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
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
Ballance 2. All impertinent Discourses are prevented and all raylings avoyded so as now thou hast nothing to iudge of but the matter it selfe I haue directed my Disputation against both of Mr Mountague his Bookes The Gagge and the Appeale because the whole evill could not be found out in any one of them alone All the sentences and severall passages in this Discourse pretended to be collected and framed out of Mr Mountague his Bookes are truly and plainly and ingenuously collected and framed according as they are in his Bookes themselues If any errour be committed in them it ariseth from the greatnes of their number or from his obscure manner of setting downe his intent It may be some will account the publishing hereof to be needlesse because others haue done so much already as is fit to be done in this businesse I answer The publishing hereof is to good purpose For many witnesses to the truth giues the greater glory to it and procures a freer passage for it amongst men Besides I doubt not but by this Discourse the Reader shall be put in minde of some things which he would haue forgotten or not observed in the Bookes that are published already Lastly None of this kinde haue beene published already For herein more poynts are handled then were touched in them and these which are discussed in this are framed in another manner and doe tend to an end which they did not I haue concealed my name not because I am or haue cause to be vnwilling it should be knowne But because I desire to forestall personall quarrells so frequent with Mr Mountague And because I suppose the annexing of my name hereto is of no great vse vnto the Reader for as much as he must receiue satisfaction in the poynts of faith from the divine testimony not from any humane authoritie whatsoever One thing onely remaines That is That I intreat thee to seeke for satisfaction and an assured ground for thy faith in the present questions For it is thy dutie so to doe The Apâ—stle Iude doth exhort that we contend for the faith once given to the Saints If thou standest an Idle beholder not regarding which end goes forward what wilt thou say How wiâ—t thou answer it vnto God Wilt thou say This sentence of the Apostle Iude is not a Commandement I answer the Apâ—stles phrase and manner of speaking will then refute thee For every such exhortation is either a Commandement or presumes a dutie alreadie commanded other-where as wee may see by the like places of Scripture 1 Thes 4. 2. 2 Thes 3. 12. Wilt thou answer That it is no Commandement vnto thee â—heâ—e words will then reproue thee also for they are extended vnto all men without limitation And that Epistle is called a generall Epistâ—e Wilt thou say it is an affirmatiue Commandement and therefore it may not binde thee at this time because such Commandements doe nâ—t binde to all times I answer Thou canst not be free from this Commandement even it thâ— time vnlesse thou canst find some part of the divâ—ne Revelation that shall free thee For Thy selfe canst not free thy selfe there-from seeing thou art to be at Gods dispose not at thine owne choyse Therefore If thou wilt fancy to thy selfe this or that reason to exempt thy selfe from this Commandement thou art no other but the man that sayth A Lyon is in the way I shall be slaine in the streets Lastly when wilt thou then thinke thy selfe bound by this law if thou be free at this time Is not the faith of God now at the â—take Doe not the Foxes out of their holes seek to eat vp the Lorâ— Vine Does not the Boâ—re out of the Foâ—rest labour to root vp the Lords Plant Now now therefore is the time yea high time for thee to take thy selfe bound by this law of God or never Wilt thou imagine that thou shalt not giue an account of thy neglect of this dutie Surely then thy thoughts are most vaine for canst thou forget the Lords voyce that saith Arise O you dead and come vnto Iudgement and shaâ— we come to Iudgement and not account with the Lord Besides canst thou forget that voyce which saith Every man shall giue an account for every idle word much more for every fruitlesse deed I say this thy negligence is a â—eeâ— because it is voluntary thou doest choose to be negligent It â—â— fruitlesse because no good comes of it vnto Gods glory or thine owne salvation Wherefore I will conclude fould thy hands no longer together like the sluggard giue thy eyes no rest nor thy eye-lids no slumber spare for no labour grutch not for cost till thou be setled and grounded vpon the Rocke of Gods revealed truth so shalt thou stand in the perillous time and be readie to goe into the Bride-chamber when the Bridegroome commeth And this is all I will say to thee For thy furtherance I haue annexed herevnto 1. A Catalogue of the erroneous poynts which are contained in his Booke and the places where they are 2. A list of the heads of every Chapter in the Booke His poynts of the Popish Faith are these which follow 1. THe Church is Iudge in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie 2. We receiue the decisions of the Catholike Church as the dictates of the holy Spirit cap. 2. 3. The Church representatiue cannot erre in poynts of faith cap. 4. at the beginning and num 2. pag. 12. 4. There ever was and will be vpon earth a visible Church vnto which Complaints may be made cap. 5. at the beginning num 4. p. 26. 5. The Church of Rome is a true Church of Christ a part of the Catholike Church which wee professe to beleeue in our Creed cap. 6. at the beginning and num 7. p. 37. 6. We grant the generall being working and concurring of Free-will with Gods grace after preventing grace man doth freely renounce the calling of grace and freely runne cap. 7. p. 53. 7. Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes primarily and grace infused secondarily cap. 9. pag. 83. cap. 10. num 17. c. 8. Both remission of sinnes and grace infused are the acts of Gods spirit in man cap. 9. p. 83. c. 10. num 23. c. 9. A man yea the Elect may loose the habit of grace cap. 11. p. 37. 10. Sinne is mortall and veniall 11. The habit of grace is common to the predestinate and not predestinate cap. 12. num 2. 3. 12. Every child duly baptized is thereby put into the state of grace and salvation cap. 12. num 11. p. 55. 13. Mortall sinne onely disobeyeth Gods law cap. 12. num 17. p. 64. 65. 14. A man habituated by grace may commit mortall sin cap. 12. num 17. p. 63. 64. 15. There is no difference between the Church of Rome and ours in the poynt of Reall presence cap. 13 p. 81. The onely difference betweene vs is about Transubstantiation cap. 14. num 2. p 82. 83.
ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls I answer this argument proues nothing but begs the question in that 1. It takes as granted some points of faith be fundamentall other some are not which is denied him 2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion The proposition is also false the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring without limitation either indefinite or assigned It saith Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God If this proposition be vnderstood to speake not of all but of some things pertaining to God then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie but that may not be granted for that is a delusion no decision The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not for that proposition is not a limitation of a Councels erring but a proofe that Councels may erre on this wise Councels haue erred Therefore Councels may erre If it be replyed that this reason is not good except erring in the consequent be taken in that sence wherein it is vsed in the Antecedent I rejoynd the argument is good although erring in the antecedent be taken for erring in some things and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith is not free at all The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus That which hath not erred hither to cannot erre hereafter c. But this proposition is manifestly false because freedome from error and infallibilitie in Iudgement is not made by not erring in time past but by a speciall peculiar providence of God which they may want at some other time who in the thing haue not erred in time foregoing His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God and those are not all fundamentalls then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall I answer this reason hath the fault that the former had it presumes that points of faith are some fundamentall some not fundamentall which is denied and therefore it begs the question 2. I will grant the distinction for this time and say further the word only must be added to the latter part of this reason otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose that being added I deny the consequence because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God as I haue proved in my answer And I proue further by your own testimony thus If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doe not meane all but some things then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct without far-fetched obscure interpretations casie even perspicuous of it selfe fitted for the vse capacitie instruction of the simple and ignorant who are not capable of obscurities But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine direct c as your selfe doth truly affirme Appeal p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doth meane vniversally all things pertaining to God His third reason is in the same p. 124 thus The Article speaketh of debating and discussing I speake of deciding and determining Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false Ordeining is deciding and determining The Article speaketh of ordaining Thus it argueth Councels may erre Therefore things ordained by them not taken out of Scripture haue no authoritie Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversie I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the words plainly delivered in Scripture must signifie things not in coÌ„troversie That being granted the second branch in the antecedent is false He himselfe other-where delivereth the contrary Those things whereof the Church must Iudge are the things where in according to him the Church is free from error But things in Controversie are those according to him whereof the Church must Iudge See what he saith gagg p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed more obscure and involved And p. 14. In controverted matters if a question be moved the Church must decide and settle that doubt In plainâ— cases no deciding Iudge shall need but such as are ambiguous must be determined by the Iudge c. Therefore according to him in things in Controversie the Church is free from error and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter he layeth downe in his Appeale p. 160. in these words There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it Things that are straight and direct and according to that rule confessedly need not application are not commonly brought to be applyed to that rule but things of different or doubtfull standing these need application and are applyed by the perpetuall practice of the Catholike Church And thus haue I ended all the reasons which he bringeth to excuse himselfe from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point which are too weake to excuse him therefore I may safely conclude He doth dissent from the Church of England touching the infallibilitie of the Church Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory and this it is A Councell truely generall in giving sentence of a divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures His proofes for it we find set downe in his Appeale p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture the former on this wise They to whom the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinitie question vary from the Scriptures But to a Councell truly generall the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore a Councell truly generall in giving sentence of a divinitte question cannot vary from the Scriptures I answer There is no whole part in this argument Not in the proposition which supposeth that These words Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge whether this or that sentence in Divinitie be agreeable to the Scriptures or not But this supposition is of his owne making and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before wherein it doth appeare by my answer to him That office was never committed to any Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg but not demonstrate the question For further refutâ—tion thereof I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office then the Apostles had it For those words were spoken to the Apostles I take as granted But the Apostles had it not for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand It cannot be imagined that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing and
submit themselues to the office of application and exposition of things already revealed this being inferior as the building that superior as the foundation that being performed without labour and industry this not without much of both that being an immediate continuation of Christs ministery this mediate none of which may be admitted without speciall direction in the Word of God wherein there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit Moreover although this exception were not taken yet the proposition is false These words may be spoken to such as haue not that office this leading into all truth and that office of applying and expounding things revealed doth not necessarily goe together The word leading may signifie no more but an act of doing so much as is required on Gods part which hath not alwayes the event accordingly but oftentimes is frustrate by mans default 2. The words all truth may import no more but that whole which is required vnto the salvation of every particular man so necessarily that without it that cannot be had The assumption is no better the Text alledged hath not one word touching a generall Councell If it be replyed that those words were spoken to the Apostles and from them to the Pastors of the Church which succeed them and because those Pastors cannot consult and giue sentence touching a thing in question except they meet together therefore these words were spoken of a generall Councell To this I rejoyne The Text thus explicated yeeldeth these questions 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church 2. In what respect those Pastors doe succeed the Apostles 3. Who hath the authoritie to gather the Pastors of the Church together 4. Whether all or some and what number of Pastors haue authoritie to determine 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength all which questions are no lesse doubtfull then the conclusion which the Text is brought to proue whereby it doth beg the question but proues it not His second proofe must be thus framed They with whom our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mâ—t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures But with a Councell truly generall our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Councell truly generall c. I answer this place of Scripture doth yeeld these questions 1. What is meant by Christs presence 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting or the thing whereabout they meet 3. Whether that promise extend also vnto a greater number 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet Pastors or not Pastors Every one whereof is no lesse difficult to be determined by the word of God then the present question therefore he doth beg the question and not proue it Farther answer then this there needs none vnto this argument seeing that no proofe can be more base and impotent then that which depends vpon things equally or more doubtfull then the thing to be proved Other proofes then these two he hath not in this point and these two are vrged by Bellarmine de Concil cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. as his maine strength in this question and haue been answered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full but they were poore Divines Mr Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them CHAP. V. Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng There ever was and will be ever vpon earth a visible Church some-where or other with visible cognisances markes and signes to be discerned by viz. Gods Word preached Sacraments ministred Priesthood and ordination Appeale p. 135. Vnto which complaints may be made Gagg p. 49. I Haue nothing to set downe in this point vnder the name of the Church of England because I doe not find any thing decreed therein by our Church neither could it well for as much as in this point the Negatiue onely is defended against the Church of Rome That affirmeth a visibilitie which the Church of England denieth which Negation is implyed in the 19. Article wherein the visibilitie of the Church assigned by the Church of Rome is acknowledged in some things and it is silent for the rest which is as much as if it did say in these things we confesse the Church is alwayes visible and other visibilitie we doe deny According to order here must be inquired 1. Whether that proposition be true or not 2. Whether that proposition doe consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition doâ— dissent from the Church of England or not Before any of these can be disputed his sentence touching the visibilitie of the Church must be vnfolded that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question Which may be done thus It hath these two parts 1. The Church is visible 2. This visibilitie consisteth in the inioying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood ordination abilitie to heare complaints That the Church is visible in the injoying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood and ordination so farre as they are required of necessity vnto the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in question so much is granted on all sides The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19. Article in these words The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessitie are requisite to the same All the question is about the last branch viz. Whether the Church doe inioy all her officers with that freedome that it may be able and fit to determine every doubt that ariseth touching either faith or manners as appeares num 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition set downe by himselfe gagg p. 49. There ever was and will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made Now the question is truly put the next labour must be to inquire of it those 3. wayes which are set downe That it doth consent with the Church of Rome himselfe confesseth when he saith gaggp p. 50. This Controversie to wit of the visibilitie of the Church taught by the Church of Rome and denied by others may cease If he did not agree with them he would haue held it on foote there being so good reason for it they maintaine it as a ground of an Article of their faith and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it And Bellarmines doctrine doth shew it de Ecclesia lib. 3. where he writeth thus The true Church is visible cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subiected vnto lawfull Pastors in the profession of the Christian faith and the vse of Sacraments cap. 2. Nostra autem c. The Church is therefore visible because of this
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
stamp and by it can shew how a church may be a runn away from Christ and a houshold servant vnto Christ How that church which reiecteth Christs law kingdom Scepter and in that respect is a rebell doth also at the same instant reteine obey and yeeld subiection vnto Christ his kingdome and Scepter And this he must doe or els confesse what he built in one place he destroyeth in another This he cannot doe because Christ his kingdome nor his Scepter cannot be devided into parts nor the Church extended therevnto as vnto parts neither can the doctrine of Christ be so obiected vnto the faith and obedience of the Church as that it may reiect some part thereof and beleeue other some but it must obey and beleeue every part thereof actually and intentionally or nonâ— at all There is one God one faith one hope one Baptisme not deviding but composing Christ in his members and profession are his owne words Appeale p. 43. Therefore by his owne authority I may safely conclude against his owne proposition now in question The Church of Rome is not a true Church Bishop Carleton writeth thus in his Booke called Directions to know the true Church The Church of Rome which now is is not the true Church of Christ p. 78. 92. The Church of Rome as now it stands hath no communion with the Catholike Church p. 88. 100. The present Church of Rome is no Church of Christ but an assemblie I say not of heretikes but of farre worse and more dangerous then any heretikes heretofore haue beene p. 65. Touching the danger that they are in which haue communion with the Church of Rome in the Popish doctrine and the receivers thereof he writeth thus These traps are layd with great subtiltie to inthrall their soules let them at least that are seduced lift vp their eyes and see the snares that are provided to catch them and behold the danger that is before them if they will wilfully fall into these snares then may they blame themselues for their owne destruction p. 63. 64. The damage redoundeth to the destruction of their soules This thing the simple people ought more carefully to looke to more exactly to prevent then any damage that can grow in their worldly state p. 43. The meanes to be saved are now taken away by these that are now in the Church of Rome p. 84. Which testimony as it is free from all exception that might any wayes disable it so also it caries with it many circumstances of credit especially to Mr Mountague for he saith Appeal p. 69. Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance since is his reverend and much reverenced Diocesan his superior in learning and authoritie A thing much vrged by himselfe Appeal p. 28. Vnto all men I find these circumstances yeelding credit vnto him Our Church and state doth take knowledge of him for learning and vertue for it imployed him for our Church in the Synode of Dort and that as the principall of our Divines that were sent thither are Mr Mountague his owne words Appeal p. 69. Since that our Church hath advanced him vnto Diocesan authoritie Lastly his testimony agreeth fully with the testimony of Bishop Iewell set downe before whose doctrine is indeed the doctrine of our Church the booke it selfe is dedicated vnto his Maiestie that now is and thereby hath a Royall Confirmation and Protection But which is most of all this testimony is commended by cleare and evident demonstration which out of the sayd booke is thus to be framed Every particular assemblie that holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church is no true Church of Christ but an assembly of heretickes p. 5. For the Church is but one not two nor many p. 4. But the Church of Rome hath broken off this vnitie with the Catholike Church p. 5. Therefore the present Church of Rome is no church of Christ but an assemblie of heretickes p. 65. The assumption of this argument he proveth thus The Church is one 1. by the vnitie of the body 2. by the vnitie of the head 3. by the vnitie of the spirit 4. by the vnitie of faith p. 6. But the church of Rome doth not hold the vnitie by the body p. 8. nor the vnitie of the head p. 13. nor the vnitie of the spirit p. 19. nor the vnitie of faith p. 22. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church Although all those are necessarily required to proue a Church to hold vnitie with the Catholike Church as he saith p. 6. he bringeth proofes that the church of Rome holdeth not vnitie in any one of them in the severall places which I haue quoted yet I will content my selfe to bring his proofe for the last because as he truely also saith where one of them is found all of them are found p. 7. And contrariwise His proofe for the last standeth thus They that hold the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church they haue the same rule of faith with the Catholike Church p. 34. 39. For The faith of the Church is said to be one because the rule of faith is one and the same from the beginning of the Church to the end p. â—4 But the Church of Rome holdeth not but hath changed that rule of faith p. 32. 49. For Whereas the rule of faith was ever confessed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures now in the Councell of Trent vnwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith and so they teach that the whole rule is in the Scriptures and traditions p. 33. 49. 50. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church I might adde the severall proofes which this reverend Author bringeth to proue the severall parts of this argument but I forbeare it because the principall doubt lyeth in this that he saith The Scripture is the rule of faith And The Church of Rome hath changd that rule Which needeth no proofe because Mr Mountague avoucheth the same Appeale p. 16. On this wise There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it c. The Scripture is an exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from and reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule Which is no lesse then as if he had said expresly The Scripture is the rule of faith and the Church of Rome hath changed it made a word of God of their owne invention Which are the Bishops words in the place alledged In that booke is set downe a second argument for the same purpose thus to be framed They that haue changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith haue changed that whereby the Church is knowne to be a Church But the Church of Rome hath changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith p. 64. 73. For The written Word of God doth suffice to end all controversies of faith and is the Catholike
He complaines of false iniurious vnhonest fiery frantick c. Informers and Promoters But vnder what coullours in what ranck shall this Champion be marshalled if you set him in the Vantgard he will be in the enemies front before the rest of the battell approach if you place him in the Reare you restraine his valour He complaineth the mother is stricken through the sides of a brother but here both mother and all her children stricken through the heart with one stroake together shee a dallier all them fooles or Infants What shall I say to it If this be your obedience to your Mother reverence to your Diocesan and kindnes to your friends then Of this point enough I proceed to the next CHAP. VII Mr Mountague Church of Rome Ch. of Eng Free-will is in vs subsisting not in title onely gagg p. 108. 1. There is Free-will is as true as Gospell we grant it as much as themselues gagg p. 114. There is in vs both the facultie and vse of Free-will is certain in faith and decreed in the Councell of Trent Suarez opusc 1. lib. 1. num 1. cap. 1. The grace of God doth prevent vs that we may haue a good will and worketh with vs when we haue that good will Arti 10. Freewill is a power whereby we eat c. wee assent disagree wittingly willingly without constraint Appeal p. 99. Free-will consisteth not only in the faculty of working voluntarily or of choyce willingly that is not against the will but also it includeth a power of doing and of not doing which vsually is called a dominion over his own actions or an indifferency in working in that respect that the faculty so working of its nature is not determined vnto one but can will this or another thing which is opposite thervnto and nill or not will Suar. op 1. l. 1. n. 2. c. 1 The predestinate to life be called according to Gods purpose by his spirit they through grace obey that calling Arti 17. 2. Man in the state of nature intire had bestowed on him a facultie whereby most freely and absolutely he was Lord over his own octions could doe or not doe what he pleased would gagg p. 107. 108.  If we haue any will to rise it is hee that preuenteth our will and disposeth vs thervnto Homily for Rogation 3. part p. 456. 3. That libertie was much impaired by sinne not extinct or amolished in corrupt nature such as now it is p. 108.   4. Man hath Free-will in actions of pietie and such as belong to his salvation gagg p. 109. Mans Free-will is not lost and extinct after the fall of Adam nor is a thing consisting in title onely Concil Trent sess 6. can 5.  5. We grant the generall being working and concurring of free-will with Gods grace p. 115.   6. Man hath Free-will after preventing grace in cooperation to the increase of grace p. 108. Man is disposed vnto the turning of himselfe vnto his owne Iustification by exciting and adiuvating grace in assenting and cooperating freely with the same grace  7. Man doth freely renouÌ„ce the calling of grace freely run themselues p. 112.   8. I thinke no man will deny That mans Free-will may resist the holy Ghost in preventing and operating grace not suffering him to worke the worke of grace in them so may he also against adiuvating grace Ap. p. 89. When God toucheth mans heart by the illumination of his holy spirit man doth not altogether nothiÌ„g receiving that inspiration for because he can also reiect the same Concil Trent ses 6. cap. 5. and can dissent if he will can 4.  Man being drawn he runneth as his assistance his owne agillitie and disposition is gagg p. 110.   Man being prevented by grace he then putteth too his hand to procure augmentation of that grace gagg p. 110.   CHAP. VIII The point of Free-will set downe in the former Chapter is debated IN this point as in the former three things are to be inquired of 1. Whether the propositions delivered by him be true or not 2. Whether those propositions consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether those propositions dissent from the Church of England or not Of the second and third we haue his sentence in his gagg p. 107. Appeal p. 83. where he saith The particulars in this point of Free-will controverted betweene the Church of Rome and ours are of no great moment And in his Appeal from p. 84. to 95. he indevours to proue That The Church of Rome and our Church doe agree in the particulars delivered by Mr Mountague set downe in the precedent Chapter To which I answer howsoever it be with our Church for of that hereafter from hence it doth necessarily follow that He consenteth with the Church of Rome in those his prepositions set downe in the last Chapter Because he will not deny to consent to those things which in his judgement the Church of England consenteth vnto And that indeed he consenteth fully with the Church of Rome will appeare by the sight of the doctrine on both sides set downe in the Chapter going before What it saith of the nature vse remaining causes manner of working effects adjuncts objects of free-will the same saith he he comes not short one word so that it seemeth little better then a transcription out of the Romish faith and opinion taught amongst them That he dissenteth from the Church of England a little labour of mine is required to shew it It is his taske to shew his agreement therewith for he vndertooke to defend the doctrine of the Church of England therefore he must shew that the doctrine which he defendeth is the doctrine thereof But that he cannot doe except he proue the Church of England doth consent with the Church of Rome and it seemes that he himselfe perceived so much therefore he laboureth Appeal p. 84. c. to proue their consent by this argument Whitaker Chemnitius Mollerus Perkins Sâ—ecanus Hemingius Willet the Helvetian Confession the Confession of Saxonie do agree with the Church of Rome p. 87. Therefore there is no difference between our Church and the Church of Rome Which argument is not barely alledged but accompanied with all due Circumstances First for the credit thereof that it might not come barely without authoritie he telleth vs. p. 95. 1. He examined this question between them and vs of free-will with as great diligence as he could p. 95. 2. He thought thus before and so he thinkes â—ow p. 84. 3. He confirmes the antecedent by laying downe certaine points of free-will maintained by some one that side which he calleth the most moderate amongst them p. 90. and confest by those of ours p. 87. 4. He interprets the conclusion and sayth he meanes by that Church and ours moderate and temperate men on either side p. 83. I answer If his intent be not to proue the
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
the point I will set downe and then apply it It saith Good workes cannot put away our sinnes Artic. 12. In which sentence there is a direct contradiction put vnto the Doctrine last recited out of Church of Rome and M. Mountagu The terme put away must signifie that putting away which is called remission and not satisfaction for this doth make recompence for sinne but doth not put away sin which importeth the destroying of the being remaining of sin it selfe By denying the puting away of sinne to good workes the meriting of remission of sinne by grace and the effects therof is denyed for otherwise then so good workes are not fit nor able to put away sin and himselfe speaks thus of it Gagg p. 156. Now forasmuch as good workes are the fruits of a liuely faith as the Article speaketh that is of the habit of grace the remission of sinnes that it denyeth to good workes it denyeth to the habit of grace and therein it denyeth that remission of sinne is a formall effect or physicall worke of grace forasmuch as the remission of sin can be no other effect or operation of the habit of grace but formall and Physicall The Homilie of Almes pag. 329. teaches the same thing expresly which is a proofe sufficient that M. Mountagu doth dissent from the Church of England and no dissent in a matter of this kind can be greater then a contradiction Our Church doth teach positiuely what remission of sinnes is wherein it doth assigne a nature contrary to that which the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu doe giue vnto it If I make that appeare I doubt not then to say M. Mountagu dissenteth from the Church of England I doe it thus The true knowledge of the remission of sinne consisteth in the true vnderstanding of these two things viz. 1. what is meant by sinne which is said to be forgiuen Secondly what act of God it is by which it is forgiuen Sinne of which a man may be denominated a sinner may be conceiued two waies first for the act of sin past secondly for the will of sinning as Thomas hath truely obserued 3. part q. 61. art 4. C. The will of sinning is not the obiect of that act which the Scripture calleth remitting because the will of sinning importeth an indisposition vnto good and an aptnesse to sinne remaining in the will from whence the Scripture doth not denominate a man a sinner but from the act of sinne The act of sinne past is the obiect of remission as is confessed on all sides The Councell of Trent hath decreed it Sess 6. cap. 5. where it maketh such as are turned from God by sinne the men that are iustified So doth all the expositors of the Councell with one consent make the act of sin the thing remitted and from which a man is iustified Bellarmine hath it de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 16. with whose testimony I will rest contented others may say the same thing but not more nor more cleerly then he hath done The Church of England teacheth it in the first Homilie of saluation where it nameth a little after the beginning sinnes forgiuen by the name of trespasses and againe sins from which man is washed and which are not imputed it calleth sinne in act or deed The act of God whereby the sinnes of man are remitted is set out by the Church of England by diuers titles according to the course and phrase of Scripture but of them all one is the most fit and of best signification for this present occasion viz. The not-imputing of sinne which it vseth in the first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning the words lie thus Man is washed from his sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall be imputed to their damnation In which sentence washing away the spots of sinne which is the act remitting sinnes is resolued into the act of not-imputing where it saith so washed as not imputed Hee must not deny this Homilie to be the Doctrine of the Church of England for hee doth auouch it to bee such in his Appeale pag. 190. and 194. If it be said the Church of England doth assigne other acts of remitting sinne besides this in vsiâ—g other titles I answer though it do vse other titles yet not assigne any other act but this for this doth extend as largely as them all and they doe but â—xplicate this therefore wee may conclude in the doctrine of the Church of England The not-imputation of sinne is the sole and onely act whereby sinnes are remitted Touching this act ariseâ—h all the difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church with which Church of Rome M. Mountagu consenteth both of them assigning such an act of God as doth really differ and put a contrariety vnto this The Church of Rome teacheth 1. that sinne is remitted by a created being namely the habit of grace 2. That remission of sinne is wrought in the soule of man 3. That the manner how sinne is remitted by grace is formall and physicall as a painter that couereth a thing deformed with beauty and good shape Our Church maketh 1. the Creator directly and immediately the worker thereof 2. It placeth the thing effected not in man but in the outward estate and condition of man 3. The manner of working to be meerly efficient viz. God out of his prerogatiue Royall discharging our account Not putting our sinnes to our reckoning And thus much is sufficient to proue his totall agreement with the Church of Rome and disagreement with the Church of England in the nature of Iustification and therewith I might put an end vnto this whole point But I will goe a little further to the satisfying of the point propounded n o 12. c. Wherein my labour will not be lost for that which I shall say will serue aboundantly to shew 1. how diuinely the Church of England hath determined in this point 2. How little reason he had to depart from the doctrine of our Church in this point 3. The great reason that euerie man hath to striue for the doctrine of the Church of England in this point as for the faith once deliuered to the Saints Against this doctrine of the Church of England the Church of Rome as may well be conceiued doth thus dispute If no other act doth concurre vnto the remitting of sinne but the act of not-imputing of sinne then a man after remission of sinne remaineth a sinner truely and alwaies foule and vncleane But a man after remission of sinne remaineth not a sinner truely foule and vncleane Therefore besides the act of not-imputing of sinne there is required some other act vnto the remission of sinne viz. The infusion of grace whereby the true and proper nature of sinne is taken away rooted out and abolished This argument is framed out of the 4. and 9. arguments of Bellar. de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and also taken out of those places
taught in the Homilies is the authorised and subscribed doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke of Homilies was first composed and published in King Edwards time approued and iustified in Parliament in Queene Elizabeths daies and authorised againe of late to be read in Churches But that a man may fall away from grace is taught in the Homilies Therefore falling from grace is the doctrine of the Church of England I answer a man would verily thinke hee would haue vs beleeue his proposition to be a certaine and vndeniable truth he bestows so much sweat in the proofe of it but good man hee meant nothing lesse or else at the turning ouer of a new leafe he becomes a new man for he professeth himselfe of another mind in the 260 pag. following in these words I willingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholsome exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions confirmed of the Church of England They haue not dogmaticall positions or doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point They may seeme to speake somewhat too hardly and stretch some saying beyond the vse and practice of the Church of England The ancientest Fathers sometimes doe hyperbolize in their popular Sermons which in dogmaticall decisions they would not doe nor auow the doctrine by them so deliuered Now after this inforcing sort may our Homilie speake and be so interpreted which are all popular Sermons fitted vnto the capacitie of common people Well there is good reason why we should take his second thoughts for the better and so leaue him trāpling his own proposition into the dirt by which meanes his assumption doth not deserue answer But it may be he will put new life into his proposition by a speciall priuiledge that this homilily hath aboue the rest namely that it is for explication of the doctrine contained in the Article I answer he seemeth so to pretend Appeale pa. 32. but it is false we find not any direction from the Article to the Homilie nor any reflection in the homilie vpon the Article neither can the one explicate the other but are really distinct conclusions and proofes The Article saith He departeth from grace therefore he sinneth The Homilie saith He falleth from God by a wicked life therefore is depriued of grace Hee that can make new Articles can create new expositors Although this bee sufficient to satisfie the argument yet I will goe on to examine that which followes In proofe of his assumption he saith p. 32. The title of the Homilie is of falling away from God which very title is sufficient warrant for the Doctrine in this point I answer this title hath nothing to doe with the losse of grace falling from God signifies turning away from Gods law and so the Homilie it selfe a little after the beginning doth expound the title and saith They that may not abide the Word of God but following the stubbornnesse of his owne heart they goe and turne away from God If by falling from God should bee meant losing of grace then the Homilie must bee conceiued thus to reason If you lose your grace then God will take his grace from you For in that sort the Homilie doth reason from falling from God as the reading thereof will shew but it were most absurd to thinke that the Homilie would so reason His second reason for the same purpose is taken out of the Homilie it selfe and standeth in this forme They that are depriued of grace and heauenly life which they had in Christ and become as without God in the world giuen into the power of the Deuill as was Saul and Iudas they lose grace totally and finally But according to the Homilie the truely iustified are thus depriued For It is said they were in Christ they continued sometime in Christ Therefore according to the Homilie the truely iustified may lose their grace totally and finally By this argument hee thinkes the cause is his at common law yee must now yeeld or turne heretike against the Doctrine of the Church of England but he is much mistaken The homilie doth affirme thus much by the way of rhetoricall enforcement to perswade men to take heed they turne not away from Gods Law It being so vnderstood I grant the whole reason but it profits him not He promised n o 5. the positiue and declaratory Doctrine of the Church of England but rhetoricall enforcements are not such It may be some will say there is a truth in this enforcement I answer what truth soeuer there is in it this is certaine the faith of the Church of England is not contained in it No man well aduised will send vs to seeke for the faith of our Church vnto an argument vrging the practice of a duty in a popular Sermon But what that truth is we may best learne from the Author of this Homilie himselfe whose meaning we finde to be comprehended in these two things By such threatnings of Gods taking away of grace First the great danger of sinne Secondly the necessity of repentance is declared Both which are set downe in the first Sermon of Repentance a little from the beginning in these two sentences 1 Wee doe daily by our disobedience fall away from God thereby purchasing vnto our selues if hee should deale with vs according to his Iustice eternall damnation 2 Whereas the Prophet had afore set forth the vengeance of God it is as if he should say although you doe by your sinne deserue to bee vtterly destroyed and now you are in a manner on the very edge of the sword yet if you will speedily returne vnto him he will most mercifully receiue you into fauour againe By which it is euident the opinion of the Author of the Homily was not that man that had grace should by sinning be brought to that condition indeed and in the thing that his habit of grace should be taken from him but that the vrging of such seuerity did fitly serue to restraine man from sinning to reduce him vnto repentance Which being so all the confidence which he put in this argument doth vanish and come to nothing and himselfe may bee ashamed that putteth so great confidence therein p. 32. 33. and 34. I might also returne him the like amplifications vnto the seuerall parts of my answer as might fit to the seuerall amplifications of his argument but I let such things passe His third argument I finde Appeale page 33. c. in these words 3 He that saith a man may fall away and may recouer implyeth withall that some men may fall away and may not recouer But the Article saith the first Therefore it implieth the second I answer this argument requires little to bee said to it because it presumeth that the Article speaketh of losing the habit of grace which hee hath not proued nor can yea I haue shewed the Article may bee vnderstood otherwise cānot be vnderstood so no 7. Lastly the assumption is
Priests and Iesuits were not common Barretters of Christendome for priuate ends this controuersie on foot touching the reall presence might cease Gagg p. 251. They that in the point of reall presence doe make a difference betweene vs and the Papists were bred vp by the deuill in a faction and by him brought vp in a faction and by him sent abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Gagg p. 253. and Appeale p. 291. The onely difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours is about the manner Appeale p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ Gagg p. 256. 255. Namely whether by transubstantiation or not 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation which wee condemne Gagg p. 252. And in this viz. how it is made the flesh of Christ he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome and ours blaming them for this p. 252. and for nothing else and reprouing their proofes because they proue not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation Gagg p. 252. and 254. Out of which wee may conclude Mr Mountagu beleeueth as the Councell of Trent hath decreed touching the reall presence and the doctrine of it is his doctrine so as what the Councell saith of reseruing carying about and worshipping of the Sacrament must be accounted the faith of Mr Mountagu because the first doth necessarily inferre the second If Christ be really present then the sacrament must bee so reserued caryed worshipped And so much for the second branch If this be true then Mr Mountagu doth not dissent from the Church of England in the point of reall presence To the end hee might perswade vs that hee doth not dissent from the Church of England he telleth vs Appeale p. 289. The point of reall presence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England That is the Church of England agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence as he doth explicate himselfe a few lines after If that be so then I grant he doth not dissent from the Church of England But all the doubt will be how he will proue that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence His proofe such as it is I find set downe Appeale p. 289. c. and may be concluded in this forme Whatsoeuer is taught by the Bishops Bilson Andrewes Morton by Protestants Fortunatus Caluin Beza Sadael is the doctrine of the Church of England But the faith of the Church of Rome touching the reall presence is taught by these c. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence is the doctrine of the Church of England This forme of disputing may not bee excepted against because all his allegations in the place quoted will be to no purpose if he doth not thus dispute for the allegations doe serue to proue this assumption or can be of no vse at this time To the proposition I answer two things First The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes authorised publikely for that end and subscribed vnto as such But these mens writings are not such For no statute law or ordinance haue ratified them and commanded subscription vnto them as such Therefore your proposition is false Secondly your owne words are these Appeale p. 58. and 59. Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat as if hee were the father and founder of our faith as if our beleefe were to be pinned vnto his sleeue and absolutely to bee taught after his institutions shew me good warrant for it and I yeeld This is impossible therefore your proposition is false euen by your owne sentence his owne pen giueth Iudgement against his proposition as false that being false this reason cannot be good although his assumption were neuer so true The assumption is vtterly false and I doe admire that shame did not with-hold him from alleadging Caluin and Beza as consenters vnto the Romish faith in the point of reall presence seeing that Bellarmine in his fiâ—st Booke and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin and Beza principall opposers thereunto and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in speciall sort against Caluin and forgetteth him not in no one passage of his disputations in this point The words of the Bishops euen as he hath alleadged them are not so much as like vnto the Romish faith as hee that readeth them will presently iudge I doe not attempt to apply them to his assumption Two of them are yet liuing who will I doubt not by liuely voyce disclaime the decree of the Councell of Trent and their consent thereto touching the reall presence and so fully refute his assumption as false He inferreth further from hence on this wise If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and professeth as it is indeed I leaue you to those that must looke vnto you I answer this inference presumes too farre and comes too late I may rather inferre contrariwise If the Romish faith of reall presence bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England as indeed it is not my answer hath shewed it in part and I will shew it to the full hereafter then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith to be punished as such according to law in that case prouided I finde in his Gagge page 250. he writeth thus Our Catechisme in the Communion Booke saith expresly the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper And a few lines after he concludeth in these words The Protestant is as reall and substantiall as any Papist He seemeth to inferre the latter sentence vpon the former the meaning whereof is this Protestants acknowledge the reall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse then Papists What his intent was is best knowne to himselfe It was needfull for mee to propound it and let it bee knowne by my answer thereto that no reall presence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged which answer I will take from Bishop Iewell who hath already made it for mee in his reply vnto Hardings answere Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these Christs body and blood indeed and verily is giuen vnto vs that we verily eate it that wee verily drinke it In these words there is as much contained as Mr. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechisme But marke now what he denieth and answereth further for the explication thereof Yet we say not that Christs body is let downe from heauen or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament wee lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith wee eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood euen as verily as his body was verily broken and his blood verily
a writ of dotage The Bishop shall haue the Church of England that furious one and all her children to beare him company The Homilie concludeth p. 132. That Images ought to be abolished so doth the Bishop p. 383. But Master Mountagu will none of that Appeale p. 255. The reason which our Church and the Bishop doth alleadge is this viz. because they are the cause of much euill M. Mountagu saith no they are sometimes profitable Gagg p. 318. But I will follow the Church of England and the Bishop let him gang alone for me By these arguments of our Church propounded and defended against his exceptions it doth euidently appeare that Images in Churches and imployed as he appointed are vnlawfull and from thence may necessarily be inferred against the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu that Honour is not due to Images If hee doth not rest content with this proofe it stands him vpon to shew vs the diuine law which inioyneth man to giue honour to Images forasmuch as without such a law the honouring of them is an humane inuention a seruice done vnto God which he reiecteth as odious and abhominable and consequently the faith decreed by the Church of Rome and receiued by M. Mountagu touching the hauing imploying and honouring of Images is erronious CHAP. XVII Of workes of supererogation M. Mountagu The Church of England A man may doe with the assistance of Gods grace things as counselled onely and not commanded Voluntariâ— works besides ouer and aboue Godâ— commandements 1 are works of supâ—rerogation 2. Canâ—â—t bee taught without pride arrogancy and impietie A man in some one point may doe more then is exacted  A man may doe more then he needed to haue done out of strict command Gagg p. 104.  A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any law of God Gagg pag. 105.  CHAP. XVIII The former point of workes of supererogation is disputed ACcording to our former course three questions are to bee handled 1 Whether there be any such workes or no. 2 Whether in affirming of them hee consent with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissent from the Church of England therein or no. In this Chapter I haue brought no Doctrine vnder the name of the Church of Rome because hitherto I haue followed the Councell of Trent which hath decreed nothing in this point Therefore the faith of that Church in this point is to bee taken out of the Doctrine commonly receiued amongst them touching it and because there is no Author amongst them fitter to report what that is then Bellarmine I will set downe what he saith of it it is this Holy men may doe such things for Gods sake which they are not bound to doe and these are workes of supererogation de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 4. Respondeo non c. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. 9. 13. The Gâ—gger hath the same thing reported by Mr. Mountagu in his Gagge page 104. in the margin in these words Man by assistance of Gods grace may doe some things counselled and these we call worke of supererogation That hee doth consent vnto this Doctrine of the Church of Rome hee professeth plainely and fully Thus he writeth I willingly subscribe vnto the point of councels Euangelicall Gagge page 103. and further he saith of the definition of workes of supererogation which I haue reported out of him no 1. giuen by his aduersary the Gagger If these were your workes of supererogation and no otherwise I would not contend with you page 104. Hee doth agree with them likewise in explicating and setting downe the nature of a Councell euangelicall as he cals it Bellarmine saith thus of it It is a good worke shewed not commanded it differeth from a Precept in this a Precept bindeth of its owne force a Councell is committed to mans free choyce when a precept is obserued it hath the reward being not obserued it hath punishment but if a Councell bee not obserued it hath no punishment if it bee obserued it hath the greater reward de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. Iust on this manner writeth he Imperious lawes require exact obedience vpon paine of punishment Appeale page 219. A Councell is a mandat not properly but with condition left vnto a mans choyce to doe it or not to doe it page 221. lastly he saith the obedience to Councels procureth reward to him that obeyeth them Gagge page 105. and hee that keepeth them not is without danger of punishment therefore Gagge page 103. A man would thinke by this that hee would not sticke to confesse that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of workes of supererogation but indeed he doth deny it for thus he writeth You call workes of supererogation such as be laid vp in store for imployments the treasure and stocke of the Church to satisfie for other mens offences not the things done as counselled onely these are only titular those are indeed workes of supererogation which you mean but these I deny Gagge page 103. c. I answer this excuse is headlesse what hand ruled his pen when hee wrote thus passeth my skill to iudge he doth heare the Church of Rome with one consent to affirme voluntary workes are workes of supererogation and the Church of England saith the same expresly and in so many words and yet forsooth he will needs beare them both downe they giue voluntary workes the name onely of workes of supererogation but they meant it not But I pray who told him so he nameth no Author for it nor can name I am sure Well he had it by speciall illumination and therefore hee might know their meaning without them and you must beleeue him for such knowledge is certaine and cannot deceiue you Be it so he doth disagree in the name but that will not inferre his disagreement in the thing Hee hath confessed his subscription to Euangelicall Councels that is to voluntary workes as I haue shewed in the former Chapter and that is all which is sought after now we find his agreement with them in the thing let him giue what name he will vnto voluntary workes But he saith It is an errour in Diuinitie not to put a difference betwixt such workes as a man may doe or not doe without guilt of sinne or breach of law and the Papists workes of supererogation If any man not knowing or not considering the state of the question hath otherwise Written or Preached or Taught it was his ignorance or fancie or misunderstanding or misapplying Appeale page 215. I answer in stead of proofes wee haue euill language I will scumme off the froth and examine what hee saith in good sober sadnesse This is the summe of his sentence He that saith voluntary workes in the iudgement of the Church of Rome be workes of supererogation is ignorant or fantasticall Vnto which proposition I may adde this assumption and conclusion But the Church of England saith the Church of
question but the will of intention onely man may be predestinated in the will of intention before he hath an actuall being for God may so decree when man is but in possibility to be as Suarez well obserueth AS VESSELS MADE TO HONOR In this last branch our Church assigneth the end of Predestination the manner how it floweth from the same The end is signified by these words made vnto honour by honor is signified both the glory honor giuen vnto God by declaring his attributes as prouidence and loue vnto the reasonable creature as also the honour which the creature receiueth from God in beholding him face to face wherein the true and proper nature of blessednesse consisteth That being the supreame this the next end of Predestination And that our Church doth meane thus there is no cause of doubt because it agrees well with the present words and the thing it selfe It openeth the manner how the one floweth from the other by saying as vessels made to honour wherein the Predestinate are likened vnto vessels that receiue honour vnto themselues and are instruments in honourable offices vnto God In saying as vessels our Church sheweth that this end issueth from the act of Predestination immediately and of the thing it selfe There is nothing in man added vnto the diuine will of Predestination to make it fit and apt for these effects for such is the condition of a vessell it cannot say to the Potter thou hadst sufficient reason out of my selfe why thou shouldest make mee a vessel vnto honor neither can it challenge the Potter for iniury vnto it if he doth make it a vessell not vnto honour Lastly our Church saith the Predestinate are made vnto honour to wit by Predestination wherby efficiency of euery kinde is attributed vnto Gods will no part of this honour is yeelded vnto the Predestinate himselfe for then it must haue diuided the act of making to honour betweene God and the Predestinate but this it doth not but giueth that act onely to Gods will of Predestination And thus haue I gone ouer the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it doth appeare that our Church opposeth Mr. Mountagu his Predestination so fully as nothing more can be required Mr. Mountagu saith 1 Glory onely is decreed by Predestination 2 Man was in perdition before he was Predestinate 3 Man had finall grace before he was predestinate 4 Mans finall grace moued God to predestinate him Our Church saith 1 Finall grace and glory is appointed to man by Predestination 2 Man was Predestinate before his actuall being was decreed 3 Predestination is of Gods will the reason thereof is not from man nor knowne to vs. Notwithstanding this proofe hee will make you beleeue that our Church opposeth this Doctrine of Predestination Hee bringeth his first reason for that purpose Appeale page 59. thus to be concluded That which is opposed by many of the learned and most conformable in the Church of England that is opposed by the Church of England But this sentence Predestination is without relation to faith c. is opposed c. Therefore this sentence c. is opposed by the Church of England I answer I will speake to the point in question and let the rest passe The proposition or first sentence of this reason is false by his owne rule Appeale page 48. and 49. where he saith The presumptions of seruants are not the Lords directions euery one that Prateth Readeth Lectureth Preacheth or Professeth must not looke to haue his discourses taken as the dictates or Doctrines of our Church yes saith Mr. Mountagu page 59. If they be of the learned and most conformable in our Church nay saith Mr. Mountagu pag. 49. Our Mother hath sufficiently made knowne her minde in Bookes that are publike promulgated authorised and subscribed these are those passages at which the lisping Ephramites are to be tryed Some that be learned in our Church doth oppose that sentence and so farre I grant the assumption but their number exceeds not If Mr. Mountagu conceiueth otherwise hee is one of the Duke of Burgundies spies that taketh a field of Thistles for an army of Pikes page 320 and so the assumption is false that speaketh of many Those some doe oppose indeed but priuately and in a corner Let him shew where euer that sentence was opposed in Print or in publike place without controle therefore their opposing is not our Churches opposing His next reason is thus Appeale page 59. 73. If our Church it selfe doth teach that a man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God then it opposeth that Doctrine of Predestination But our Church doth so teach directly and in expresse words I answer He makes this matter like a Pedlers Horse that is acquainted with euery doore a Knight of the Post to depose in euery cause In this cause his witnesse is false his Pedlers ware will not sell Our Church doth not so teach Mr. Mountagu the Gagger being witnesse saith expresly Our Church hath left it vndecided and at liberty p. 158. and 171. and I haue proued our Church doth not teach it Chap. 11. 12. It is bold importunity to vrge that for true which himselfe denieth to be true but better that then nothing It may perhaps be beleeued by some where silence is a sentence of guiltinesse He telleth vs further page 59. Our Church hath gone on in these high points in great wisedome not concluding vpon Gods secrets I answer I grant thus much Let him goe on in the words of our Church and sticke to them and it sufficeth but what he would inferre from hence I know not I am sure he may inferre thus Therefore himselfe in dissenting from our Church hath not done wisely His third argument I finde Appeale page 72. which is to this effect That which was stiled against the Articles of Lambeth a desperate Doctrine at the Conference at Hampton Court before his Maiesty without reproofe or taxation of any is not the Doctrine of the Church of England But this Doctrine of Predestination was so stiled viz. by Doctor Bancroft c. without reproofe of any I answer the proposition is as probably false as true such a fault might be let passe for diuers reasons of state and obseruance The assumption is a manifest vntruth The Booke that reporteth that Conference will shew it for it reporteth that speech of Bishop Baneroft page 29. in these words Many in these dayes neglecting holinesse of life presuming too much of persisting of grace laying all their religion vpon Predestination If I shall be saued I shall be saued which he termed a desperate Doctrine Here is not a word of Mr. Mountagues tale According to him the Doctor saith thus this sentence Predestination is without relation to mans faith Is a desperate Doctrine According to the Booke the Doctor saith this sentence The Predestinate may neglect holinesse of life because if he shall be saued he shall be saued
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
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
A DANGEROVS PLOT DISCOVERED BY A DISCOVRSE Wherein is proved That Mr RICHARD MOVNTAGVE in his two Bookes the one called A new Gagg the other A iust Appeale Laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome and Arminius vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England A Worke very necessary for all them which haue received the truth of God in loue and desire to escape errour The Reader shall finde 1. A Catalogue of his erroneous poynts annexed to the Epistle to the Reader 2. A demonstration of the danger of them cap. 21. num 7. c. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the Chapters contained in this Booke IEREM 5. 31. The Prophets prophecie lyes what will you then doe in the end thereof The sonne of the hand-maid shall not inherit with the sonne of the free Woman LONDON Printed for Nicholas Bourne at the Exchange 1626. TO THE HIGH AND HONORABLE COVRT Of PARLIAMENT The humble supplication of the Author WHereas Mr Richard Mountague hath written two Bookes the one called A new Gagge the other A iust Appeale Which many esteemed as dangerous vnto our Church and State I esteemed it my dutie to reade them and to satisfie my selfe in the poynt whether they were so faultie as was pretended or not When I had read and well considered of them I could not but resolue that they were in deed dangerous vnto our Church For that he endevoured by them to change our faith into the faith of Rome and Arminius Which deed I could not but detest because that faith of Rome and Arminius is false and erroneous And vpon that detestation I became an humble suter vnto the Lord God to preserue our faith in the puritie thereof seing he is the Author of truth and his eye-lids preserue pure knowledge Now out of the same affection I prostrate my selfe this Cause before your reverend honourable and graue Iudgements and high authoritie with all submission and fervent desire Craving That you will 1. take this Cause into your consideration 2. Preserue the faith of our Church in the puritie it hath had hitherto 3. Endevour to prevent the corrupting of it in time to come I doe most willingly confesse that I may seeme to some to deserue blame in that I doe thus presume to offer my selfe into your most honourable presence and Tribunall Yea I am ready to giue that judgement against my selfe when I consider the meannesse of my condition and the poore talent which I offer vnto you But none of those things could discourage me in this businesse when I consider 1. Your most honourable and fatherly care over this Church and State of which you are members receiving with all readinesse and mildnesse the complaints yea of the meanest suters 2. Your service herein will be acceptable to God for by his Law The Foxes must be taken that eate vp the Vines yea it is an honour beyond earthly honour to doe it for thereby a name is purchased excelling humane titles even the name to be called Good servants and faithfull vnto the Lord God and they are also admitted into their Maisters ioy Againe this office is most seemly for your most high and honourable Court because You are therefore called together by his sacred Maiestie our most gracious King That things amisse might be redressed And the redresse of evils in the Church and our faith is of all other most comely and gracefull for thereby the Word of God receiveth freer passage and mens salvation is furthered The doctrine of our Church doth call for your protection against all intruders even of it selfe though all men should hold their peace Because it deserveth protection in as much as it was penned and composed by most reverend learned and holy Authors Fathers of our Church It is in it selfe most agreeable vnto the divine and sacred Revelation yea wanting nothing any kind of wayes of a safe and fit expression of and direction vnto our Christian faith so as we may truly say the Church of England is not inferiour therein vnto any Church in the Christian world Lastly This cause does indeed in a speciall sort belong vnto you for you are possessed with it in part alreadie This doctrine of our Church received the authoritie it hath first from that most high and honourable Court whereof you are By it also it hath bin preserved in that state till this present time Wherefore I rest well assured That you will not impute my boldnesse vnto me Now I might alledge some reasons to moue you to vndertake the worke but I will not doe so For that would be very vnseemely and ill befitting For what man well advised would light a small and dimme candle to further the light of the Sunne in his greatest strength And this would be my case if I should moue you by reasons For you know more then I can write or speake Who would put him forward that is more ready to doe then any can be to aske And this is your case experience doth witnesse it In whom we see not the spirit of Iehu that was zealous for the Lord of Hosts but rather of the Lord of heaven and earth who is ready to heare before we call vpon him yea to call to vs when we are negligent to call vpon him And thus would you doe if it were fit for your place and authoritie so mindfull willing ready are you in Gods service and the good of your Countrey Wherfore I haue onely this to say Goe on For the Lord is with you We your Countrey-men true lovers of our Church and State are with you to helpe you with our prayers vnto God to render thanks vnto God and our gracious renowned Soveraigne and to you saying in the words once spoken by King David Blessed be God and blessed be You. And to giue his sacred Majesty and You the honour due vnto you saying Many of your Predecessors haue done well but You surmount them all Thus I commit You and your Labours vnto the protection and favour of the Almightie LONDON This first of Iune 1626. ¶ To the Reader ALthough I haue no delight in making a Preface for I see not any great need of it yet I here present thee with one because Custome calls for it In this Preface I will advise thee of some things even of such and no more as shall helpe thee to make the better vse of the ensuing Discourse which I will doe also with as much brevitie as I can First know That this Treatise was chiefly intended for my owne satisfaction but is now published for the benefit of others The manner of handling the poynts in it is scholasticall and it might be no other because the things themselues and the partie opposed require it Besides this course of writing is profitable for thee for thereby 1. The matters in question are layd before thee nakedly and as it were in both ends of the
disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs In the last place I will shew the faith of Rome wherein he doth agree with them to be erronious CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending hath law right vpon his side which we say is the Church gagg p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures Cancil Trent ses 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures arti 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes And in doubtfull points that require determination we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule gagg p. 14. 15.  Generall Coūcils may er in things partaining to God arti 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters the Church must decide and setle that doubt by applying and declaring the Scriptures p. 14.  Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit gagg p. 19.  haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they may be taken out of holy Scripture arti 21. Where the Scripture is hard in case there be a doubt we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit and that in the Church gagg p. 6.   CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood which is thus explicated A Iudge is an office ordained by God to giue sentence in a doubt that is made in things revealed by God This office hath these three properties 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof Of which there is no question with him in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie The parts to be debated be three 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge c. be true or not 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not Touching the first he sayth The Word of God and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it gagg p. 15. I answer Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church p. 54. He writeth thus Vndoubtedly the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith which hath beene in all succession preserved And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent the Church held the same determination still concerning the Iudge of Controversies in faith Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given surely vnto him rather then vnto you For he is your superior in learning and authoritie he is your Diocesan whose voyce must you heare but the voyce of your Pastour And you are in the Affirmatiue giving an authoritie to the Church which he denieth you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it It is your owne rule gagg p. 17. A Nunci◠must goe to his Commission If your proofes be good your Diocesan must stand by 1. Your proofes from the word of God we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed Whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies But the Church That is the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles are those whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge c. I answer the proposition is false I shew it by many reasons 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place in which respect the proposition is false because that office is not instituted in that place And this I take as granted 2. At least the proposition resumes that that office was already instituted when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken Which is false also and I could shew it by many reasons but this one shall suffice viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office 3. The word heare may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read as well as for an appeale thereto and resting in the sentence of a Iudge yea and better also for it is most frequently vsed in that sence but little in this Againe the Text leadeth clearely to that sence but not at all to this The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church severed from other Ministers which are not governours In which sence the assumption doth need proofe but he hath brought none but his owne affirmation Besides the assumption is false by the authoritie of the Text it selfe which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly by the terme you which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and another His proofe from the word of God being dispatched The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next but he sayes nothing of it therefore I cannot answere any thing to it It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times to shew that The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith Which is vnorderly yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne Bishop Carleton in the booke alledged p. 52. c. alledgeth Councels Fathers Popes all pronouncing this sentence The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour and not to you Lastly if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church perpetually to the end of the world that it may be fit to be appealed vnto and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith in the time wherein it riseth for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde and without the second some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point and giue this for his reason to wit he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence and giue for instance as he doth gagg p. 19. He takes the Church to signifie a true not a
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
subiection cap. 12. Septimâ— c. This visible Church cannot fayle cap. 13. Which sentence hath these three branches 1. The Church is visible 2. This visible Church cannot fayle 3. The Church is visible by subiection to Pastors in matters of faith In the two first Mr Mountague and the Church of Rome agree expresly In the third they agree in the thing because subiectioÌ„ to Pastors in matters of faith supposeth that there be Pastors to whom complaints may be made and who are fit and haue freedome abilitie to heare complaints in matters of faith He saith there will ever be a Church to whom complaints may be made Bellarmine saith there will ever be a Church wherein there is ruling and obeying in matters of faith cap. 13. Which sentence he presumeth in the beginning of that 13. Chapter is denied by Calvin and others against whom he doth proue it there and defend it cap. 16. That it doth dissent from the Church of England he might as truly haue confessed For if the Church of England had judged that the Church should be perpetually so open vnto the eye of the world as to injoy the libertie to heare Complaints and determine them then it would haue confest it and taught it because it hath taught visibilitie in all other things that they do and it would haue set downe the whole truth in the point but this it hath not done therefore it is most certaine the Church of England doth deny that visibilitie of the Church which they claime he yeelds vnto He is very desirous to perswade the world of his agreement with the Church of England therefore he telleth vs Appeale p. 134. In the 19. Article Church and visible are convertible termes Therefore the 19. Article tendreth no invisibilitie The sence of this Conclusion is The 19. Article doth not teach that the Church is invisible But that is a private opinion of some and so he doth interpret himselfe Appeale p. 133. This Conclusion is nothing to his purpose if he will shew his agreement with the Church of England he must shew vs a record for this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made For so saith he number 1. 4. Your antecedent is false Church and visible in that definition cannot be convertible termes For they are not predicated one of another Secondly both of them make the subiect part of that definition The terme Church bâ—ing the thing defined is restrained vnto a speciall notion by the word visible 3. Termes convertible are adequate in their essence so are not these Church and visible for visibilitie is but an adiunct vnto the Church Your Consequence is also naught for as your selfe confesse Appeale p. 134. It is a position drawn out from the 19. Article that there is a Church of Christ invisible And indeed so it is for to say the Church is visible is to grant the Church is also invisible els how can there be a divided member vnto visible He labours to shew wherein the Church is invisible p. 135. But I leaue that because it is nothing to the point in hand as I haue shewed The proposition in question is set downe num 4. 6 which is denied to be true and that vpon good ground for God hath never promised to his Church any such freedome libertie and outward estate in the world that it should be able at all times to heare complaints and determine of them Neither doth this freedome and glorious outward estate belong to the nature of a visible Church in the sentence of the Church of England which hath bounded the totall adequate nature of the visible Church within shorter limits And indeed who would be so grossely mistaken as to thinke that the Catholike Church hath no being in the world vnlesse it be in case to meet joyntly together in one court to make lawes that shall bind the whole Church in matters of faith and manners It stood him vpon to proue that proposition num 5. viz. There ever was c. to be true for if it be false then the Church cannot be Iudge in Divinitie Controversies because the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies extendeth vnto and is present at all times to determine all controversies in faith and manners that shall arise in any time But this he hath not done He hath not so much as one sentence peece of a sentence or word that may tend to proue this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made In his Appeale p. 135. he bestoweth much labour to proue that The Church is alwayes visible First by reasons then by authorities of Doctor Feild Doctor Humfryes Doctor Willet Bishop Morton Bishop Iewell Doctor White with many vaunts much confidence in their authoritie concluding that they are ignorant malicious or factious that thinke otherwise But all in vaine for that was never denied nor never in question between the Church of Rome and any others If another did thus he would call it a man of straw of his owne making and tell him he shot his boult at it when he had done and such like termes But I pardon him the fault I perceiue it is his Custome to proue what all men grant and to take for granted what is denied he cannot leaue it Therefore I leaue this and passe to the next But I make too much hast I find an argument in his Appeale p. 139. which may not be passed over in silence In these words and in this forme he setteth it downe The Church of Rome hath beene ever visible The Church of Rome is and ever was a true Church since it was a Church Therefore the true Church hath beene visible He chargeth that this be remembred that his friends doe Chew the Cud vpon it A good advice A necessary Caution I will as diligently obserue it as he lovingly gaue it I answer the Church of Rome is taken sometimes for one particular Church and other sometimes for all those also which joyne in faith with it In this place it is taken in the first sence otherwise the argument would be ridiculous That being so taken it is manifest This Syllogisme is false for the forme For The Conclusion thereof is vniversall thus The Church c. But it ought to be singular or indefinite thus Some true Church hath beene visible Perhaps he changed the Conclusion wittingly because if he had concluded thus he saw his Conclusion is nothing to purpose he ought to haue concluded The Catholike Church is perpetually visible as appeares num 12. And his Readers poore simple men had not skill enough to find out that fault well let vs chew this good stuffe a little more Let it be as he will take the conclusion as you find it yet the conclusion is nothing to the purpose For he ought to haue concluded what the Church shall be in all times to come The Church shall be visible He doth conclude what
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
determination of the Iudge of Controversies in faith p. 54. They teach that men must beleeue nothing but that which the Church teacheth by the Church they meane themselues who are their teachers p. 39. They tell vs that the rule of faith is that which the Church teacheth p. 47. 48. Therefore the Church of Rome hath changed that wherby the Church is knowne to be a Church Vnto these two he bringeth a third to this effect That Church wherein the foundation of the Church is changed ceaseth to be a true Church of Christ But in the Church of Rome the foundation of the church is changed For in it the rule of faith is changed which is the foundation of the Church And the Church is built vpon this foundation that is vpon the faith contained in the Scriptures Therfore the Church of Rome ceaseth to be a true church Vnto this testimony I may adde these three more viz. Doctor Reynolds in his Verses vpon the third conclusion handled in the Schooles Novemb. 3. 1579. Doctor Whitaker in his disputations of the Church quest 6. cap. 1. and Mr Perkins in his Prologue to the Reformed Catholike all which doe avouch our departure from the Church of Rome vpon paine of damnation It may be Mr Mountague will except against these three as incompetent to testifie against him for of the two first thus he saith Doctor Reynolds all his excellencie was in his reading Appeal p. 123. And of Doctor Whitaker he saith that he was a thorow man and an earnest promoter of novell opinions against other learned Divines Appeal p. 71. And of them all three that they were Puritans delighting in contention To which I answer These exceptions may truely be sentenced by Bishop Iewell in his reply vnto Master Hardings answer the 8. Article and the 1. division set downe in these words He as a man overmuch obedient vnto his affections breaketh vp his way with vnsavory and bitter talke and as a Cocke that is well pampered with Garlick before the fight he seeketh to overmatch his fellow rather with ranknesse of breath then with might of body But these Bookes will keepe that credit which was first given them by the principall Doctors of the severall Vniversities who allowed them for Printing and which since they haue gotten by the vse which the Church hath had of them which is sufficient against Mr Mountague whose Bookes were no sooner seene but they had an hundred to detest them for one of our Church which did like them but most of all in as much as they proue this their sentence on this manner by an Argument vsed by the Homilie aforesaid p. 428. That Church whose faith is erronious that must be avoyded But the Church of Rome is a Church whose faith is erronious Therefore the Church of Rome must be avoyded Which argument doth convince so evidently that I presume he will not except against any part thereof but if he doe there is sufficient in Mr Mountague himselfe besides other where to fortifie it against the same Thus he writeth Appeal p. 160. 161. The Scripture is our exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from an reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule From whence I thus argue They that reiect the exact and absolute rule of faith and manners their faith is erronious For Their faith is an aberration from the Scriptures the rule of faith And that aberration is error in points of faith Appeal p. 7. But the Pope that is the Church of Rome doth reiect that rule of faith Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious Secondly thus They whose faith dissenteth from the rule of faith their faith is erronius For Error in points of faith is against the rule of faith Appeal p. 7. But the faith of the Pope that is of the Church of Rome dissenteth from the rule of faith For It proposeth things as to be beleeved against that rule Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious If he reply that all this is to be vnderstood of some points of faith not of all of some part of the rule not of the whole I rejoynd his words are without limitation or distinction thus The Pope doth dissent from and reiect the rule of faith And giue this for proofe namely in that it Proposeth any thing as against that rule Againe faith is one as himselfe truely affirmes Appeal p. 43. and the rule of faith is one as faith it selfe is one These things are evident I need not bring further proofe for them All which being duely considered I doubt not but even Mr Mountague himselfe will giue sentence That The Church of Rome hath not the essence and being of a true Church One thing more in this question must be remembred Thus he writeth Appeal p. 83. This proposition We must for ever vpon paine of damnation dissent from the Church of Rome in all things and haue no peace at all with them Is a strange Bugbeare I answer the sence hereof must be first had before the truth can be judged of By Bugbeare is meant a fiction or pretence vsed vnto Infants to keepe them in awe and they are so vsed by the way of dalliance because Infants haue not the vse of reason and thereby are vncapable of government by meanes that are of a higher nature they that cannot judge of truth nor taste of substance must be led with shews and fed with fancies It may be doubted whether this was his meaning or not perhaps his words are extended beyond his intent may some man say vnto whom I answer he meant to say no lesse then thus and I find it by himselfe In his Preface to the Reader before his Gagg a little after the beginning he bringeth his adversary saying There is no salvation to Protestants which he doth call terrible shawe-fowle to skare poore soules that haue not the facultie of discerning cheese from chalke horrible affrights tâ— put yong children out of their wits that cannot distinguish a visnomie indeed from a visor Where he giues the same sence to shawe-fowle that I giue here to Bugbeare which two words signifie the same thing according to himselfe in the place last alledged And thus stands the case with the Church of England and these graue and learned men whose words and proofes I haue alledged and all other of our Church to whom they haue written in this sentence of Maister Mountague But this is an imputation more odious then humane eares can beare with Patience What Is our Church a dallier with her children and that in a matter in nature so high Of consequence so great Doth shee sport her selfe befoole her children with Gods Word and their salvation Are all her children such silly Infants that for want of true reason must be governed by shadows No marvaile though his Diocesan fares no better where his Mother speeds so ill
thing more fully in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 15. num 20. he writeth thus Mans will cannot haue any connaturall power which by its nature is a worker of a supernaturall act either as a totall or partiall cause but when the creature doth so worke it worketh as an instrument of God although it worketh by his owne entitie yet notwithstanding not out of a force naturall but obedientall This addition I make by his owne authoritie for he doth professe in his Appeal p. 90. that he takes the foresaid explication from Pontificians I answer All this labour might haue beene spared because it helpeth the matter nothing at all It makes it more obscure then before Every man can vnderstand what you meane when you say the will doth worke by the naturall force but when you say the entitie of the will doth worke by a supernaturall force elevation and actuation he will be to seeke of your meaning Moreover this explicatioÌ„ doth take away the free vse of the free facultie which you contend for or leaue mans will to worke by the naturall force of the created facultie which is the thing you would thrust off and I shew it thus This elevation and actuation if by grace is either a morall or a physicall worke if physicall then the will is determined vnto one the free vse of the facultie is abridged and restrained for this worke of grace is previall in nature and causalitie and truely efficient vpon the will before it be applyed vnto operation in the second act If it be morall then the will doth worke of the naturall force therof because the morall worke of grace is no more but a perswasion offered to the vnderstanding and resteth there It hath no influence vnto nor reflection vpon the will which is vncapable of Iudging of truth and falshood onely it cannot will any obiect but that which the vnderstanding sayth is good which connexion between the vnderstanding and the will is naturall no worke of grace To conclude two propositions may be inferred from this explication 1. Man doth not produce supernaturall acts by the force of his created facultie 2. Man hath no free-will in supernaturall acts You are at your choice if you haue the first you haue the second if you take the second you grant the thing in question If you deny the second you must deny the first and thereby you defend a sentence which Molina doth accurse vnto hell de Concor in q. 14. art 13. disp 40. Nostra itaque c. The tenth and last sayth Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of grace I answer to procure may signifie the act of an efficient either morall by the way of merit or physicall by the way of reall influence into the effect In both these senses this tenth proposition is false and the Church of Rome hath decreed sess 6. cap. 8. the grace of Iustification cannot be merited much lesse will any be so voyd of pietie as to say man can compell God to giue him grace but what ever his meaning be here it must be observed mans hand is the next cause of a supernaturall act vnto preventing grace and the putting thereof forth is attributed vnto man himself which is a large doctrine of free-will as I haue shewed in the former part of this Chapter num 4. Far exceeding the limits of the Councell of Trenâ— sess 6. cap. 5. 6. Which joyneth grace and mans will alwayes together in his preparation and assigneth adiuvating grace between preventing and cooperating which sheweth his consent with Arminius in those grosse points which the Church of Rome durst not Patronize CHAP. IX The point of Iustification Mr Mountague Man hath a double estate of sinne wherein he was borne produced in life and action acquisite renewed according to the spirit gagg p. 141. In the first state he is not Iust p. 141. To Iustifie hath a 3. fold extent To make Iust To make more Iust To declare or pronouÌ„ce Iust p. 140 Iustification properly is in the first sence gagg p. 142. 144. A sinner is then Iustified when he is made Iust That is translated from state of nature to state of grace as Colos 1. 13. Who hath delivered vs from the power of darknesse and hath translated vs c. Which is motion as they say betwixt two termes And Consisteth in forgiuenes of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily Both the act of Gods spirit in man p. 142. 143. In the state of Grace a man is Iust when he is changed which must haue concurrence of owâ— things Privation of being to that which was the body of sinne Wherein A new constitution vnto God in another state Of grace whereto In which he that is altered in state changed in condition transformed in mind renued in soule regenerate and borne a new to God by grace is Iust in the state of Iustification p. 141. To speake properly God onely Iustifieth who alone imputeth not sinne and createth a new heart within vs. The soule of man is the subiect of this act In which vnto which are necessarily required certaine preparations and previous dispositions to the purpose As knowledge of God c. feare hope contrition loue desire of purpose for a new life and such like But these are all with and from faith The principall indowment of grace may worthily be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian piâ—tie Faith gagg p. 143. 144. The Church of Rome The Iustification of a sinner is a translation from that state in which man was borne a sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace Concil Trent sess 6. cap. 4. Iustification it selfe is not onely remission of sinnes but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts from whence a man is made Iust of vniust cap. 7. There is required on mans part that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his owne will vnto the obtaining the grace of Iustification can 9. Man is disposed vnto the iustice of Iustification By faith feare hope loue begun some hatred and detestation of sinne a purpose to be baptized to begin a new life and to keepe Gods coÌ„mandements cap. 6. We are sayd therefore to be Iustified by faith because faith is the beginning foundation and roote of every Iustification cap. 8. Cap. 10. It decreeth that Iustification receiud is increased The Church of England That we are Iustified by faith onely is a most wholsome doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homilie of Iustification Arti 11. To be washed from sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin is that IustificatioÌ„ or righteousnes which S. Paul speaketh of when he sayth No man is justified by the workes of the Law The forgiuenesse of sinnes and trespasses is that righteousnesse which is taken accepted and allowed of God for our profit and
full Iustification 1. Sermon of salvation a little after the beginning There is nothing vpon the behalfe of man concerning his Iustification but onely a true and liuely faith 1. Sermon of Salvation a little before the end CHAP. X. The Doctrine deliuered in the former Chapter is argued THere be three things in it inquirable 1 Whether this proposition A sinners Iustification consisteth also in grace infused be true or not 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of England or not I haue set downe Mr. Mountagu his doctrine touching this point which containeth many propositions and because it might appeare how farre he agreeth with the Church of Rome I bring but one of them to be disputed because if this be foūd false against the doctrine of the Church of England then all the rest will be found false likewise and I desire to contract the disputation vnto the narrowest scantling That that first proposition is false doth manifestly appeare by the answers made vnto the disputations of Thomas Vega Soto Bellarmine Suarez Vasques and others that doe maintaine the same To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needlesse because there is nothing brought to proue it That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in euery one of his propositions is manifest to the full The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set downe also in the former Chapter will shew it And that not onely in the Iustice that doth concurre vnto Iustification and all other things which depend thereupon but also in the nature and being of the remission of sinnes as shal be declared no. 23 c. Which must be obserued because it is a matter of great importance it is little obserued and maketh vp his agreement with them and his disagreement with the Church of England in euery part and parcell of this point teaching in all things as they doe in nothing as the Courch of England doth That he doth disagree from the Church of England the very reading of the doctrine of them both set downe in the last Chapter will declare Our Church placeth our whole Iustice and adequate nature of Iustification in remission of sinnes he placeth it also in grace infused It maketh remission of sinnes one thing he another as shall bee shewed hereafter no. 26. c. Notwithstanding all which euidence he laboureth in his Appeale pag. 168. and 188. to perswade the world that He consenteth not with the Church of Rome nor dissenteth from the Church of England But all his labour is in vaine the contradictory will proue true as this discourse will declare He pleadeth for himselfe two things First by grace infused hee meant and intended onely concommitanter that is grace concurreth with remission of sins in a iustified man pag. 168. 169. 170. Secondly in that description hee went not punctually to worke but described Iustification at large for that act of God of remission of sins and the necessary and immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that Appeale pag. 172. 178. He chargeth such as do not vnderstand that proposition in this sense with ignorant or wilfull mistaking his meaning or obstinate refusall of satisfaction Appeale pag. 168. 172. I answer All this is a faire shew put vpon a foule cause a meere pretence without shew of truth I will make it appeare first by my answers to the argumēts he brings to proue hee meant thus And then by proofes from the things themselues This was not his intent but his words must be vnderstood as they lie without interpretation His first argument p. 168. is to this effect I did attribute grace infused to Iustification secondarily Therfore I intēded grace infused is in a iustified man I answer This reason is reasonlesse There is no shew in the Consequence the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to thinke you meant so neither doe you shew how it should Againe your owne words doe proue you meant not that by the word secondarily but that grace infused doth constitute Iustification in a second notion For if Iustification be a motion between two termes the one of sinne wherein a man was the other of grace whereto a man is brought and that is the first this the second then grace doth constitute Iustification in a second notion but you teach the first Gagge pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be vnderstood to meane the last In the next place he telleth vs that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught that a man iustified is sanctified also I answer This proueth not that hee meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is iustified but supposeth that he did meane so and sheweth why hee did meane so therefore it is nothing to the purpose Besides it is vtterly false he had no purpose to say any such thing for the question then in hand was whether faith only doth iustifie which could not yeeld him any occasion to say Grace was in a iustified man they being two things euery way distinct and without the shew of affinity Againe neuer any Papist liuing did write or say that we denie a iustified man to be sanctified also therefore you had no occasion thus to say In the last place pag. 171. he hath these words If a iustified man bee also sanctified then might I allow one common word to containe expresse both the parts I answer 1. This supposeth he meant as hee pretendeth sheweth the reason why hee comprehended two things distinct in nature vnder one name but proues not that hee meant to say as hee pretendeth 2. He bestoweth much labour and spares for no cost to proue the first part of this reason but to no purpose for that was neuer denyed by any man in the Church of England nor in any other Church that ioyneth in faith with it But the consequence is vtterly false for these two parts are not essentiall vnto that whole which you call Iustification Therefore when you make one word to containe thē both the sentēce is vntrue disagreeable to art and a monster in nature He is vnskilfull that puts a childs-shooe vpon the foot of Hercules that addeth to the statue of a man the limmes of a beast and iust so doe you in this place if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification vnder the name of Iustification And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse and this too much too for of three things two of them are wholy besides the matter and voyd of truth in themselues the third disproued by his owne plaine testimony In the behalfe of the second part of his excuse hee saith page 172. Iustification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sinnes and largely for that act of God and the necessary immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that c and the like doth Caluine Perkins Beza I
said to the point it selfe will come afterwards when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed no. 31. § But how Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this point which hee harpeth so much vpon which doth also euidently shew that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point Wherefore I leaue it and proceed So confident is he in this fancied victory that from thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputation in these words If they meant no otherwise then thus as I conceiue they did not I see no reason to dissent from them There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereunto then to returne you your owne words Appeale â—ag 184. You cite no words name no place send me to no text page nor particulars by any direction that I may know where to finde what you intend a meere tricke of iugling companions Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent which I dare say will not downe nor digest with you aâ— opposing your conceit or rather dreame or wilfull peruerting the meaning of the Councell the which because I haue a fit time I will not let it alone till another Where you say If they meant your meaning is to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent where It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ Sess 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne into the state of grace cap. 4. That you referre vs hither or vnto no other place in the Councell I take for granted Where you say if they meant no more but thus your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before viz. He that is iustified is also regenerate Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part I let passe the consequence of your proposition and come to your assumption which must bee set downe in these words But the Councell of Trent in these places Sess 6. c. 3. and 4. c. meaneth no more but that a iustified man is also sanctified Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring vs the proofe of it in these words As I conceiue they did not Now all parts of the argument are set right I answer to it The assumption is false yea so odiously false as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese or that had conscience to declare the truth when hee vnderstood it This might be made to appeare by diuers passages in the Councell of Trent but I will content my selfe onely with these three 1 Sanctification is by grace infused Iustification it selfe is sanctification Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent cap. 7. In which 1. it speaketh of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters 2. By Iustification it selfe it meaneth the quidditie essence and being of Iustification both which are manifest of themselues they need no proofe And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused is likewise as certaine 2 The onely formall cause of Iustification is the very being thereof Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iustification Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iustification The proposition is a principle in nature and agreed vpon for truth therefore may not be questioned The assumption is the expresse words of the Councell of Trent in the 7. Chapter 3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification then it is by remission of sins onely excluding grace infused But the being of Iustification is not by remission of sinnes onely excluding grace infused Therfore the being of Iustification is by grace infused The consequence of the proposition is so necessary that it cannot be questioned The assumption is the words of the couÌ„cel c. 7. caÌ„ 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption he will supply by the proofe thereof which forsooth is his owne conceit he conceiued they meant not otherwise than thus therfore you must coÌ„ceiue so to Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 178. Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so nay because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded he said it did not so much as seeme white vnto him Your opinions are your owne you will opine what formerly you haue thought so doe for me and there an end But I cannot so let it passe because you keepe not these conceits at home but so much are you filled with them that you must needs vent them or burst And you cannot bee contented with that but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you and more then so wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome in the point of Iustification that haue dissented for many ages till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world Therefore vnto his conceit I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen that haue liued in the Church of Rome till the Councell of Trent all agreeing in this one sentence Grace infused is essentiall vnto Iustification And shall we thinke the Councell of Trent would determine against theÌ„ Surely no Besides the Councell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order Peter Lombard Richard Altisiodore Albert and Alexander the Predecessors of Thomas not attaining thereunto yet consented with him in this thing Since the Councell of Trent all on that side without exception doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustification in grace infused I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares deliuering their iudgments singly and afterwards decreeing the same in a Councell ioyntly and last of all the same decree so interpreted and defended vniuersally but I leaue it and conclude in his owne words Appeale p. 248. You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the question but scumme vpon the surface and gibberish you cannot tell for what And thus much is enough and too much to haue said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustification In which also I wil content my selfe
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
it be said some haue taught as M. Mountagu doth I answer it hath beene in a corner then He that did so Crept in at the window neither shepheard nor sheepe knew it If Mr. Mountagu will be one of them he may be for me I enuy not his happinesse nor will follow his course To conclude this argument M. Mountagu in this point agreeth with the Church of Rome in another point of their erronious faith The Councell of Trent hath decreed thus The grace of Iustification is bestowed by the Sacraments and that vnto all c. sess 7. can 4. 7. 8. The Sacrament of baptisme is the instrument all cause of Iustification without which no man is iustified sess 6. cap. 7. And this faith of the Church of Rome is explicated and defended by Bellarmine as in other places so in these 1 Of the Sacraments in generall lib. 2. cap. 3. 2 Of Baptisme in speciall lib. 1. cap. 11. Quarto proposâ—tio c. and cap. 12. Veri effectus c. Mr. Mountagu saith Euery child baptised is put thereby into the state of grace and saluation Iust as they doe And thus much for this argument and all the rest which hee pretendeth to take from the authenticall records of the doctrine of the Church of England He bringeth others from the testimonies of singular men liuing in our Church which indeed doe not deserue answer but because hee hopeth by them to helpe a lame dog ouer the stile and to vphold a cause ready to fall I will propound and examine them The first whereof is set downe Appeale pag. 28. in this forme They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew composed agreed ratified iustified and subscribed the Articles and penned the Homilies But all these haue and do assent to falling from grace Therefore the learnedst in the Church of England assent therein I answer this Sylogisme is false the middle terme is predicated in the proposition and subiected in the assumption it ought to be thus framed They that composed c. Did assent c. They that composed c. Were the learnedst c. Therefore some that were the learnedst c. Did assent I answer the assumption is a vaunt of his bragging veine and more then the parties themselues would assume or he can proue he knoweth not who composed them c. they were dead long before he was borne and there is no record of their names The proposition is false neither the Articles nor Homilie doe teach falling from grace as my answers thereunto doe plentifully witnesse His second argument of this kind is in Appeale pag. 31. set downe in these words 1 It was the Tenet of Doctor Ouerall That a Iustified man might fall away from grace and thereby incurre Gods wrath and was in state of damnation vntill he did recouer againe and was renewed after his fall 2 Which opinion was resolued of and auowed for true Catholike ancient and Oxthodoxe by the Royall reuerend honourable and learned Synode at the Conference at Hampton Court 3 The booke of the proceedings is extant which will auerre all that I say for truth against you here See the I answer I thinke he would inferre from hence I am sure hee should inferre Therefore some of the learnedst in the Church of England do maintaine falling from grace The antecedent hath three branches the third is a proofe of the two first The first branch is false I haue read the booke which reporteth Doctor Overalls opinion in pag. 41. and 42 in these words The called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election might and did sometime fall into grieuous sinnes and thereby into the present state of wrath yet They did neuer fall either totally From all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seed thereof Nor finally From Iustification But were renewed You report him to say they fell into the state of damnation which importeth a falling totally The booke reporteth him denying falling totally or finally The second branch is also false the book hath not a word that reporteth any confirmation of the opinion of Doctor Ouerall His happe was hard that amongst so many words he could not light vpon one true one and his face very audatious that durst affirme a falshood for truth against the light of the noone-day He talketh of conscience and honesty and Cheuerell and I know not what Hee must tell vs vnder which of those heads this allegation shall be ranged for he hath best skill in such language the allegation it selfe standeth vnder the censure of the reader and the allegator at the barre of the Almighty therefore I leaue this and passe to the next Hitherto I haue spoken to the matter vrged in the two arguments now must I say a word or two touching the conclusion of them both which saith Some of the learnedst c. Vnto which I haue these two things to say first he getteth nothing though it were granted him He ought to proue The Church of England teacheth his falling from grace Which will not follow vpon his conclusion because those learnedst he speaketh of may be a faction prevailing in the Church of England Secondly his intent is to say all the learned in the Church of England doe maintain falling from grace for he saith Ap. p. 28. Many in the Church of England reputed learned are of opinion Grace cannot bee lost which is as much as if hee said they haue the name of learning but haue none indeed all the learned say as I say Which sentence is a most vaine idle and insulting brag If all were vnlearned that deny falling from grace then I hope Mr Mountagu is learned that affirmes the losse of grace and that dareth sentence them all for want of learning that deny falling from grace but how learned hee is let this whole disputation shew wherein you shall finde great plenty of notorious faults against learning as false Sylogismes loose consequences notorious false premisses impertinent conclusions false allegations propositions contrary in their parts headlesse diuisions manifest contradictions a nosegay of some of them I doe here present you Thus he writeth The Church of England leaueth the question touching falling from grace at liberty vnto vs Gagge page 158. The question touching falling from grace is vndecided in the Church of England Gagge p. 171. The consented resolued and subscribed Articles of the Church of England nor yet the Booke of common Prayer and other diuine offices doe not put any tye vpon me to resolue in this question touching falling from grace Appeale page 26. Contrary whereunto he writeth as followeth That man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England Appeale page 31. That a man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England deliuered publikely positiuely and declaratorily in authenticall records Appeale page 36. The Church of England it selfe hath directly and in expresse words taught that a
iustified man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God Appeale page 59. The Church of England holdeth and teacheth punctually that a man may fall from grace Appeale page 73. It is the Doctrine of the Church of England that a man iustified may fall away from grace Ap. p. 89. And when he had belaboured himselfe almost out of breath to proue that falling from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England the Ancients and the Scriptures he concludeth in these words I doe not say more then I am vrged to doe by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles and Doctrine publikely professed and established in our Church Appeale page 37. Other faire flowers that argue him one of the learnedst in the Church of England might bee collected hither but I content my selfe with these because the Reader may finde them in their owne places His last argument in this matter is set downe Appeale page 36. in these words Your prime leaders haue vnderstood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I haue reported it and accordingly they haue complained against it I answer it is very likely hee would conclude from hence Therefore you must so vnderstand it also I let passe his bitternesse for that hurteth none that thinke not of it The Doctrine of the Church of England is vnderstood according to the primary sense and meaning thereof and sometimes also in a forced interpretation some haue complained of and obiected against this latter and so farre I grant this whole reason and good reason they had too for so doing It becommeth the Pastors people of the Church of England to discouer detect the corruptors of their faith But against the first neuer any excepted neither is there any reasō why Take the words of our Church as they lie force them not to serue a turne and they are familiar to vnderstanding and of a manifest truth And thus haue I dispatched all his arguments whereby he thinkes to proue falling from grace to be the Doctrine of the Church of England In the next place commeth his proofes to bee examined which he produceth to proue that a man may fall from grace Of which he hath no small store in his Gagge from page 159. to page 165. wherein hee hath followed Bellarmine de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. step by step omitting nothing that is of any force nor adding any thing that can supply any defect in Bellarmine Hee borroweth of him so much as his confidence in the plentie and perspecuity of diuine testimony Bellarmine saith Quod attinet c. The testimonies of Scripture are so many and so cleere that it is to be admired how it could come into the minde of a man to say Grace could not be lost Mr. Mountagu saith The Scripture speaketh plaine that a man may fall from grace Gagge page 161. Falling from grace is fully cleared and resolued in Scripture Gagge page 165. The Scripture is expresse for falling from grace Appeale page 36. I will giue answer to all the allegations produced let them be Bellarmines or Mr. Mountagues or whosoeuer else Truth may be defended against any opposer The whole multitude of their allegations may be reduced vnto two Sylogismes the former whereof standeth thus If euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity then he that hath grace may lose that grace For The most righteous man liuing cōtinually doth or may mortally transgresse Where mortall sin is committed God is disobeyed Where God is disobeyed he will not abide Where he wil not abide grace cannot consist Where grace cannot consist it must needs be lost Gagge page 161. But euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Therefore he that hath grace may lose that grace I answer the words righteous and righteousnesse in this argument must be taken for the act not the habit and he doth so vnderstand it I take as granted This being so the assumption is true and needs no proofe yet notwithstanding hee alleadgeth many places of Scripture as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. Iohn cap. 15. 2. Matth. cap. 24. 12. Rom. cap. 11. 20. 21. 1 Tim. cap. 6. 20. cap. 1. 18. 19. cap. 4. Gal. cap. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. Heb. cap. 6. 4. and he concludeth that infinite are the testimonies of Scripture to the purpose that these speake vnto All which may be applyed vnto the assumption of this reason and cannot bee applyed to any other sentence neither doe they affirm any more but this viz. euery righteous man may and some doe omit holy actions and commit sinne in the actuall disobedience to Gods law Then hee addeth diuers examples of righteous men that neglected their obedience to Gods law and committed actuall sinne Which must be referred vnto the proofe of the latter part of the assumption and can belong to no other by which it is manifest that all this goodly shew and bumbasted brag of infinite places of Scripture all teaching falling from grace at the last commeth to no more but what euery man will grant and being granted will profit him nothing hee is not thereby one hayre the neerer to this conclusion A man may lose the habit of grace For The consequence of the proposition is naught and the proofe thereof false in many branches thereof auowed onely vpon his owne word without the least shew or pretence of proofe Surely this man meant not sincerely when hee vndertooke to proue that which no man did euer deny but takes as granted and leaues vnproued that which all men doe deny that ioyne not in faith with the Church of Rome That it may appeare I say true I will giue you an account of some faults in the consequence of the proposition and proofe thereof The consequence of the proposition dependeth vpon this sentence The habit of grace departeth from him that actually disobeyeth Gods law If this sentence be true his consequence is good if it be false the consequence is naught the latter part doth not follow vpon the former but this sentence the habit of grace c. is most false as will appeare To make it seeme true in the proofe of his consequence he doth first distinguish of sinne and then telleth vs what kinde of sinne it is that maketh grace depart Lastly hee giueth a reason why that departeth through this but how truely this is affirmed and substantially proued we shall see in the next passage The first branch of his proofe saith Euery righteous man may or doth sinne mortally In which sentence he taketh two things as granted 1 Some sinnes are mortall some veniall and not mortall 2 A man habituated by sanctitie may commit mortall sinne I answer if by mortall hee meant no more but sinne tending and conducing vnto damnation it would not be denyed him that sinne is mortall but thus
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
and doctrine goe together we agree So that the question is not what may bee giuen them Gagg p. 319. These words as they lye be voyd of sense they containe neither affirmation nor negation they bring nothing that is affirmed of or denied vnto to speak formally they haue neither subiect predicate nor vinculum If this word your be added vnto the words practice and doctrine and the word then bee put before the words we agree then that sentence may bee vnderstood but he will not abide him that shall doe so for he rageth against him that shall doe so Appeale p. 256. c. Whether those words be added or no his agreement with the Church of Rome doth sufficiently shew it selfe in them for 1. these words are spoken vnto the Church of Rome with whom he hath this present disputation for in the former part of this discourse he saith vnto them Whatsoeuer you say c. In your practice c. So that it is all one as if he had said Let your practice and doctrine goe together c. 2. By doctrine hee meaneth all the doctrine of their Church for he speaketh of doctrine without limitation and thereby extendeth his agreement with them in their whole doctrine touching Images which is further confirmed by saying the question betweene him and them is not what may be giuen them Which is as much as if he said I consent vnto their whole doctrine 3. By the doctrine of their Church he must vnderstand the decree of the Councell of Trent for their Church hath no other doctrine but that the rest is opinions of singular men so that his sentence now set downe is as if he had said I agree with the Councell of Trent in the point of Images Now the Councell of Trent hath decreed in the place alledged that The honour to bee giuen to Images is kissing of them vncouering the head and bowing downe before them Which must be vnderstood to be Mr Mountagu his sentence also Notwithstanding all this plaine euidence yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome because The ignorant amongst them giue them honour due vnto God and the learned amongst them as Thomas by name and others with him perswade that as much honour is to bee giuen to a woodden Crucifix as to Christ himselfe in heauen For thus he writeth and in this hee putteth the difference betweene himselfe and them Gagge page 299. and 319. I answer this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome for the one instance alleadged is matter of fact and hath not to doe in this businesse which concernes onely the faith of their Church the other which is the sentence of Thomas is matter of opinion which the Councell hath not decreed and Bellarmine saith de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20. there be three opinions in their Church touching this thing whereof this of Thomas is but one so that we may conclude hee differeth from them in one opinion held by some amongst them and this is all hee saith and therefore for all this hee consenteth with them in matter of faith which is the thing wee seeke for I answer further It doth not appeare that hee doth dissent from them in this opinion neither For he yeeldeth honour vnto Images Gagge page 318. but doth not shew vs what is the nature thereof whereby wee might bee able to discerne the difference of that honour which he giues from that which they giue If it be replyed the Councell giueth little honour to Images and that which Thomas giueth is the main and chiefe thing to be blamed I answer that honour which the Councell giueth is falsely giuen and is a matter of faith which we may not receiue for euery false faith is an addition to the diuine reuelation If you aske whether hee agreeth with the Church of England or not Hee will answer he doth agree with it and doth affirme so much in effect Gagge page 318. 319. but it is a meere pretence without shew of truth hee can alleadge no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England which appointeth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set vp in Churches or that any kinde of honour should be done vnto them being set vp there or which assigneth vnto them any vse in religion much lesse that they should be helpes of piety c. The case being such it was a face without a face that said wee and Protestants doe them all Gagge page 318. The very truth is he doth contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England in some of these positions directly and in other some by necessary consequence and I proue it thus The Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies is the Doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke it selfe and the vse thereof is established by publike authority and the subscription of all Ministers Artic. 35. But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies Therefore he doth contradict c. The assumption or second part will bee apparent to him that readeth the words on both sides set downe in the former Chapter It saith Idoll and Image is the same thing and alleadgeth the vse of Scripture for it He saith Image and Idoll may be two things that is are not one It saith Images may not be brought into Churches and that being there they bee vnlawfull and intollerable He saith they may bee brought into Churches they are not vnlawfull and are sometimes profitable all which are direct contradictions affirming what it denieth and denying what it affirmeth Lastly if Images may not be brought into Churches then may they not be imployed in religion for helpes of piety the instruction of the ignorant and the stirring vp of deuotion c. for these are more then that because Images in Churches may bee for ornament or for no vse The Homilie doth deny the placing of Images in Churches therefore it must also deny them to be helpes vnto piety c. now he teacheth contradictory to this in making Images helpes vnto piety therefore hee doth contradict that which followeth vpon the words of the Homilie by necessary consequence Let vs see how he will auoid this obiection and for that end thus he saith Appeale page 260. I admit the Homilies to containe godly exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions of our Church or Doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point I answer in the 12. Chapter no 8. hee extold the Doctrine of the Homilie as an authenticall record of the Doctrine of the Church of England In this place he denies them to containe the dogmaticall resolutions of our Church so constant is hee and so settled in his iudgement Let vs take what he will admit which we finde to be three things first they are exhortations secondly godly thirdly To bee propugned and subscribed in some things I require no more Exhortations they are that
Rome cals voluntary workes workes of supererogation Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome as I haue shewed out of Bellarmine n o 1. Therefore the Church of England and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantasticall 2 O Mr Mountagu who doe you make your selfe to be doe you know the faith of Rome better then your Mother nay better then your selfe you subscribed that Article and thereby professed those words of her to bee true is the other end of your tongue turned outwards that you now vnsay what you said then did you then know and now are ignorant But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and your selfe doe you thinke to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fooles that vnderstand not their owne faith but you would bee thought farre from this therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts 3 The proposition doth suppose that Workes laid vp in store to satisfie for other mens offences called the treasure of the Church are the Papists workes of supererogation And so hee speaketh expresly Gagge page 103. 105. 106. 〈◊〉 this is a meere presumption without truth auouched barely vpon his owne word without tendring any proofe You must proue what you say or else you bring words of the wind Against you I proue thus 1 That which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others is not workes but the value and price of workes viz. satisfaction Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Propos 4 Propos cap. 3. 1 Propos Therefore that which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others cannot be their works of supererogation But let vs suppose that the voluntary workes themselues be so laid vp yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation and thus I shew it If voluntary workes laid vp in the treasury of the Church be therefore their works of supererogation then works done according to Moses Law are also their works of supererogation for the satisfaction arising froÌ„ them is also laid vp in the treasury of the Church to satisfie for other as Bellarmine teacheth de Indulg lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo non est But that works done according to the Morall Law are not their works of supererogation I take as granted Of his agreement or disagreement with the church of England in the point of voluntary works you need not make a question for if you will beleeue him The Church of England Hath no doctrine against Euangelicall counsels Gag page 103. For now voluntary works and euangelicall counsells are the same as wee haue heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad c. and as himselfe doth expound it out of Philastrius and Nazianzen Gag p. 10. But this imputation is an vntruth so â—oule that it deserueth no other answer but his owne words Blush for shame Gagg p. 250. For the Church of England saith expresly Voluntarie workes besides ouer and aboue Gods commandements cannot be taught Arti. 14. And further it saith Man cannot for Gods sake doe more then of bounden duty is required which is as much as if it had said There be no voluntary workes at all But it may be he will say yee doe him wrong hee speaketh not absolutely but so farre as he knoweth I answer Those are his words indeed but marke the sense those words seeme to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his deniall for is it credible that he could not read this Article Or that hee did not know 1. That the Church of England had made this Article 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those workes indeed which it doth deny in words Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Surely none of these may bee conceiued Therefore we may conclude as a thing very probable that his intent was to auouch that denyall vpon his owne knowledge Now the Iudgement of our Church and of Master Mountagu in the point of voluntary workes is fully known that they are contradictory it may be concluded he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary workes But before I passe from it one thing is worthy observation viz. Mr. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories He subscribed the Article that saith there is no voluntary workes and he subscribed that there is voluntary works Gagg p. 103. c. Can any man tell what this man would doe to bee Chiefe muftie I doubt himself cannot But pardoÌ„ him his ends were contrary He must subscribe the Article or misse aduancement He must subscribe the other or be no reconciler He meant to attaine both Hee hath gotteÌ„ the first he professeth himself for the second Appeale pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his bookes therefore it was reason he should subscribe on both sides In the first he subscribed to what protestants are in the second to what they ought to be I should now come to dispute the question whether A man may doe voluntary workes Wherein I might first proue the negatiue but it seemeth better to resolue with M. Mountagu Appeale pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seeeke or goe about to beetle it into his braines because he saith Appeale pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion there are Euangelicall counsels And hee resolueth Appeale pag. 224. to ioyne in opinion with them And he giues this reason for it Appeale p. 240. I am tyed not to preach or publish otherwise according to the Cannons prescribed vnto Ministers in such cases Anno 1571. Knowing it to be the resolued doctrine of antiquitie as I doe I am not excusable if I transgresse the Cannons But notwithstanding because hee may change his mind therefore I will proceed and proue There be no voluntary workes My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleadged n o 6. c. Whose authoritie onely ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu because hee hath subscribed those words of the Article as true and hath vowed to forsake all others and follow his mother the Church of England Appeale pag. 183. And the rather because those words doe so plainely and fully deny voluntary workes My second argument shall bee the same which I find in the Article on this sort to be framed Whosoeuer teacheth voluntary workes they be proud arrogant and impious For saith the Article Voluntary workes cannot be taught without pride arrogancy and impietie But no man may be proud arrogant and impious Therefore voluntary workes may not be taught It may be obiected that the first part of this reason is extended too far because it reacheth vnto antiquitie And also it doth passe too hard a sentence vpon such as teach voluntarie workes I answer both parts of this obiection be false and the respect we owe vnto the first composers and confirmers of that Article doth bind vs to thinke so for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu and gouerne their passions
is no other but them So as what you said there and what you say here ouerthroweth each other If it be them it is not these If it be these it is not them If our 17 Article in your sight hath no more but these then you see our Church doth define Predestination onely by the generall nature efficient cause and subiect matter for your fiâ—e propositions no 15. containe them onely but you dare not say you did see our Church so defining Predestination for then you professe to see a fault in our doctrine not to bee excused seeing that the nature of euery thing is set out by the speciall and formall being and end thereof not by the efficient materiall cause without them But you may not so professe for you say Our Church hath gone on in this point of Predestination warily and in great wisedome and prudence Appeale pag. 59. Besides it is most iniurious and an imputation most false Our Church hath defined Predestination in that 17 article by all the causes whereby it existeth as I haue shewed no 5. 6. which course is most agreeable to art if wee may beleeue Thomas 2 dist 27. q. 1. ar 2. ad 9. And it also hath explicated each cause to make the difinition familiar and easie vnto vnderstanding therefore we must conclude you did see more in the 17 Article then you will acknowledge If you could not see more in the 17 Article then you professe to see then you can scumme vpon the surface but not diue into the depth then haue you no cause to despise the capacitie of other men as poore nor to vaunt of your owne as able to worke wonders seeing there is more in the Article then you can see as hath beene shewed you Thus farre of your reasons to excuse your selfe of disagreeing and dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Predestination and for my answers thereunto by which I hope all doubts are so remoued that we may conclude The Church of England teacheth all otherwise in the point of Predestination then you doe Now wee should examine whether hee or our Church doe teach vs the truth in the point that wee may know which of them to follow but Master Mountagu seemeth to decline all search after that For he thus writeth You cannot relish any thing but Gods secrets you are neuer at quiet with the secrets of Gods Kingdome you can neuer let his Predestination alone that comfortable doctrine of election and reprobation is your continuall Theame It is good to be wise vnto sobriety Appeale p. 59. The sum of which words must needs be these Predestination is neither comfortable nor reuealed Therefore not to be disputed nor our common talke For that is wisdome vnto sobriety I answer The Church of England saith article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort And lest it should be doubted whether this be true or no our Church addeth a reason to confirme it in these words Because it doth establish their faith of saluation and feruently kindle their loue toward God Whether of them shall we beleeue Our Church or M. Mountagu Sâ—rely our Church is worthy of more credit For she passed her sentence with deliberation and vnpartially He with ill affection It confirmes the position with an experimented truth He with his bare word Such a dutifull child is worthy his mothers blessing that giues her the lie vpon his owne authoritie Predestination is reuealed to M. Mountagu else he would not speake of it so wise is he vnto sobrietie but it is not reuealed vnto vs for wee neuer came so neere vnto the spring head as hee hath done and indeed wee need not pretend reuelation to oppose vnto him we onely say shew vs diuine reuelation for your Predestination and wee beleeue it till then we reiect it as your own fantasie It is your boldnesse to meddle with Gods secrets or to deuise a predestination opposite to his reuelation He proceedeth with these words I professe I doe loue to meddle in nothing lesse then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination Appeale p. 60. I answer he must conclude from hence that Predestination must not be disputed Or else it is meere Gaggling If he doe thus dispute then haue wee a worthy disputation for wee haue nothing to guide vs but his owne president We must grant the consequent because the authoritie of the antecedent doth inforce it and good reason too for who would not loue and hate what hee loueth and hateth He saith our predestination is desperate I commend him for it By the last words he spake he gaue his mother the lye expresly She said is was comfortable He denyes it with a scoffe Now he saith it is desperate wherein he checks her also for our Predestination is deliuered in her words and conceiued according to her sense and true meaning as may appeare no 5. and 6. Hee scoffes at them that say the doctrine of Predestination is comfortable belike then to him it is not so But whether of these bee in better case whose iudgement may we follow our Churches or his To appeale to himselfe is a thing not equall Popular positions doe often erre priuate spirits are of weake assurance Appeale p. 8. Well then whither shall wee goe to be resolued in this point Vnto the publike Doctrine of the Church of England contained in the Booke of Articles c. he doth appeale for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England page 9. Agreed no better match no fitter Iudge Let the 17. Article speake It saith vnto such as feele the workes of their flesh mortified and their mindes drawne to heauenly things the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable But vnto persons that be curious carnall without the spirit of Christ Predestination is most dangerous for by it the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or vncleane liuing By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end and the inference is plaine and necessary Vnto the holy Predestination is comfortable If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine vnto thee then art thou carnall and without grace Mr. Mountagu is able to apply specially what our Church hath decreed vniuersally therefore I leaue that to himselfe and all other whom it may concerne contenting my selfe with a bare relation of our Churches iudgement He writeth further thus Our Church in the point of Predestination hath not determined specially Appeale page 59. of when how wherefore or whom Gagge page 179. I answer this sentence tends to the same purpose or nothing that the former did viz. to disswade from all search after the nature of Predestination If a man did not care what he said he might sort well with Mr. Mountagu there is no vntruth so apparent but some man dares aduenture to auouch it there is hardly a falshood to bee found more apparent then this sentence of his and thus I shew it Our
because I will auoyde all his suspition and imputation of faction and dissention I will alleadge the words and iudgment of other men not any of mine owne Bellarmine saith de grat lib. 2. cap. 9. after this sort No reason can be assigned on our part of Gods Predestination not onely merits properly so called but also the good vse of freewill or grace or both together foreseene of God yea also merit of congruity and condition without which he that is predestinated should not be predestinated For explication he saith further I adde On our part because on Gods part Cause may be assigned viz. In generall the declaration of his mercie and Iustice In particular God doth not want his reason why hee would predestinate vnto life this man rather then that although the same be hidden vnto vs. Thus farre Bellarmine This sentence he vndertaketh to proue in the tenth chapter following 1. by Scriptures 2. by the testimony of the Church 3. by reason founded vpon Scriptures and Fathers which hee beginneth thus Some out of mankinde are chosen vnto the Kingdome of Heauen 1. Effectually so as they come thereunto infallibly 2. Freely and before all foresight of works This proofe he makes good by the Scriptures in that chapter By the testimony of the Church in the 11. Chapter namely by the allegation of many particular testimonies and then in generall he saith All the Fathers esteemed of by the Church euen all of them without exception did manifestly teach this sentence after the heresie of Pelagius was begunne And also it was approued by the publike sentence of the Church Lastly he concludeth in these words This sentence ought to be esteemed not the opinion of some of the learned but the faith of the Chatholike Church He proues also the same doctrine of predestination by seuen reasons in the twelfth chapter euery one of them being no other but the application and accommodation of Scripture vnto the point and doth defend this sentence against opposition in the 13. 14. and 15 chapters following These testimonies of Bellarmine must bee allowed of by M. Mountagu for many reasons 1. Because hee is a Iesuit and Iesuites haue the preeminence for the present in the Church of Rome as himselfe informeth Appeale pag. 203. and Bellarmine was a man of better spirit then some of that society as himselfe auoucheth Appeale pag. 239. whom he doth there also professe to be ingenious and biddeth him well to fare He doth commend him and preferre him too before others saying Bellarmine is a man of as strong a braine and piercing apprehension as any new vpstart master in Israel of the packe Appeale p. 77. But it may be he will say Bellarmine is factious in this point I answer I will therefore fortifie Bellarmines testimony but not with the testimony of any other Iesuites though I might alleadge Suarez who is not only so full in this point as Bellarmine is but also doth exceed him in the explication and vrging thereof and that most frequently but I will forbeare that and only adde the Dominicans and because I will auoyd needlesse allegations I will content my selfe with Aluarez who in his booke de Auxiliis disp 37. n o 6. 9. c. Disp 120 n o 4. saith There can be no cause reason or condition on mans part assigned of Predestination but it is to be referred vnto the meere and vndeserued will of God Which he saith further is according to the Iudgement of Augustine approued of by many Popes and taken out of most euident testimonies of holy Scripture The testimonie of these two must needs be of great force vnto euery man that doth duely consider them because 1. They are our aduersaries whose testimony is of more waight then if they were friends 2. They are such aduersaries as purposely doe refuse to speake as we doe If then they concurre with vs in words and the thing it selfe then it is manifest the truth compels them for there is nothing else to induce them they want not euasions if any were to bee found for they are men of learning they haue parts of nature they are industrious themselues and are abundantly assisted by others neither are they ignorant that this their doctrin of predestinatiō is the opinion of Caluin To conclude this is a sentence not peculiar to themselues that is to the society of the Iesuits and the family of the Dominicans whereof they are but it is a doctrine vniuersally receiued by their learned as may appeare by Aluarez in the 37. disputation alleadged and Suaerez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 16. n o 7. and that which goes before onely some of them doe differ in the manner of handling it namely whether both grace and glory or grace onely bee thus freely predestinated Lastly it may bee truely esteemed the faith of the Councell of Trent also because that Councell knew it to bee the iudgement of Caluine whose sentence they meant to reproue in all things they could yet they decreed not a word against it and it is apparent they did not forget it because they spent so many yeares in that Councell which is a plaine argument they throughly considered all the differences betwixt them and Caluin Besides in the sixt Session and twelfth Chapter it decreeth against such as resolue with themselues that they are certainely in the number of the Predestinate iudging this to be the opinion of Caluin which is a plaine proofe that they forgot not Caluins opinion in the rest of his Doctrine touching Predestination I hope this proofe is sufficient to cleere this point from nouelty faction c. termes which it pleaseth Mr. Mountagu to giue it for what can bee more Writers ancient and latter Churches of Rome and ours agree in it confirm vrge it If this be nouelty faction puritanisme desperate detestable and horrible to the eares of pious men Mr. Mountagu is happy and his Dutchmen with him that haue chosen the contrary sentence but no reasonable man will beleeue it therefore I proceed His next flourish is in this sort The Lutherans detest and abhorre it Gagge p. 179. Strange though too true imputations are raised against it Odious things are inferred from it Appeale page 54. pressed to purpose and you cannot auoid to my poore vnderstanding their conclusions Appeale page 52. This discourse may serue to disgrace but not to disproue for hee assigneth no imputations nor consequents nor consequences nor antecedents in particular but speaks onely of such and onely auowes them vpon his owne affirmation and vnderstanding which are of little worth for his word is found false n o 11. 12. and himselfe saith his vnderstanding is poore Let him bring those particular imputations those consequents which hee saies are so odious and consequences which hee saith are so necessary and antecedents from which they flow let him shew what is imputed and vnto what and the world shall see he speakes neuer a true word Hee telleth vs of Rouing
Booke will finde If wee receiue these points of Popery hitherto discussed then must we receiue all the rest of the Popish faith for these are no truer then they nor are these receiued by any which doth not receiue them If wee receiue all Popery then wee giue place to the rabble of their Monkes and Friers c. where they are entertained great possessions much goods many people are seuered from the vse of the State and appropriated vnto the vse and benefit of the Pope and State of Rome by which meanes our owne State is much disabled to maintaine it selfe against forraigne opposers and a forraigne State inioyeth a great addition to defend it selfe and to offend yea to subiect ours vnto the will of the Pope and State of Rome which things I doubt not will be confessed on all hands to be no small danger to our State and this shall suffice for this time to shew the dangers that doe perpetually attend vpon this faith of Rome which you perswade vs to receiue You tell vs you are a Patriot equall to the best you shew vs wherein by saying thus I imbrace the totall doctrine and discipline of the Church of England and will maintaine it to bee ancient Catholike Orthodoxe and Apostolicall Appeale page 111. I trust to make good against any and all whosoeuer that the Church of England is so conformable vnto purest antiquity in the best times that none can be named in all points more conformable Appeale page 48. You must giue me leaue to answer hereunto in your owne words which I finde you haue written concerning some viz. You doe conforme onely for preferment hold with the Hare and runne with the Hound Appeale page 111. and 112. you are rotten at the core page 142. your goodly glozings and time-seruing colludings with the State are but like Watermen looking one way rowing another page 43. and 44. Your selfe at least cannot be offended with mee for applying those words of yours vnto your selfe for it is but Iustice to fill you in the same cup you haue filled vnto others Neither may it bee ill taken of any other for you may be of that number notwithstanding this protestation because that I may vse your owne words you must remember All your words are not Gospell Appeale page 272. Therefore vntill I may perceiue that you manifest what you protest by reall practice you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble in the point and would perswade men that you are not to bee distrasted that your selfe may feed fat vpon their folly Appeale page 222. I finde you also writing thus of some Your holy cause you see will not succeed by opposition therefore you come vp and seeme to close with the Church of England in her Doctrine and discipline but indeed you infuse secretly and instill cunningly a forraigne Doctrine pretended craftily to be our Churches so that aâ— length you may winde in forraigne discipline and the rest of forraigne Doctrine Appeale page 43. and 44. If you conceiue thus of others it is like enough you saw it first in your selfe for there is none so suspicious of another as he that is guiltie You know our English Prouerbe The Mother would neuer haue sought her Daughter in the Ouen but that her selfe had beene there first you can apply what I exemplifie to speake in your owne language Appeale page 320. yea it is more then likely that this was your intent For you waue the Doctrine of the Church of England Teach contrary to that which you haue subscribed as you challenge others Appeale page 44. which you would neuer haue done but for some speciall end and no other end can be assigned but this and vnto this end it serueth fitly If I should reason thus The learnedest the most conformable the renowned rewarded c. yea the faith it selfe of the Church of England is for Popery Therefore Popery is the true faith Then euery man will be ready to embrace the faith of Rome and good reason too seeing this testimony wanteth nothing to giue it authority the party himselfe a friend nay more a Brother that hath beene borne bred and brought vp in the confession of the Church of England that hath learned loued admired and proposed to himselfe to follow indeclinable the Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England Appeale page 111. No new vp-start Master in Israel But one that adhereth and consenteth vnto the Apostles and their true successors immediate and mediate Appeale page 45. and 46. The Doctrine of the Church of England is proposed in Synods confirmed by law commanded and established by act of Parliament Appeale page 111. As the qualitie of your person pretence so your outward condition in our State and Church doe serue very fitly to bring in Popery for you are knowne vnto and approued by his sacred Maiesty King Iames as you doe solemnly informe vs in the Preface to your Appeale and in the Booke it selfe page 43. You are beholding vnto and fauoured by men of principall ranke in the gouernement of our Church and common-wealth as wee learne from your Epistle set before your Treatise of the Inuocation of Saints neere to the end thereof You are indeed rewarded with preferments many for number great for value Who would deny his consent vnto Popery when it is brought by a messenger thus accomplished You are a Minister and a Preacher therefore when you bring in Popery you goe compendiously to worke for you are like enough to gaine and draw your Parishioners with you at least to make them more feasable then other waies they would be as yourselfe writes in the third page of your Preface to the Reader set before your Gagge You are a Preacher vnto many congregations therefore you must needes draw the more people after you and they draw others for we see by experience things new and strange stay not alwaies with them that receiue them first Moreouer by Preaching Popery they may be accommodated according vnto the disposition of seuerall men hee that is inclinable thereunto may bee followed seriously plied at all times He that is auerse may bee obserued and delt withall as opportunity is offered Lastly preaching is of greatest efficacie for it commeth vnder the name of Gods ordinance it is more fit to enter into and preuaile vpon the thoughts of man than any other course like as the small raine resâ—eth vpon entreth into and softeneth the earth more then the great and hastie showers By preaching popery may be let in softly without noise slowly without violence like as liquid bodies are distilled by a soft fire being once entred taketh faster hold like vnto a screw that is not heard when it entreth nor can be pulled out when it hath taken hold This course to bring in popery was now requisite for all violence was in vaine no attempt that way could preuaile it made vs more warie and resolued against it like the boisterous winde that causeth a man to lay faster hold vpon his clothes to keepe them about him What disputations haue they had to prevaile against vs for continuance multitude of years for learning and subtlety What deuices haue they vsed to keepe ours from them to conuey theirs vnto vs Cunning counsells to grace it desperate Ianizaries to conuey it into euery Kingdome Prouince diuision familie houshold singular person if it were possible What wars and trecherie haue they omitted the Histories of Wicklife Hus Ziska Henry the second King Iohn and Queene Elizabeth besides many others will shew More of any of these are not needfull nor can be expected yet what haue they gotten haue they won a party vnto their faith or one man to beleeue as they doe Surely this they haue gained enen a garment dyed red in the blood of the Saints and a name but not of the sonnes of Abraham who neuer had the glory of heresie and poison of false doctrine cruelty trechery murder vsurpation Now now therefore is the time when you must change your copie turne ouer a new leafe bethinke your selfe of a new course turne your threatnings into flatterings your loud sound into still voices your long disputations into distilled dropping your enmity into pretended friendship your conioyned armies into seuered corner creepers your armour into Gownes your swords into sithes your bills into mattocks Finally let no voice of warre be heard in your streets Sound and resound lift vp like a trumpet the voice of Peace tune your instruments to make that harmony to bee more delightfull then the sweet Singer of Israel and then perhaps you may gaine him vnto your side whom God hath giuen ouer to beleeue lyes but for the rest they will and alwaies shall haue iust cause to say as we now doe The snare is broken we are escaped thanks be vnto God I might giue satisfaction to euery one of his particular railings for there is sufficient for it but I will not burthen the reader so much This that I haue said is sufficient because these things being thus none of his other bitter invectiues can bee true Though they were true yet doe they make either wholly against him or nothing at all for him I conclude this whole discourse in the words wherein Bishop Iewell concluded his to Master Harding pag. 652. Deceiue not the simple they are bought with price they are the people of God for whom Christ hath shed his blood Your shifts be miserable you trouble your selfe as a Bird in the lyme The more ye stirre the saster ye cleaue the longer ye striue the weaker ye are ye cannot bridle the flowing Seas ye cannot blind the Sunne beames Kicke not still against the spurre Giue vnto the glory of God will ye will ye the truth will conquer God giue vs both humble hearts and the people eyes to see that all flesh may be obedient to his will Amen FINIS