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
A DANGEROVS PLOT DISCOVERED BY A DISCOVRSE Wherein is proved That Mr RICHARD MOVNTAGVE in his two Bookes the one called A new Gagg the other A iust Appeale Laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome and Arminius vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England A Worke very necessary for all them which haue received the truth of God in loue and desire to escape errour The Reader shall finde 1. A Catalogue of his erroneous poynts annexed to the Epistle to the Reader 2. A demonstration of the danger of them cap. 21. num 7. c. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the Chapters contained in this Booke IEREM 5. 31. The Prophets prophecie lyes what will you then doe in the end thereof The sonne of the hand-maid shall not inherit with the sonne of the free Woman LONDON Printed for Nicholas Bourne at the Exchange 1626. TO THE HIGH AND HONORABLE COVRT Of PARLIAMENT The humble supplication of the Author WHereas Mr Richard Mountague hath written two Bookes the one called A new Gagge the other A iust Appeale Which many esteemed as dangerous vnto our Church and State I esteemed it my dutie to reade them and to satisfie my selfe in the poynt whether they were so faultie as was pretended or not When I had read and well considered of them I could not but resolue that they were in deed dangerous vnto our Church For that he endevoured by them to change our faith into the faith of Rome and Arminius Which deed I could not but detest because that faith of Rome and Arminius is false and erroneous And vpon that detestation I became an humble suter vnto the Lord God to preserue our faith in the puritie thereof seing he is the Author of truth and his eye-lids preserue pure knowledge Now out of the same affection I prostrate my selfe this Cause before your reverend honourable and graue Iudgements and high authoritie with all submission and fervent desire Craving That you will 1. take this Cause into your consideration 2. Preserue the faith of our Church in the puritie it hath had hitherto 3. Endevour to prevent the corrupting of it in time to come I doe most willingly confesse that I may seeme to some to deserue blame in that I doe thus presume to offer my selfe into your most honourable presence and Tribunall Yea I am ready to giue that judgement against my selfe when I consider the meannesse of my condition and the poore talent which I offer vnto you But none of those things could discourage me in this businesse when I consider 1. Your most honourable and fatherly care over this Church and State of which you are members receiving with all readinesse and mildnesse the complaints yea of the meanest suters 2. Your service herein will be acceptable to God for by his Law The Foxes must be taken that eate vp the Vines yea it is an honour beyond earthly honour to doe it for thereby a name is purchased excelling humane titles even the name to be called Good servants and faithfull vnto the Lord God and they are also admitted into their Maisters ioy Againe this office is most seemly for your most high and honourable Court because You are therefore called together by his sacred Maiestie our most gracious King That things amisse might be redressed And the redresse of evils in the Church and our faith is of all other most comely and gracefull for thereby the Word of God receiveth freer passage and mens salvation is furthered The doctrine of our Church doth call for your protection against all intruders even of it selfe though all men should hold their peace Because it deserveth protection in as much as it was penned and composed by most reverend learned and holy Authors Fathers of our Church It is in it selfe most agreeable vnto the divine and sacred Revelation yea wanting nothing any kind of wayes of a safe and fit expression of and direction vnto our Christian faith so as we may truly say the Church of England is not inferiour therein vnto any Church in the Christian world Lastly This cause does indeed in a speciall sort belong vnto you for you are possessed with it in part alreadie This doctrine of our Church received the authoritie it hath first from that most high and honourable Court whereof you are By it also it hath bin preserved in that state till this present time Wherefore I rest well assured That you will not impute my boldnesse vnto me Now I might alledge some reasons to moue you to vndertake the worke but I will not doe so For that would be very vnseemely and ill befitting For what man well advised would light a small and dimme candle to further the light of the Sunne in his greatest strength And this would be my case if I should moue you by reasons For you know more then I can write or speake Who would put him forward that is more ready to doe then any can be to aske And this is your case experience doth witnesse it In whom we see not the spirit of Iehu that was zealous for the Lord of Hosts but rather of the Lord of heaven and earth who is ready to heare before we call vpon him yea to call to vs when we are negligent to call vpon him And thus would you doe if it were fit for your place and authoritie so mindfull willing ready are you in Gods service and the good of your Countrey Wherfore I haue onely this to say Goe on For the Lord is with you We your Countrey-men true lovers of our Church and State are with you to helpe you with our prayers vnto God to render thanks vnto God and our gracious renowned Soveraigne and to you saying in the words once spoken by King David Blessed be God and blessed be You. And to giue his sacred Majesty and You the honour due vnto you saying Many of your Predecessors haue done well but You surmount them all Thus I commit You and your Labours vnto the protection and favour of the Almightie LONDON This first of Iune 1626. ¶ To the Reader ALthough I haue no delight in making a Preface for I see not any great need of it yet I here present thee with one because Custome calls for it In this Preface I will advise thee of some things even of such and no more as shall helpe thee to make the better vse of the ensuing Discourse which I will doe also with as much brevitie as I can First know That this Treatise was chiefly intended for my owne satisfaction but is now published for the benefit of others The manner of handling the poynts in it is scholasticall and it might be no other because the things themselues and the partie opposed require it Besides this course of writing is profitable for thee for thereby 1. The matters in question are layd before thee nakedly and as it were in both ends of the
is matters of manners all of them are not matters of faith and therefore they doe not all containe resolutions of faith but some of them bee matters of manners He grants them to be godly therfore true for falshood cannot tend to godlinesse They are subscribed in some things therefore in this that I haue alleadged because it is not a rhetoricall enforcement nor a Tropicall kinde of speech but the conclusion enforced which is set downe in words that haue no other sense but as they lie without interpretation This is enough to proue my proposition and thus I dispute from it Euery exhortation propounded inforced esteemed godly commanded to be subscribed vnto by our Church is the Doctrine of our Church But the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15 is an exhortation propounded inforced c. by our Church Therefore the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of England Thus hee confirmeth the obiection which hee is desirous to thrust off The sight of truth may bee hindered but the being of truth cannot be defeated hee that attempteth to conceale it in the euent makes it more apparent Now we come to see what truth there is in his Doctrine touching Images but I finde no proofe for that It may be hee expecteth arguments to proue that Images in Churches are vnlawfull and that no honor is to be giuen vnto them but that should be vnorderly for hee that will haue vs beleeue that wee are bound to giue honour to Images by the diuine reuelation ought to shew vs record for it and mee thinkes it had beene comely for him to haue borrowed proofes from Bellarmine de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9. 10. and 11. 12. As well as hee fetched positions from the Councell of Trent To answer Bellarmine is but labour lost for I know not how farre hee will ioyne with him in his proofes and it would be too tedious for he brings much more then will sort with this occasion and present businesse Let Mr Mountagu vrge what he liketh best and hee shall haue answer till then I rest satisfied with the Homilie that disputeth thus against Images in Churches 1 If the worshipping of Images doe alwaies befall Images set vp in Churches then it is vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches But the first is true perpetuall experience doth shew it and the affinity that is betweene mans corruption and the worshipping of Images doth procure it pag. 128. Therefore the last is true also 2 That thing which is vsed in order vnto supernaturall actions and is not warrantd in the diuine reuelation for that end is vnlawfull But Images in Churches are so vsed and are not warranted c. pag. 88. Therefore Images in Churches be vnlawfull Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetoricall enforcements and no Doctrine of the Church of England I will saue him that labour I doe alleage those arguments for the truth that is in them not for the authoritie that doth commend them Let him shew wherein they be vntrue or confesse they are true and it sufficeth But he is not able to shew this and therefore wee may safely conclude this man was strangely transported when he wrote on this manner in these words If the Church of Rome had giuen no more to Images but an historicall vse our Church would not haue departed from them about that point as I suppose for so our doctrine is Appeale p. 251. Our strictest writers doe not condemne it p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed but they are singular illuminates let them gang alone I answer what the doctine of our Church is in this point of Images I haue declared in the foregoing Chapter If you can bring any record for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England that putteth vpon Images this historicall vse namely of suggesting vnto mouing or affecting the mind euen in pious and religious affections which you father vpon it p. 253. you may doe well to bring it forth that the world may see it But because you cannot I must intreat you to take the words of Bishop Iewell vnto Harding in the defence of his Apology p. 350 without offence which are as followeth Leaue leaue this hypocrisie dissemble no more it is not manly your credit faileth ouermuch your word is no sufficient warrant If you will fall into your wonted fury it is the Bishop that must beare it They are his words not mine and vttered vpon the like occasion that you offer here I could adde a farther refutation and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of England by the testimony of Bishop Iewell but I defer it vnto the next passage where the reader shall find it He wanted proofes for his doctrine of Images but hee will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof and negation of the contrary For thus hee writeth There is no Popery in the historicall vse of Images Appeale pag. 252. I answer There is Popery in it for it is the faith of the Church of Rome as I haue shewed in the chapter going before and it is contrary to the word of God as I will shew anon both which are sufficient to make it Popery euen in your owne iudgement for thus you write Popery is contrary to the word of God Appeal p. 310. But he doth deny that this vse of Images is contrarie the word of God for thus he writeth 1 The historicall vse of Images is true doctrine in it selfe Appeale p. 251. 2 That Images may be made for ornament memory history no law of God forbiddeth Appeale p. 265. I answer Bishop Iewell is a witnesse so competent to shew vs what is true or not true what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case that I shall need to produce none but him Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article p. 378. c. 1 The first end of Images is the attaining of knowledge although perhaps somewhat may bee learned by them yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attaine knowledge Saint Paul saith faith commeth by hearing not by gazing This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people for where greatest store of such Schoolemasters be there the people are most ignorant superstious and subiect to Idolatry 2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently moue the mind but euery thing that may moue the mind is not meet for the Church of God Gods house is a house of prayer not of gazing Whoeuer adoreth or maketh his prayer beholding an Image is so moued in his mind that hee thinketh the Image heareth him and hopeth it will performe his prayer Alleadged out of S. Augustin p. 318. 3 Touching remembrance it is like the first and therefore is already answered Thus farre the reuerend Bishop If old learning can satisfie this illumination the Bishop must gang alone If it cannot old learning shall haue
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
Rowling Rambling I might adde Ruffling Scuffling Schambling Muffling Buffling Brangling Shifting Tricking Shambling and many more then these if I had Mr. Mountagu his eloquence and I might put them all as titles to the disputations foregoing in this point and yet should I come farre short of the excellency and worthinesse of his Disputation therefore I hope the Reader will iudge as he find s and supply what I want He will speake but once more and that shall driue the nayle to the head thus he saith Without finall perseuering in obedience they are none of Gods elect these being the appointed instrumentall causes of all their saluation Appeale page 74. This reason must be thus framed If finall perseuering in obedience be the appointed instrumentall cause of mans saluation then finall perseuering in obedience c. is the thing without which no man is of Gods elect But finall perseuering c. is the appointed instrument all cause of mans saluation I answer by instrumentall cause of saluation Mr. Mountagu must meane at least the meritorious cause of heauen which being so his sentence in plaine English is thus much Finall obedience is the meritorious cause of saluation In which sentence he agrees with the Church of Rome for the Councell of Trent hath decreed that Eternall life is propounded as wages vnto such as doe well to the end Ses 6. cap. 16. Good workes doe merit eternall life This Doctrine of the Councell is vrged and defended by Bellarmine in his Booke de lusti lib. 5. as the Reader may see to the full Hereupon wee may conclude against Mr. Mountagu in his owne words written in another case Which follow The Ape discouers himselfe by cracking of nuts Appeale p. 308. So doth this man who what and what side hee is of A Tridentine in faction and engrayned in affection that way howsoeuer pretending conformity by subscription ibid. But it may be Mr. Mountagu will say hee did not know that the Church of Rome taught thus much I answer his owne words will then refute him for thus he writeth If a man continue constant in the course of good workes he is sure of heauen causally in Bellarmines iudgement as procured by them Appeale page 210. To the parts of the Argument I answer first The assumption is denied by our Church which saith By our deeds wee cannot merit heauen nor bring vs to the fauour of God nor winne heauen Homilie of Almes-deedes second part page 326. 327. 329. Vpon this reason because then A man is a Merchant with God and so defaceth and obscureth the price of Christs blood Now our Church hath ouerthrowne his assumption there is no need that I speake further thereunto but yet that the efficacy of truth taught by our Church may fully appeare you shall heare himselfe deny this his owne assumption for thus he writeth Bellarmine saith Heauen is of workes causally wherin I differ from him Appeale page 210. There is a reward for the righteous not for workes or of workes Appeale page 208. Some man perhaps will say hee doth then contradict himselfe I answer that salueth not the wound he giueth vnto his assumption the voyce of truth in his owne mouth against himselfe is of more worth then many witnesses This part of his reason being naught the rest hath no force to inferre the conclusion yet I proceed to the rest The foresaid argument at the best and amongst his best friends is not worthy answering It is no better then the dry bones of a Hackney ridden to death many yeares past I finde it propounded and answered by Bellarmine de grat lib. 2. cap. 13. Quintum c. by Suarez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n o 22. c. by Aluarez de Auxilijs disp 37. n o 3. Tertio Deus c. n o 21. Ad tertium c. To the consequence of the proposition I answer that it is most feeble and false A man may haue euerlasting life in the euent by reason of his finall perseuering and yet not be decreed thereunto by reason of his finall perseuerance foreseene I shew it out of the said Authors thus In Predestination there is Gods will of Intention Execution This distinction I finde in Bellarmine de gratia lib. 2. cap. 14. Respondeo illud In Suarez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 18. n o 4. De deo part 2. lib. 1. cap. 14. n o 7. And in Aluarez de Auxilijs disput 37. n o 19. If any doubt of the truth of this distinction the Authors alleadged doe bring proofe enough for it and chiefly Suarez in the places alleadged in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n o 4. c. to whom I referre the Reader Supposing then that the distinction is without question I answer Gods action of execution wrought in time doth indeed represent Gods eternall will of execution for the will of execution is no more but a disposition of execution or the execution it selfe preconceiued in the minde of God as the Authors alleadged doe truely speake In this sense Mr. Mountagu saith truely So saued are So ordained by God Whatsoeuer commeth to passe commeth So to passe because God hath sayd So and no otherwise it shall come to passe Gagge page 177. The one is originall of the other and the one is euidence of the other Appeale page 61. But this is not to our purpose for we speake not of Predestination as it containes Gods will of execution but of intention The acts of God done in time doe not represent Gods eternall will of intension which is no more but a decree appointing that the thing shall bee The will of intention medleth not with the manner how the meanes shall produce the effect and how the effect shall flow from the meanes it assigneth not which is the meanes which the end as the said authors haue abundantly proued It is the first act of Gods will touching mans saluation and is not regulated by any former God was wholly free to will it or not to will it to will it vnto this man or vnto another there being nothing in the creature to restraine this liberty and determine the diuine will vnto one so that you must shew vs diuine reuelation that affirmeth the finall perseuerance of Peter was the reason to moue God to appoint him vnto glory It is not an inferēce made from an act of temporall execution that can be a sufficient ground to inioine vs to beleeue it but such reuelation there is none therefore we may conclude there was no such reason leading God to predestinate this or that man vnto glory Here I may enquire of M. Mountagu whether he hath read this answer others like vnto it or not one of thē is certainly true If he hath not read it where is his transcendent reading he so much doth vant of where is that diuine that so often calleth others ignorant poore and scummers vpon the surface and such like termes Now these poore diuines these simple
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
subiection cap. 12. Septimâ— c. This visible Church cannot fayle cap. 13. Which sentence hath these three branches 1. The Church is visible 2. This visible Church cannot fayle 3. The Church is visible by subiection to Pastors in matters of faith In the two first Mr Mountague and the Church of Rome agree expresly In the third they agree in the thing because subiectioÌ„ to Pastors in matters of faith supposeth that there be Pastors to whom complaints may be made and who are fit and haue freedome abilitie to heare complaints in matters of faith He saith there will ever be a Church to whom complaints may be made Bellarmine saith there will ever be a Church wherein there is ruling and obeying in matters of faith cap. 13. Which sentence he presumeth in the beginning of that 13. Chapter is denied by Calvin and others against whom he doth proue it there and defend it cap. 16. That it doth dissent from the Church of England he might as truly haue confessed For if the Church of England had judged that the Church should be perpetually so open vnto the eye of the world as to injoy the libertie to heare Complaints and determine them then it would haue confest it and taught it because it hath taught visibilitie in all other things that they do and it would haue set downe the whole truth in the point but this it hath not done therefore it is most certaine the Church of England doth deny that visibilitie of the Church which they claime he yeelds vnto He is very desirous to perswade the world of his agreement with the Church of England therefore he telleth vs Appeale p. 134. In the 19. Article Church and visible are convertible termes Therefore the 19. Article tendreth no invisibilitie The sence of this Conclusion is The 19. Article doth not teach that the Church is invisible But that is a private opinion of some and so he doth interpret himselfe Appeale p. 133. This Conclusion is nothing to his purpose if he will shew his agreement with the Church of England he must shew vs a record for this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made For so saith he number 1. 4. Your antecedent is false Church and visible in that definition cannot be convertible termes For they are not predicated one of another Secondly both of them make the subiect part of that definition The terme Church bâ—ing the thing defined is restrained vnto a speciall notion by the word visible 3. Termes convertible are adequate in their essence so are not these Church and visible for visibilitie is but an adiunct vnto the Church Your Consequence is also naught for as your selfe confesse Appeale p. 134. It is a position drawn out from the 19. Article that there is a Church of Christ invisible And indeed so it is for to say the Church is visible is to grant the Church is also invisible els how can there be a divided member vnto visible He labours to shew wherein the Church is invisible p. 135. But I leaue that because it is nothing to the point in hand as I haue shewed The proposition in question is set downe num 4. 6 which is denied to be true and that vpon good ground for God hath never promised to his Church any such freedome libertie and outward estate in the world that it should be able at all times to heare complaints and determine of them Neither doth this freedome and glorious outward estate belong to the nature of a visible Church in the sentence of the Church of England which hath bounded the totall adequate nature of the visible Church within shorter limits And indeed who would be so grossely mistaken as to thinke that the Catholike Church hath no being in the world vnlesse it be in case to meet joyntly together in one court to make lawes that shall bind the whole Church in matters of faith and manners It stood him vpon to proue that proposition num 5. viz. There ever was c. to be true for if it be false then the Church cannot be Iudge in Divinitie Controversies because the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies extendeth vnto and is present at all times to determine all controversies in faith and manners that shall arise in any time But this he hath not done He hath not so much as one sentence peece of a sentence or word that may tend to proue this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made In his Appeale p. 135. he bestoweth much labour to proue that The Church is alwayes visible First by reasons then by authorities of Doctor Feild Doctor Humfryes Doctor Willet Bishop Morton Bishop Iewell Doctor White with many vaunts much confidence in their authoritie concluding that they are ignorant malicious or factious that thinke otherwise But all in vaine for that was never denied nor never in question between the Church of Rome and any others If another did thus he would call it a man of straw of his owne making and tell him he shot his boult at it when he had done and such like termes But I pardon him the fault I perceiue it is his Custome to proue what all men grant and to take for granted what is denied he cannot leaue it Therefore I leaue this and passe to the next But I make too much hast I find an argument in his Appeale p. 139. which may not be passed over in silence In these words and in this forme he setteth it downe The Church of Rome hath beene ever visible The Church of Rome is and ever was a true Church since it was a Church Therefore the true Church hath beene visible He chargeth that this be remembred that his friends doe Chew the Cud vpon it A good advice A necessary Caution I will as diligently obserue it as he lovingly gaue it I answer the Church of Rome is taken sometimes for one particular Church and other sometimes for all those also which joyne in faith with it In this place it is taken in the first sence otherwise the argument would be ridiculous That being so taken it is manifest This Syllogisme is false for the forme For The Conclusion thereof is vniversall thus The Church c. But it ought to be singular or indefinite thus Some true Church hath beene visible Perhaps he changed the Conclusion wittingly because if he had concluded thus he saw his Conclusion is nothing to purpose he ought to haue concluded The Catholike Church is perpetually visible as appeares num 12. And his Readers poore simple men had not skill enough to find out that fault well let vs chew this good stuffe a little more Let it be as he will take the conclusion as you find it yet the conclusion is nothing to the purpose For he ought to haue concluded what the Church shall be in all times to come The Church shall be visible He doth conclude what
the Church hath beene in time past The Church hath beene visible particular Church for he saith in the place now alledged it is a part of the Catholike Church And againe Appeale p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome and doth range it with a Church in England France Spaine all which doe denote particular Churches That he doth consent with the Church of Rome it cannot be doubted for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith that their particular Church is the mother and mistris of all Churches Concil Trent sess 7. de Babâ—is can 3. sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. sess 22. de sacrif missae cap 8. That it doth dissent from the Church of England will easily be manifested which hath reiected by Parliament Law the Popes authoritie in all cases of government hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church without any relation to the Church of Rome hath set it downe in the booke of Articles and the common Liturgie and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie in divers places some whereof I will repeat 1. Wee haue departed from that Church saith he whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world which Church also already had departed from Gods Word and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof par 4. cap. 11. divis 1. 2. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne safetie par 5. cap. 15. divis 3. 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now and haue so gone from it as Daniell went out of the Lyons den divis 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together and they shall see that themselues haue most shanâ—â—fully gone from the Apostles and wee most iustly haue gone from them cap. 16. divis 1. 5. We haue departed from him who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. Lastly we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ nor to an Apostle And these are the reasons and causes why we haue restored Religion and forsaken these men cap. the last The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received not as a private opinion but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church For 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so otherwise he would not haue named his Booke An Apologie in defence of the Church of England which he doth 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church without the least blame 3. After this long deliberation it is reprinted with speciall direction from authoritie and to the end it might be had in every severall Parish in the Kingdome which is executed accordingly Whervnto I will adde the necessity which the church of England conceived to be of that seperation which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author as followeth 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever part 6. cap. 22. divis 1. 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse we left him wee could not come to Christ par 6. cap. 20. divis 2. 3. The holy Ghost Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome for so it is written Come away from her O my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes least you be also partakers of her plagues Answer to Hardings conclusion From whence I thus argue The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome to avoyd damnation Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church And Mr Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England Thus he writeth Appeale p. 112. I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome the neerer vnto God and truth That we ought to haue no coÌ„merce societie or accordance with Papists in things divine vpon paine of eternall damnation Much joy may he haue in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper That this proposition The Church of Rome is a true Church Is false and vntrue will appeare by my answer to his Arguments Before I come vnto that I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church which I find written Appeale p. 140. in these words It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church not a sound Church every way in their doctrine Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions yet I passe by it and come to the proposition in question which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church c. I answer his perswasion though never so absolute is no compotent rule for any divinitie question much lesse for this which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith as the Church of Rome would haue it It may be the other two reasons which he hath for this matter is the ground for this his absolute perswasion therefore I passe from this and come to the second in these words In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree I answer this is a very riddle and no proofe What he meanes by essentials what by fundamentalls with whom or what they agree he sheweth not nor are the things evident of themselues When he speaketh to humane intelligence he shall haue answer If the Trumpet giue an vncertaine sound none can prepare himselfe to battell Let vs ayme at his meaning it will open the whole Cause the better It may be by fundamentalls he meanes such Articles of faith as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation If this be his meaning I deny that they agree in fundamentals for in such
Articles they haue no divine faith because the immediate and formall reason of that their beliefe is the authoritie of the Pope and his Councell whose sentence is humane and not divine for want of a Commission from God for that office as hath beene shewed Chap. 3. His third proofe is comprehended in these words Appeale p. 113. They hold one faith in one Lord into whom they are inserted through one Baptisme I answer this wanteth not obscuritie he seemeth to esteeme himselfe safest when he is least vnderstood I suppose he would say thus The Church of Rome teacheth the same faith which God reveald and hath the same Sacraments which Christ instituted I answer if he were as able to proue as he is readie with confidence to affirme I would grant him the question vpon this onely reason But the spight is he hath no proofe at all and his owne word is not sufficient therefore we are where we were see how handsomely he disputes In the last argument he gaue them agreement in fundamentall points of faith that is to say in some not in all points for all points of faith be not fundamentall himselfe avoucheth Appeale p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith a sodaine change there some not all here all not some The matter it selfe of this argument shall be further handled anon num 13. c. He will supply this want by the authoritie of Ianius who is neither Papist nor Arminian his words are these The Papall Church is a Church according to that it hath which belongeth vnto the definition of a Church I answer it is very doubtfull whether this sentence be truly alledged or not because it neither affirmeth nor denieth any thing of certaintie but let it passe as it is it maketh nothing for you He must say The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church For so say you But of this he hath not a word If you say he supposeth The Church of Rome hath something belonging to the definition of a Church I rejoynd he may so suppose and yet not agree with you for that supposall may be a concession in curtesie and not an affirmation of a truth which two things doe really differ in your owne judgement Appeale p. 14. when it was your owne case Of this judgement I hope you are still now the case doth not concerne your selfe And there is great diffâ—rence between something pertaining to the definition of a Church and the essence whereof you speake for that must signifie part of the essence and may signifie the generall thing wherein the Church doth agree with other societies this must be taken for the specificall and adequate being of the Church Lastly I will willingly grant him the Church of Rome hath something pertaining to the definition of a Church and that it is a Church according to it and this is all he alledgeth out of Iunius yea I will assigne him what that something is viz. It is a company of men on earth which pertaineth to the definitioÌ„ of a Church by the confession of them and our Church The 19. Article sayth the Church is a Congregation of men and so saith Bellarmine de eccle lib. 3. cap. 2. And more then so I will grant him viz. that the Church of Rome is so farre forth a Church that is to say a company of men joyned together in one societie by one coÌ„mon bond but this will profit him nothing as is manifest by the thing it selfe Thus farre all the allegations which he maketh to perswade that the Church of Rome is a true Church haue beene examined and found too weake for his absolute perswasion that it is a true Church to be grounded vpon Wherefore I haue good reason to conclude this point in his owne words Appeal p. 161. If you haue any speciall illumination or assurance by divine revelation or rather strong perswasion through affection much good may it doe you keepe it to your selfe presse it not vpon others To which I adde If you will not be advised but insist vpon so vaine a conceit you do amongst wise men but beate the arre for as much as there is the description of the Church in the Scriptures and the authoritie of the Church of England against you neither doth there want proofe for the same thing amongst the Divines of the Church of England But in stead of many I will name onely two that is your selfe and Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester no Papists Arminians nor Puritans no shallow heads that Jcumme off the surface no novellers vnacquainted with old Learning none of the brethren frantick for the holy Cause but iust to an hayre as your selfe will desire Thus you write The Pope is interessed in that Apostacie which is a departing away from Christ his Kingdome his doctrine and his Scepter Appeal p. 149. 150. It may seeme probable that the Turkish state may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Papacie in making vp that Antichrist and Antichristian Kingdome or state opposite vnto the state Kingdome of Christ Turcisme opposeth Christ openly by fiery force and Popery is opposite by fraud and guile Appeale p. 158. The Scripture is our absolute rule of faith and manners we consent and agree it is Antichristian to dissent from to reiect that rule and him an Antichrist that doth so or proposeth any thing as to be beleeved against that rule The Pope doth this let him then be an Antichrist in St. Iohns acceptance There are many Antichrists Appeal p. 160. 161. From hence thus I argue 1. That Church which is Antichristian and an Apostata that hath departed from Christ his kingdome doctrine Scepter that is no true Church But according to you the Church of Rome is Antichristian and an Apostata c. For according to you the Pope of Rome is an Antichrist and an Apostata c. And such as the Pope is such is that Church for as much as they receiue their faith from the Decree and determination of the Pope Thus writeth Suarez defide c. tracta 1. disp 5. sect 7. num 6. 9. A generall Councell in which the Pope is present either in his owne person or by his Legates and confirmed by the Pope is an infallible rule of faith And this he also there saith is a matter of faith Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church 2. That Church which opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ is not a true Church But according to you the Church of Rome opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ For according to you the Pope Papacie Popery opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church How this sore shall be healed it passeth the skill of all such whose learning exceedeth not the age of Plato It may be he hath some that is of an elder
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
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
iustified man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God Appeale page 59. The Church of England holdeth and teacheth punctually that a man may fall from grace Appeale page 73. It is the Doctrine of the Church of England that a man iustified may fall away from grace Ap. p. 89. And when he had belaboured himselfe almost out of breath to proue that falling from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England the Ancients and the Scriptures he concludeth in these words I doe not say more then I am vrged to doe by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles and Doctrine publikely professed and established in our Church Appeale page 37. Other faire flowers that argue him one of the learnedst in the Church of England might bee collected hither but I content my selfe with these because the Reader may finde them in their owne places His last argument in this matter is set downe Appeale page 36. in these words Your prime leaders haue vnderstood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I haue reported it and accordingly they haue complained against it I answer it is very likely hee would conclude from hence Therefore you must so vnderstand it also I let passe his bitternesse for that hurteth none that thinke not of it The Doctrine of the Church of England is vnderstood according to the primary sense and meaning thereof and sometimes also in a forced interpretation some haue complained of and obiected against this latter and so farre I grant this whole reason and good reason they had too for so doing It becommeth the Pastors people of the Church of England to discouer detect the corruptors of their faith But against the first neuer any excepted neither is there any reasō why Take the words of our Church as they lie force them not to serue a turne and they are familiar to vnderstanding and of a manifest truth And thus haue I dispatched all his arguments whereby he thinkes to proue falling from grace to be the Doctrine of the Church of England In the next place commeth his proofes to bee examined which he produceth to proue that a man may fall from grace Of which he hath no small store in his Gagge from page 159. to page 165. wherein hee hath followed Bellarmine de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. step by step omitting nothing that is of any force nor adding any thing that can supply any defect in Bellarmine Hee borroweth of him so much as his confidence in the plentie and perspecuity of diuine testimony Bellarmine saith Quod attinet c. The testimonies of Scripture are so many and so cleere that it is to be admired how it could come into the minde of a man to say Grace could not be lost Mr. Mountagu saith The Scripture speaketh plaine that a man may fall from grace Gagge page 161. Falling from grace is fully cleared and resolued in Scripture Gagge page 165. The Scripture is expresse for falling from grace Appeale page 36. I will giue answer to all the allegations produced let them be Bellarmines or Mr. Mountagues or whosoeuer else Truth may be defended against any opposer The whole multitude of their allegations may be reduced vnto two Sylogismes the former whereof standeth thus If euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity then he that hath grace may lose that grace For The most righteous man liuing cōtinually doth or may mortally transgresse Where mortall sin is committed God is disobeyed Where God is disobeyed he will not abide Where he wil not abide grace cannot consist Where grace cannot consist it must needs be lost Gagge page 161. But euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Therefore he that hath grace may lose that grace I answer the words righteous and righteousnesse in this argument must be taken for the act not the habit and he doth so vnderstand it I take as granted This being so the assumption is true and needs no proofe yet notwithstanding hee alleadgeth many places of Scripture as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. Iohn cap. 15. 2. Matth. cap. 24. 12. Rom. cap. 11. 20. 21. 1 Tim. cap. 6. 20. cap. 1. 18. 19. cap. 4. Gal. cap. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. Heb. cap. 6. 4. and he concludeth that infinite are the testimonies of Scripture to the purpose that these speake vnto All which may be applyed vnto the assumption of this reason and cannot bee applyed to any other sentence neither doe they affirm any more but this viz. euery righteous man may and some doe omit holy actions and commit sinne in the actuall disobedience to Gods law Then hee addeth diuers examples of righteous men that neglected their obedience to Gods law and committed actuall sinne Which must be referred vnto the proofe of the latter part of the assumption and can belong to no other by which it is manifest that all this goodly shew and bumbasted brag of infinite places of Scripture all teaching falling from grace at the last commeth to no more but what euery man will grant and being granted will profit him nothing hee is not thereby one hayre the neerer to this conclusion A man may lose the habit of grace For The consequence of the proposition is naught and the proofe thereof false in many branches thereof auowed onely vpon his owne word without the least shew or pretence of proofe Surely this man meant not sincerely when hee vndertooke to proue that which no man did euer deny but takes as granted and leaues vnproued that which all men doe deny that ioyne not in faith with the Church of Rome That it may appeare I say true I will giue you an account of some faults in the consequence of the proposition and proofe thereof The consequence of the proposition dependeth vpon this sentence The habit of grace departeth from him that actually disobeyeth Gods law If this sentence be true his consequence is good if it be false the consequence is naught the latter part doth not follow vpon the former but this sentence the habit of grace c. is most false as will appeare To make it seeme true in the proofe of his consequence he doth first distinguish of sinne and then telleth vs what kinde of sinne it is that maketh grace depart Lastly hee giueth a reason why that departeth through this but how truely this is affirmed and substantially proued we shall see in the next passage The first branch of his proofe saith Euery righteous man may or doth sinne mortally In which sentence he taketh two things as granted 1 Some sinnes are mortall some veniall and not mortall 2 A man habituated by sanctitie may commit mortall sinne I answer if by mortall hee meant no more but sinne tending and conducing vnto damnation it would not be denyed him that sinne is mortall but thus
and doctrine goe together we agree So that the question is not what may bee giuen them Gagg p. 319. These words as they lye be voyd of sense they containe neither affirmation nor negation they bring nothing that is affirmed of or denied vnto to speak formally they haue neither subiect predicate nor vinculum If this word your be added vnto the words practice and doctrine and the word then bee put before the words we agree then that sentence may bee vnderstood but he will not abide him that shall doe so for he rageth against him that shall doe so Appeale p. 256. c. Whether those words be added or no his agreement with the Church of Rome doth sufficiently shew it selfe in them for 1. these words are spoken vnto the Church of Rome with whom he hath this present disputation for in the former part of this discourse he saith vnto them Whatsoeuer you say c. In your practice c. So that it is all one as if he had said Let your practice and doctrine goe together c. 2. By doctrine hee meaneth all the doctrine of their Church for he speaketh of doctrine without limitation and thereby extendeth his agreement with them in their whole doctrine touching Images which is further confirmed by saying the question betweene him and them is not what may be giuen them Which is as much as if he said I consent vnto their whole doctrine 3. By the doctrine of their Church he must vnderstand the decree of the Councell of Trent for their Church hath no other doctrine but that the rest is opinions of singular men so that his sentence now set downe is as if he had said I agree with the Councell of Trent in the point of Images Now the Councell of Trent hath decreed in the place alledged that The honour to bee giuen to Images is kissing of them vncouering the head and bowing downe before them Which must be vnderstood to be Mr Mountagu his sentence also Notwithstanding all this plaine euidence yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome because The ignorant amongst them giue them honour due vnto God and the learned amongst them as Thomas by name and others with him perswade that as much honour is to bee giuen to a woodden Crucifix as to Christ himselfe in heauen For thus he writeth and in this hee putteth the difference betweene himselfe and them Gagge page 299. and 319. I answer this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome for the one instance alleadged is matter of fact and hath not to doe in this businesse which concernes onely the faith of their Church the other which is the sentence of Thomas is matter of opinion which the Councell hath not decreed and Bellarmine saith de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20. there be three opinions in their Church touching this thing whereof this of Thomas is but one so that we may conclude hee differeth from them in one opinion held by some amongst them and this is all hee saith and therefore for all this hee consenteth with them in matter of faith which is the thing wee seeke for I answer further It doth not appeare that hee doth dissent from them in this opinion neither For he yeeldeth honour vnto Images Gagge page 318. but doth not shew vs what is the nature thereof whereby wee might bee able to discerne the difference of that honour which he giues from that which they giue If it be replyed the Councell giueth little honour to Images and that which Thomas giueth is the main and chiefe thing to be blamed I answer that honour which the Councell giueth is falsely giuen and is a matter of faith which we may not receiue for euery false faith is an addition to the diuine reuelation If you aske whether hee agreeth with the Church of England or not Hee will answer he doth agree with it and doth affirme so much in effect Gagge page 318. 319. but it is a meere pretence without shew of truth hee can alleadge no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England which appointeth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set vp in Churches or that any kinde of honour should be done vnto them being set vp there or which assigneth vnto them any vse in religion much lesse that they should be helpes of piety c. The case being such it was a face without a face that said wee and Protestants doe them all Gagge page 318. The very truth is he doth contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England in some of these positions directly and in other some by necessary consequence and I proue it thus The Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies is the Doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke it selfe and the vse thereof is established by publike authority and the subscription of all Ministers Artic. 35. But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies Therefore he doth contradict c. The assumption or second part will bee apparent to him that readeth the words on both sides set downe in the former Chapter It saith Idoll and Image is the same thing and alleadgeth the vse of Scripture for it He saith Image and Idoll may be two things that is are not one It saith Images may not be brought into Churches and that being there they bee vnlawfull and intollerable He saith they may bee brought into Churches they are not vnlawfull and are sometimes profitable all which are direct contradictions affirming what it denieth and denying what it affirmeth Lastly if Images may not be brought into Churches then may they not be imployed in religion for helpes of piety the instruction of the ignorant and the stirring vp of deuotion c. for these are more then that because Images in Churches may bee for ornament or for no vse The Homilie doth deny the placing of Images in Churches therefore it must also deny them to be helpes vnto piety c. now he teacheth contradictory to this in making Images helpes vnto piety therefore hee doth contradict that which followeth vpon the words of the Homilie by necessary consequence Let vs see how he will auoid this obiection and for that end thus he saith Appeale page 260. I admit the Homilies to containe godly exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions of our Church or Doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point I answer in the 12. Chapter no 8. hee extold the Doctrine of the Homilie as an authenticall record of the Doctrine of the Church of England In this place he denies them to containe the dogmaticall resolutions of our Church so constant is hee and so settled in his iudgement Let vs take what he will admit which we finde to be three things first they are exhortations secondly godly thirdly To bee propugned and subscribed in some things I require no more Exhortations they are that
Rome cals voluntary workes workes of supererogation Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome as I haue shewed out of Bellarmine n o 1. Therefore the Church of England and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantasticall 2 O Mr Mountagu who doe you make your selfe to be doe you know the faith of Rome better then your Mother nay better then your selfe you subscribed that Article and thereby professed those words of her to bee true is the other end of your tongue turned outwards that you now vnsay what you said then did you then know and now are ignorant But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and your selfe doe you thinke to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fooles that vnderstand not their owne faith but you would bee thought farre from this therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts 3 The proposition doth suppose that Workes laid vp in store to satisfie for other mens offences called the treasure of the Church are the Papists workes of supererogation And so hee speaketh expresly Gagge page 103. 105. 106. 〈◊〉 this is a meere presumption without truth auouched barely vpon his owne word without tendring any proofe You must proue what you say or else you bring words of the wind Against you I proue thus 1 That which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others is not workes but the value and price of workes viz. satisfaction Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Propos 4 Propos cap. 3. 1 Propos Therefore that which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others cannot be their works of supererogation But let vs suppose that the voluntary workes themselues be so laid vp yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation and thus I shew it If voluntary workes laid vp in the treasury of the Church be therefore their works of supererogation then works done according to Moses Law are also their works of supererogation for the satisfaction arising froÌ„ them is also laid vp in the treasury of the Church to satisfie for other as Bellarmine teacheth de Indulg lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo non est But that works done according to the Morall Law are not their works of supererogation I take as granted Of his agreement or disagreement with the church of England in the point of voluntary works you need not make a question for if you will beleeue him The Church of England Hath no doctrine against Euangelicall counsels Gag page 103. For now voluntary works and euangelicall counsells are the same as wee haue heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad c. and as himselfe doth expound it out of Philastrius and Nazianzen Gag p. 10. But this imputation is an vntruth so â—oule that it deserueth no other answer but his owne words Blush for shame Gagg p. 250. For the Church of England saith expresly Voluntarie workes besides ouer and aboue Gods commandements cannot be taught Arti. 14. And further it saith Man cannot for Gods sake doe more then of bounden duty is required which is as much as if it had said There be no voluntary workes at all But it may be he will say yee doe him wrong hee speaketh not absolutely but so farre as he knoweth I answer Those are his words indeed but marke the sense those words seeme to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his deniall for is it credible that he could not read this Article Or that hee did not know 1. That the Church of England had made this Article 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those workes indeed which it doth deny in words Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Surely none of these may bee conceiued Therefore we may conclude as a thing very probable that his intent was to auouch that denyall vpon his owne knowledge Now the Iudgement of our Church and of Master Mountagu in the point of voluntary workes is fully known that they are contradictory it may be concluded he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary workes But before I passe from it one thing is worthy observation viz. Mr. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories He subscribed the Article that saith there is no voluntary workes and he subscribed that there is voluntary works Gagg p. 103. c. Can any man tell what this man would doe to bee Chiefe muftie I doubt himself cannot But pardoÌ„ him his ends were contrary He must subscribe the Article or misse aduancement He must subscribe the other or be no reconciler He meant to attaine both Hee hath gotteÌ„ the first he professeth himself for the second Appeale pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his bookes therefore it was reason he should subscribe on both sides In the first he subscribed to what protestants are in the second to what they ought to be I should now come to dispute the question whether A man may doe voluntary workes Wherein I might first proue the negatiue but it seemeth better to resolue with M. Mountagu Appeale pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seeeke or goe about to beetle it into his braines because he saith Appeale pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion there are Euangelicall counsels And hee resolueth Appeale pag. 224. to ioyne in opinion with them And he giues this reason for it Appeale p. 240. I am tyed not to preach or publish otherwise according to the Cannons prescribed vnto Ministers in such cases Anno 1571. Knowing it to be the resolued doctrine of antiquitie as I doe I am not excusable if I transgresse the Cannons But notwithstanding because hee may change his mind therefore I will proceed and proue There be no voluntary workes My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleadged n o 6. c. Whose authoritie onely ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu because hee hath subscribed those words of the Article as true and hath vowed to forsake all others and follow his mother the Church of England Appeale pag. 183. And the rather because those words doe so plainely and fully deny voluntary workes My second argument shall bee the same which I find in the Article on this sort to be framed Whosoeuer teacheth voluntary workes they be proud arrogant and impious For saith the Article Voluntary workes cannot be taught without pride arrogancy and impietie But no man may be proud arrogant and impious Therefore voluntary workes may not be taught It may be obiected that the first part of this reason is extended too far because it reacheth vnto antiquitie And also it doth passe too hard a sentence vpon such as teach voluntarie workes I answer both parts of this obiection be false and the respect we owe vnto the first composers and confirmers of that Article doth bind vs to thinke so for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu and gouerne their passions
is no other but them So as what you said there and what you say here ouerthroweth each other If it be them it is not these If it be these it is not them If our 17 Article in your sight hath no more but these then you see our Church doth define Predestination onely by the generall nature efficient cause and subiect matter for your fiâ—e propositions no 15. containe them onely but you dare not say you did see our Church so defining Predestination for then you professe to see a fault in our doctrine not to bee excused seeing that the nature of euery thing is set out by the speciall and formall being and end thereof not by the efficient materiall cause without them But you may not so professe for you say Our Church hath gone on in this point of Predestination warily and in great wisedome and prudence Appeale pag. 59. Besides it is most iniurious and an imputation most false Our Church hath defined Predestination in that 17 article by all the causes whereby it existeth as I haue shewed no 5. 6. which course is most agreeable to art if wee may beleeue Thomas 2 dist 27. q. 1. ar 2. ad 9. And it also hath explicated each cause to make the difinition familiar and easie vnto vnderstanding therefore we must conclude you did see more in the 17 Article then you will acknowledge If you could not see more in the 17 Article then you professe to see then you can scumme vpon the surface but not diue into the depth then haue you no cause to despise the capacitie of other men as poore nor to vaunt of your owne as able to worke wonders seeing there is more in the Article then you can see as hath beene shewed you Thus farre of your reasons to excuse your selfe of disagreeing and dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Predestination and for my answers thereunto by which I hope all doubts are so remoued that we may conclude The Church of England teacheth all otherwise in the point of Predestination then you doe Now wee should examine whether hee or our Church doe teach vs the truth in the point that wee may know which of them to follow but Master Mountagu seemeth to decline all search after that For he thus writeth You cannot relish any thing but Gods secrets you are neuer at quiet with the secrets of Gods Kingdome you can neuer let his Predestination alone that comfortable doctrine of election and reprobation is your continuall Theame It is good to be wise vnto sobriety Appeale p. 59. The sum of which words must needs be these Predestination is neither comfortable nor reuealed Therefore not to be disputed nor our common talke For that is wisdome vnto sobriety I answer The Church of England saith article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort And lest it should be doubted whether this be true or no our Church addeth a reason to confirme it in these words Because it doth establish their faith of saluation and feruently kindle their loue toward God Whether of them shall we beleeue Our Church or M. Mountagu Sâ—rely our Church is worthy of more credit For she passed her sentence with deliberation and vnpartially He with ill affection It confirmes the position with an experimented truth He with his bare word Such a dutifull child is worthy his mothers blessing that giues her the lie vpon his owne authoritie Predestination is reuealed to M. Mountagu else he would not speake of it so wise is he vnto sobrietie but it is not reuealed vnto vs for wee neuer came so neere vnto the spring head as hee hath done and indeed wee need not pretend reuelation to oppose vnto him we onely say shew vs diuine reuelation for your Predestination and wee beleeue it till then we reiect it as your own fantasie It is your boldnesse to meddle with Gods secrets or to deuise a predestination opposite to his reuelation He proceedeth with these words I professe I doe loue to meddle in nothing lesse then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination Appeale p. 60. I answer he must conclude from hence that Predestination must not be disputed Or else it is meere Gaggling If he doe thus dispute then haue wee a worthy disputation for wee haue nothing to guide vs but his owne president We must grant the consequent because the authoritie of the antecedent doth inforce it and good reason too for who would not loue and hate what hee loueth and hateth He saith our predestination is desperate I commend him for it By the last words he spake he gaue his mother the lye expresly She said is was comfortable He denyes it with a scoffe Now he saith it is desperate wherein he checks her also for our Predestination is deliuered in her words and conceiued according to her sense and true meaning as may appeare no 5. and 6. Hee scoffes at them that say the doctrine of Predestination is comfortable belike then to him it is not so But whether of these bee in better case whose iudgement may we follow our Churches or his To appeale to himselfe is a thing not equall Popular positions doe often erre priuate spirits are of weake assurance Appeale p. 8. Well then whither shall wee goe to be resolued in this point Vnto the publike Doctrine of the Church of England contained in the Booke of Articles c. he doth appeale for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England page 9. Agreed no better match no fitter Iudge Let the 17. Article speake It saith vnto such as feele the workes of their flesh mortified and their mindes drawne to heauenly things the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable But vnto persons that be curious carnall without the spirit of Christ Predestination is most dangerous for by it the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or vncleane liuing By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end and the inference is plaine and necessary Vnto the holy Predestination is comfortable If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine vnto thee then art thou carnall and without grace Mr. Mountagu is able to apply specially what our Church hath decreed vniuersally therefore I leaue that to himselfe and all other whom it may concerne contenting my selfe with a bare relation of our Churches iudgement He writeth further thus Our Church in the point of Predestination hath not determined specially Appeale page 59. of when how wherefore or whom Gagge page 179. I answer this sentence tends to the same purpose or nothing that the former did viz. to disswade from all search after the nature of Predestination If a man did not care what he said he might sort well with Mr. Mountagu there is no vntruth so apparent but some man dares aduenture to auouch it there is hardly a falshood to bee found more apparent then this sentence of his and thus I shew it Our