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
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
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
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
ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls I answer this argument proues nothing but begs the question in that 1. It takes as granted some points of faith be fundamentall other some are not which is denied him 2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion The proposition is also false the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring without limitation either indefinite or assigned It saith Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God If this proposition be vnderstood to speake not of all but of some things pertaining to God then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie but that may not be granted for that is a delusion no decision The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not for that proposition is not a limitation of a Councels erring but a proofe that Councels may erre on this wise Councels haue erred Therefore Councels may erre If it be replyed that this reason is not good except erring in the consequent be taken in that sence wherein it is vsed in the Antecedent I rejoynd the argument is good although erring in the antecedent be taken for erring in some things and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith is not free at all The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus That which hath not erred hither to cannot erre hereafter c. But this proposition is manifestly false because freedome from error and infallibilitie in Iudgement is not made by not erring in time past but by a speciall peculiar providence of God which they may want at some other time who in the thing haue not erred in time foregoing His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God and those are not all fundamentalls then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall I answer this reason hath the fault that the former had it presumes that points of faith are some fundamentall some not fundamentall which is denied and therefore it begs the question 2. I will grant the distinction for this time and say further the word only must be added to the latter part of this reason otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose that being added I deny the consequence because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God as I haue proved in my answer And I proue further by your own testimony thus If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doe not meane all but some things then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct without far-fetched obscure interpretations casie even perspicuous of it selfe fitted for the vse capacitie instruction of the simple and ignorant who are not capable of obscurities But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine direct c as your selfe doth truly affirme Appeal p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doth meane vniversally all things pertaining to God His third reason is in the same p. 124 thus The Article speaketh of debating and discussing I speake of deciding and determining Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false Ordeining is deciding and determining The Article speaketh of ordaining Thus it argueth Councels may erre Therefore things ordained by them not taken out of Scripture haue no authoritie Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversie I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the words plainly delivered in Scripture must signifie things not in coÌ„troversie That being granted the second branch in the antecedent is false He himselfe other-where delivereth the contrary Those things whereof the Church must Iudge are the things where in according to him the Church is free from error But things in Controversie are those according to him whereof the Church must Iudge See what he saith gagg p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed more obscure and involved And p. 14. In controverted matters if a question be moved the Church must decide and settle that doubt In plainâ— cases no deciding Iudge shall need but such as are ambiguous must be determined by the Iudge c. Therefore according to him in things in Controversie the Church is free from error and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter he layeth downe in his Appeale p. 160. in these words There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it Things that are straight and direct and according to that rule confessedly need not application are not commonly brought to be applyed to that rule but things of different or doubtfull standing these need application and are applyed by the perpetuall practice of the Catholike Church And thus haue I ended all the reasons which he bringeth to excuse himselfe from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point which are too weake to excuse him therefore I may safely conclude He doth dissent from the Church of England touching the infallibilitie of the Church Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory and this it is A Councell truely generall in giving sentence of a divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures His proofes for it we find set downe in his Appeale p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture the former on this wise They to whom the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinitie question vary from the Scriptures But to a Councell truly generall the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore a Councell truly generall in giving sentence of a divinitte question cannot vary from the Scriptures I answer There is no whole part in this argument Not in the proposition which supposeth that These words Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge whether this or that sentence in Divinitie be agreeable to the Scriptures or not But this supposition is of his owne making and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before wherein it doth appeare by my answer to him That office was never committed to any Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg but not demonstrate the question For further refutâ—tion thereof I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office then the Apostles had it For those words were spoken to the Apostles I take as granted But the Apostles had it not for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand It cannot be imagined that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing and
16. The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may be set vp in Churches Respect is due and honour given Relatiuely vnto them They may be vsed for helps of pietie To represent the prototype Instruct the vnlearned renew remembrance cap. 15. p. 94. 95. 17. A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any Law of God cap. 17. p 107. These workes are left to a mans choyse They procure reward to him that doth them and he that doth them not is without danger of punishment therfore cap. 18. num 2. p. 109. They are to be found in Virginitie and wilfull Povertie cap. 18. num 12. p. 120. 18. Finall persevering in obedience is the instrumentall cause of mans salvation cap. 20. num 27. p. 161. 162. The poynts of the false Faith of Arminius doe follow 1. I Conceiue of predestinatiō that it is Gods act of drawing them out which tooke hold of mercy cap. 19. p. 126. 127. cap. 20. num 3. 4. num 7. p. 139. 2. Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that grace Man being drawne he runneth as his assistance his owne agilitie and disposition is cap. 7. p. 53. cap. 8. num 22. 23. The heads of every Chapter are as follow MAister Mountague hath corrupted the faith of our Church cap. 1. The point of the Iudge of Controversies propounded cap. 2. discussed cap. 3. The poynt of the Churches not erring cap. 4. The poynt of the Churches perpetuall visibilitie cap. 5. The Church of Rome is a true Church cap. 6. The poynt of Free-will propounded cap. 7. debated cap. 8. The poynt of Iustification propounded cap 9. argued cap. 10. The poynt of falling from grace propoūded c. 11 argued cap. 12. The poynt of Reall presence propoūded cap 13. debated cap. 14. The poynt of Images propounded cap. 15. discussed cap. 16. The poynt of Workes of Supererogation propounded cap. 17. disputed cap. 18. The poynt of Predestination propoūded cap. 19. debated cap. 20. The Conclusion of the whole claiming Master Mountague his promise cap. 21. CHAP. I. Maister Mountague hath corrupted the Faith of the Church of England THE whole Disputation following serveth to proue this sentence by shewing wherein and by what he hath corrupted it This sentence presumeth that the Church of England hath published her faith which will not be denied because the Records thereof cheifly the Booke of Articles are or may be in every mans hand That he hath corrupted it will easily be granted too if I shew that vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine of the Church of England and defence thereof he hath brought in the erronious faith of the Church of Rome and Arminius And this I will performe first by answering his generall plea to excuse himselfe therfrom in this Chapter and then by setting downe the particular points wherein and whereby he hath corrupted it in the rest of the Chapters following First he pleadeth not guiltie of both accusations of Arminianisme and Popery Appeale p. 9. I reply vnto him I will joyne issue with him herein and make it good that he is guiltie He would argue his innocency on this manner 1. I disavowed the name and title of Arminian for I will not pinne my beliefe vnto any mans sleeue I answere if you joyne in that faith whereof he was the author you cannot avoyd to beare his title no more then others that haue sided in the like case Every artist beareth the name of that art which he professeth but you joyne in faith with him as afterwards shall appeare therefore you must beare his title 2. He saith he never read word in Arminius p. 10. I answere this will not thrust off his title For of them that were called Arrians many thousands never read word in Arrius It is communion in his faith not his writings that procures that title He would proue himselfe innocent of the Popish faith on this manner I nor am nor haue beene nor intend to be a Papist of state or of Religion p. 111. I answer his thoughts may change and so he may be what he doth not now intend to be The liking of some points first is a good beginning and a fayre way to like all at last We doe not inquire what you are or intend to be but what you haue done Therefore this plea is nothing to the purpose He would proue he neither is nor meanes to be a Papist by two reasons the first is The originall grounds of Popery haue no warrant from revealed truth p. 111. The second is he hath handled them as few besides himselfe hath done in so exasperating a stile p. 110. I answer this proues the thing which is not in question therefore deserues not be answered but to them I say you haue left a dore open for the first to escape You say you are not tyed to your owne opinion Gagg p. 328. If your judgement change you are as ready for Popery and will judge it no lesse warranted by revealed truth then now you doe the contrary You tell vs of some that draw one way and looke another You may be one of them for any thing is done are so too in all likelihood For rayling at them doth not shew you had no favour to them because the contention of friends many times is the bitterest and odious rayling was the fittest curtaine to conceale your friendship to them where open friendship would presently haue beene detested If circumstances will argue your guiltinesse I can vrge you with some store 1. Your writing is crabbed and hardly intelligible full of raylings and debasing of others extolling vaunting of your selfe advancing the credit of Popish Writers debasing the reputation of many of precious accompt in all the Protestants Churches 2. You often times leaue the question between you and the Papist to quarrell with Protestants 3. You grant your Adversary many points of his faith and faine a difference where there is none 4. You drop in the Popish faith here some and there some as if you would but you are not willing to be seene If they were together every one would perceiue them being in sunder a wise man might be overtaken by them 5. You bring in points of speculation that will finde lesse opposition but being received will draw on matters of practice 6. You professe your selfe for reconciliation which can be vnderstood of none but with the church of Rome Appeale p. 292. Touching the matter it selfe thus he saith I call therin for tryall for it by God and my Countrey the Scriptures and the Church of England dare any ioyne Issue with me vpon this they dare not p. 9. I answer I dare and doe accept the Challenge And that the proceedings may be orderly I will set the doctrine of Mr. Mountague in the first place of the Church of Rome in the second and of the Church of England in the third Then I will shew his
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
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
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
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
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
words were spoken onely to the young man And he that readeth his Confirmation of his 5 argument shall find it so If you will proue the doing of voluntary workes by our owne confâ—ssion you must bring vs things true and not falshood against the light of the Sunne Yet so ioyous confident and iocund is hee in this argument as if all were his owne as if hee had spoken nothing but what was as true as Gospell therefore he proceedeth on this wise If you doe not sell all that you haue and giue it to the poore you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble If you demand of him wherein that dissimulation should lye he is not to seeke for answer thus he doth shew it you You would perswade men of a case of necessity that your selues may feed fat vpon their folly I answer when I read this passage I could not but stand amazed and my heart within mee became cold to see the libertie that an angry minde and an euill tongue will take but staying my sâ—lfe a while at last I remembred him that said I will lay my hand vpon my mouth and him that was a lambe dumbe before the shearer that opened not his mouth That indured such speaking against of sinners This gaue me satisfaction for the iniurie of this euill sentence touching the Author whereof I say no more but this Lord forgiue him for hee knoweth not what he doth and so I might put an end to this whole point But stay he must talke a few cold words with you before you part and these be they He that said a man may doe more than he is commanded was no Papist they that say it is Popery are men of poore capacitie not apprehending what is popery what is not they misdeeme mistake misname popery Appeale p. 217. 218. I answer this suteth well with the last passage both of thâ—m together doe witnesse without exception that Mr Mountagu is a carefull obseruer of Councels for these sentences be vnmeasurable railings and I am sure they were neuer coÌ„manded and I presume neuer coâ—ncelled by God He must shew vs then who gaue him a law for them or whose Councells they are By Popery he must meane the erroneous faith of Rome That being so his bitternesse is ioyned with falshood a sweet Garden that yeeldeth such flowers That it is he faith of Rome is already agreed on That it is erroneous hath beene hitherto inquired of in this question It was your duty to haue shewed vs your voluntary works in the Scripture but you haue not therefore we must resolue you cannot If they be not there you must confesse they be erroneous Therefore the vnderstanding and capacitie of them that deny them was rich enough to finde out your Popery and giue the right name to it I could giue him that vrgeth Popish voluntary works such titles as he doth iustly deserue and which might equall those which he vniustly giues to such as refuse them but I leaue them as fittest for his eloquence and such Reuilers to the dispose of him that hath pronounced a woe vnto such as are strong to doe euill CHAP. XIX Of Predestination Master Mountagu The Church of England I conceiue of Gods act or decree of Predestination after this sort Appeale p. 61. to 65. 1 God decreed to create man 2 He created man good 3 Man fell from that good 4 By that fall hee was plunged into Perdition 5 God saw him and had compassion of him 6 He stretched out deliuerance to theÌ„ in a Mediatour 7 Drew them out which tooke hold of Mercy this I must professe Predestination to life is the euerlasting purpose of God whereby before the foundations of the world were laid hee hath constantly decreed by his Councell secret to vs to deliuer from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST out of mankinde and to bring them by Christ to euerlasting saluation as vessells made to honour CHAP. XX. The point of Predestination is debated THis Chapter examineth two questions onely 1 Whether his doctrine of Predestination bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in it with the Church of England c. We omit to enquire whether he consenteth with the Church of Rome or not because the Counsell of Trent hath decreed nothing that I can finde touching the nature of Predestination and the most common opinion of their Schooles dissenteth not from the Church of England Some doe dissent as Occham and others with him in former times And in latter times Gabriel Vasquez and some others with him but the difference is rather in Position and manner of speaking then really and in the thing The disputation in this Chapter is restrained vnto the second onely for of this point he saith Appeale page 61. Take it as I conceiue it and so shall professe it vntill I am informed and ascertained that the Church of England teacheth all otherwise then I conceiue of it This sheweth you lose but labour when you attempt to draw him from his opinion by any arguments taken from Scripture or mans writings bring him the Church of England and it sufficeth if you bring not that he is still where he was The doctrine of the Church of England is not concealed from him nor is the sense obscure hee needeth not dig deâ—pe to finde it there is none worse then hee that will not vnderstand Before I can shew what the Church of England teacheth and how hee dissenteth there-from I must take a view and haue a clâ—ere vnderstanding of the things deliuered by him In which there is seuen distinct branches as the reader may see in the former Chapter The seuenth branch hath these words He drew them out which tooke hold of mercy This branch doth appertaine to Predâ—stination for it concerneth mans ordering vnto his last end and perfection The other sixe belong not thereto for they speake of mans being and the causes thereof and things pertaining thereto They haue not a word of ordering man to any end If this seuenth branch bee framed according to Art it will stand thus Predestination to life is an act or decree of Gods will whereby he purposed to draw them out of the state of perdition which tooke hold of mercy In this frame wee haue the thing defined and that whereby it is defined I restraine the question vnto Predestination to life because our Church doth so Artic. 17. and the Scriptures are more frequent in that and no meruaile why because the Scriptures were written for the direction and consolation of them that shall goe to heauen I haue framed it altogether by his owne direction the question of Predestination is put so by himselfe as I will now shew Appeale page 38. hee calleth it an act or decree of God which must needes be an act of his will and so hee termeth it Appeale page 61. This act is immanent not transient for he saith in the same place hee conceiues it setting by all
be nothing but grace for can it bee conceiued how our comming to saluation can bee attributed to God as his worke but by reason that hee doth giue grace Lastly it cannot bee conceiued how God should bring to saluation by Christ but by giuing of grace seeing none come to saluation by Christ but such as are members of Christ and none are members of Christ but by the meanes of grace And that it was the meaning of our Church to make finall grace one thing appointed by Predestination to be giuen vnto man it is apparent by that doctrine of the Article which followeth where it maketh Predestination to be the cause or reason wherefore God bestoweth grace and glory vpon man in the euent for thus it saith Wherefore they which bee indued with this excellent benefit viz. of Predestination be called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit they through grace obey the calling and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to saluation BY CHRIST Hereby our Church doth set forth the means appointed by Predestination wherby in course of time man shal enioy the thing appointed by Predestination and that is Iesus Christ vnder whose name all other subordinate meanes are fitly comprehended and that our Church meant so need not be doubted because it addeth other meanes of grace and saluation besides Christ in the doctrine of the Article following TO DELIVER FROM DAMNATIOM By this the nature of Predestination formerly deliuered is set out or made more plaine vnto vs for this being contrary vnto that doth make it the more manifest vnto our vnderstandings and the Scripture taketh the same course also as in many other places so in these He that beleeueth is passed from death vnto life There is no condemnation to him that is in Christ Rom. 8. 1. By damnation is not meant the state of damnation actually for that sense cannot stand with the doctrine of our Church which followeth but by damnation is vnderstood the possibilitie of being in the state of damnation preuented by the decree of Predestination for that sense doth agree very well with the doctrine of the Article which saith This decree is constant as is declared before SOME ELECTED OVT OF MANKINDE The subiect or parties predestinated are here sayd to bee man but not all men vniuersally it restraineth the same vnto some of mankinde by saying that they are elected ones and elected out of mankind 2. The subiect that receiueth Predestinatiō is described by two things The one by the name and vnder the title of man meerly without any addition whereby is signified that man conceiued in himselfe onely as an intellectuall creature without grace or works of grace is obiected vnto and set before the diuine will of Predestination and in that notion onely he receiueth the same Our Church doth not say that God waited till man had grace and then and vpon the intuition thereof he was moued to and did predestinate him That this may be the sense of our Church is cleere because it is a course agreeable and decent vnto the diuine prouidence and man himselfe and that this must be meant by our Church is certaine also for no other sense can be made therof agreeable to these words and those words that went before which say the reason mouing God to predestinate is secret to vs And grace is bestowed by predestination The other thing describing it is the word elect which signifieth an act of Gods will whereby our Church doth giue vs to vnderstand that the reason why this or that man is predestinate ariseth from Gods will and pleasure of which it is that the predestinate are singled out and seuered from the rest of mankind IN CHRIST Our Church referreth these words vnto the word elect thus Those whom hee elected in Christ In this sentence the word elect doth signifie 1. an act of Gods will 2 An act going before predestination 3 A collection of a certaine number of men from others to be predestinated vnto this or that measure of grace and glory for so it speaketh in the 17. arti saying Those whom he chose he decreed to bring to saluation The words in Christ tell vs that Gods eye was extended to the chosen ones in or through Christ Now this act of election may bee done vpon man in the intuition of Christ either as the end intended and aimed at in the act of election or as the meritorious cause thereof In the first sense wee may not take our Church seeing it saith the reason that moued God to predestinate is secret to vs wee must therefore vnderstand our Church to speake in the first sense for that is most agreeable to the course of Scripture to the dignity of Christ and to the operation of grace in man What heart is it that will not rather make it selfe subordinate vnto Christ then Christ subordinate vnto him And that our Church meant thus we haue yet better reason to thinke viz. because this whole description of predestination is takē out of the first chapter to the Ephesians where the Apostle hauing said in the fourth verse He hath chosen vs in him He concludeth in the 12 verse That we should be to the praise of his glory which sheweth that Christs glory was the end intended aimed at in the act of electiō BEFORE THE FOVNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAYD That is before the Creation The world is created either in the reall being thereof or in the decree to create Our Church speaketh not of reall creating for then it should say the decree of Predestination is before actuall Creation This it could not meane or that is as much as if it had said the decree of Predestination is eternall for before that creation there is no duration but eternitie But our Church meant not by these words to say Gods decree was eternall for it had said so in expresse words a little before and this phrase of speech doth not make that more plaine but doth rather more obscure it Our Church then speaketh of Gods decree to create and so it setteth forth the moment wherein in our apprehension man is predestinate by God and is as if it had said Gods decree of Predestination in our apprehension goes before his decree of creation And the rather all men should vnderstand our Church thus because this order is agreeable to the nature of the things themselues Predestination being more worthy of loue then Creation That being supernatural perpetuall and mans last perfection This being naturall temporary and at most but a way vnto that therefore it is more orderly to conceiue the decree of Creation to be subordinate vnto the decree of Predestination then Predestination vnto Creation If any thinke that man cannot be predestinate before he be actually made I answer in Gods will of execution it is true man cannot inioy the being of the thing appointed by Predestination before hee hath actuall being himselfe now the will of execution is not now in
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