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
Is a desperate Doctrine These two sentences are not so like as the Hares head and the Goose giblets the one reproues the nature assigned to Predestination and telleth them that Predestination is not such as they say it is The other reproueth men that abuse the Doctrine of Predestination but medleth not with the nature thereof what difference then there is betweene the nature of Predestination and mans abuse of Predestination in the course of his life such difference there is betweene Mr Mountagu and the Booke he speakes of the first that of the second But now let vs suppose the Doctor had said these words Predestination without relation to faith is a desperate Doctrine Then the second branch of his Assumption is likewise false because it saith that speech was not reproued but I finde otherwise in the Booke which reporteth page 43. a speech of his Maiestie that maketh Predestination to be without relation to faith his words be these Predestination depends not vpon any qualities actions or worke of man but vpon Gods decree and purpose Which sentence is contradictory vnto that sentence which Mr. Mountagu saith was condemned as a desperate Doctrine by the Doctor and therefore it is a suffiâ—ient reproofe of his speech His fourth reason I finde Appeale page 72. c. it is on this wise If Predestination without relation to faith bee the Doctrine of the Church of England then should it make a partie with Caluin But it would not make a party with Caluin for that were the next way to bring in his discipline Therefore Predestination without relation to faith is not the Doctrine of the Church of England I answer this pelting stuffe is not worth the viewing all the world knowes that the Church of England doth agree with Caluin in very many things and it must doe so or else it must agree with the Church of Rome in all the points which Caluin reiecteth which are all the decrees of the Councell of Trent a very few excepted If I should say all the Articles and the Homilies agree with Caluin for the maine matters of faith I should say no more then what might be proued Other exceptions might be taken to this argument but I passe by them Thus haue I put an end to this poore stuffe loathsome to the answerer and disgracefull to the disputer Ducklings not Eagles catch Flyes Hitherto we haue hunted a shadow and laboured to catch the winde now he will lay hold on the body and thus he bringeth it The positiue Doctrine of the Church of England is no other but this touching Predestination 1 Sinne came into the world by the Deuill not God 2 Death came by sinne 3 God prepared a Mediator Christ 4 Willed life to euery beleeuer 5 His good pleasure was all men to be saued Gagge page 180. I answer he would conclude from hence thus Therefore our Church doth not teach Predestination to be without relation to faith For the place requires this conclusion as hee that readeth these places may see viz. pag 178. that God c. page 180. the positiue c. page 179. the Church c. p. 181. I nor teach c. Now we haue his reason I will examine the truth of it I answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 57. used in another case The Church of England doth not teach thus touching Predestination and why may I not say so except you shew the contrary or bring me forth a Creed a Cannon a conclusion in being for it in the Church of England But let it bee as you will If this bee all that our Church hath taught of Predestination then it hath said nothing of it for Predestination is a decree or dispositiue act of God will as we haue learned by your selfe No 4. Now these words shew vs from whence sinne came and whither it will what bee the meanes to escape it and it speakes of Gods velleitie or willingnesse vnto mans freedome therefrom but of any positiue act ordering man to the supreame end Mr. Mountagu brings not a word as the doctrine of our Church Besides this I haue the witnesse of one M. Mountagu that bringeth more positiue doctrine from the Church of England then this viz. out of the 17. Article in his Appeale p. 51. and these are his words In the 17. Article the Church speaketh of Election onely 1 That there is a Predestination by God vnto life 2 That it was an act of his from euerlasting 3 That he founded it and resolued for it iâ— the man and Mediator Christ both for the purpose and performance 4 That it is and was of some speciall ones alone elect called forth and reserued in Christ and not generally extended vnto all mankind 5 This purpose of his is like vnto himselfe vnchangeable done according to the Councell of his will Which must needes bee more then the former fiue propositions no 14. for there is neuer a one of these except the third so much as mentioned in those former seeing this Master Mountagu alleadgeth authority and the former M. Mountagu bringeth none this testimonie must bee receiued the former reiected whereby this reason is as poore miserable and lame as the former Therefore I will leaue it in the Spittle-house with them and proceed From this passage alleadged out of the 17. Article he discourseth thus 1 What our Church resolueth touching this is resolued in the 17. Article the very words of that Article being expressed in termes as farre as concerned that decree Appeale p. 58. 2 This is all that I can find touching that purpose and decree of God Appeale p. 52. 3 In all which passage containing Gods decree is not one word touching your absolute decree of God to glorifie man without any regard vnto his faith c. Appeale p. 58. I answer I will not striue about the first and third branches The whole question is about the second wherein he presumeth that His fiue propositions related n o 15. doe containe the whole doctrine of the 17. Article touching the decree of Predestination If it were true I would grant him that our Church doth not teach That Predestination is without relation to finall grace but he presumeth an vntruth The 17 Article hath not all his fiue propositions It presumes the first because it doth shew what Predestination is but affirmes it not it hath not the third nor fift any wayes It hath more by much then you report all which is made euident no 5. and 6. so that I shall not need to spend time to shew it Touching the second branch it selfe I answer it is hardly credible that you did not see more then you report yea what you did see seemes very vncertain for out of your Gag p. 180. you report no 14. the doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in fiâ—e propositions foure of them at least being wholly different and altogether vnlike these and yet you say The positiue doctrine of the Church of England
submit themselues to the office of application and exposition of things already revealed this being inferior as the building that superior as the foundation that being performed without labour and industry this not without much of both that being an immediate continuation of Christs ministery this mediate none of which may be admitted without speciall direction in the Word of God wherein there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit Moreover although this exception were not taken yet the proposition is false These words may be spoken to such as haue not that office this leading into all truth and that office of applying and expounding things revealed doth not necessarily goe together The word leading may signifie no more but an act of doing so much as is required on Gods part which hath not alwayes the event accordingly but oftentimes is frustrate by mans default 2. The words all truth may import no more but that whole which is required vnto the salvation of every particular man so necessarily that without it that cannot be had The assumption is no better the Text alledged hath not one word touching a generall Councell If it be replyed that those words were spoken to the Apostles and from them to the Pastors of the Church which succeed them and because those Pastors cannot consult and giue sentence touching a thing in question except they meet together therefore these words were spoken of a generall Councell To this I rejoyne The Text thus explicated yeeldeth these questions 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church 2. In what respect those Pastors doe succeed the Apostles 3. Who hath the authoritie to gather the Pastors of the Church together 4. Whether all or some and what number of Pastors haue authoritie to determine 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength all which questions are no lesse doubtfull then the conclusion which the Text is brought to proue whereby it doth beg the question but proues it not His second proofe must be thus framed They with whom our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mâ—t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures But with a Councell truly generall our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Councell truly generall c. I answer this place of Scripture doth yeeld these questions 1. What is meant by Christs presence 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting or the thing whereabout they meet 3. Whether that promise extend also vnto a greater number 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet Pastors or not Pastors Every one whereof is no lesse difficult to be determined by the word of God then the present question therefore he doth beg the question and not proue it Farther answer then this there needs none vnto this argument seeing that no proofe can be more base and impotent then that which depends vpon things equally or more doubtfull then the thing to be proved Other proofes then these two he hath not in this point and these two are vrged by Bellarmine de Concil cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. as his maine strength in this question and haue been answered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full but they were poore Divines Mr Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them CHAP. V. Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng There ever was and will be ever vpon earth a visible Church some-where or other with visible cognisances markes and signes to be discerned by viz. Gods Word preached Sacraments ministred Priesthood and ordination Appeale p. 135. Vnto which complaints may be made Gagg p. 49. I Haue nothing to set downe in this point vnder the name of the Church of England because I doe not find any thing decreed therein by our Church neither could it well for as much as in this point the Negatiue onely is defended against the Church of Rome That affirmeth a visibilitie which the Church of England denieth which Negation is implyed in the 19. Article wherein the visibilitie of the Church assigned by the Church of Rome is acknowledged in some things and it is silent for the rest which is as much as if it did say in these things we confesse the Church is alwayes visible and other visibilitie we doe deny According to order here must be inquired 1. Whether that proposition be true or not 2. Whether that proposition doe consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition doâ— dissent from the Church of England or not Before any of these can be disputed his sentence touching the visibilitie of the Church must be vnfolded that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question Which may be done thus It hath these two parts 1. The Church is visible 2. This visibilitie consisteth in the inioying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood ordination abilitie to heare complaints That the Church is visible in the injoying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood and ordination so farre as they are required of necessity vnto the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in question so much is granted on all sides The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19. Article in these words The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessitie are requisite to the same All the question is about the last branch viz. Whether the Church doe inioy all her officers with that freedome that it may be able and fit to determine every doubt that ariseth touching either faith or manners as appeares num 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition set downe by himselfe gagg p. 49. There ever was and will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made Now the question is truly put the next labour must be to inquire of it those 3. wayes which are set downe That it doth consent with the Church of Rome himselfe confesseth when he saith gaggp p. 50. This Controversie to wit of the visibilitie of the Church taught by the Church of Rome and denied by others may cease If he did not agree with them he would haue held it on foote there being so good reason for it they maintaine it as a ground of an Article of their faith and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it And Bellarmines doctrine doth shew it de Ecclesia lib. 3. where he writeth thus The true Church is visible cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subiected vnto lawfull Pastors in the profession of the Christian faith and the vse of Sacraments cap. 2. Nostra autem c. The Church is therefore visible because of this
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
full Iustification 1. Sermon of salvation a little after the beginning There is nothing vpon the behalfe of man concerning his Iustification but onely a true and liuely faith 1. Sermon of Salvation a little before the end CHAP. X. The Doctrine deliuered in the former Chapter is argued THere be three things in it inquirable 1 Whether this proposition A sinners Iustification consisteth also in grace infused be true or not 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of England or not I haue set downe Mr. Mountagu his doctrine touching this point which containeth many propositions and because it might appeare how farre he agreeth with the Church of Rome I bring but one of them to be disputed because if this be foūd false against the doctrine of the Church of England then all the rest will be found false likewise and I desire to contract the disputation vnto the narrowest scantling That that first proposition is false doth manifestly appeare by the answers made vnto the disputations of Thomas Vega Soto Bellarmine Suarez Vasques and others that doe maintaine the same To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needlesse because there is nothing brought to proue it That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in euery one of his propositions is manifest to the full The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set downe also in the former Chapter will shew it And that not onely in the Iustice that doth concurre vnto Iustification and all other things which depend thereupon but also in the nature and being of the remission of sinnes as shal be declared no. 23 c. Which must be obserued because it is a matter of great importance it is little obserued and maketh vp his agreement with them and his disagreement with the Church of England in euery part and parcell of this point teaching in all things as they doe in nothing as the Courch of England doth That he doth disagree from the Church of England the very reading of the doctrine of them both set downe in the last Chapter will declare Our Church placeth our whole Iustice and adequate nature of Iustification in remission of sinnes he placeth it also in grace infused It maketh remission of sinnes one thing he another as shall bee shewed hereafter no. 26. c. Notwithstanding all which euidence he laboureth in his Appeale pag. 168. and 188. to perswade the world that He consenteth not with the Church of Rome nor dissenteth from the Church of England But all his labour is in vaine the contradictory will proue true as this discourse will declare He pleadeth for himselfe two things First by grace infused hee meant and intended onely concommitanter that is grace concurreth with remission of sins in a iustified man pag. 168. 169. 170. Secondly in that description hee went not punctually to worke but described Iustification at large for that act of God of remission of sins and the necessary and immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that Appeale pag. 172. 178. He chargeth such as do not vnderstand that proposition in this sense with ignorant or wilfull mistaking his meaning or obstinate refusall of satisfaction Appeale pag. 168. 172. I answer All this is a faire shew put vpon a foule cause a meere pretence without shew of truth I will make it appeare first by my answers to the argumēts he brings to proue hee meant thus And then by proofes from the things themselues This was not his intent but his words must be vnderstood as they lie without interpretation His first argument p. 168. is to this effect I did attribute grace infused to Iustification secondarily Therfore I intēded grace infused is in a iustified man I answer This reason is reasonlesse There is no shew in the Consequence the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to thinke you meant so neither doe you shew how it should Againe your owne words doe proue you meant not that by the word secondarily but that grace infused doth constitute Iustification in a second notion For if Iustification be a motion between two termes the one of sinne wherein a man was the other of grace whereto a man is brought and that is the first this the second then grace doth constitute Iustification in a second notion but you teach the first Gagge pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be vnderstood to meane the last In the next place he telleth vs that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught that a man iustified is sanctified also I answer This proueth not that hee meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is iustified but supposeth that he did meane so and sheweth why hee did meane so therefore it is nothing to the purpose Besides it is vtterly false he had no purpose to say any such thing for the question then in hand was whether faith only doth iustifie which could not yeeld him any occasion to say Grace was in a iustified man they being two things euery way distinct and without the shew of affinity Againe neuer any Papist liuing did write or say that we denie a iustified man to be sanctified also therefore you had no occasion thus to say In the last place pag. 171. he hath these words If a iustified man bee also sanctified then might I allow one common word to containe expresse both the parts I answer 1. This supposeth he meant as hee pretendeth sheweth the reason why hee comprehended two things distinct in nature vnder one name but proues not that hee meant to say as hee pretendeth 2. He bestoweth much labour and spares for no cost to proue the first part of this reason but to no purpose for that was neuer denyed by any man in the Church of England nor in any other Church that ioyneth in faith with it But the consequence is vtterly false for these two parts are not essentiall vnto that whole which you call Iustification Therefore when you make one word to containe thē both the sentēce is vntrue disagreeable to art and a monster in nature He is vnskilfull that puts a childs-shooe vpon the foot of Hercules that addeth to the statue of a man the limmes of a beast and iust so doe you in this place if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification vnder the name of Iustification And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse and this too much too for of three things two of them are wholy besides the matter and voyd of truth in themselues the third disproued by his owne plaine testimony In the behalfe of the second part of his excuse hee saith page 172. Iustification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sinnes and largely for that act of God and the necessary immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that c and the like doth Caluine Perkins Beza I
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
said to the point it selfe will come afterwards when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed no. 31. § But how Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this point which hee harpeth so much vpon which doth also euidently shew that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point Wherefore I leaue it and proceed So confident is he in this fancied victory that from thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputation in these words If they meant no otherwise then thus as I conceiue they did not I see no reason to dissent from them There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereunto then to returne you your owne words Appeale â—ag 184. You cite no words name no place send me to no text page nor particulars by any direction that I may know where to finde what you intend a meere tricke of iugling companions Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent which I dare say will not downe nor digest with you aâ— opposing your conceit or rather dreame or wilfull peruerting the meaning of the Councell the which because I haue a fit time I will not let it alone till another Where you say If they meant your meaning is to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent where It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ Sess 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne into the state of grace cap. 4. That you referre vs hither or vnto no other place in the Councell I take for granted Where you say if they meant no more but thus your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before viz. He that is iustified is also regenerate Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part I let passe the consequence of your proposition and come to your assumption which must bee set downe in these words But the Councell of Trent in these places Sess 6. c. 3. and 4. c. meaneth no more but that a iustified man is also sanctified Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring vs the proofe of it in these words As I conceiue they did not Now all parts of the argument are set right I answer to it The assumption is false yea so odiously false as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese or that had conscience to declare the truth when hee vnderstood it This might be made to appeare by diuers passages in the Councell of Trent but I will content my selfe onely with these three 1 Sanctification is by grace infused Iustification it selfe is sanctification Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent cap. 7. In which 1. it speaketh of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters 2. By Iustification it selfe it meaneth the quidditie essence and being of Iustification both which are manifest of themselues they need no proofe And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused is likewise as certaine 2 The onely formall cause of Iustification is the very being thereof Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iustification Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iustification The proposition is a principle in nature and agreed vpon for truth therefore may not be questioned The assumption is the expresse words of the Councell of Trent in the 7. Chapter 3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification then it is by remission of sins onely excluding grace infused But the being of Iustification is not by remission of sinnes onely excluding grace infused Therfore the being of Iustification is by grace infused The consequence of the proposition is so necessary that it cannot be questioned The assumption is the words of the couÌ„cel c. 7. caÌ„ 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption he will supply by the proofe thereof which forsooth is his owne conceit he conceiued they meant not otherwise than thus therfore you must coÌ„ceiue so to Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 178. Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so nay because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded he said it did not so much as seeme white vnto him Your opinions are your owne you will opine what formerly you haue thought so doe for me and there an end But I cannot so let it passe because you keepe not these conceits at home but so much are you filled with them that you must needs vent them or burst And you cannot bee contented with that but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you and more then so wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome in the point of Iustification that haue dissented for many ages till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world Therefore vnto his conceit I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen that haue liued in the Church of Rome till the Councell of Trent all agreeing in this one sentence Grace infused is essentiall vnto Iustification And shall we thinke the Councell of Trent would determine against theÌ„ Surely no Besides the Councell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order Peter Lombard Richard Altisiodore Albert and Alexander the Predecessors of Thomas not attaining thereunto yet consented with him in this thing Since the Councell of Trent all on that side without exception doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustification in grace infused I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares deliuering their iudgments singly and afterwards decreeing the same in a Councell ioyntly and last of all the same decree so interpreted and defended vniuersally but I leaue it and conclude in his owne words Appeale p. 248. You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the question but scumme vpon the surface and gibberish you cannot tell for what And thus much is enough and too much to haue said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustification In which also I wil content my selfe
taught in the Homilies is the authorised and subscribed doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke of Homilies was first composed and published in King Edwards time approued and iustified in Parliament in Queene Elizabeths daies and authorised againe of late to be read in Churches But that a man may fall away from grace is taught in the Homilies Therefore falling from grace is the doctrine of the Church of England I answer a man would verily thinke hee would haue vs beleeue his proposition to be a certaine and vndeniable truth he bestows so much sweat in the proofe of it but good man hee meant nothing lesse or else at the turning ouer of a new leafe he becomes a new man for he professeth himselfe of another mind in the 260 pag. following in these words I willingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholsome exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions confirmed of the Church of England They haue not dogmaticall positions or doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point They may seeme to speake somewhat too hardly and stretch some saying beyond the vse and practice of the Church of England The ancientest Fathers sometimes doe hyperbolize in their popular Sermons which in dogmaticall decisions they would not doe nor auow the doctrine by them so deliuered Now after this inforcing sort may our Homilie speake and be so interpreted which are all popular Sermons fitted vnto the capacitie of common people Well there is good reason why we should take his second thoughts for the better and so leaue him trāpling his own proposition into the dirt by which meanes his assumption doth not deserue answer But it may be he will put new life into his proposition by a speciall priuiledge that this homilily hath aboue the rest namely that it is for explication of the doctrine contained in the Article I answer he seemeth so to pretend Appeale pa. 32. but it is false we find not any direction from the Article to the Homilie nor any reflection in the homilie vpon the Article neither can the one explicate the other but are really distinct conclusions and proofes The Article saith He departeth from grace therefore he sinneth The Homilie saith He falleth from God by a wicked life therefore is depriued of grace Hee that can make new Articles can create new expositors Although this bee sufficient to satisfie the argument yet I will goe on to examine that which followes In proofe of his assumption he saith p. 32. The title of the Homilie is of falling away from God which very title is sufficient warrant for the Doctrine in this point I answer this title hath nothing to doe with the losse of grace falling from God signifies turning away from Gods law and so the Homilie it selfe a little after the beginning doth expound the title and saith They that may not abide the Word of God but following the stubbornnesse of his owne heart they goe and turne away from God If by falling from God should bee meant losing of grace then the Homilie must bee conceiued thus to reason If you lose your grace then God will take his grace from you For in that sort the Homilie doth reason from falling from God as the reading thereof will shew but it were most absurd to thinke that the Homilie would so reason His second reason for the same purpose is taken out of the Homilie it selfe and standeth in this forme They that are depriued of grace and heauenly life which they had in Christ and become as without God in the world giuen into the power of the Deuill as was Saul and Iudas they lose grace totally and finally But according to the Homilie the truely iustified are thus depriued For It is said they were in Christ they continued sometime in Christ Therefore according to the Homilie the truely iustified may lose their grace totally and finally By this argument hee thinkes the cause is his at common law yee must now yeeld or turne heretike against the Doctrine of the Church of England but he is much mistaken The homilie doth affirme thus much by the way of rhetoricall enforcement to perswade men to take heed they turne not away from Gods Law It being so vnderstood I grant the whole reason but it profits him not He promised n o 5. the positiue and declaratory Doctrine of the Church of England but rhetoricall enforcements are not such It may be some will say there is a truth in this enforcement I answer what truth soeuer there is in it this is certaine the faith of the Church of England is not contained in it No man well aduised will send vs to seeke for the faith of our Church vnto an argument vrging the practice of a duty in a popular Sermon But what that truth is we may best learne from the Author of this Homilie himselfe whose meaning we finde to be comprehended in these two things By such threatnings of Gods taking away of grace First the great danger of sinne Secondly the necessity of repentance is declared Both which are set downe in the first Sermon of Repentance a little from the beginning in these two sentences 1 Wee doe daily by our disobedience fall away from God thereby purchasing vnto our selues if hee should deale with vs according to his Iustice eternall damnation 2 Whereas the Prophet had afore set forth the vengeance of God it is as if he should say although you doe by your sinne deserue to bee vtterly destroyed and now you are in a manner on the very edge of the sword yet if you will speedily returne vnto him he will most mercifully receiue you into fauour againe By which it is euident the opinion of the Author of the Homily was not that man that had grace should by sinning be brought to that condition indeed and in the thing that his habit of grace should be taken from him but that the vrging of such seuerity did fitly serue to restraine man from sinning to reduce him vnto repentance Which being so all the confidence which he put in this argument doth vanish and come to nothing and himselfe may bee ashamed that putteth so great confidence therein p. 32. 33. and 34. I might also returne him the like amplifications vnto the seuerall parts of my answer as might fit to the seuerall amplifications of his argument but I let such things passe His third argument I finde Appeale page 33. c. in these words 3 He that saith a man may fall away and may recouer implyeth withall that some men may fall away and may not recouer But the Article saith the first Therefore it implieth the second I answer this argument requires little to bee said to it because it presumeth that the Article speaketh of losing the habit of grace which hee hath not proued nor can yea I haue shewed the Article may bee vnderstood otherwise cānot be vnderstood so no 7. Lastly the assumption is
of his will this is sure God did so by them and wee beleeue it because he hath said it that he doth so by other men we beleeue not because God hath not said it Wee know some men are in the possession of the habit of grace if you will haue vs beleeue this possession to be casuall shew vs where God hath said hee will take it away else wee dare not beleeue you for it is plaine none can take it away but God and he will not take it away vnlesse hee hath reuealed so much vnto vs which he hath not done and so much for all his arguments taken from Scripture He vrgeth Fathers with no lesse confidence of plenty and plainnesse for him pretending also the authority of our Church commanding all men to receiue their testimony Appeale page 36. and 37. He bringeth some by name Gagge page 165. c. But this is a very bubble and comes from that foysting fountaine that the rest of his brags haue done Bellarmine hath no such confidence in the Fathers hee nameth but two and out of each of them one sentence and so sitteth him downe which Bellarmine would neuer haue done if he could haue found more If Mr. Mountagu will say Bellarmine is a poore Ignaro and hath no old learning himselfe hath read more Fathers then Bellarmine euer heard of which is his owne language in another case all the world would laugh at him but not beleeue him The conclusion is Bellarmine neither brags nor brings therefore Mr. Mountagu doth both in vaine I will finish my answer to his Fathers by his owne direction Gagge page 165. There needs no proofe by Fathers where holy Scripture is silent Fathers may be pretended by false play but none indeed and in truth according to their words and meaning can be produced Let him try when he will in a Logicall forme and he shall finde it Thus haue I concluded my answers to all his arguments brought to proue his falling from grace taken from the Scriptures and Fathers His last argument for the same purpose I finde Appeale page 17. which he beginneth thus If you deny falling from grace you are a Papist I answer this sentence beginneth an argument which is continued by diuers other parts which follow It is called a delemma in plaine English a Net a Snare a Toyle to catch the old one the battell is before and behinde turne you which waies you will it will catch you But soft and faire old Birds will not be caught with chaffe if the stuffe of your Net be vnsound your game will escape This sentence doth neither affirme nor deny put it into a lawfull forme and it speaketh thus He that denyeth falling from grace is a Papist This sentence is false for falling from grace is an Article of the Popish faith as himselfe confesseth Gagge page 158. and I haue proued by the Councell of Trent cap. 11. The denyall of the Popish faith cannot argue a man to be a Papist in the iudgement of any man liuing Hee is a strange Papist that treads the faith of Papists vnder his feete but more strange that a man should be a Papist for denying the Popish faith Well but he will proue it by the words which follow viz. For I demand did Peter fall or did he not fall when he denyed Christ I answer euery interrogation hath the force of an affirmation now this is referred as a proofe vnto the precedent sentence by the word for which doth immediately follow the same thus then hee doth dispute Peter did either fall or not fall Therefore hee that denieth falling from grace is a Papist I know you laugh at this naughtie consequence but you must not doe so Homer may take a â—â—p well let that passe Peter did fall or not fall what of that wee staâ—d now betweene two you must tell vs which wee shall chuse for that end these words follow If abnegation and abiuration and execration will inforce a fall he did I answer this leaueth the matter no lesse doubtfull then it was this giueth vs leaue to say But it did not inforce a fall Therefore Peter did not fall Or thus But it did inforce a fall Therefore he did fall When you haue said all you haue said nothing It may be the next will dispatch the matter You say If he fall he needes must fall totally or finally for shew me a third I answer this is faire but farre off whither this tendeth none but your selfe knowes if your selfe doe know you shall be crowned for a choyce one You diuide a totall fall from a finall and that is absurd Euery finall is a totall and some totall is also finall your selfe being Iudge There may be a fall neither totall nor finall as when Gods concurse or actuall grace is with-held but the habit remaineth And this is possible seeing there is actuall grace and habituall as Suares does proue plenteously de grat proâ—egom 3. cap. 6. and 3 parte lib. 1. no 4. c. yea actuall and habituall grace also doe differ in their vse This seruing to make mans will fit to eliciate supernaturall actions after a connaturall and perfect manner by an inrrinsicall and connaturall faculty as Suarez teacheth opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no. 1. That tending to dispose vnto this as the Councell of Trent sess 6. cap. 5. and 6. decreeth and Suarez consenteth in the place alleadged and to moue the habit vnto working being obtained as Aluarez proueth de Auxilijs disp 88. and the thing it selfe by perpetuall experience doth shew see Alua. disp 24. no 37. and Bellar. de grat lib. 1. cap. 4. Quatuor dona haue patience it may be it will come anone in the meane time he proceeds thus Now then in such denyall St. Peter did he fall or did he not fall I answer the word Then importeth an inference so that this sentence is inferred vpon another but what that other is wee shall not finde in any part of this argument for they are all either disiunctiue or connext propositions Before we had heads without a tayle now we haue a tayle without a head this demand came once before it seemeth it will abide a second seething well let that be what will become of it wee shall see anone and that is well no doubt for the second seething hath made it wholsome food thus you goe on You must answer he did not fall I answer and so must you too or be a rebell against your Mother the Church of England which in the first Sermon of Repentance a little before the end where after it had reckoned vp Peters denyall of his Master and dissimulation at Antioch it concludeth After this grieuous offence hee was not vtterly excluded and shut out from the grace of God With whom I also say Peter did not lose the habit of grace by the denyall of Christ but what of all this he will now tell you in these words So that you ioyne with the
Rome cals voluntary workes workes of supererogation Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome as I haue shewed out of Bellarmine n o 1. Therefore the Church of England and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantasticall 2 O Mr Mountagu who doe you make your selfe to be doe you know the faith of Rome better then your Mother nay better then your selfe you subscribed that Article and thereby professed those words of her to bee true is the other end of your tongue turned outwards that you now vnsay what you said then did you then know and now are ignorant But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and your selfe doe you thinke to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fooles that vnderstand not their owne faith but you would bee thought farre from this therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts 3 The proposition doth suppose that Workes laid vp in store to satisfie for other mens offences called the treasure of the Church are the Papists workes of supererogation And so hee speaketh expresly Gagge page 103. 105. 106. 〈◊〉 this is a meere presumption without truth auouched barely vpon his owne word without tendring any proofe You must proue what you say or else you bring words of the wind Against you I proue thus 1 That which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others is not workes but the value and price of workes viz. satisfaction Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Propos 4 Propos cap. 3. 1 Propos Therefore that which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others cannot be their works of supererogation But let vs suppose that the voluntary workes themselues be so laid vp yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation and thus I shew it If voluntary workes laid vp in the treasury of the Church be therefore their works of supererogation then works done according to Moses Law are also their works of supererogation for the satisfaction arising froÌ„ them is also laid vp in the treasury of the Church to satisfie for other as Bellarmine teacheth de Indulg lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo non est But that works done according to the Morall Law are not their works of supererogation I take as granted Of his agreement or disagreement with the church of England in the point of voluntary works you need not make a question for if you will beleeue him The Church of England Hath no doctrine against Euangelicall counsels Gag page 103. For now voluntary works and euangelicall counsells are the same as wee haue heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad c. and as himselfe doth expound it out of Philastrius and Nazianzen Gag p. 10. But this imputation is an vntruth so â—oule that it deserueth no other answer but his owne words Blush for shame Gagg p. 250. For the Church of England saith expresly Voluntarie workes besides ouer and aboue Gods commandements cannot be taught Arti. 14. And further it saith Man cannot for Gods sake doe more then of bounden duty is required which is as much as if it had said There be no voluntary workes at all But it may be he will say yee doe him wrong hee speaketh not absolutely but so farre as he knoweth I answer Those are his words indeed but marke the sense those words seeme to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his deniall for is it credible that he could not read this Article Or that hee did not know 1. That the Church of England had made this Article 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those workes indeed which it doth deny in words Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Surely none of these may bee conceiued Therefore we may conclude as a thing very probable that his intent was to auouch that denyall vpon his owne knowledge Now the Iudgement of our Church and of Master Mountagu in the point of voluntary workes is fully known that they are contradictory it may be concluded he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary workes But before I passe from it one thing is worthy observation viz. Mr. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories He subscribed the Article that saith there is no voluntary workes and he subscribed that there is voluntary works Gagg p. 103. c. Can any man tell what this man would doe to bee Chiefe muftie I doubt himself cannot But pardoÌ„ him his ends were contrary He must subscribe the Article or misse aduancement He must subscribe the other or be no reconciler He meant to attaine both Hee hath gotteÌ„ the first he professeth himself for the second Appeale pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his bookes therefore it was reason he should subscribe on both sides In the first he subscribed to what protestants are in the second to what they ought to be I should now come to dispute the question whether A man may doe voluntary workes Wherein I might first proue the negatiue but it seemeth better to resolue with M. Mountagu Appeale pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seeeke or goe about to beetle it into his braines because he saith Appeale pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion there are Euangelicall counsels And hee resolueth Appeale pag. 224. to ioyne in opinion with them And he giues this reason for it Appeale p. 240. I am tyed not to preach or publish otherwise according to the Cannons prescribed vnto Ministers in such cases Anno 1571. Knowing it to be the resolued doctrine of antiquitie as I doe I am not excusable if I transgresse the Cannons But notwithstanding because hee may change his mind therefore I will proceed and proue There be no voluntary workes My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleadged n o 6. c. Whose authoritie onely ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu because hee hath subscribed those words of the Article as true and hath vowed to forsake all others and follow his mother the Church of England Appeale pag. 183. And the rather because those words doe so plainely and fully deny voluntary workes My second argument shall bee the same which I find in the Article on this sort to be framed Whosoeuer teacheth voluntary workes they be proud arrogant and impious For saith the Article Voluntary workes cannot be taught without pride arrogancy and impietie But no man may be proud arrogant and impious Therefore voluntary workes may not be taught It may be obiected that the first part of this reason is extended too far because it reacheth vnto antiquitie And also it doth passe too hard a sentence vpon such as teach voluntarie workes I answer both parts of this obiection be false and the respect we owe vnto the first composers and confirmers of that Article doth bind vs to thinke so for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu and gouerne their passions
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
is no other but them So as what you said there and what you say here ouerthroweth each other If it be them it is not these If it be these it is not them If our 17 Article in your sight hath no more but these then you see our Church doth define Predestination onely by the generall nature efficient cause and subiect matter for your fiâ—e propositions no 15. containe them onely but you dare not say you did see our Church so defining Predestination for then you professe to see a fault in our doctrine not to bee excused seeing that the nature of euery thing is set out by the speciall and formall being and end thereof not by the efficient materiall cause without them But you may not so professe for you say Our Church hath gone on in this point of Predestination warily and in great wisedome and prudence Appeale pag. 59. Besides it is most iniurious and an imputation most false Our Church hath defined Predestination in that 17 article by all the causes whereby it existeth as I haue shewed no 5. 6. which course is most agreeable to art if wee may beleeue Thomas 2 dist 27. q. 1. ar 2. ad 9. And it also hath explicated each cause to make the difinition familiar and easie vnto vnderstanding therefore we must conclude you did see more in the 17 Article then you will acknowledge If you could not see more in the 17 Article then you professe to see then you can scumme vpon the surface but not diue into the depth then haue you no cause to despise the capacitie of other men as poore nor to vaunt of your owne as able to worke wonders seeing there is more in the Article then you can see as hath beene shewed you Thus farre of your reasons to excuse your selfe of disagreeing and dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Predestination and for my answers thereunto by which I hope all doubts are so remoued that we may conclude The Church of England teacheth all otherwise in the point of Predestination then you doe Now wee should examine whether hee or our Church doe teach vs the truth in the point that wee may know which of them to follow but Master Mountagu seemeth to decline all search after that For he thus writeth You cannot relish any thing but Gods secrets you are neuer at quiet with the secrets of Gods Kingdome you can neuer let his Predestination alone that comfortable doctrine of election and reprobation is your continuall Theame It is good to be wise vnto sobriety Appeale p. 59. The sum of which words must needs be these Predestination is neither comfortable nor reuealed Therefore not to be disputed nor our common talke For that is wisdome vnto sobriety I answer The Church of England saith article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort And lest it should be doubted whether this be true or no our Church addeth a reason to confirme it in these words Because it doth establish their faith of saluation and feruently kindle their loue toward God Whether of them shall we beleeue Our Church or M. Mountagu Sâ—rely our Church is worthy of more credit For she passed her sentence with deliberation and vnpartially He with ill affection It confirmes the position with an experimented truth He with his bare word Such a dutifull child is worthy his mothers blessing that giues her the lie vpon his owne authoritie Predestination is reuealed to M. Mountagu else he would not speake of it so wise is he vnto sobrietie but it is not reuealed vnto vs for wee neuer came so neere vnto the spring head as hee hath done and indeed wee need not pretend reuelation to oppose vnto him we onely say shew vs diuine reuelation for your Predestination and wee beleeue it till then we reiect it as your own fantasie It is your boldnesse to meddle with Gods secrets or to deuise a predestination opposite to his reuelation He proceedeth with these words I professe I doe loue to meddle in nothing lesse then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination Appeale p. 60. I answer he must conclude from hence that Predestination must not be disputed Or else it is meere Gaggling If he doe thus dispute then haue wee a worthy disputation for wee haue nothing to guide vs but his owne president We must grant the consequent because the authoritie of the antecedent doth inforce it and good reason too for who would not loue and hate what hee loueth and hateth He saith our predestination is desperate I commend him for it By the last words he spake he gaue his mother the lye expresly She said is was comfortable He denyes it with a scoffe Now he saith it is desperate wherein he checks her also for our Predestination is deliuered in her words and conceiued according to her sense and true meaning as may appeare no 5. and 6. Hee scoffes at them that say the doctrine of Predestination is comfortable belike then to him it is not so But whether of these bee in better case whose iudgement may we follow our Churches or his To appeale to himselfe is a thing not equall Popular positions doe often erre priuate spirits are of weake assurance Appeale p. 8. Well then whither shall wee goe to be resolued in this point Vnto the publike Doctrine of the Church of England contained in the Booke of Articles c. he doth appeale for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England page 9. Agreed no better match no fitter Iudge Let the 17. Article speake It saith vnto such as feele the workes of their flesh mortified and their mindes drawne to heauenly things the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable But vnto persons that be curious carnall without the spirit of Christ Predestination is most dangerous for by it the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or vncleane liuing By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end and the inference is plaine and necessary Vnto the holy Predestination is comfortable If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine vnto thee then art thou carnall and without grace Mr. Mountagu is able to apply specially what our Church hath decreed vniuersally therefore I leaue that to himselfe and all other whom it may concerne contenting my selfe with a bare relation of our Churches iudgement He writeth further thus Our Church in the point of Predestination hath not determined specially Appeale page 59. of when how wherefore or whom Gagge page 179. I answer this sentence tends to the same purpose or nothing that the former did viz. to disswade from all search after the nature of Predestination If a man did not care what he said he might sort well with Mr. Mountagu there is no vntruth so apparent but some man dares aduenture to auouch it there is hardly a falshood to bee found more apparent then this sentence of his and thus I shew it Our
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
ignaroes must giberish to him he knowes not what If hee hath read them where was his conscience when he vrged an argument so often answered and so much opposed and which is more when he tendered it barely as a thing granted without so much as one word out of the diuine reuelation to confirme it or to take away those answers which are made to it What will he plead Is Suarez Aluarez and Bellarmine some of his poore Diuines meere Gaglers Blunderers Ramblers c. not worth the answering not worth the regarding the naming If his will bee to shew himselfe ridiculous he may thus answer and to say the very truth his deeds doe thus answer though wee haue not his words for it I might goe on with this inquirie but I content my selfe with this leauing it to the iudgement of the vnderstanding reader Thus haue I applyed the answers of these authors vnto the argument which doth abundantly shew the weaknesse thereof and I might content my selfe with that but I will adde somewhat more which the argument it selfe doth lead vnto This argument set downe no 27. speaketh of Predestination and if it were a decree to giue glory onely and thereby it doth beg the question because that is denyed him by the Church of Rome and ours If he say he takes Predestination to be a decree to giue grace also then this argument must be framed thus Finall perseuering in obedience is the instumentall cause that Peter receiued grace in the euent Therefore without finall perseuering in obedience God did not appoint by Predestination to giue Peter grace The antecedent or first part is denyed by all which liue in the Church of Rome yea euen by them that would haue Predestination to glory to bee vpon the foresight of workes and they must so deny because the Councell of Trent hath decreed sess 6. Preuenting grace is giuen by God man hauing no merits cap. 5. Wee are iustified freely because none of those things which precede Iustification whether faith or workes doe merit iustifying grace it selfe cap. 8. The same thing touching the free giuing of the first Grace wee learne from our owne Church which taketh it from S. Augustine and tendreth it vnto vs in the Sermon of Fasting p. 172. In these words No man doth good workes to receiue grace by his good workes Good workes doe not bring forth grace Grace belongeth to God who doth call vs and then hath he good workes whosoeuer receiueth grace Which sentence is so full and plaine and of such authority that I shall not need to say any more to shew the insufficiency of the Argument therefore here I will end my answer therunto which also must put an end to our Disputation touching this point of Predestination because he doth not offer any further occasion By that which is past it doth appeare that he dissenteth from the Church of England in this point of Predestination and that hee hath nothing of any worth to say for himselfe or against our Church Now wee should discouer with whom hee doth consent in the point for with some he doth consent else it is a priuate fancy peculiar to himselfe With the Church of Rome he doth not consent I take that as certaine therefore he must consent with the Lutherans and Arminians I name them both because both haue shares in the businesse The Lutherans doe vrge this doctrine of Predestination but not very strictly nor as a matter vndoubtedly revealed nor doe they presse it in all the particulars brought by M. Mountagu and therefore it must bee ascribed to Arminius by vs because hee is the man whose voyce was nearest vnto vs hee vrged it with more particulars and vpon greater necessitie then the Lutherans doe he chose rather to see the Country that bred him brought him vp and aduanced him come to vtter ruine rather then hee would hold his peace or retract this sentence of Predestination I forbeare to confirme this by the particular passages written by Arminius Vorstius and other of that side because it would be tedious and without all benefit What hath passed is sufficient to shew hee teacheth falshood and vntruth Therefore here I will end the whole Disputation There be also other points of Faith in his two Bookes which oppose the doctrine of the Church of England and which deserue a reproofe but because these are propounded and handled by him in the first place and their opposition is most dangerous therefore haue I contented my selfe with the refutation of these onely reseruing the rest till some other opportunity CHAP. XXI The Conclusion of the whole Disputation claiming M. Mountagues promise ALthough it hath beene his fashion to spend many lines with much bitternesse and ill language very ill beseeming a man of gravity and a Minister yet in the issue hee promiseth fayre if you will beleeue him writing in these words Let him or any other goe honestly sincerely soberly Scholler-like to worke Let him come home to the points controuerted without Rowling Rambling Rauing ioyne issue instantly with the question where it lyeth I am for him no man more ready more willing more submisse more desirous to goe calmly to work for Gods glory the Churches tranquilitie the good and benefit of my selfe and others Thus farre hee in his Epistle to the Readâ—r set before his Answer to the Gagger neer to the end therof I answer I haue accomplished your desire you inuite to the discussion of the things you haue written I hope you will accept it in good part I haue obserued the course of disputation you haue appointed And because I would not trust mine owne Art altogether therefore haue I followed B. Iewel in his answer to Master Harding To shew your selfe a plaine man you professe further in your answer to the Gaggers Preface toward the end 1 Our faith is to be regulated by the Scriptures 2 Bring mee in any one point or all points to this rule Tye me to it try me there I fall downe and adore it I would not I will not swerue from it 3 The present doubts hang in the Church of England I doe appeale to the publike doctrine thereof let that which is against them on Gods name be branded with error and as error be ignominiously spunged out Let the author be censured as he well deserueth by authority If I be so taken with the fact or euidence be cleare against me or I be conuicted by sufficient witnesse to haue erred thus I will recall and recant whatsoeuer is so exorbitant and further will deale so with my owne writing as they did with their curious bookes Acts 19. 19. Appeale p. 9. I answer I haue performed the condition in the iudgement I hope of euery Reader able to iudge of a disputation I looke for the performance of this your promise if you faile the fault must rest vpon your selfe and so I leaue you to your owne choice But you thinke to escape that and yet
be without blame by obiecting against the persons and plea of them that stand against you Of their persons you say They are Puritanes Self-conceited Presumptuous Maligners at States Irregular Louing paritie Factious Turbulent page â— 3. Ouer precise professors p. 4. Malicious p. 5. Hornets ill affected Purer Brethren Great Rabines in Israel whose pens and pulpits be infallible in iudgement page 6. Popular-spirits Singular illuminates Simple ignoranâ—ees Classicall dictators Groners for Parochiall Popes p. 7. Partiaries p. 14. Peremptory resolued conclusiue false slanderers p. 15. Calumniators indirect dealers p. 22. Men of cheuerellised consciences Calumniators neither honest nor plaine hauing presbyterian tricks of Legerdemaine p. 23. Traducers Saint-seeming bible-bearing Hypocriticall Puritans glosers time-seruers Colluders with the State page 43. Closers in shew with our Church but teachers of things contrary to what they haue subscribed crafty pretenders to bring in Popes to euery parish and Anarchies in the State separatists from others singular a part afaction a diuision brethren of Amsterdam p. 44. A faction of nouellizing Puritanes men intractable insociable incompliable with those that will not maintaine dissentions p. 60. Men that haue whirlegiggs in their braines And be far at variance with their owne wits p. 81. Clamorous Promoters That read not ordinary protestaÌ„t writers that braule at the shadow of their owne fancies fight with shaw-fowles of their owne setting vp Talke confidently Traduce virulently mistake ignorantly page 88. Men of new learning that haue little or none old factious furious p. 90. Of the preciser cut zealous Disciples p. 95. Such whose wits be not their owne p. 96. Such as professe themselues senselesse p. 99. Ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits p. 101. Feruent ones violently precise p. 108. Of vncharitable vnchristian fiery Puritanicall zeale Malice Indiscretion Such as run a madding of transported spirits p. 110. Schismaticks conforming for preferment p. 111. Men that hold with the Hare and run with the hound of mouing violent Quicksiluer Gunpowder spirits That run into extreames Furious ones p. 112. Promoters without Christian charitie common wit sense vnderstanding honestie Such whose passions are malignant and possessed with deepe malice Shamelesse slanderes p. 129. Ignorant malicious factious poore diuines p. 138. Franticke good fellowes that are and euer will be I know what p. 139. Halfers in opinions for priuate ends rotten at the core professing conformitie but are opposites p. 142. Men partially addicted maliciously bent to calumniate Honest informers detractors p. 145. Puritanicall opposites p. 146. Men that haue set themselues to calumniate Ignorant of the point they vndertake against That cannot or will not vnderstand p. 168. Fooles opposing common reason confessed diuinity p. 185 Great Masters in Israel Lyars against their owne knowledge p. 191. Ignorant peeuish prophane p. 207. Misdeeming informers wanting sincere and honest dealing p. 209. Malicious peeuish Puritanicall p. 213. Men of poore capacitie without apprehension p. 218. Dissemblers p. 222. Such as vnderstand not the depth of the question scum vpon the surface gibberish they cannot tell for what page 248. Pigmies of this time p. 273. Younglings p. 274. Of vncircumcised lippes p. 275. Of your shorter cut singular in their owne conceits Such as ramble and are ready to grind the teeth p. 279. Furious Puritans p. 281. Ignorant insolent arrogant presumptuous 283. Good brethren seeming holy and precise Tormentors of words malicious detractors 285. Bred and sent abroad by the diuell to maintaine a faction p. 291. Neither discreet nor moderate nor vnderstanding Diuines 293. Foore men that medled beyond their lachet And were out of their element p. 295. Ignaroes intollerable insolent malicious traducers Of Puritanicall quicksiluer spirits p. 304. Such as loue faction and diuision p. 305. Counterfeiting hypocrites p. 308. Of a brasen forehead p. 319. Zealous ones charitable informers franticke fellowes frighted with Pannicke feares of vncharitable conceits p. 320. Of Predominant frensies Ignorant stupiditie p. 321. Against their plea you say It is PRiuate opinions of the Informers Classicall resolutions of the Brethren p. 6. Dismembred passages p. 15. Of pure malice indiscreet zeale Lost-wits p. 17. Mistakings for aduantage p. 20. Shreds cut out from seuerall parts laid together and patched vp for aduantage p. 22. Things broken and dismembred which doe not cohere nor insue nor follow instantly vpon each other laid together out of charitable pure intent p. 24. Passages dismembred mishapen and abused p. 26. Scholasticall points meere speculations of themselues not apt to breed danger That haue beene pursued without all danger but of tongue-tryall p. 42. Priuate imaginations of opiniatiue men ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits p. 101. Idle dreames fancies and furies p. 114. The fruits of angry and idle braines p. 115. Confusednesse p. 116. Sottish malice and ignorance p. 128. Mishapen calumnies false suggestions p. 129. The grunting of swine p. 288. I answer first in the very words of that learned holy and reuerend Bishop Iewell If I should quit him with courtesie of speech I should bee like vnto him but I thought it good to vse such temperance of words not as may best answer your eloquence but as may be most comely for the cause Thus he writeth in his Preface before his Defence against Harding no 1. Although I should grant these imputations wherof I shall speake no 2. yet should you gaine nothing And I shew it in Bishop Iewels words also I beseech you if you haue leisure hearken a little and heare your selfe talke behold your owne words so many so vaine so bitter so fiery so furious altogether in one place These be the figures and flowers of your speech yet must we thinke that you can neither stampe nor rage howbeit I trust no wise man will iudge our cause the wâ—rse for that your tongue can so readily serue to speake ill Defenc. part 2. cap. 1. diuis 1. p. 83. By such discourses he is able to proue whatsoeuer thing shall come to hand when Scriptures faile then discourse of wit must come in place and when wit and discourse will not serue then good plaine round railing must serue the turne then he flingeth now at his Informers now at his Promoters now at the Puritans Thus he iumpeth and courseth this way and that way as a man rouing without a marke thus hee sheweth a mountaine of words without substance and a house full of smoake without fire when all is done we may say of him as the poore man said that shore his Sow Here is great cry and little wooll But truth is plaine and homely and hath no need of these hablements but who so will take vpon him to maintaine vntruth must be forced to leade his Reader from the purpose to feed him with words for want of matter and briefly to doe euen as here you doe In the Preface to the Reader neere to the end To the particular imputations I answer likewise in Bishop Iewels words So terrible are you in