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
stamp and by it can shew how a church may be a runn away from Christ and a houshold servant vnto Christ How that church which reiecteth Christs law kingdom Scepter and in that respect is a rebell doth also at the same instant reteine obey and yeeld subiection vnto Christ his kingdome and Scepter And this he must doe or els confesse what he built in one place he destroyeth in another This he cannot doe because Christ his kingdome nor his Scepter cannot be devided into parts nor the Church extended therevnto as vnto parts neither can the doctrine of Christ be so obiected vnto the faith and obedience of the Church as that it may reiect some part thereof and beleeue other some but it must obey and beleeue every part thereof actually and intentionally or nonâ— at all There is one God one faith one hope one Baptisme not deviding but composing Christ in his members and profession are his owne words Appeale p. 43. Therefore by his owne authority I may safely conclude against his owne proposition now in question The Church of Rome is not a true Church Bishop Carleton writeth thus in his Booke called Directions to know the true Church The Church of Rome which now is is not the true Church of Christ p. 78. 92. The Church of Rome as now it stands hath no communion with the Catholike Church p. 88. 100. The present Church of Rome is no Church of Christ but an assemblie I say not of heretikes but of farre worse and more dangerous then any heretikes heretofore haue beene p. 65. Touching the danger that they are in which haue communion with the Church of Rome in the Popish doctrine and the receivers thereof he writeth thus These traps are layd with great subtiltie to inthrall their soules let them at least that are seduced lift vp their eyes and see the snares that are provided to catch them and behold the danger that is before them if they will wilfully fall into these snares then may they blame themselues for their owne destruction p. 63. 64. The damage redoundeth to the destruction of their soules This thing the simple people ought more carefully to looke to more exactly to prevent then any damage that can grow in their worldly state p. 43. The meanes to be saved are now taken away by these that are now in the Church of Rome p. 84. Which testimony as it is free from all exception that might any wayes disable it so also it caries with it many circumstances of credit especially to Mr Mountague for he saith Appeal p. 69. Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance since is his reverend and much reverenced Diocesan his superior in learning and authoritie A thing much vrged by himselfe Appeal p. 28. Vnto all men I find these circumstances yeelding credit vnto him Our Church and state doth take knowledge of him for learning and vertue for it imployed him for our Church in the Synode of Dort and that as the principall of our Divines that were sent thither are Mr Mountague his owne words Appeal p. 69. Since that our Church hath advanced him vnto Diocesan authoritie Lastly his testimony agreeth fully with the testimony of Bishop Iewell set downe before whose doctrine is indeed the doctrine of our Church the booke it selfe is dedicated vnto his Maiestie that now is and thereby hath a Royall Confirmation and Protection But which is most of all this testimony is commended by cleare and evident demonstration which out of the sayd booke is thus to be framed Every particular assemblie that holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church is no true Church of Christ but an assembly of heretickes p. 5. For the Church is but one not two nor many p. 4. But the Church of Rome hath broken off this vnitie with the Catholike Church p. 5. Therefore the present Church of Rome is no church of Christ but an assemblie of heretickes p. 65. The assumption of this argument he proveth thus The Church is one 1. by the vnitie of the body 2. by the vnitie of the head 3. by the vnitie of the spirit 4. by the vnitie of faith p. 6. But the church of Rome doth not hold the vnitie by the body p. 8. nor the vnitie of the head p. 13. nor the vnitie of the spirit p. 19. nor the vnitie of faith p. 22. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church Although all those are necessarily required to proue a Church to hold vnitie with the Catholike Church as he saith p. 6. he bringeth proofes that the church of Rome holdeth not vnitie in any one of them in the severall places which I haue quoted yet I will content my selfe to bring his proofe for the last because as he truely also saith where one of them is found all of them are found p. 7. And contrariwise His proofe for the last standeth thus They that hold the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church they haue the same rule of faith with the Catholike Church p. 34. 39. For The faith of the Church is said to be one because the rule of faith is one and the same from the beginning of the Church to the end p. â—4 But the Church of Rome holdeth not but hath changed that rule of faith p. 32. 49. For Whereas the rule of faith was ever confessed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures now in the Councell of Trent vnwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith and so they teach that the whole rule is in the Scriptures and traditions p. 33. 49. 50. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church I might adde the severall proofes which this reverend Author bringeth to proue the severall parts of this argument but I forbeare it because the principall doubt lyeth in this that he saith The Scripture is the rule of faith And The Church of Rome hath changd that rule Which needeth no proofe because Mr Mountague avoucheth the same Appeale p. 16. On this wise There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it c. The Scripture is an exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from and reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule Which is no lesse then as if he had said expresly The Scripture is the rule of faith and the Church of Rome hath changed it made a word of God of their owne invention Which are the Bishops words in the place alledged In that booke is set downe a second argument for the same purpose thus to be framed They that haue changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith haue changed that whereby the Church is knowne to be a Church But the Church of Rome hath changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith p. 64. 73. For The written Word of God doth suffice to end all controversies of faith and is the Catholike
vse of the free facultie is in him which hath grace But in this sence he cannot vnderstand it for then mans actions cannot be so free as he pretendeth in the seventh and eighth propositions following In this sence free-will is meerly titular having a name without the thing as we vse to speake when a man inioyeth a thing but hath no vse of it and in this sence our Divines haue sayd true who affirme mans freewill is in title onely so also is it most truly affirmed of them that say mans will is a serving not a free-will The seventh and eight proposition containeth thus much He that assenteth c. assenteth freely and can deny his assent if he will c. The word can in this proposition doth signifie a power of vsing the free facultie with indifferency in the very instant in which a man doth worke and so Suarez doth vnderstand it opusc 1. lib. 1. cap. 1. num 8. And so must the Councell of Trent be vnderstood sess 6. cap. 5. For all other senses thereof are violent and extorted not agreeing with the phrase vsed by the Councell of Trent nor their intent in decreeing If Mr Mountague can proue this let him take all for me I will not oppose the Councell of Trent and himselfe a Disciple thereof in this question of free-will If he cannot proue it why doth he put himselfe into Gods seat by intruding and vrging Articles of faith I am out of doubt he cannot proue it for Suarez hath attempted many things and heau'd at it with both his shoulders but all in vaine it may be Suarez hath no old learning nor Logick so good as Ramus taught in Cambridge no Metaphysicks at all but is ignorant in this questiō He could Preach Lecture brawle and prattle a little in a Pulpit but dispute he could not set him to an argument and you breake his braines but be it knowne vnto you all these things are otherwise with Maister Mountague therefore what Suarez could not he can doe and that you shall see in his gagg p. 112. Thus he disputeth In Mathew 23. and 37. there is an opposition of mans wilfulnesse vnto Gods will God would Iudah would not Therefore freely men renounce the Calling of grace and freely runne I answer the last branch of the conclusion which speaketh of running with Gods grace cannot follow vpon the Antecedent because mans will in sinfull acts is an efficient after a different sort and in another manner then it is in supernaturall actions In them it is a principall efficient that is sinneth of it selfe in these it is a subordinate efficient as your selfe teach Appeal p. 94. therefore sinne doth flow from the will one wayes and supernaturall actions another The first branch in the conclusion doth not follow vpon the Antecedent which hath not a word of freedome libertie or dominion in resisting but barely chargeth them with the eliciated act of resisting If it be replyed that resisting is an act of the will and every act of the will hath that freedome and dominion I rejoynd this reply is refuted already num 14. Therefore it comes too late to take away my answer The Antecedent by the word Call doth vnderstand the Calling of God and the inward calling by grace otherwise there can be no shew of goodnesse in the consequence If you would haue vs beleeue that our Saviour did speake of that kind of calling you ought to haue proved it because it may be vnderstood of the outward calling by the Ministery of our Saviour but because you haue not proved it your argument at the vpshot is resolved into your owne authoritie and so is of no worth He saith in his gagg p. 112. that many other places of Scripture doe serue this purpose but he does not name nor vrge any in particular therefore they can receiue no answer He hath two other Arguments by collection and a third from Acts the 7. 51. the words wherof be these Appeal pag. 89. c. You resist the holy Ghost In this argument he raiseth his confidence because the very word resist is vsed there I answer a poore foundation for confidence It hath the same fault the former had it affirmeth of resisting simply our question is of freedome in resisting so it is nothing to the purpose You vnderstand it of the work of grace in the soule but you proue it not it may be vnderstood of their resisting of the outward Preaching of the Gospell therefore we haue your owne authoritie and no more we haue no reason to thinke that God inwardly enlightned c. all these persons that are sayd to resist the holy Ghost The next concludeth thus In whom there is concupiscence he may resist and rebell against the law of the spirit But in a man regenerate there is concupiscence Therefore a regenerate man may resist the spirit of God I answer This conclusion is nothing to the purpose for our question is of the preparation vnto the habit and freedome in resisting but this conclusion is of a man habituated and of resisting simply If it be vnderstood of resisting freely then the proposition is false For Concupiscence hath nothing to doe with freedome of will this is a perfection given by Creation that is a defection procured by sinne His last Argument is in these words If a man iustified may fall away from grace then he may resist the grace of God offered But the first is the doctrine of the Church of England Therefore a iustified man may resist the grace of God offered I answer this conclusion hath the very same fault which the former had Besides it sayth grace is offered to a justified man how that can be true himselfe must declare for a justified man hath grace already vnto such a man grace cannot be offered The consequence of the proposition is naught losing of grace hath no affinitie with resisting of grace that signifies the absence of a thing inioyed this the repelling thrusting backe of a thing offered but not received The assumption is also false as shall be proved cap. 12. His ninth proposition sayth Man being drawne c. By mans running he seems to vnderstand a running by the force of the created faculty for the words wil beare that sence and he sayth further in the same proposition man doth run as his owne agillitie is he sayth further gagg p. 108. the whole question in the point of free-will is concerning the force of the created facultie In this sence that ninth proposition is false and to be detested It seemes he perceived thus much therfore in his Appeal p. 91. 94. he labours to cure that vlcer by saying Supernaturall actions are true and reall operations of mans soule but the soule is elevated actuated to that height by grace of which it is that mans will is a subordinate agent vnto grace Which declaration comes very short therefore I will adde a passage in Suarez which doth expresse the same
false that 16. Article doth not say A man may recouer the grace he hath lost But The expresse words of the Article are By the grace of God wee that fall into sinne may amend our liues Which two sentences doe most really differ This man is very willing to abuse the vnderstanding that dareth thus boldly falsify words vpon record against the sight of the eye His fourth argument is set downe Appeale page 36. and thus he beginneth 4 In the publike seruice of our Church you shall finde also as much as falling from grace commeth too I answer he promised positiue and declaratory Doctrine and expresse words affirming his falling from grace and now he paies vs with consequences a fault you reproued very often and many a faire title you gaue your aduersary the Gagger for it Turne backe againe and take a view how many of them belong to your selfe Was there euer any man so senslesse as to send vs to seeke the faith of our Church in consequences Or does hee thinke to finde any so voyd of reason as to beleeue him Surely no for that were a worke endlesse If the faith of our Church be in this consequence why not in second vpon the first and a third vpon the second c And this is enough to satisfie the whole but lest he should haue an ill conceit of himselfe if I should cut him off thus shortly therefore I will set downe what that is which he telleth vs is as much as falling from grace commeth too and this it is Euery Childe duely Baptised is put into the state of grace and saluation by that lauer of regeneration Which must be acknowledged and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England being taught first in the forme of priuate Baptisme secondly in the Catechisme thirdly in the rubricke before the Catechisme I answer first this is Bellarmines second reason for this point de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly these are not records of the faith of our Church no publike act of our Church hath made them such Besides the Bookes themselues be incompetent for that vse the one being a forme of administration of Prayers and Sacraments the other short precepts for the instruction of Infants Hee was neere driuen when hee catched at this shadow Moreouer hee affirmeth most falsly where he saith this sentence Euery one duely Baptised is by Baptisme put into the state of grace and saluation is taught in the places quoted The words of the places themselues will shew it neither is there any such thing meant or intended in them It may be he will reiect this answer because I make it I reply in his owne words Appeale p. 277. If you will not admit the answer I can name you one who will say and approne as much whom you dare not deny to be of credit or stile as you doc some others Appeale page 294. A poore man that doubtlesse was out of his element and medled beyond his latchet I meane Bishop Iewell whose words are these In the Sacrament of Baptisme by the sensible signe of water the inuisible grace of God is giuen vnto vs Artic. 5. diuis 8. folio 250. Little ones being Baptised and so the members of Christ Artic. 8. diuis 16. folio 291. Thus farre Bishop Iewell is for Mr. Mountagu but let him interpret himselfe and make vp his iudgement full touching the vse of the Sacrament and then wee shall finde him directly against him and for that end he saith thus We confesse that Christ by the Sacrament of regeneration hath made vs flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that we are the members and hee is the head This merueilous coniunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith afterward the same incorporation is assured vnto vs and increased in our Baptisme wherein must be considered that the holy mysteries doe not begin but rather continue and confirme this incorporation Artic. 1. diuis 13. folio 27. It may be here demanded how this iudgement of Bishop Iewell doth proue against Mr. Mountagu I answer thus If in his iudgement the Doctrine of the Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptisme no more but the renewing and confirmation of our incorporation into Christ and grace by Christ then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptisme and the Catechisme doe not meane to say Euery Child baptised is thereby put into the state of grace and saluation For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England set downe in those places or in any other neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then hee did conceiue it to be But that hee did so conceiue of it his words doe shew and he addeth that our incorporation is begun first and afterwards assured and increased in our Baptisme which doth not begin it which is so plaine full and direct a contradiction vnto Mr. Mountagu as the mind can deuise or words expresse If yet this testimony will not serue let the Church of England in the 25. and 27. Articles tell vs what effects it doth giue vnto the Sacraments where it assigneth To the Sacraments in generall that they are 1 Tokens of Christian profession 2. Signes of Gods good will 3. He doth by them quicken and confirme our faith Of Baptisme in speciall our Church saith 1 It is a signe of regeneration 2 An instrument wherby we are grafted into the Church 3 By it the promises of forgiuenesse of sinne and adoption are sealed 4. Faith is confirmed and grace increased These no more but these are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme assigned by our Church it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptisme If it be answered the Liturgie and Catechisme is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles I reply so to say is wholly without authority fondly without shew of reason The Articles were made vpon great deliberation and of purpose to settle an vnitie in matter of Religion therefore it would not omit principall points and set downe others that are subordinate and not called into question If the professors of the faith of our Church publikely and priuately in writing and by word of mouth haue taught and beleeued of the Sacraments no otherwise then is laid downe in the Articles and is maintained by Bishop Iewell and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome then may we well say that the Church neuer meant to set downe any other faith but that for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith nor the mother so carelesse of her faith as to suffer it to be corrupted and her intent to be changed Forasmuch as she could not be ignorant what was done nor wanted power to redresse things done amisse If
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
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
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
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
with it hee holds his peace The old prouerbe is the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltinesse Which seldome times proues vntrue what hee is of certainty is knowne to God and himselfe hee standeth or falleth to his owne master it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofes wherefore I leaue this and proceed We haue no reason to suppose that the Church of England was euer of opinion that the habit of grace can be lost for if it were then must it also beleeue that 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified 2 Some sins are mortall other some veniall 3. The habit of Iustice and the works thereof be perfect Iustice and adequate vnto the diuine Law 4. Purgatory Pardons Masses Trentals Dirges c. be profitable vnto some that be dead but we know by perpetuall experience that our Church abhorreth and the professors of her faith publikely and priuately protest their detestation of all these Articles of the popish faith therefore we haue a cloud of witnesses that do all testifie that the Church of England maketh the losing of the habit of grace no part of her faith Moreouer in the 22. Article it doth expresly disclaime the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons Lastly This point of falling from grace hath beene commonly and vniuersally reiected as well by Ministers as priuate men and no man questioned in the least sort for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church which is a most evident proofe that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued If it be answered some in our Church haue taught falling from grace I reply It is true some haue so done but they haue beene but a few and cryed down too by the most and thrust off with no small signe of dislike from authoritie I haue his owne testimonie three times yeelded Gag p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming that our Church hath left this question vndecided which against him is a proofe without question that his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England And yet behold Hee would perswade that his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England delâ—uered not in ordinary tracts and lectures but publikely positiuely and declatorily and for proofe hereof he saith he will bring vs record thereof Appeale pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles c. Appeale p. 37. Appeale p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promise In the 16. Article we read After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart away from grace and fall into sinne That the full force of this argument may appeare and my answer may bee directly and fitly applyed thereunto it is needfull that I put it into due forme and thus it will stand Whatsoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church But that a man may depart from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England I answer if he will stand to his proposition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient and a Champion most valiant vnto his mother the Church of England Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome are but faint-hearted cowards in comparison of him The greatest part of the acts in Councels doe not appertaine vnto faith The disputations that goe before the reasons that be added nor the explications that are brought doe not appertaine to faith but onely the naked decrees and of them not all but onely such as are propounded as matter of faith So saith Bellarmine de Concil auct lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est c. and no Papist euer durst giue more then thus yet Mr. Mountagu dares giue to the Church of England more then this Euery sentence in the Articles with him is matter of faith and so he doth equall them vnto the scriptures to whom it belongeth that euery sentence be a matter of faith as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place last alleadged If he will disclaime that proposition his argument falleth of it selfe To answer more specially that Article comprehendeth two conclusions viz. 1 The baptised may sinne 2 The baptised sinner may receiue forgiuenesse These two haue their seuerall proofes to wit 1 He may depart from grace Therefore sinne 2 He may repent Therefore haue forgiuenesse Euery one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Your proposition so vnderstood is true but your assumption is false Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article But suppose that euery sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England yet this Article will not profit you for A man may depart from grace by neglecting to obey it by losing it In the first sense I grant the Article doth teach departing from grace but in this sense the Article hath nothing in fauour of you much lesse hath it your falling from grace in expresse words for yours is of losing the habit of grace If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that sense I reioyne it may bee so taken in this place because he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies first neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace before hee commits sinne and this I take as granted Therefore you must proue that the Article doth vnderstand it otherwise then so else it can haue no stroke in your businesse Let it be admitted in courtesie that the Article speaketh of the losse of grace yet it will come farre short of your purpose for it cannot speake of the losse of the habit of grace I proue it from the Article it selfe and your owne doctrine thus The habit of grace is lost by sin So say you Grace in the Article is not lost by sinne But contrary Grace is lost therefore sinne committed So saith the Article Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace By this it is most euident and past doubt that there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the losse of the habit of grace But pardon him this mistake I will giue my word for him hee neuer studied the Article to find the true sense of it Doe you thinke his studie so meane as that he would condiscend so low as to English Articles I assure you no. I tell you and he tells it me Appeale pag. 11. Hee neuer studied Bastingius Chatichisme Fenners diuinitie Bucanus Trelcatius Polanus and such like His learning is all old The Apostles Canons Polycarpus Denis Linus Cletus Clemens Annacletus Amphilochius and others of their time are his puefellowes and hourly companions And he hath good reason for it too The neerer the fountaine the clearer the streame the further off the fouler pag. 12. His second argument beginneth Appeale p. 32. and is thus to be framed Whatsoeuer is
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
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