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
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 doctrine goe together we agree So that the question is not what may bee giuen them Gagg p. 319. These words as they lye be voyd of sense they containe neither affirmation nor negation they bring nothing that is affirmed of or denied vnto to speak formally they haue neither subiect predicate nor vinculum If this word your be added vnto the words practice and doctrine and the word then bee put before the words we agree then that sentence may bee vnderstood but he will not abide him that shall doe so for he rageth against him that shall doe so Appeale p. 256. c. Whether those words be added or no his agreement with the Church of Rome doth sufficiently shew it selfe in them for 1. these words are spoken vnto the Church of Rome with whom he hath this present disputation for in the former part of this discourse he saith vnto them Whatsoeuer you say c. In your practice c. So that it is all one as if he had said Let your practice and doctrine goe together c. 2. By doctrine hee meaneth all the doctrine of their Church for he speaketh of doctrine without limitation and thereby extendeth his agreement with them in their whole doctrine touching Images which is further confirmed by saying the question betweene him and them is not what may be giuen them Which is as much as if he said I consent vnto their whole doctrine 3. By the doctrine of their Church he must vnderstand the decree of the Councell of Trent for their Church hath no other doctrine but that the rest is opinions of singular men so that his sentence now set downe is as if he had said I agree with the Councell of Trent in the point of Images Now the Councell of Trent hath decreed in the place alledged that The honour to bee giuen to Images is kissing of them vncouering the head and bowing downe before them Which must be vnderstood to be Mr Mountagu his sentence also Notwithstanding all this plaine euidence yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome because The ignorant amongst them giue them honour due vnto God and the learned amongst them as Thomas by name and others with him perswade that as much honour is to bee giuen to a woodden Crucifix as to Christ himselfe in heauen For thus he writeth and in this hee putteth the difference betweene himselfe and them Gagge page 299. and 319. I answer this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome for the one instance alleadged is matter of fact and hath not to doe in this businesse which concernes onely the faith of their Church the other which is the sentence of Thomas is matter of opinion which the Councell hath not decreed and Bellarmine saith de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20. there be three opinions in their Church touching this thing whereof this of Thomas is but one so that we may conclude hee differeth from them in one opinion held by some amongst them and this is all hee saith and therefore for all this hee consenteth with them in matter of faith which is the thing wee seeke for I answer further It doth not appeare that hee doth dissent from them in this opinion neither For he yeeldeth honour vnto Images Gagge page 318. but doth not shew vs what is the nature thereof whereby wee might bee able to discerne the difference of that honour which he giues from that which they giue If it be replyed the Councell giueth little honour to Images and that which Thomas giueth is the main and chiefe thing to be blamed I answer that honour which the Councell giueth is falsely giuen and is a matter of faith which we may not receiue for euery false faith is an addition to the diuine reuelation If you aske whether hee agreeth with the Church of England or not Hee will answer he doth agree with it and doth affirme so much in effect Gagge page 318. 319. but it is a meere pretence without shew of truth hee can alleadge no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England which appointeth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set vp in Churches or that any kinde of honour should be done vnto them being set vp there or which assigneth vnto them any vse in religion much lesse that they should be helpes of piety c. The case being such it was a face without a face that said wee and Protestants doe them all Gagge page 318. The very truth is he doth contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England in some of these positions directly and in other some by necessary consequence and I proue it thus The Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies is the Doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke it selfe and the vse thereof is established by publike authority and the subscription of all Ministers Artic. 35. But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies Therefore he doth contradict c. The assumption or second part will bee apparent to him that readeth the words on both sides set downe in the former Chapter It saith Idoll and Image is the same thing and alleadgeth the vse of Scripture for it He saith Image and Idoll may be two things that is are not one It saith Images may not be brought into Churches and that being there they bee vnlawfull and intollerable He saith they may bee brought into Churches they are not vnlawfull and are sometimes profitable all which are direct contradictions affirming what it denieth and denying what it affirmeth Lastly if Images may not be brought into Churches then may they not be imployed in religion for helpes of piety the instruction of the ignorant and the stirring vp of deuotion c. for these are more then that because Images in Churches may bee for ornament or for no vse The Homilie doth deny the placing of Images in Churches therefore it must also deny them to be helpes vnto piety c. now he teacheth contradictory to this in making Images helpes vnto piety therefore hee doth contradict that which followeth vpon the words of the Homilie by necessary consequence Let vs see how he will auoid this obiection and for that end thus he saith Appeale page 260. I admit the Homilies to containe godly exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions of our Church or Doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point I answer in the 12. Chapter no 8. hee extold the Doctrine of the Homilie as an authenticall record of the Doctrine of the Church of England In this place he denies them to containe the dogmaticall resolutions of our Church so constant is hee and so settled in his iudgement Let vs take what he will admit which we finde to be three things first they are exhortations secondly godly thirdly To bee propugned and subscribed in some things I require no more Exhortations they are that
is matters of manners all of them are not matters of faith and therefore they doe not all containe resolutions of faith but some of them bee matters of manners He grants them to be godly therfore true for falshood cannot tend to godlinesse They are subscribed in some things therefore in this that I haue alleadged because it is not a rhetoricall enforcement nor a Tropicall kinde of speech but the conclusion enforced which is set downe in words that haue no other sense but as they lie without interpretation This is enough to proue my proposition and thus I dispute from it Euery exhortation propounded inforced esteemed godly commanded to be subscribed vnto by our Church is the Doctrine of our Church But the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15 is an exhortation propounded inforced c. by our Church Therefore the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of England Thus hee confirmeth the obiection which hee is desirous to thrust off The sight of truth may bee hindered but the being of truth cannot be defeated hee that attempteth to conceale it in the euent makes it more apparent Now we come to see what truth there is in his Doctrine touching Images but I finde no proofe for that It may be hee expecteth arguments to proue that Images in Churches are vnlawfull and that no honor is to be giuen vnto them but that should be vnorderly for hee that will haue vs beleeue that wee are bound to giue honour to Images by the diuine reuelation ought to shew vs record for it and mee thinkes it had beene comely for him to haue borrowed proofes from Bellarmine de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9. 10. and 11. 12. As well as hee fetched positions from the Councell of Trent To answer Bellarmine is but labour lost for I know not how farre hee will ioyne with him in his proofes and it would be too tedious for he brings much more then will sort with this occasion and present businesse Let Mr Mountagu vrge what he liketh best and hee shall haue answer till then I rest satisfied with the Homilie that disputeth thus against Images in Churches 1 If the worshipping of Images doe alwaies befall Images set vp in Churches then it is vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches But the first is true perpetuall experience doth shew it and the affinity that is betweene mans corruption and the worshipping of Images doth procure it pag. 128. Therefore the last is true also 2 That thing which is vsed in order vnto supernaturall actions and is not warrantd in the diuine reuelation for that end is vnlawfull But Images in Churches are so vsed and are not warranted c. pag. 88. Therefore Images in Churches be vnlawfull Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetoricall enforcements and no Doctrine of the Church of England I will saue him that labour I doe alleage those arguments for the truth that is in them not for the authoritie that doth commend them Let him shew wherein they be vntrue or confesse they are true and it sufficeth But he is not able to shew this and therefore wee may safely conclude this man was strangely transported when he wrote on this manner in these words If the Church of Rome had giuen no more to Images but an historicall vse our Church would not haue departed from them about that point as I suppose for so our doctrine is Appeale p. 251. Our strictest writers doe not condemne it p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed but they are singular illuminates let them gang alone I answer what the doctine of our Church is in this point of Images I haue declared in the foregoing Chapter If you can bring any record for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England that putteth vpon Images this historicall vse namely of suggesting vnto mouing or affecting the mind euen in pious and religious affections which you father vpon it p. 253. you may doe well to bring it forth that the world may see it But because you cannot I must intreat you to take the words of Bishop Iewell vnto Harding in the defence of his Apology p. 350 without offence which are as followeth Leaue leaue this hypocrisie dissemble no more it is not manly your credit faileth ouermuch your word is no sufficient warrant If you will fall into your wonted fury it is the Bishop that must beare it They are his words not mine and vttered vpon the like occasion that you offer here I could adde a farther refutation and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of England by the testimony of Bishop Iewell but I defer it vnto the next passage where the reader shall find it He wanted proofes for his doctrine of Images but hee will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof and negation of the contrary For thus hee writeth There is no Popery in the historicall vse of Images Appeale pag. 252. I answer There is Popery in it for it is the faith of the Church of Rome as I haue shewed in the chapter going before and it is contrary to the word of God as I will shew anon both which are sufficient to make it Popery euen in your owne iudgement for thus you write Popery is contrary to the word of God Appeal p. 310. But he doth deny that this vse of Images is contrarie the word of God for thus he writeth 1 The historicall vse of Images is true doctrine in it selfe Appeale p. 251. 2 That Images may be made for ornament memory history no law of God forbiddeth Appeale p. 265. I answer Bishop Iewell is a witnesse so competent to shew vs what is true or not true what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case that I shall need to produce none but him Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article p. 378. c. 1 The first end of Images is the attaining of knowledge although perhaps somewhat may bee learned by them yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attaine knowledge Saint Paul saith faith commeth by hearing not by gazing This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people for where greatest store of such Schoolemasters be there the people are most ignorant superstious and subiect to Idolatry 2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently moue the mind but euery thing that may moue the mind is not meet for the Church of God Gods house is a house of prayer not of gazing Whoeuer adoreth or maketh his prayer beholding an Image is so moued in his mind that hee thinketh the Image heareth him and hopeth it will performe his prayer Alleadged out of S. Augustin p. 318. 3 Touching remembrance it is like the first and therefore is already answered Thus farre the reuerend Bishop If old learning can satisfie this illumination the Bishop must gang alone If it cannot old learning shall haue
answer This supposeth that he did describe Iustification largely when hee said Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused but proues it not therefore it is nothing to the purpose But let it be supposed he can proue it at some other time and goe on with him to examine what he bringeth I say it is vtterly false the Scripture doth neuer take the Iustification of a sinner any other wayes but one you bring no proofe that it doth your word is not sufficient when your proofs come you shal haue answer for the authority of Caluin c. I need not much weigh in this question because I know your selfe accounts it worth nothing Caluin saith no such thing The last thing he pretendeth is that His intent was to confute the Gagger I answer This hath no force to proue that Therefore I described Iustification as comprehending Sanctification when I said it consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused For so to describe it is not the way the confute but to be confuted first because that description is false secondly in it you agree with the Gagger in an Article of his Faith decreed by the Councell of Trent Moreouer your antecedent is false you had no such intent For the thing to be refuted was Faith onely doth not iustifie so saith your aduersary which you might haue refuted without relation to the nature of Iustification for he must proue at least that somthing else besides Faith doth concur to Iustification or confesse he sayd not truely It was not required on your part to proue all other things were excluded therefore there was no need or occasion of making a description of Iustification But suppose there had beene good reason why you should haue made a description of Iustification yet the making of this description doth argue your intent was not to refute the Gagger but to establish and confirme the Gaggers position for if Iustification bee as you haue described it then without all doubt more things are required to Iustification besides Faith and Bellarmine doth dispute iust after the same manner de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Lastly vpon this description of Iustification you proceed and say man is the subiect thereof and that thereunto there are required certaine preparations to the purpose the first wherof you say is knowledge of God and his Law c. that is indeed assent vnto the Law of God which is Faith according to the Councell of Trent for you doe not speake of such a knowledge of the Law which is without an assent to the truth thereof You proceed and teach that Faith is the roote and originall of the rest of the preparations iust as the Councell of Trent doth which proues your intent was to iustifie and not to refute your aduersaries position If notwithstanding all this you will still affirme your meaning to be such as is set downe no. 4. and plead your owne authority for the proofe thereof as best able to declare what you meant then first your meaning is not exprest by your words secondly the whole course of your Doctrine saith one thing and your intent is another thirdly your meaning was without reason to guide it fourthly the Doctrine that caryeth your meaning doth destroy what you meant to build but you will deny all these foure therefore you must confesse you had no such intent After he hath thus declared what his intent was in this description he goeth on pag. 174. to shew what his intent is touching the nature and adequate being of Iustification which hee proclaimeth in these words Be it knowne vnto you that I beleeue Iustification is in strictnesse of termes Not regeneration nor renouation nor sanctification But A certaine action in God applyed vnto vs Or A certaine respect or relation Whereby wee are pardoned and acquitted of our sinnes Esteemed righteous before God And Accepted by him in Christ vnto life euerlasting I answere If this proclamation had been published by an authority sufficient to compell vs to haue assented thereunto then had it beene possible that you had giuen satisfaction but for want of that you must giue vs leaue to touch to handle to search before we take Thus therefore I proceed This great adoe is about nothing you tell vs now what you doe beleeue when you writ your second Booke Wee inquire what beleefe you did expresse by your writing in your first Booke Let this fault be remitted we will rest satisfied with this if there be sufficient cause why but alacke there is no such matter And thus I shew it You did not beleeue that Iustification is as now you pretend for if you had so beleeued you would haue expressed that beleefe because your intent was to refute the Gagger as you professe Appeale page 173. Now this beleefe had been an easie and ready way to haue refuted him seeing that the question there disputed was whether A man is Iustified by Faith onely As is euident by the 18. Chapter of your first Booke and it would necessarily follow That a man is iustified by faith onely if Iustification bee as you now describe it which I take as granted without further proofe and Bellarmine by implicaiton confesseth no lesse de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Adde quod Againe if you had then beleeued Iustification is as you describe it now then your thoughts in all likelihood would haue now beene orderly digested but here is nothing but confusednesse and thus I shew it 1 First you describe by a negatiue which Art forbids 2 Secondly you place the Genus in two things viz. action respect or relation If you would expresse one thing by those distinct termes then you intend a thing impossible for an action is an emâ—nation from a worker Respect and Relation as it is here vsed importeth an adiunct vnto a subiect If your meaning bee to expresse two things distinct in nature by these distinct termes then youâ— description is ridiculous I need not shew how 3 You say it is an action in God which signifieth an action immanent which is false Iustification is an â—ction transient and your selfe confesse it when you say Iustification is by Faith and made in an instant Gâ—gge page 146. which doe import actions wrought vpon the creatures in time You also tell vs this action iâ— applyed vnto vs which signifies an action transient which is contrary to the former and so you say and vnsay with one breath 4 You say pardon of sinnes is by a respect or relation in God Which sentence is wholly without sense For respect or relation hath not any force by which an effect should be produced neither can it bee conceiued what you meane by Respect or Relation or how pardon of sinnes should flow from or depend vpon that Respect or Relation And so much for the Genus 5 You place the speciall nature of Iustification in three things viz. First Remission of sinnes secondly Esteeming righteous thirdly Accepting to eternall
better then hee can gouerne his Besides the thing it selfe doth say no lesse Neuer any Father taught the popish voluntary workes If M. Mountagu will say the contrary He must shew those fathers that teach of voluntary workes as Bellarmine doth de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. and 8. which he is neuer able to doe Against the second part of the obiection the Article disputeth thus They that teach that men render vnto God so much as they are bound and more also they are arrogant and impious For They take vpon them more then is true against the word of God which saith when you haue done all that are commanded to you say wee be vnprofitable seruants Luke 17. 10. But they that teach voluntary workes teach that men doe render vnto God so much as they are bound and more also And so doth Bellarmine expresly teach de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6 Secundo Comparando and cap. 12. at the very end thereof and in many other places Therefore they that teach voluntary workes are arrogant and impious If Mr. Mountagu can satisfie the premisses of this argument he may auoid the conclusion but I despaire of that for hee must ioyne with Bellarmine in the assumption because he that keepes not the law cannot doe voluntary workes which is more then a man is bound too seeing those proceed from a common inioyned and limited perfection of loue As we learne from Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6. Tertio Comparando and Mr Mountagu himselfe teacheth no lesse when he saith obedience to Councels proceeds from grace therefore of loue He saith they are left to a mans choyce therefore his loue is voluntary and vnlimited He saith also these works are worthy of more praise therefore they proceed out of a higher degree and perfection of loue Gagge page 103. And that the doer of these workes doth keepe the law the thing it selfe doth testifie for he that is able to doe workes of greater perfection must needs be able to doe workes of lesse seeing the lesse is comprehended in the greater besides hee that commeth short of keeping the Law how can hee goe beyond the Law in louing God by doing workes left vnto his choyce If any man will say he may doe these voluntary workes and yet come short of doing the workes of the Law as Mr. Mountagu doth Gagge page 104. hee must shew me the man that did so and the actions wherein they did so and proue it sufficiently else I must beleeue our Church Artic. 14. and the things themselues that say the contrary He cannot auoyd the proposition for Bellarmine cannot though he hath done his best for that purpose de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. Respondeo Petrum c. as he that readeth it may see and I will shew Bellarmine answereth to this argument thus The Lord doth not say Luke 17. and 10. you are vnprofitable But willeth them to say wee are vnprofitable seruants For It is his will that we should be humble and not boast of our merits Himselfe saith afterwards Thou good seruant and faithfull But he cals him onely vnprofitable that disobeyeth the Law and is cast into vtter darkenesse Mat. 25. 26. 30. verses I reply this answer as it lyeth is nothing to the purpose it doth not gainesay any part of the argument yet I will bring the particulars and see how they may be applied to the purpose He saith Our Lord bid them say they were vnprofitable himselfe did not say so I grant this neither does the argument say otherwise It may be he would inferre from hence Therefore they say they are vnprofitable seruants but are not If this conclusion were true the answer would bee sufficient and the argument of no force but this part of his answer cannot inferre this conclusion for then our Lord should teach him to lye which Bellarmine dareth not affirme yea from thence it may bee truely inferred that they were indeed vnprofitable seruants but Christ is the teacher of truth and in bidding them say they were vnprofitable it is as much as if hee had said himselfe they were indeed vnprofitable for hee would not put any sentence into mans mouth which himselfe would not affirme these things I take as granted and offer no proofe for them He saith 2 It is his will we should be humble and not boasters I grant this also neither doth the argument say the contrary It may be he brings this to proue That The foresaid confession was not according to truth But it doth not proue it for humility and false speaking doe not goe together It doth rather inferre the contrary he would haue vs humble therefore he would haue vs speake the truth for both of them are vertues proceeding from the spirit of truth and there is no greater signe of humility then when men confesse their failings truely He saith further 3 They that so confesse are called good seruants and faithfull Let this be granted also and it will agree well with euery part of the argument I suppose his intent is to say Therefore they that did thus confesse were indeed profitable seruants But this doth not follow from that for our Sauiour might call them good though they failed in some things wherein they were vnprofitable seruants and yet speake according to truth for his seruants are accepted of him to all purposes of loue no lesse effectually then if they were absolutely good and vnprofitable in nothing Againe he blotteth out their failings whereby they are vnprofitable out of his Booke whereof it is that they are not imputed vnto them and they stand before God as if they had neuer failed Lastly such doe inioy the habit of grace and bring forth the fruits thereof by which they are truely good and from whence they may truely haue the name of good and faithfull seruants He saith fourthly They onely that disobey the Law and are cast into vtter darkenesse are called vnprofitable seruants This sentence hath not to doe with the argument any more then the former and it is false in it selfe Others also that doe not so disobey the law as that they are therefore cast into hell may bee called vnprofitable seruants which I proue by this argument The Saints are truely called vnprofitable seruants because euery breaker of the Law may truely be called an vnprofitable seruant But the Saints doe so breake the Law that they are not therefore cast into condemnation Therefore some that doe so breake the Law that they are not therefore cast into condemnation are called vnprofitable seruants That the Saints doe breake the Law is cleare by 1 Ioh. 1. 8. 10. and that therefore they are not cast into condemnation it is as certaine by Rom. 8. 1. But these two i. e. the sanctified and vnsanctified are called vnprofitable seruants in a different sense They that goe to hell haue that name totally vniuersally and finally they neuer haue the name of good seruants for they are totally and finally
Church hath determined whom when wherefore how viz. some out of mankinde before the Creation of his will by his secret Councell As the Reader may see in the 17. Article and I haue shewed no. 5. 6. If our Church hath not determined thus and all hers ought to follow her example then Master Mountagu is much to blame For He hath determined whom when wherefore how viz. some of mankinde being in perdition finall grace 1 willing them saluation 2 prouiding a Mediator 3 taking them out which layd hold of him As the reader may finde plainely laid downe in the former part of this Chap. no 3. 4. 14. 15. His choyce was ill that bringeth falshood for truth against himselfe and such is his condition in this place Now for as much as hee cannot discourage you by the force of these arguments therefore hee doth summon vnto the disputation in these words I must confesse my dissent thorough and sincere in no one point more then in this their Doctrine of Predestination Appeale page 60. I answer the Dice are now cast Caesar must be all or nothing the combat is offered to all commers the Gantlet is cast downe take it vp who dares But let him know he must proue his owne Predestination or leaue the field The first weapon he appeares withall is made of this fashion God is not the Author of sinne or death Appeale page 64. This weapon is strengthened with some authorities of Scriptures and Fathers from that place to page 69. But this weapon serueth not for this battell The question is whether first God found the Predestinate in perdition secondly whether Predestination be with relation vnto finall grace thirdly whether Predestination doth not appoint to giue grace for so you teach and these we deny But whether God be the Author of sinne and death is not thought vpon at this time Those three you must proue or say nothing for them you haue offered no proofe It is a safe war where there is no enemy and a cowardly attempter that refuseth the field where the enemie abideth It may be he will say the refutation of this sentence doth refute the latter branch of Caluins opinion of Predestination propounded page 50. and reiected page 60. because this sentence followes thereupon p. 54. I answer this helpes not the matter for the question now on foot is whether Gods decree to saue Peter be absolute and doth proceed from Gods will onely page 53. which is denied by your selfe the Church of England as you pretend the Lutherans and Arminians Against Caluin and the Synode of Dort p. 38. 53. 56. There is not a word of that second branch which concerneth reprobation obiected against you but it is foysted in by your selfe onely and that vpon good reason too for you knew full well that no man would defend this but euery man could defend that against you It was good policy to vndertake to proue a confessed truth for so you went with the streame and to bee silent in the prouing of a manifest falshood for then you had beene found guilty You tell vs your resolution this way in these words I neuer held it wisedome to tire my selfe with haling and tugging vp against the streame when with ease enough I might and with better discretion should sayle with the flood Appeale p. 12. Now although the case had beene as you pretend yet you had beene abundantly faulty for disputing against one branch when there was two in the question and for opposing a consequent letting passe the antecedent and consequence which is indeed to deny the conclusion when you durst not meddle with the premisses Hee keepes the field still and presenteth himselfe in this manner The Church of Geneua dissenteth from the priuate opinions of Caluin and Beza Appeale p. 71. I answer by priuate opinion of Caluin hee must meane this of Predestination and from it hee must conclude Therefore his Doctrine of Predestination is not true Otherwise he misses the present businesse That being supposed he commeth on the backe where hee ought to come vnto the face of his enemie hee ought to proue that his Doctrine is true not disproue ours but be it as he will if you aske him how hee doth know that the Church of Geneua doth so dissent hee doth answer Deodate did tell him so If you doubt of his testimony he tels you he is a Minister and a Professor in that Church and sent to the Synode from his Country well let him goe for a witnesse without exception the chiefest doubt is how it may appeare Deodate did say so Hee putteth that out of doubt also by auouching he told him so euen Mr. Mountagu being the man that Deodate was withall at Eaton which proofe cannot be auoided for hee should neuer haue had the company of Deodate in Eaton vnlesse he had beene such a man whose word is as true as steele yet neuerthelesse his word is of small authority for I haue found it deceitfull no 11. 12. therefore I dare not trust it but let vs yeeld him that Deodate did tell him so and that therefore our Predestination is not true Then hee must be conceiued thus to dispute Your Doctrine of Predestination is not true therefore mine is true A substantiall dispute and well worthy a rich Diuine and old learning mine is because yours is not he telleth vs of some that haue whirligigs in their heads Appeale page 81. I am sure he is one of them in this argument He ends not with this but goes on still with these words This sentence God did decree to glorifie Peter without any consideration had of his faith c. is a priuate fancy of some particular men Appeale page 58. neuer heard of till of late page 31. From hence he must inferre Therefore this sentence God did decree to glorifie Peter c. is not true I answer The Inference is naught truth in Diuinity standeth in a conformity vnto the diuine reuelation not vnto the sooner or later apprehension and report of men If you meane it is not reuealed then your termes of Priuate fancy and yesterdayes heare-say are but toyes for Children How dare you say our doctrine of Predestination is a priuate fancie and a Nouell opinion seeing King Iames of famous memory for learning and knowledge hath expresly auowed it in these words Predestination depends not vpon any qualities or worke of man but vpon Gods decree and purpose As I haue shewed no 12. This testimonie doth giue vs sufficient odds aboue you for Our sentence hath royall confirmation and yours hath none herewith also I would content my selfe were it not that he vrgeth with great vehemency That This sentence aboue said is the doctrine of Nouellizing Puritans Appeale p. 60. For the remouing hereof and to giue full satisfaction in the point I will adde somewhat more thereunto and shew that the doctrine of Predestination which we defend is neither new nor the inuention of Nouellizing Puritanes And
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