must signifie part of the essence and may signifie the generall thing wherein the Church doth agree with other societies this must be taken for the specificall and adequate being of the Church Lastly I will willingly grant him the Church of Rome hath something pertaining to the definition of a Church and that it is a Church according to it and this is all he alledgeth out of Iunius yea I will assigne him what that something is viz. It is a company of men on earth which pertaineth to the definitioÌ„ of a Church by the confession of them and our Church The 19. Article sayth the Church is a Congregation of men and so saith Bellarmine de eccle lib. 3. cap. 2. And more then so I will grant him viz. that the Church of Rome is so farre forth a Church that is to say a company of men joyned together in one societie by one coÌ„mon bond but this will profit him nothing as is manifest by the thing it selfe Thus farre all the allegations which he maketh to perswade that the Church of Rome is a true Church haue beene examined and found too weake for his absolute perswasion that it is a true Church to be grounded vpon Wherefore I haue good reason to conclude this point in his owne words Appeal p. 161. If you haue any speciall illumination or assurance by divine revelation or rather strong perswasion through affection much good may it doe you keepe it to your selfe presse it not vpon others To which I adde If you will not be advised but insist vpon so vaine a conceit you do amongst wise men but beate the arre for as much as there is the description of the Church in the Scriptures and the authoritie of the Church of England against you neither doth there want proofe for the same thing amongst the Divines of the Church of England But in stead of many I will name onely two that is your selfe and Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester no Papists Arminians nor Puritans no shallow heads that Jcumme off the surface no novellers vnacquainted with old Learning none of the brethren frantick for the holy Cause but iust to an hayre as your selfe will desire Thus you write The Pope is interessed in that Apostacie which is a departing away from Christ his Kingdome his doctrine and his Scepter Appeal p. 149. 150. It may seeme probable that the Turkish state may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Papacie in making vp that Antichrist and Antichristian Kingdome or state opposite vnto the state Kingdome of Christ Turcisme opposeth Christ openly by fiery force and Popery is opposite by fraud and guile Appeale p. 158. The Scripture is our absolute rule of faith and manners we consent and agree it is Antichristian to dissent from to reiect that rule and him an Antichrist that doth so or proposeth any thing as to be beleeved against that rule The Pope doth this let him then be an Antichrist in St. Iohns acceptance There are many Antichrists Appeal p. 160. 161. From hence thus I argue 1. That Church which is Antichristian and an Apostata that hath departed from Christ his kingdome doctrine Scepter that is no true Church But according to you the Church of Rome is Antichristian and an Apostata c. For according to you the Pope of Rome is an Antichrist and an Apostata c. And such as the Pope is such is that Church for as much as they receiue their faith from the Decree and determination of the Pope Thus writeth Suarez defide c. tracta 1. disp 5. sect 7. num 6. 9. A generall Councell in which the Pope is present either in his owne person or by his Legates and confirmed by the Pope is an infallible rule of faith And this he also there saith is a matter of faith Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church 2. That Church which opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ is not a true Church But according to you the Church of Rome opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ For according to you the Pope Papacie Popery opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church How this sore shall be healed it passeth the skill of all such whose learning exceedeth not the age of Plato It may be he hath some that is of an elder
man able to consent if he will and cooperating grace worketh nothing but where man hath consented and is ready to joyne in the worke with it But Mr Mountague sayth vnto the worke of our salvation we haue received grace preventing cooperating Appeal p. 94. 104. And doth no where acknowledge any other Yea more then so the next worker vnto preventing grace according to him is man himselfe gagg p. 110. From whence doth follow that in his judgement mans will it selfe is the first roote or foundation of our supernaturall consent If he answer he giveth to grace the power of sustaining and vpholding Appeal p. 94. I reply this helpeth not the matter for to sustaine is onely to preserue man in his being and also it belongeth to Gods generall providence he doth so to all creatures but we speake of his speciall providence ordering man vnto eternall life If he say he ioyneth the assistance of preventing grace vnto mans will I reply this is to as little purpose as the former for the assistance of that grace is inspiring enlightning exciting as himselfe yeeldeth Appeal p. 94. and no more as all men doe confesse which belongeth to the vnderstanding onely it extendeth not to the will Besides although it did extend to the will it can be first no roote to send forth that supernaturall consent vnlesse it doth determine the will vnto one object and make it not onely able to will if it will but also to will actually in the thing so taking away the indifferency of the will that indeed and in the thing it becomes a consenter and hath not libertie to divert the vse of his facultie therefrom but this he will deny and doth seeme to doe so Appeal p. 94. I say this is proper to him because the Councell of Trent addeth adiuvating grace vnto these and saith Man doth prepare himselfe by exciting and adiuvating grace which is much lesse then Mr Mountague sayth and beareth a construction farre more favourable then his doth in the vnderstanding of the Dominicans as they that read them doe know see Alvares de Aux disp 95. num 3. disp 99. 2 ◠conclusio In the next place the doctrine of the Church of England set downe also in the last Chapter must be compared with the same doctrine of the Church of Rome and Mr. Mountague that the consent and difference may be apparent The Church of England doth fully consent with the Church of Rome in the doctrine thereof set downe in this Chapter num 5. So farre as it concerneth the concurrence of grace and mans will in our sanctification and the markes thereof called eliciated c. imperated in respect that they flow from the inward sanctifying grace and are wrought outwardly by the choice command of the will Or by necessary consequution and supposition The onely difference lyeth in the doubt propounded num 7. and in the libertie of mans will taught by the Church of Rome as aforesaid for the resolving of that doubt Now the Church of England satisfieth that doubt on this wise The Predestinate to life be called by Gods spirit They through grace obey that calling Arti 17. vnto which it doth dispose them Homilie pag. 456. Which is all one as if it had said They through grace and the disposing thereof doe consent resolue determine c. to beleeue feare hope c. For thereunto by grace or Gods spirit is man called and disposed In which is also implyed that The eliciated act of Consenting c. is not free man cannot at the instant of eliciating that act reiect grace and dissent from the Calling thereof Which sentence is inferred on this wise Every act so wrought by Gods spirit as mans will is obedient thereto and disposed thereby is not free For The operation of grace or Gods spirit is determined to one But mans consenting which is obedience to the call of grace c. is an Act so wrought by Gods grace So sayth the Article and Homilie Therefore the act of consenting is not free What it doth giue to mans will our Church giueth to grace that act which it maketh free our Church maketh necessary In this doctrine and inference therefrom the Church of Englād doth directly oppose the faith of the church of Rome in such expresse and manifest sort as hereafter there can no doubt be made whether it doth dissent therefrom or no or wherein that dissent should lie so that now nothing remaineth but that Mr Mountague should oppose the Church of Rome according to his promise set downe num 5. But me-thinkes I heare him say this difference is not materiall it importeth not any thing worthy of difference and dissent but proceedeth from minds transported with faction therefore I am not yet tyed vnto that promise I answer he seemeth indeed to attribute the difference and opposition to the Church of Rome in this point of free-will to arise from no other ground but faction Appeal p. 84. c. But altogether vntruly for the Church of England holdeth not a faction against the Church of Rome but hath made a separation for the avoyding of damnation as hath beene declared Chapter 6. num 6. Neither was shee so ignorant as to take a shadow in stead of a substance nor of such an idle head solemnly to determine and decree matters of no moment to be matter of faith But if any man should be of that ill mind that in any thing he could thinke so of her yet in this point he could not doe so for this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous therefore for it alone let the matter it selfe be what it will be must shee be opposed to the vttermost because such a faith is an addition vnto the Word of God threatned to be punished by eternall damnation The matter it selfe is also of great moment in it selfe Our Church doth giue all the honour of our salvation in the event in the manner of working vnto God theirs doth devide it between God and man and giues onely this honour to God that he maketh man 1. able to begin to tread in the way vnto salvation and 2. supplyes mans defects and joynes with him in the progresse it selfe but he leaveth vnto man and the inbred libertie that is in the created facultie of his will to begin and produce the first act or to make voyd the beginning and possibilitie alreadie wrought by grace and to prevent reiect and forestall the offer and operation of the second supply and power of grace regulating both the first and second worke of grace If man will consent vnto obey the first worke of grace then the second does joyne with him and therupon he goeth on indeed in the way to heaven If man refuseth to consent vnto and obey the first worke of grace then the whole worke thereof ceaseth comes to nothing and the work of the second grace never commeth on beginneth not at all The worke of mans
with it hee holds his peace The old prouerbe is the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltinesse Which seldome times proues vntrue what hee is of certainty is knowne to God and himselfe hee standeth or falleth to his owne master it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofes wherefore I leaue this and proceed We haue no reason to suppose that the Church of England was euer of opinion that the habit of grace can be lost for if it were then must it also beleeue that 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified 2 Some sins are mortall other some veniall 3. The habit of Iustice and the works thereof be perfect Iustice and adequate vnto the diuine Law 4. Purgatory Pardons Masses Trentals Dirges c. be profitable vnto some that be dead but we know by perpetuall experience that our Church abhorreth and the professors of her faith publikely and priuately protest their detestation of all these Articles of the popish faith therefore we haue a cloud of witnesses that do all testifie that the Church of England maketh the losing of the habit of grace no part of her faith Moreouer in the 22. Article it doth expresly disclaime the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons Lastly This point of falling from grace hath beene commonly and vniuersally reiected as well by Ministers as priuate men and no man questioned in the least sort for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church which is a most evident proofe that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued If it be answered some in our Church haue taught falling from grace I reply It is true some haue so done but they haue beene but a few and cryed down too by the most and thrust off with no small signe of dislike from authoritie I haue his owne testimonie three times yeelded Gag p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming that our Church hath left this question vndecided which against him is a proofe without question that his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England And yet behold Hee would perswade that his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England delâ—uered not in ordinary tracts and lectures but publikely positiuely and declatorily and for proofe hereof he saith he will bring vs record thereof Appeale pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles c. Appeale p. 37. Appeale p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promise In the 16. Article we read After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart away from grace and fall into sinne That the full force of this argument may appeare and my answer may bee directly and fitly applyed thereunto it is needfull that I put it into due forme and thus it will stand Whatsoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church But that a man may depart from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England I answer if he will stand to his proposition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient and a Champion most valiant vnto his mother the Church of England Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome are but faint-hearted cowards in comparison of him The greatest part of the acts in Councels doe not appertaine vnto faith The disputations that goe before the reasons that be added nor the explications that are brought doe not appertaine to faith but onely the naked decrees and of them not all but onely such as are propounded as matter of faith So saith Bellarmine de Concil auct lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est c. and no Papist euer durst giue more then thus yet Mr. Mountagu dares giue to the Church of England more then this Euery sentence in the Articles with him is matter of faith and so he doth equall them vnto the scriptures to whom it belongeth that euery sentence be a matter of faith as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place last alleadged If he will disclaime that proposition his argument falleth of it selfe To answer more specially that Article comprehendeth two conclusions viz. 1 The baptised may sinne 2 The baptised sinner may receiue forgiuenesse These two haue their seuerall proofes to wit 1 He may depart from grace Therefore sinne 2 He may repent Therefore haue forgiuenesse Euery one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Your proposition so vnderstood is true but your assumption is false Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article But suppose that euery sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England yet this Article will not profit you for A man may depart from grace by neglecting to obey it by losing it In the first sense I grant the Article doth teach departing from grace but in this sense the Article hath nothing in fauour of you much lesse hath it your falling from grace in expresse words for yours is of losing the habit of grace If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that sense I reioyne it may bee so taken in this place because he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies first neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace before hee commits sinne and this I take as granted Therefore you must proue that the Article doth vnderstand it otherwise then so else it can haue no stroke in your businesse Let it be admitted in courtesie that the Article speaketh of the losse of grace yet it will come farre short of your purpose for it cannot speake of the losse of the habit of grace I proue it from the Article it selfe and your owne doctrine thus The habit of grace is lost by sin So say you Grace in the Article is not lost by sinne But contrary Grace is lost therefore sinne committed So saith the Article Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace By this it is most euident and past doubt that there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the losse of the habit of grace But pardon him this mistake I will giue my word for him hee neuer studied the Article to find the true sense of it Doe you thinke his studie so meane as that he would condiscend so low as to English Articles I assure you no. I tell you and he tells it me Appeale pag. 11. Hee neuer studied Bastingius Chatichisme Fenners diuinitie Bucanus Trelcatius Polanus and such like His learning is all old The Apostles Canons Polycarpus Denis Linus Cletus Clemens Annacletus Amphilochius and others of their time are his puefellowes and hourly companions And he hath good reason for it too The neerer the fountaine the clearer the streame the further off the fouler pag. 12. His second argument beginneth Appeale p. 32. and is thus to be framed Whatsoeuer is
false that 16. Article doth not say A man may recouer the grace he hath lost But The expresse words of the Article are By the grace of God wee that fall into sinne may amend our liues Which two sentences doe most really differ This man is very willing to abuse the vnderstanding that dareth thus boldly falsify words vpon record against the sight of the eye His fourth argument is set downe Appeale page 36. and thus he beginneth 4 In the publike seruice of our Church you shall finde also as much as falling from grace commeth too I answer he promised positiue and declaratory Doctrine and expresse words affirming his falling from grace and now he paies vs with consequences a fault you reproued very often and many a faire title you gaue your aduersary the Gagger for it Turne backe againe and take a view how many of them belong to your selfe Was there euer any man so senslesse as to send vs to seeke the faith of our Church in consequences Or does hee thinke to finde any so voyd of reason as to beleeue him Surely no for that were a worke endlesse If the faith of our Church be in this consequence why not in second vpon the first and a third vpon the second c And this is enough to satisfie the whole but lest he should haue an ill conceit of himselfe if I should cut him off thus shortly therefore I will set downe what that is which he telleth vs is as much as falling from grace commeth too and this it is Euery Childe duely Baptised is put into the state of grace and saluation by that lauer of regeneration Which must be acknowledged and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England being taught first in the forme of priuate Baptisme secondly in the Catechisme thirdly in the rubricke before the Catechisme I answer first this is Bellarmines second reason for this point de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly these are not records of the faith of our Church no publike act of our Church hath made them such Besides the Bookes themselues be incompetent for that vse the one being a forme of administration of Prayers and Sacraments the other short precepts for the instruction of Infants Hee was neere driuen when hee catched at this shadow Moreouer hee affirmeth most falsly where he saith this sentence Euery one duely Baptised is by Baptisme put into the state of grace and saluation is taught in the places quoted The words of the places themselues will shew it neither is there any such thing meant or intended in them It may be he will reiect this answer because I make it I reply in his owne words Appeale p. 277. If you will not admit the answer I can name you one who will say and approne as much whom you dare not deny to be of credit or stile as you doc some others Appeale page 294. A poore man that doubtlesse was out of his element and medled beyond his latchet I meane Bishop Iewell whose words are these In the Sacrament of Baptisme by the sensible signe of water the inuisible grace of God is giuen vnto vs Artic. 5. diuis 8. folio 250. Little ones being Baptised and so the members of Christ Artic. 8. diuis 16. folio 291. Thus farre Bishop Iewell is for Mr. Mountagu but let him interpret himselfe and make vp his iudgement full touching the vse of the Sacrament and then wee shall finde him directly against him and for that end he saith thus We confesse that Christ by the Sacrament of regeneration hath made vs flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that we are the members and hee is the head This merueilous coniunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith afterward the same incorporation is assured vnto vs and increased in our Baptisme wherein must be considered that the holy mysteries doe not begin but rather continue and confirme this incorporation Artic. 1. diuis 13. folio 27. It may be here demanded how this iudgement of Bishop Iewell doth proue against Mr. Mountagu I answer thus If in his iudgement the Doctrine of the Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptisme no more but the renewing and confirmation of our incorporation into Christ and grace by Christ then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptisme and the Catechisme doe not meane to say Euery Child baptised is thereby put into the state of grace and saluation For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England set downe in those places or in any other neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then hee did conceiue it to be But that hee did so conceiue of it his words doe shew and he addeth that our incorporation is begun first and afterwards assured and increased in our Baptisme which doth not begin it which is so plaine full and direct a contradiction vnto Mr. Mountagu as the mind can deuise or words expresse If yet this testimony will not serue let the Church of England in the 25. and 27. Articles tell vs what effects it doth giue vnto the Sacraments where it assigneth To the Sacraments in generall that they are 1 Tokens of Christian profession 2. Signes of Gods good will 3. He doth by them quicken and confirme our faith Of Baptisme in speciall our Church saith 1 It is a signe of regeneration 2 An instrument wherby we are grafted into the Church 3 By it the promises of forgiuenesse of sinne and adoption are sealed 4. Faith is confirmed and grace increased These no more but these are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme assigned by our Church it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptisme If it be answered the Liturgie and Catechisme is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles I reply so to say is wholly without authority fondly without shew of reason The Articles were made vpon great deliberation and of purpose to settle an vnitie in matter of Religion therefore it would not omit principall points and set downe others that are subordinate and not called into question If the professors of the faith of our Church publikely and priuately in writing and by word of mouth haue taught and beleeued of the Sacraments no otherwise then is laid downe in the Articles and is maintained by Bishop Iewell and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome then may we well say that the Church neuer meant to set downe any other faith but that for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith nor the mother so carelesse of her faith as to suffer it to be corrupted and her intent to be changed Forasmuch as she could not be ignorant what was done nor wanted power to redresse things done amisse If
Gagger and subscribe to Bellarmine who maintaine that Peters faith did not faile auoid it if you can I answer and so must your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too auoide you it if you can for I say no more then what I haue learned of her and so must you also auoid it if you can for you professe to beleeue what it beleeueth and teach what it teacheth in whose faith and confession you hope to liue and dye Appeale p. 48. You haue spun a faire threed you haue hunted all this while and couered your nets close to catch your mother and your selfe in the pitfall I will doe you that fauour as to let you and the Church of England loose I will stand by it my selfe and will professe Peter lost not his faith when he denyed Christ But you must giue mee leaue to expresse my selfe which I doe thus The act of faith is either eliciate or imperate The first is the act of the soule onely remaining in it selfe not knowne to man which wee call beleeuing The second is wrought by the body also and commeth to the knowledge of men as when a man doth professe by his tongue to giue credit and trust vnto Christ Peter lost not his faith in the first kind but in the second I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart beleeue that hee was indeed the Christ and trusted vnto and relyed vpon him as such euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him Peters deniall being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distresse hee feared If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus I subscribe to them and that vpon good reason for Peter had long beleeued on Christ and had now no cause to change that beleefe therefore wee may not say he did change it vnlesse the diuine reuelation had said it which hath not a word of any such thing but looke better on your bookes and you shall find Bellarmine saith Peter lost his charity but not his faith because he was Pastor ouer the whole Church and was to teach it the true faith de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more then I say by which it appeareth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perseuerance I maintaine nor my sentence so good Popery as M. Mountagu hath deliuered contrary to his vniust challenge Appeale pag. 18. It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith to establish his owne implyed Gagg pag. 163. which is on this wise Faith is either in the end or the act But this distinction I feare not because end and act are not parts of faith neither as specialls to the generall nor as constitutiue parts making a constituted whole besides what he saith of the end of faith is a riddle which I doubt himselfe vnderstandeth not Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent or position as it lyeth I will now put the disputation into due forme and answer thereunto Thus then it lyeth If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace then you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger who say that Peter lost not his faith But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine c. where he saith Peter lost not his faith for that is Popery Therefore you must not deny that Peter lost his habit of grace I answer This whole argument is a meere caption and no proofe it supposeth that the losse of the habit of grace is denyed to Peter onely which is false and the conclusion nothing to the purpose And so he must be vnderstood for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely But I will take it as it lyeth and answer to it The weaknesse of his cause will the better appeare by my answer which is this I grant the assumption I promise you I am and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popish faith as M. Mountagu and further too For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the office to determine all controuersies in faith Yet you get nothing by it for the consequence of your proposition is naught I may say the first and not the second in the sense wherein they take it for they say he lost not his faith neither in the habit nor act by a speciall prouidence and peculiar dispensation vpon the reason and for the end as is aforesaid n o 25. but I say hee lost it not neither in habit nor act by that prouidence and dispensation which is common to him with all other men that haue receiued the habit of grace who must needs keepe their faith so long as they keepe the habit of grace because the habit of grace consisteth in faith hope and charitie Vnto this sentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary They say all men lose their faith when they lose the habit of grace onely Peter is excepted by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue shewed no 25. Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his snare and we find the snare is broken and the game is escaped and with it his whole disputation in this point of falling from grace is ended Hee tells vs of some that haue whirlegiggs in their heads Appeale pag. 81. Which is true of himselfe if it be true of any but he may bee pardoned that fault his heart was so full of anger and his pen of railing that he had no leasure to attend vpon Art and Diuinitie CHAP. XIII The point of reall presence M. Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England There is there need bee no difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church in the point of Reall presence Gag 253. Appeale 289. Our Lord Iesus Christ true God man is contained truly really substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conc Trent sess 13. c. 1 That is whole Christ body and blood together with the soule diuinity and not in a figure or vertue only can 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacramēt of our redemption by Christs death insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receiue the same the bread which wee breake is a partaking of the body of Christ and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ CHAP. XIV The point of Reall presence is debated THe order obserued hitherto must be obserued here also Three things are sought after 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in the reall presence with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth in the point of Reall presence with the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himselfe Thus he writeth There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in the point of Reall presence Gagg p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Gagg p. 251. If the
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
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
Is a desperate Doctrine These two sentences are not so like as the Hares head and the Goose giblets the one reproues the nature assigned to Predestination and telleth them that Predestination is not such as they say it is The other reproueth men that abuse the Doctrine of Predestination but medleth not with the nature thereof what difference then there is betweene the nature of Predestination and mans abuse of Predestination in the course of his life such difference there is betweene Mr Mountagu and the Booke he speakes of the first that of the second But now let vs suppose the Doctor had said these words Predestination without relation to faith is a desperate Doctrine Then the second branch of his Assumption is likewise false because it saith that speech was not reproued but I finde otherwise in the Booke which reporteth page 43. a speech of his Maiestie that maketh Predestination to be without relation to faith his words be these Predestination depends not vpon any qualities actions or worke of man but vpon Gods decree and purpose Which sentence is contradictory vnto that sentence which Mr. Mountagu saith was condemned as a desperate Doctrine by the Doctor and therefore it is a suffiâ—ient reproofe of his speech His fourth reason I finde Appeale page 72. c. it is on this wise If Predestination without relation to faith bee the Doctrine of the Church of England then should it make a partie with Caluin But it would not make a party with Caluin for that were the next way to bring in his discipline Therefore Predestination without relation to faith is not the Doctrine of the Church of England I answer this pelting stuffe is not worth the viewing all the world knowes that the Church of England doth agree with Caluin in very many things and it must doe so or else it must agree with the Church of Rome in all the points which Caluin reiecteth which are all the decrees of the Councell of Trent a very few excepted If I should say all the Articles and the Homilies agree with Caluin for the maine matters of faith I should say no more then what might be proued Other exceptions might be taken to this argument but I passe by them Thus haue I put an end to this poore stuffe loathsome to the answerer and disgracefull to the disputer Ducklings not Eagles catch Flyes Hitherto we haue hunted a shadow and laboured to catch the winde now he will lay hold on the body and thus he bringeth it The positiue Doctrine of the Church of England is no other but this touching Predestination 1 Sinne came into the world by the Deuill not God 2 Death came by sinne 3 God prepared a Mediator Christ 4 Willed life to euery beleeuer 5 His good pleasure was all men to be saued Gagge page 180. I answer he would conclude from hence thus Therefore our Church doth not teach Predestination to be without relation to faith For the place requires this conclusion as hee that readeth these places may see viz. pag 178. that God c. page 180. the positiue c. page 179. the Church c. p. 181. I nor teach c. Now we haue his reason I will examine the truth of it I answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 57. used in another case The Church of England doth not teach thus touching Predestination and why may I not say so except you shew the contrary or bring me forth a Creed a Cannon a conclusion in being for it in the Church of England But let it bee as you will If this bee all that our Church hath taught of Predestination then it hath said nothing of it for Predestination is a decree or dispositiue act of God will as we haue learned by your selfe No 4. Now these words shew vs from whence sinne came and whither it will what bee the meanes to escape it and it speakes of Gods velleitie or willingnesse vnto mans freedome therefrom but of any positiue act ordering man to the supreame end Mr. Mountagu brings not a word as the doctrine of our Church Besides this I haue the witnesse of one M. Mountagu that bringeth more positiue doctrine from the Church of England then this viz. out of the 17. Article in his Appeale p. 51. and these are his words In the 17. Article the Church speaketh of Election onely 1 That there is a Predestination by God vnto life 2 That it was an act of his from euerlasting 3 That he founded it and resolued for it iâ— the man and Mediator Christ both for the purpose and performance 4 That it is and was of some speciall ones alone elect called forth and reserued in Christ and not generally extended vnto all mankind 5 This purpose of his is like vnto himselfe vnchangeable done according to the Councell of his will Which must needes bee more then the former fiue propositions no 14. for there is neuer a one of these except the third so much as mentioned in those former seeing this Master Mountagu alleadgeth authority and the former M. Mountagu bringeth none this testimonie must bee receiued the former reiected whereby this reason is as poore miserable and lame as the former Therefore I will leaue it in the Spittle-house with them and proceed From this passage alleadged out of the 17. Article he discourseth thus 1 What our Church resolueth touching this is resolued in the 17. Article the very words of that Article being expressed in termes as farre as concerned that decree Appeale p. 58. 2 This is all that I can find touching that purpose and decree of God Appeale p. 52. 3 In all which passage containing Gods decree is not one word touching your absolute decree of God to glorifie man without any regard vnto his faith c. Appeale p. 58. I answer I will not striue about the first and third branches The whole question is about the second wherein he presumeth that His fiue propositions related n o 15. doe containe the whole doctrine of the 17. Article touching the decree of Predestination If it were true I would grant him that our Church doth not teach That Predestination is without relation to finall grace but he presumeth an vntruth The 17 Article hath not all his fiue propositions It presumes the first because it doth shew what Predestination is but affirmes it not it hath not the third nor fift any wayes It hath more by much then you report all which is made euident no 5. and 6. so that I shall not need to spend time to shew it Touching the second branch it selfe I answer it is hardly credible that you did not see more then you report yea what you did see seemes very vncertain for out of your Gag p. 180. you report no 14. the doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in fiâ—e propositions foure of them at least being wholly different and altogether vnlike these and yet you say The positiue doctrine of the Church of England
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
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
answer This supposeth that he did describe Iustification largely when hee said Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused but proues it not therefore it is nothing to the purpose But let it be supposed he can proue it at some other time and goe on with him to examine what he bringeth I say it is vtterly false the Scripture doth neuer take the Iustification of a sinner any other wayes but one you bring no proofe that it doth your word is not sufficient when your proofs come you shal haue answer for the authority of Caluin c. I need not much weigh in this question because I know your selfe accounts it worth nothing Caluin saith no such thing The last thing he pretendeth is that His intent was to confute the Gagger I answer This hath no force to proue that Therefore I described Iustification as comprehending Sanctification when I said it consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused For so to describe it is not the way the confute but to be confuted first because that description is false secondly in it you agree with the Gagger in an Article of his Faith decreed by the Councell of Trent Moreouer your antecedent is false you had no such intent For the thing to be refuted was Faith onely doth not iustifie so saith your aduersary which you might haue refuted without relation to the nature of Iustification for he must proue at least that somthing else besides Faith doth concur to Iustification or confesse he sayd not truely It was not required on your part to proue all other things were excluded therefore there was no need or occasion of making a description of Iustification But suppose there had beene good reason why you should haue made a description of Iustification yet the making of this description doth argue your intent was not to refute the Gagger but to establish and confirme the Gaggers position for if Iustification bee as you haue described it then without all doubt more things are required to Iustification besides Faith and Bellarmine doth dispute iust after the same manner de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Lastly vpon this description of Iustification you proceed and say man is the subiect thereof and that thereunto there are required certaine preparations to the purpose the first wherof you say is knowledge of God and his Law c. that is indeed assent vnto the Law of God which is Faith according to the Councell of Trent for you doe not speake of such a knowledge of the Law which is without an assent to the truth thereof You proceed and teach that Faith is the roote and originall of the rest of the preparations iust as the Councell of Trent doth which proues your intent was to iustifie and not to refute your aduersaries position If notwithstanding all this you will still affirme your meaning to be such as is set downe no. 4. and plead your owne authority for the proofe thereof as best able to declare what you meant then first your meaning is not exprest by your words secondly the whole course of your Doctrine saith one thing and your intent is another thirdly your meaning was without reason to guide it fourthly the Doctrine that caryeth your meaning doth destroy what you meant to build but you will deny all these foure therefore you must confesse you had no such intent After he hath thus declared what his intent was in this description he goeth on pag. 174. to shew what his intent is touching the nature and adequate being of Iustification which hee proclaimeth in these words Be it knowne vnto you that I beleeue Iustification is in strictnesse of termes Not regeneration nor renouation nor sanctification But A certaine action in God applyed vnto vs Or A certaine respect or relation Whereby wee are pardoned and acquitted of our sinnes Esteemed righteous before God And Accepted by him in Christ vnto life euerlasting I answere If this proclamation had been published by an authority sufficient to compell vs to haue assented thereunto then had it beene possible that you had giuen satisfaction but for want of that you must giue vs leaue to touch to handle to search before we take Thus therefore I proceed This great adoe is about nothing you tell vs now what you doe beleeue when you writ your second Booke Wee inquire what beleefe you did expresse by your writing in your first Booke Let this fault be remitted we will rest satisfied with this if there be sufficient cause why but alacke there is no such matter And thus I shew it You did not beleeue that Iustification is as now you pretend for if you had so beleeued you would haue expressed that beleefe because your intent was to refute the Gagger as you professe Appeale page 173. Now this beleefe had been an easie and ready way to haue refuted him seeing that the question there disputed was whether A man is Iustified by Faith onely As is euident by the 18. Chapter of your first Booke and it would necessarily follow That a man is iustified by faith onely if Iustification bee as you now describe it which I take as granted without further proofe and Bellarmine by implicaiton confesseth no lesse de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Adde quod Againe if you had then beleeued Iustification is as you describe it now then your thoughts in all likelihood would haue now beene orderly digested but here is nothing but confusednesse and thus I shew it 1 First you describe by a negatiue which Art forbids 2 Secondly you place the Genus in two things viz. action respect or relation If you would expresse one thing by those distinct termes then you intend a thing impossible for an action is an emâ—nation from a worker Respect and Relation as it is here vsed importeth an adiunct vnto a subiect If your meaning bee to expresse two things distinct in nature by these distinct termes then youâ— description is ridiculous I need not shew how 3 You say it is an action in God which signifieth an action immanent which is false Iustification is an â—ction transient and your selfe confesse it when you say Iustification is by Faith and made in an instant Gâ—gge page 146. which doe import actions wrought vpon the creatures in time You also tell vs this action iâ— applyed vnto vs which signifies an action transient which is contrary to the former and so you say and vnsay with one breath 4 You say pardon of sinnes is by a respect or relation in God Which sentence is wholly without sense For respect or relation hath not any force by which an effect should be produced neither can it bee conceiued what you meane by Respect or Relation or how pardon of sinnes should flow from or depend vpon that Respect or Relation And so much for the Genus 5 You place the speciall nature of Iustification in three things viz. First Remission of sinnes secondly Esteeming righteous thirdly Accepting to eternall
saying all his righteousnesse that he hath done c. If it be replyed actuall righteousnesse doth suppose the habituall as the fountaine from whence it proceedeth without which actuall righteousnesse cannot be I answer Actuall righteousnesse may proceed from actuall grace because actuall grace doth make mans will a sufficient root or beginning and an able-next-cause of supernaturall actions as Suarez teacheth Opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no 1. and the Councell of Trent hath decreed Sess 6. cap. 6. where it saith a man doth beleeue feare hope trust loue detest sinne desire a new life c. all which are supernaturall actions or actuall righteousnesse by grace exciting and adjuvating which is actuall not habituall grace If Mr Mountagu will deny this the Scripture it selfe will avow it which speaketh of some that fall away which argueth they did righteously before time but now commit sinne Of them that fall away it saith also they had tasted of the good word of God and of the powers of the life to come which two things signifie actuall grace They cannot signifie habituall grace because the beginning of and preparation vnto our sanctity may well be resembled vnto and set out by tasting which is the beginning and preparation vnto that feeding which is for satisfying of hunger and nourishment of the body But the habit of grace which is the highest degree and measure of our sanctity cannot be set out by the metaphor of tasting For the habit is no lesse then meat receiued into and remaining in the body of man sustaining his being and giuing him power to doe the actions of life chearfully and readily If it be demanded further what holy actions doe proceed from the habit of sanctity I answer They are such as are done 1. out of the loue of God and his Law 2. out of an intention of and a delight in obedience to God 3. They be such holy actions wherin a man doth continue either alwayes without intermission or returne from actuall sinning by repentance And the reason hereof is good for in the confessiō of all men the habit doth dispose a manvnto doing with willingnesse readinesse and delight and the habit of sanctity doth determine the soule of man vnto doing the workes of righteousnesse as may be proued against such as deny it with Suarez Opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no 1. So as although a man doe the works of righteousness neuer so faire in outward appearance neuer so many for number and continuance yet they proceed not from any habit or setled inward quality of holinesse if they be done for priuate ends and be wholly discontinued at last And thus I haue as I hope plainly and truly opened and resolued the whole difficulty in this argument and thereby shewed it insufficient to vphold their falling from grace Which being well obserued will giue satisfaction vnto all other places of Scripture which are alledged in this question In fauour of the second branch of their assumption at no 19. They dispute thus Gagg p. 164. Iudas had the habit of grace Iudas committed sinne for which he is in hell Therefore some that had the habit of grace committed sin for which he is in hell I answer Hee hath proofes for his proposition and assumption This I grant as a thing euident That I deny as a thing manifestly false His proofe for his proposition is in these words Iudas was numbred with the twelue Apostles had all the prerogatiues which they enioyed God gaue him to Christ as well as Peter or Iohn I answer this proofe is childish the reading of it refuteth him all these things alledged were outward priuiledges no inward habit of grace If he conceiue them otherwise he must proue it his word will not make articles of faith a goodly disputation that in conclusion alwaies resteth vpon the disputers word you must beleeue that or rest where you began Other toyes of this kind you may haue enow in the place where I had this but it is loath some to name them One more I will propound and examine that there be no doubt remaining This it is Peter had the habit of grace Peter committed such a sinne as for which he was in the present state of damnation Therefore some that haue the habit of grace did commit such sinne as for which he was in the present state of damnation I answer The whole doubt of this argument lyeth in the words state of damnation The sense of that being truly knowne the argument will bee found good or bad A man is then in the state of damnation 1 When hee wanteth that inward quality that must order or set him in the way vnto holinesse in this life and happinesse in the life to come And secondly when hee standeth actually bound ouer by God as he is a Iudge vnto hell fire for the sinne committed If it be his intent to say that Peter was thus in the state of damnation his assumption is false and a miserable begging of the question by affirming vpon his bare authority a principall thing in question But if by state of damnation he meant the desert of sin only then I grant the whole but the conclusion is nothing to purpose we speake not of the desert of sinne in it selfe but of damnation it selfe actually in the euent To conclude my answer to all the arguments of this kinde Now we see he beateth the bush and maketh offer to take the game but hee wanteth all meanes for the purpose the fowle must come into his fist or he must goe without her His other argument for the maine question I finde written Gagge page 161. which is to this effect If Adam and Lucifer did lose their originall state then man may lose his habit of grace for the one was in the state of innocency in Paradise the other in heauen in glory to whom man in grace at most is but equall not superiour But Adam and Lucifer did lose their originall state Therefore man may lose his habit of grace I answer this argument is as shallow and shuttle as any of the former the weakenesse of the consequence is seene by a peece of an eye All men will grant the prouidence of GOD in this or that act is not regulated by the former act of his prouidence What if he did so to Adam and Lucifer could he not doe otherwise with other men what is there in the nature of the things themselues or of GOD that should tye him to doe in this as he did in that surely nothing His actions towards the creatures were all free and hee at liberty to doe or not doe this waies or that waies as he pleased vntill hee had decreed what and how he would doe He doth all things according to the counsell of his owne will that is according as Suarez doth truely interpret it opusc 4. disp 1. sect 1. no 9. God worketh all things according to that counsell which is accepted by the good pleasure
of his will this is sure God did so by them and wee beleeue it because he hath said it that he doth so by other men we beleeue not because God hath not said it Wee know some men are in the possession of the habit of grace if you will haue vs beleeue this possession to be casuall shew vs where God hath said hee will take it away else wee dare not beleeue you for it is plaine none can take it away but God and he will not take it away vnlesse hee hath reuealed so much vnto vs which he hath not done and so much for all his arguments taken from Scripture He vrgeth Fathers with no lesse confidence of plenty and plainnesse for him pretending also the authority of our Church commanding all men to receiue their testimony Appeale page 36. and 37. He bringeth some by name Gagge page 165. c. But this is a very bubble and comes from that foysting fountaine that the rest of his brags haue done Bellarmine hath no such confidence in the Fathers hee nameth but two and out of each of them one sentence and so sitteth him downe which Bellarmine would neuer haue done if he could haue found more If Mr. Mountagu will say Bellarmine is a poore Ignaro and hath no old learning himselfe hath read more Fathers then Bellarmine euer heard of which is his owne language in another case all the world would laugh at him but not beleeue him The conclusion is Bellarmine neither brags nor brings therefore Mr. Mountagu doth both in vaine I will finish my answer to his Fathers by his owne direction Gagge page 165. There needs no proofe by Fathers where holy Scripture is silent Fathers may be pretended by false play but none indeed and in truth according to their words and meaning can be produced Let him try when he will in a Logicall forme and he shall finde it Thus haue I concluded my answers to all his arguments brought to proue his falling from grace taken from the Scriptures and Fathers His last argument for the same purpose I finde Appeale page 17. which he beginneth thus If you deny falling from grace you are a Papist I answer this sentence beginneth an argument which is continued by diuers other parts which follow It is called a delemma in plaine English a Net a Snare a Toyle to catch the old one the battell is before and behinde turne you which waies you will it will catch you But soft and faire old Birds will not be caught with chaffe if the stuffe of your Net be vnsound your game will escape This sentence doth neither affirme nor deny put it into a lawfull forme and it speaketh thus He that denyeth falling from grace is a Papist This sentence is false for falling from grace is an Article of the Popish faith as himselfe confesseth Gagge page 158. and I haue proued by the Councell of Trent cap. 11. The denyall of the Popish faith cannot argue a man to be a Papist in the iudgement of any man liuing Hee is a strange Papist that treads the faith of Papists vnder his feete but more strange that a man should be a Papist for denying the Popish faith Well but he will proue it by the words which follow viz. For I demand did Peter fall or did he not fall when he denyed Christ I answer euery interrogation hath the force of an affirmation now this is referred as a proofe vnto the precedent sentence by the word for which doth immediately follow the same thus then hee doth dispute Peter did either fall or not fall Therefore hee that denieth falling from grace is a Papist I know you laugh at this naughtie consequence but you must not doe so Homer may take a â—â—p well let that passe Peter did fall or not fall what of that wee staâ—d now betweene two you must tell vs which wee shall chuse for that end these words follow If abnegation and abiuration and execration will inforce a fall he did I answer this leaueth the matter no lesse doubtfull then it was this giueth vs leaue to say But it did not inforce a fall Therefore Peter did not fall Or thus But it did inforce a fall Therefore he did fall When you haue said all you haue said nothing It may be the next will dispatch the matter You say If he fall he needes must fall totally or finally for shew me a third I answer this is faire but farre off whither this tendeth none but your selfe knowes if your selfe doe know you shall be crowned for a choyce one You diuide a totall fall from a finall and that is absurd Euery finall is a totall and some totall is also finall your selfe being Iudge There may be a fall neither totall nor finall as when Gods concurse or actuall grace is with-held but the habit remaineth And this is possible seeing there is actuall grace and habituall as Suares does proue plenteously de grat proâ—egom 3. cap. 6. and 3 parte lib. 1. no 4. c. yea actuall and habituall grace also doe differ in their vse This seruing to make mans will fit to eliciate supernaturall actions after a connaturall and perfect manner by an inrrinsicall and connaturall faculty as Suarez teacheth opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no. 1. That tending to dispose vnto this as the Councell of Trent sess 6. cap. 5. and 6. decreeth and Suarez consenteth in the place alleadged and to moue the habit vnto working being obtained as Aluarez proueth de Auxilijs disp 88. and the thing it selfe by perpetuall experience doth shew see Alua. disp 24. no 37. and Bellar. de grat lib. 1. cap. 4. Quatuor dona haue patience it may be it will come anone in the meane time he proceeds thus Now then in such denyall St. Peter did he fall or did he not fall I answer the word Then importeth an inference so that this sentence is inferred vpon another but what that other is wee shall not finde in any part of this argument for they are all either disiunctiue or connext propositions Before we had heads without a tayle now we haue a tayle without a head this demand came once before it seemeth it will abide a second seething well let that be what will become of it wee shall see anone and that is well no doubt for the second seething hath made it wholsome food thus you goe on You must answer he did not fall I answer and so must you too or be a rebell against your Mother the Church of England which in the first Sermon of Repentance a little before the end where after it had reckoned vp Peters denyall of his Master and dissimulation at Antioch it concludeth After this grieuous offence hee was not vtterly excluded and shut out from the grace of God With whom I also say Peter did not lose the habit of grace by the denyall of Christ but what of all this he will now tell you in these words So that you ioyne with the
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
your dealing be not afraid good Reader of all this smoake for thou shalt see it suddenly blowne all to vanity from whence it came Thus hee writeth in his Preface before his Defence no 6. Touching some of the particulars I haue my answer out of the same Bishop too in these words You say we read neither the old writers nor the new but are vtterly ignorant and void of all learning it were a very ambitious and childish vanitie to make vaunts of learning For asmuch as you seeme desirous of the â—ame of great reading ye shall haue the praise and glory of it Mr. Mountagu without contention we will rather say with St. Paul wee know nothing but onely Iesus Christ crucified vpon his crosse yet notwithstanding wee are neither so ignorant but that we are able and haue leasure to read as well the old Doctors and the Fathers of the Church as also your light vnciuill pamflets and blotted papers which God wot in all respects are very new and we are much ashamed of your papers and nouelties to see them with vntruth other vncourteous speech so fully fraughted I answer further you say we haue no learning capacitie or vnderstanding but these are your owne words you haue brought nothing that hath shewed it or that is fit to try whether you say true or not you haue brought some arguments but they are so silly that a child may answer them you please your selfe with some Latine Greeke Poets History Fathers Councells but they serue to no purpose for they neither proue nor disproue any thing in question If you will bring arguments that sauour of vnderstanding or dispute from Latine or Greeke words Poets Historie Fathers Councels in a Logical forme of true Sylogisme then shall you readily find where reading learning capacitie resteth Till then you may vse them and brag of them but he that hath his eyes in his head will say there is no cause You say we are Puritans which you esteeme a reproachfull name but you tell vs not what you meane by it therefore you would faine speake ill but no man can vnderstand you I thinke that name belongs to your selfe rather for a Puritan is hee that is pure in his owne conceit and is not washed from his filthinesse according to the sentence of the holy Ghost Prouerb 30. 12. Now this seemeth to agree to your selfe for you say you haue receiued the earnest of your saluation App. p. 48. Therefore you are pure in your own conceit Now you are not washed froÌ„ your filthiness except your vnmeasurable railings formerly related be no filthinesse If you will say they be not filthinesse then must you resolue vs what Salomon meant when hee said There is a generation whose teeth are as swords and their iaw teeth as kniues Prou. 30. 14. And Dauid when he said Their throat is an open Sepulcher c. Did Salomon and Dauid commend or discommend those of whom they spake You tel vs that Puritans do refuse some of the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England or both Appeale p. 118. and this doth fitly agree to your selfe for in all the points now disputed you reiect the faith of the Church of England and bring vs the Popish faith in stead of it as hath beene euidently declared You tell vs the things obiected against you are collected out of diuers places and layed together for aduantage In both parts you intend to blame the pleadings against you but the first part is against your selfe for Art and plaine dealing required you to set your opinions together An obiection is well made when it is truly made though it be gathered out of many seuered places You meane they are layed together vniustly but the seuerall places out of which they are brought will say that is false diuers sentences brought into one place doe make each other the cleerer vnto vnderstanding to that end are they now layed together and for no other as the reader may find To scatter them into diuers places with the intermission of other things was a good meanes to conceale the snake till a fitter time was offred he that giueth poison must conceale it To gather them together was the labour diligence and faithfulnesse of him that did it He that discouers a hidden euill is more worthy then he that suggesteth that which is overt and lyeth aloft You wold fain Tridentize it so go on hanging hoof against hoofe that I may vse your owne words Appeale p. 270. As the fearfull Hare doth double and redouble her course and intricate her passage to conceale her selfe euen so doe you hee therefore that would find you out must take you where you are to be had seeing you are not wher and how you ought to be You tell vs of the points in question 〈◊〉 are not â—â—gerous Of themselues In the event vnto vs. Because They are scholasticall speculations meerly The author is No fomenter of Faction Schisme A Patriâ—t Reconciler Appeale p. 42. 43. They that thinke not so Make clamors of they know not What. Wherefore Are Franticke fellowes Frighted with Pannicke feares Haue without cause fired the Beacons disturbed the Countrey Esteeme a field of Thistles to be a battell of Pikes Appeale pag. 320. I answer It is no meruaile though you set your whole strength to remoue the suspicion of danger from the points you haue deliuered yea it would be much meruaile to see you doe otherwise for hee that layeth a snare must conceale it least his purpose be frustrated but your labour is spent in vaine a weake sight may see them full of danger That they are dangerous to our eternall estate and of themselues fitted to bring sad euents is manifest for all of them are articles of erronious faith Now an erronious faith is an addition vnto the diuine reuelation threatned by God to bee punished eternally Reuel 22. 18. verse Some of them bee articles of the erronious faith of Rome and that they bee dangerous vnto our saluation wee haue the testimony of Bishop Iewell who saith expresly That they are dangerous to kindle Gods wrath and condemne our soules for euer Apol. part 6. c. 22. diuid 1. And c. 20. diuid 2. he saith vnlesse we leaue them we cannot come to Christ With whom agreeth our reuerend Bishop Carleton in his directions to know the true Church p. 63. 64. For of the Romish faith he saith That it is traps and snares dangerous and tending to mans destruction Your selfe doe no lesse when you say Popery is originall of superstition enemie vnto pietie Appeale p. 321. The particular points whereof wee haue disputed doe say no lesse For if wee must take our faith in all matters of doubt from the sentence of a Councell then can we haue therein no diuine faith and consequently no saluation If a man beleeue that a sinner is iustified from the actuall sinne which he hath committed by a created being that remaineth setled and