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
pretended Church which they doe not And againe Appeale p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop but without the Pope as head but they doe not so By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone To this I answer this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging and in the subject that receiveth it abstracted from particulars namely that Church and differs only in the assigning in particular which is the Church Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question and that is enough But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full which vnderstands by the word Church a true not a pretended Church and the Pastors of the Church not the Pope onely For it calls that Church in the words immediately going before the Mother of all beleevers Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church nor to the Pope alone Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church by the word Pope but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommodation as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is That office of teaching which belongs to the Church belongs to the Pope and his Councell But this office of teaching viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies belongs to the Church Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell The proposition they say is true because Teaching is formally in the Pastors otherwise then by them the Church cannot teach It must be a Councell because the Pastors singly may erre The Pope must be joynd with them because it belongs to him to gather direct and confirme Councels In the assumption of this reason he consenteth with the Church of Rome and that is the principall part of this Argument In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre That this â—â—ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church vniversally and to the Pope as one of them and that in a Councell He onely denieth the Popes authoritie to call direct and confirme Councels which is the last and least part of this Argument All which being considered we may safely conclude that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies with the Church of Rome The third thing to be debated in this question he resolveth gagg p. 13. 14. 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England and doth alledge the 21. Article for it saying the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith But all this is vntrue I haue set downe that Article in the former Chapter the sight whereof will avow it Yea the Article is full for the contrary For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more Which it must haue done if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge to apply and interpret the Scriptures 3. It restraines the force of the sentence of the Church To examination and tryall by the Scriptures But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge which must be received as the dictates of the holy Spirit The Conclusion is He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England CHAP. IIII. M Mountague The Church representatiue caÌ„not erre in points of faith gagg p. 48. Ch. of England Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God arti 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow I haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome because I find not the Councell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controversies as shall appeare in the particular passages following This being premised I proceed to examine 1. Whether this proposition the Church represensatiue cannot erre in points of faith be true or not 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England or not First the sence of these termes 1. Church representatiue 2. erre 3. points of faith must be set downe 1. By Church representatiue he vnderstands a Councell truely generall Appeale p. 121. 2. By error he meanes an abberration from a rule Appeale p. 6. viz. the Scriptures gagg p. 13. 3. By points of faith is meant every sentence to be assented to as true vpon the authoritie of God the revealeâ— thereof Not erring in points of faith supposeth a sentence to be given which is the subiect of not erring in delivering whereof they cannot erre According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words A Councell truely generall in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition cannot vary from the Scriptures That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition himselfe confesseth gagg p. 48. where of it he saith So say they so say we And Bellarmines words doth shew it Which writeth thus The Church representatiue cannot erre de eccle lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done Nostra c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word For he maketh that the first foundation of our faith and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof de verbi dei interpret lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc c. Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just Notwithstanding he denieth Appeale p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist that is as I conceiue that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point and giues this reason for it Points of faith be fundamentall or accessory gagg p. 48. Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as the reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man Appeale p. 123. In points accessory there may be error but none in points fundamentall gagg p. 48. Of points fundamentall onely doe I speake and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie Appeale p. 123. I answer this explication serues well to puzzell the Reader but hath no force to cleare Mr Mountague from agreeing with the Ch of Rome for many reasons The terme fundamentall is borrowed We shall then know the true sence of it when we know what a foundation is in proper speech A foundation is that part whervpon the rest of the building is placed Fundamentall points of faith must be like vnto this they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded which is borne vp and sustained by such points of faith Things accessory are such as are attendants not things principall in being or causalitie
he vnderstands it not for then he could not distinguish sinne into mortall and veniall for all sinne in this sense is mortall If by veniall he vnderstood no more but sin not deseruing damnation by Gods not-imputing it I will grant that sinne is veniall but hee must not vnderstand it thus for so all the sinnes of the iustified are veniall or to speake in the words of the Church of England first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning Their sinnes are washed in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their damnation It remaineth therefore that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth Which being true that distinction is denyed and so he begs the question and proues it not It is also denyed that a man habitually sanctified can commit any such sinne as the Church of Rome calleth mortall and yet he proues this as he did the former euen by his owne word If you will not beleeue him you must goe look proofe other where but you must not looke it in Bellarmine for if he had brought any Mr. Mountagu would haue giuen it you in English His next branch is this Where mortall sinne is committed God is disobeyed I answer in this sentence he attributeth disobedience vnto mortall sinne adequately denying veniall sinne to be any disobedience vnto Gods law for if he did not so he must say that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sinnes as hee calls veniall for he saith as we shall see anon where God is disobeyed grace cannot consist but must needs be lost But he will not say grace is lost by veniall sinne therefore he conceiueth onely mortall sinne disobeyeth Gods law Iust as Bellarmine doth who teacheth Veniall sinne is sinne by analogy or certaine proportion and imperfectly after a certaine sort but not perfectly and simply neither is it perfectly voluntary nor perfectly against the Law but besides the Law De amiss gra lib. 1. cap. 11. Quintum c. If you aske me how Mr Mountagu proues this I answer with no worse proofe then he hath done the former branches and that is his owne very word which you need not sticke at for he is one of the learnedst in the Church of England His third branch is in these words Where God is disobeyed he will not abide I answer in what sense soeuer the word disobeyed be taken this sentence is false and must goe for such till he hath proued it which yet he hath not done nor attempted to doe let him shew vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon the committing of this or that sinne 2 This actuall sinne is of that nature that of it selfe it doth expell grace If he proue one of these the question is at an end the Diuine Oracle must haue credit If you bring not that you hunt a flea and pursue a shadow It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne till you proue that grace must giue place to sinne by the ordinance and decree of God or the nature of the things themselues There be some other things in this proofe to be examined but I passe them ouer because they depend vpon these branches which I haue answered vnto and doe stand or fall with them To conclude this argument I say It is worthy to be obserued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised vnto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that position but at the vpshot their proofes are for the thing denyed by none and they take for granted the things denyed by all which kind of disputing in it selfe is most vnsound for it is no more but as if they should say it is so because we say it is so and it is most dangerous to the Reader that is not very wary for it is most deceitfull bearing a shew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in question It may be some will vrge these places of Scripture on this sort If he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometimes doth commit such sinnes as for which in in the euent he is cast into hell then a man may lose and some doe lose the habit of sanctity But he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometime doth commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he is cast into hell Therefore c. I answer In this reason I grant the first part or consequence of the proposition because no man hath the habit of sanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell for that leades to another end and is alwayes to be crowned with glory But the assumption or second part which hath two branches is wholly false no one place of Scripture doth affirme or inferre either of these two sentences The habitually sanctified may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell Some habitually sanctified haue committed such sins as for which he is now in hell If any require me to shew that the places alledged doe not proue thus much I answer That is not my office for 1. the question is not at this present purposely disputed 2 It is their place to dispute and mine to answer let them apply the Scriptures to the purpose in an orderly forme and I will make my answer good It is enough for mee to giue them an Issue They must proue the Issue or leaue the cause behind them I will put some of their allegations into forme and answer to them which I doe thus He that may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such actuall sinne as for which hee is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell he may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall be cast into hell But the man habitually sanctified may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such sinne as for which he is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity hee shall dye therein Therefore the man habitually sanctified may commit such sinne as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell I answer although the proposition seemes not to be euidently true because God may so threaten sin to shew vnto man what the desert of sinne is and not what in the euent shall become of such a sinner yet I will not at this present insist thereupon but come to the assumption which is not true neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be so for these three words viz. Righteous Righteousnesse Iniquity may import the act and none of them can signifie the habit as the text it selfe doth euidently shew which doth interpret the word Righteous by the word Righteousnesse and Righteousnesse it calleth an Act
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
execution of purpose and againe he saith in the same place he that is actually Saued is so saued according to the purpose of his decree So saued are So ordained by God Gagge page 177. He saith further Gods will is the cause of things either positiuely by disposing them or by permission c Gagge page 177. Hee doth take this act of Gods will to bee a positiue not a permissiue disposing for he saith whatsoeuer was done in time was So disposed of and ordered before all time Gagge page 178. The word Them imports that man is the subiect of Predestination a certaine number of men not generally all and so he speaketh Appeale page 51. The words out of c. imply that the predestinate to life in our apprehension or as they say in signo rationis were in the state of perdition before they were predestinate and so the steps which in his opinion are obserued by God toward the Predestinate and related in the former Chapter doe expresly shew which also he hath Appeale page 52. fully and plainely These words which tooke hold of mercy doe signifie that in Gods foreknowledge the Predestinate doe finally beleeue and repent c. before they are predestinated or before the will of Predestination is termined vnto them and that this faith repentance c. is the obiectiue reason mouing and regulating the diuine will of Predestination vnto the party predestinated so as if you aske the reason why God did predestinate some it is answered because he would If you demand further why he did predestinate this singular man it is answered because hee tooke hold of Gods mercy in the meanes of saluation offered by beleeuing and repenting and this I take from himself where he saith He that is actually saued is So saued according to the purpose of Gods decree consequent not antecedent Gagge p. 177. And again he saith men are not saued without relation to their repentance Appeale page 74. which thing is most fully declared Appeale page 58. where he blameth this sentence Gods decree to glorifie Peter was without any consideration had of or regard vnto his faith obedience repentance which sentence for substance he setteth down and reiecteth Gagge page 179. And Appeale page 74. he saith without finall perseuering they are none of Gods elect Where he saith he drew them out c. hee placeth the whole terme or end of predestination in giuing eternall life This thing he implyeth also Appeale page 78. where he saith It is your owne God appointed to giue grace and glory as if he should say this sentence is proper to you I disclaime it If man hath grace before he be predestinate then grace is not the terme or end of Predestination he affirmes the first so must he doe the last Thus we haue his sentence of Predestination and the sense thereof now wee must compare the Doctrine of the Church of England with it that thereby wee may see whether our Church hath opposed the contrary thereto or not which hee affirmeth it doth Gagge page 179. I will set downe againe the Doctrine of the Church of England in an orderly forme for the better vnderstanding thereof It is this 1 Predestination is Gods decree Eternall Constant By his Councell secret to vs. 2 To Bring to saluation by Christ Deliuer from damnation 3 Some elected out of mankind in Christ 4 Before the foundations of the world were laid 5 As vessels made to honour And thus standeth the Doctrine of the 17. Article each part being placed according to art the sense whereof I will now also declare PREDESTINATION is the thing defined whose nature our Church doth declare by that which followeth IS hath the place of a band to tye the following part of the sentence vnto that which went before GODS DECREE These words signifie that thing which Predestination hath in common with oher actions of Gods will called the generall nature it doth expresse also the principall efficient namely GOD and an act of his will ETERNALL This doth set out what kinde of act Predestination is to wit such an act as is essentiall vnto God yea it is of his essence for nothing is eternall but the being of God This act of his will doth remaine in God is vsually called an immanent act for it passeth not out of God working a reall change in the creature which is the property of a transient act We conceiue that this act of Predestination is an eliciated act of Gods will and an eliciated act is that which floweth from a power that is the beginning thereof as beleeuing is an act which proceedeth from the faculty which the soule hath to beleeue But Predestination is an eliciated act in our apprehension onely by reason we are not able to apprehend the being of God as it is Whereas the essence of God is a pure act altogether without mixture of the first and second act considered apart and separated in the thing Lastly the relation that this act hath vnto the creature is rationall not reall God is a being of himselfe without respect vnto any created effect CONSTANT This importeth the certaine euent and infallible performance of the thing decreed by Predestination so as he to whom God hath appointed grace and glory shall not faile of either of them but inioy them both without missing And that this is the true intent of our Church it is very plaine because it doth not call the decree it selfe or God in decreeing Constant For that it hath already declared in the word Eternall which signifies a duration without beginning or ending which doth so fully and plainely expresse the constancy of God in decreeing that the word Constant cannot adde any thing thereunto BY HIS COVNSELL By these words our Church sheweth 1. that Gods vnderstanding is ioyned with his will in this act of Predestination for counsell is an act proper to the vnderstanding 2. This act of the vnderstanding to speake according to humane capacitie is to iudge the act of Predestination to be good and to perswade thereunto by the allegation of reason for so we conceiue the vnderstanding to direct the will and this is the nature or condition of Councell he that counselleth doth thus SECRET TO VS By secret is meant vnreuealed the iudgement then of our Church set down in this sentence may be expressed in these words The reason that moued God to predestinate this or that person is vnknowne to vs. TO BRING TO SALVATION These words doe set forth the speciall and proper nature and formall being of Predestination by which it is distinguished from all other actions of God and they import the terme or end of Predestination or the thing appointed to bee giuen by this decree of God which consisteth in happinesse or glory after this life signified by the word saluation and grace in this life by the words bring vnto by Christ For God doth not bring man to saluation but by means and that means can
disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs In the last place I will shew the faith of Rome wherein he doth agree with them to be erronious CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending hath law right vpon his side which we say is the Church gagg p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures Cancil Trent ses 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures arti 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes And in doubtfull points that require determination we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule gagg p. 14. 15.  Generall Coūcils may er in things partaining to God arti 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters the Church must decide and setle that doubt by applying and declaring the Scriptures p. 14.  Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit gagg p. 19.  haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they may be taken out of holy Scripture arti 21. Where the Scripture is hard in case there be a doubt we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit and that in the Church gagg p. 6.   CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood which is thus explicated A Iudge is an office ordained by God to giue sentence in a doubt that is made in things revealed by God This office hath these three properties 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof Of which there is no question with him in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie The parts to be debated be three 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge c. be true or not 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not Touching the first he sayth The Word of God and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it gagg p. 15. I answer Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church p. 54. He writeth thus Vndoubtedly the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith which hath beene in all succession preserved And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent the Church held the same determination still concerning the Iudge of Controversies in faith Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given surely vnto him rather then vnto you For he is your superior in learning and authoritie he is your Diocesan whose voyce must you heare but the voyce of your Pastour And you are in the Affirmatiue giving an authoritie to the Church which he denieth you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it It is your owne rule gagg p. 17. A Nunci◠must goe to his Commission If your proofes be good your Diocesan must stand by 1. Your proofes from the word of God we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed Whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies But the Church That is the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles are those whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge c. I answer the proposition is false I shew it by many reasons 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place in which respect the proposition is false because that office is not instituted in that place And this I take as granted 2. At least the proposition resumes that that office was already instituted when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken Which is false also and I could shew it by many reasons but this one shall suffice viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office 3. The word heare may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read as well as for an appeale thereto and resting in the sentence of a Iudge yea and better also for it is most frequently vsed in that sence but little in this Againe the Text leadeth clearely to that sence but not at all to this The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church severed from other Ministers which are not governours In which sence the assumption doth need proofe but he hath brought none but his owne affirmation Besides the assumption is false by the authoritie of the Text it selfe which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly by the terme you which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and another His proofe from the word of God being dispatched The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next but he sayes nothing of it therefore I cannot answere any thing to it It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times to shew that The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith Which is vnorderly yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne Bishop Carleton in the booke alledged p. 52. c. alledgeth Councels Fathers Popes all pronouncing this sentence The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour and not to you Lastly if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church perpetually to the end of the world that it may be fit to be appealed vnto and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith in the time wherein it riseth for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde and without the second some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point and giue this for his reason to wit he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence and giue for instance as he doth gagg p. 19. He takes the Church to signifie a true not a
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
know they haue none by any speciall testimony from their own mouths or your owne illumination Is it true indeed is your learning all old Haue you ingrost all the books thereof Does wit keepe her Common-wealth in your breast Then happie man are you but thrice vnhappie the world from whom the old learning is sequestred and that into a corner yea into a close corner out of which it cannot get I am sure yet it hath not gotten I might goe on to shew the insufficiency if not folly of this Confirmation of your Assumption but I proceed to the next If you will dispute in the third sort you make a true Syllogisme but then behold your staydnes a man of confirmed resolution I will warrant you He change no such matter even now you found him triumphing in the victory now you find him Capitulating vpon conditions of peace Even now you found him insulting over his captivated adversary now you see him creeping and fawning vnto him over whom he insulted and doe you know what manner of one he is to whom he speaketh If you doe not he will tell you and you must beleeue him for old learning cannot deceiue you this he is A poore Divine short sighted slenderly travelled He knowes Fenners divinitie if you put him out of that he is as blind as a Beetle c. But howsoever the game goeth this he saith and tie him to his word you shall find him either better or worse then you make of him If you will teach me I will yeeld and thanke you too And because you shall see he is not in jest he repeats his promise againe with an addition Appeal p. 95. in these words If you can make it appeare that there is any such materiall difference between the Church of Rome in the point of free-will and the Church of England then I will turne over a new leafe euen in this Article opposing the church of Rome as farre as any c. I answer it must be here observed that he confesseth his agreement with the Church of Rome els vnto what can he yeeld What leafe can he turne over How can he oppose the Church of Rome in this Article of Free-will more then he does now So that he cannot hereafter deny that he agrees with it in this point of Free-will I accept of your offer I looke for your performance when you haue received the condition which I now tender vnto you In the first place I will set downe what the Church of Rome meaneth by the word Grace so often vsed in this and the other questions following which the Reader must obserue because the knowledge thereof doth serue abundantly to the vnderstanding of the present question of Free-will set downe and disputed in the 7 and 8. Chapters so doth it also serue no lesse for the vnderstanding of the question of Iustification in the 9. and 10. Chapters and of the question of Falling from grace in the 11. and 12. Chapters so as he that doth not vnderstand and obserue what they say touching Grace shall hardly know what is true or false in these quâ—stions The sence of that word Grace we may â—ake from Thomas who hath described it 1. 2. q. 110. art 1. C. by 4 properties viz. 1. It is a certain supernaturall thing 2. It is the gift of God 3. It is in man 4. It draweth man aboue the condition of his nature vnto the participation of the divine good Now that this Grace might be the more distinctly knowne he doth divide it 1. 2. q. 111. ar 2. C. Into actuall and habituall he calleth it actuall because it moueth mans mind vnto good he calleth it habituall because it remaineth in man by the way of a forme and is the beginning of all supernaturall actions I say this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome because it is received by all their learned and rejected by none of them yea the Councell of Trent hath it sess 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. where it speaketh of Iustification it selfe and the preparations therevnto The doctrine of the Church of Rome in the point of the concurring of Gods grace and mans will in the conversion of a sinner vnto God is comprehended in these 15. propositions 1. Grace signifies a helpe comming from God a created being supernaturall to man remaining in him leading him vnto eternall life 2. Grace is either actuall or habituall this doth finish mans sanctitie that begins and continues it by degreeâ— vnto the finishing of sanctitie and is called a preparation thereto 3. Actuall grace is preventing exciting operating all of them expressing the first motioÌ„ of grace And subsequent adiuvating cooperating all these expressing a second motion of grace 4. The preparation to sanctitie consisteth in certaine actions viz. 1. faith 2. feare 3. hope 4. loue begun 5. hatred of sinne 6. contrition 7. purpose of a new life 5. Vnto these prepratory actions grace and mans will doth concurre 6. Grace preventing c. doth worke therevnto without mans will it being onely passiue moved and not a mover 7. By grace preventing c. mans will is made able to be willing vnto the doing of those prepratory acts if it will 8. Vnto the actuall doing of those prepratory acts there is required an assent purpose censent resolution or determination of the will before it be applyed vnto the working of them actually and in the thing 9. Grace cooperating c. worketh not without the concurrence of mans will 10. Grace cooperating c. standeth ready to ioyne with the will of him that is prevented by grace Suarez opusc 7. num 43. opusc 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. num 10. 11. Grace cooperating c. doth concurre with mans will in case it consenteth resolveth and determineth that it will beleeue feare hope c. before it be applyed vnto actuall working of them In case where it doth not so consent c. grace doth doth not cooperate 12. The actions of faith feare hope c. are produced by the ioynt concurrence of mans will and grace cooperating 13. Vpon the producing of faith feare hope c. the habit of grace is immediately infused 14. The infusion of the habit doth follow the said actions infallibly in the event 15. That infallibilitie floweth from the ordinance of God and the disposition that man hath therevnto by the doing of the said actions It may be some will require me to proue these propositions to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome I answer I am not to seeke for that I am readie to doe it vpon the least call but here I forbeare it because it is familiarly knowne to be theirs so as the proofes would be needlesse and tedious therefore I proceed in my Course The point of Free-will in question concerneth the 8. proposition the reason of the doubt ariseth thus If mans will must assent resolue determine to beleeue c. before it be applyed to actuall beleeving c. And grace
thing more fully in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 15. num 20. he writeth thus Mans will cannot haue any connaturall power which by its nature is a worker of a supernaturall act either as a totall or partiall cause but when the creature doth so worke it worketh as an instrument of God although it worketh by his owne entitie yet notwithstanding not out of a force naturall but obedientall This addition I make by his owne authoritie for he doth professe in his Appeal p. 90. that he takes the foresaid explication from Pontificians I answer All this labour might haue beene spared because it helpeth the matter nothing at all It makes it more obscure then before Every man can vnderstand what you meane when you say the will doth worke by the naturall force but when you say the entitie of the will doth worke by a supernaturall force elevation and actuation he will be to seeke of your meaning Moreover this explicatioÌ„ doth take away the free vse of the free facultie which you contend for or leaue mans will to worke by the naturall force of the created facultie which is the thing you would thrust off and I shew it thus This elevation and actuation if by grace is either a morall or a physicall worke if physicall then the will is determined vnto one the free vse of the facultie is abridged and restrained for this worke of grace is previall in nature and causalitie and truely efficient vpon the will before it be applyed vnto operation in the second act If it be morall then the will doth worke of the naturall force therof because the morall worke of grace is no more but a perswasion offered to the vnderstanding and resteth there It hath no influence vnto nor reflection vpon the will which is vncapable of Iudging of truth and falshood onely it cannot will any obiect but that which the vnderstanding sayth is good which connexion between the vnderstanding and the will is naturall no worke of grace To conclude two propositions may be inferred from this explication 1. Man doth not produce supernaturall acts by the force of his created facultie 2. Man hath no free-will in supernaturall acts You are at your choice if you haue the first you haue the second if you take the second you grant the thing in question If you deny the second you must deny the first and thereby you defend a sentence which Molina doth accurse vnto hell de Concor in q. 14. art 13. disp 40. Nostra itaque c. The tenth and last sayth Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of grace I answer to procure may signifie the act of an efficient either morall by the way of merit or physicall by the way of reall influence into the effect In both these senses this tenth proposition is false and the Church of Rome hath decreed sess 6. cap. 8. the grace of Iustification cannot be merited much lesse will any be so voyd of pietie as to say man can compell God to giue him grace but what ever his meaning be here it must be observed mans hand is the next cause of a supernaturall act vnto preventing grace and the putting thereof forth is attributed vnto man himself which is a large doctrine of free-will as I haue shewed in the former part of this Chapter num 4. Far exceeding the limits of the Councell of Trenâ— sess 6. cap. 5. 6. Which joyneth grace and mans will alwayes together in his preparation and assigneth adiuvating grace between preventing and cooperating which sheweth his consent with Arminius in those grosse points which the Church of Rome durst not Patronize CHAP. IX The point of Iustification Mr Mountague Man hath a double estate of sinne wherein he was borne produced in life and action acquisite renewed according to the spirit gagg p. 141. In the first state he is not Iust p. 141. To Iustifie hath a 3. fold extent To make Iust To make more Iust To declare or pronouÌ„ce Iust p. 140 Iustification properly is in the first sence gagg p. 142. 144. A sinner is then Iustified when he is made Iust That is translated from state of nature to state of grace as Colos 1. 13. Who hath delivered vs from the power of darknesse and hath translated vs c. Which is motion as they say betwixt two termes And Consisteth in forgiuenes of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily Both the act of Gods spirit in man p. 142. 143. In the state of Grace a man is Iust when he is changed which must haue concurrence of owâ— things Privation of being to that which was the body of sinne Wherein A new constitution vnto God in another state Of grace whereto In which he that is altered in state changed in condition transformed in mind renued in soule regenerate and borne a new to God by grace is Iust in the state of Iustification p. 141. To speake properly God onely Iustifieth who alone imputeth not sinne and createth a new heart within vs. The soule of man is the subiect of this act In which vnto which are necessarily required certaine preparations and previous dispositions to the purpose As knowledge of God c. feare hope contrition loue desire of purpose for a new life and such like But these are all with and from faith The principall indowment of grace may worthily be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian piâ—tie Faith gagg p. 143. 144. The Church of Rome The Iustification of a sinner is a translation from that state in which man was borne a sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace Concil Trent sess 6. cap. 4. Iustification it selfe is not onely remission of sinnes but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts from whence a man is made Iust of vniust cap. 7. There is required on mans part that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his owne will vnto the obtaining the grace of Iustification can 9. Man is disposed vnto the iustice of Iustification By faith feare hope loue begun some hatred and detestation of sinne a purpose to be baptized to begin a new life and to keepe Gods coÌ„mandements cap. 6. We are sayd therefore to be Iustified by faith because faith is the beginning foundation and roote of every Iustification cap. 8. Cap. 10. It decreeth that Iustification receiud is increased The Church of England That we are Iustified by faith onely is a most wholsome doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homilie of Iustification Arti 11. To be washed from sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin is that IustificatioÌ„ or righteousnes which S. Paul speaketh of when he sayth No man is justified by the workes of the Law The forgiuenesse of sinnes and trespasses is that righteousnesse which is taken accepted and allowed of God for our profit and
said to the point it selfe will come afterwards when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed no. 31. § But how Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this point which hee harpeth so much vpon which doth also euidently shew that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point Wherefore I leaue it and proceed So confident is he in this fancied victory that from thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputation in these words If they meant no otherwise then thus as I conceiue they did not I see no reason to dissent from them There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereunto then to returne you your owne words Appeale â—ag 184. You cite no words name no place send me to no text page nor particulars by any direction that I may know where to finde what you intend a meere tricke of iugling companions Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent which I dare say will not downe nor digest with you aâ— opposing your conceit or rather dreame or wilfull peruerting the meaning of the Councell the which because I haue a fit time I will not let it alone till another Where you say If they meant your meaning is to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent where It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ Sess 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne into the state of grace cap. 4. That you referre vs hither or vnto no other place in the Councell I take for granted Where you say if they meant no more but thus your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before viz. He that is iustified is also regenerate Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part I let passe the consequence of your proposition and come to your assumption which must bee set downe in these words But the Councell of Trent in these places Sess 6. c. 3. and 4. c. meaneth no more but that a iustified man is also sanctified Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring vs the proofe of it in these words As I conceiue they did not Now all parts of the argument are set right I answer to it The assumption is false yea so odiously false as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese or that had conscience to declare the truth when hee vnderstood it This might be made to appeare by diuers passages in the Councell of Trent but I will content my selfe onely with these three 1 Sanctification is by grace infused Iustification it selfe is sanctification Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent cap. 7. In which 1. it speaketh of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters 2. By Iustification it selfe it meaneth the quidditie essence and being of Iustification both which are manifest of themselues they need no proofe And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused is likewise as certaine 2 The onely formall cause of Iustification is the very being thereof Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iustification Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iustification The proposition is a principle in nature and agreed vpon for truth therefore may not be questioned The assumption is the expresse words of the Councell of Trent in the 7. Chapter 3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification then it is by remission of sins onely excluding grace infused But the being of Iustification is not by remission of sinnes onely excluding grace infused Therfore the being of Iustification is by grace infused The consequence of the proposition is so necessary that it cannot be questioned The assumption is the words of the couÌ„cel c. 7. caÌ„ 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption he will supply by the proofe thereof which forsooth is his owne conceit he conceiued they meant not otherwise than thus therfore you must coÌ„ceiue so to Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 178. Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so nay because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded he said it did not so much as seeme white vnto him Your opinions are your owne you will opine what formerly you haue thought so doe for me and there an end But I cannot so let it passe because you keepe not these conceits at home but so much are you filled with them that you must needs vent them or burst And you cannot bee contented with that but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you and more then so wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome in the point of Iustification that haue dissented for many ages till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world Therefore vnto his conceit I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen that haue liued in the Church of Rome till the Councell of Trent all agreeing in this one sentence Grace infused is essentiall vnto Iustification And shall we thinke the Councell of Trent would determine against theÌ„ Surely no Besides the Councell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order Peter Lombard Richard Altisiodore Albert and Alexander the Predecessors of Thomas not attaining thereunto yet consented with him in this thing Since the Councell of Trent all on that side without exception doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustification in grace infused I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares deliuering their iudgments singly and afterwards decreeing the same in a Councell ioyntly and last of all the same decree so interpreted and defended vniuersally but I leaue it and conclude in his owne words Appeale p. 248. You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the question but scumme vpon the surface and gibberish you cannot tell for what And thus much is enough and too much to haue said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustification In which also I wil content my selfe
with it hee holds his peace The old prouerbe is the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltinesse Which seldome times proues vntrue what hee is of certainty is knowne to God and himselfe hee standeth or falleth to his owne master it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofes wherefore I leaue this and proceed We haue no reason to suppose that the Church of England was euer of opinion that the habit of grace can be lost for if it were then must it also beleeue that 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified 2 Some sins are mortall other some veniall 3. The habit of Iustice and the works thereof be perfect Iustice and adequate vnto the diuine Law 4. Purgatory Pardons Masses Trentals Dirges c. be profitable vnto some that be dead but we know by perpetuall experience that our Church abhorreth and the professors of her faith publikely and priuately protest their detestation of all these Articles of the popish faith therefore we haue a cloud of witnesses that do all testifie that the Church of England maketh the losing of the habit of grace no part of her faith Moreouer in the 22. Article it doth expresly disclaime the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons Lastly This point of falling from grace hath beene commonly and vniuersally reiected as well by Ministers as priuate men and no man questioned in the least sort for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church which is a most evident proofe that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued If it be answered some in our Church haue taught falling from grace I reply It is true some haue so done but they haue beene but a few and cryed down too by the most and thrust off with no small signe of dislike from authoritie I haue his owne testimonie three times yeelded Gag p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming that our Church hath left this question vndecided which against him is a proofe without question that his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England And yet behold Hee would perswade that his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England delâ—uered not in ordinary tracts and lectures but publikely positiuely and declatorily and for proofe hereof he saith he will bring vs record thereof Appeale pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles c. Appeale p. 37. Appeale p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promise In the 16. Article we read After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart away from grace and fall into sinne That the full force of this argument may appeare and my answer may bee directly and fitly applyed thereunto it is needfull that I put it into due forme and thus it will stand Whatsoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church But that a man may depart from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England I answer if he will stand to his proposition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient and a Champion most valiant vnto his mother the Church of England Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome are but faint-hearted cowards in comparison of him The greatest part of the acts in Councels doe not appertaine vnto faith The disputations that goe before the reasons that be added nor the explications that are brought doe not appertaine to faith but onely the naked decrees and of them not all but onely such as are propounded as matter of faith So saith Bellarmine de Concil auct lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est c. and no Papist euer durst giue more then thus yet Mr. Mountagu dares giue to the Church of England more then this Euery sentence in the Articles with him is matter of faith and so he doth equall them vnto the scriptures to whom it belongeth that euery sentence be a matter of faith as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place last alleadged If he will disclaime that proposition his argument falleth of it selfe To answer more specially that Article comprehendeth two conclusions viz. 1 The baptised may sinne 2 The baptised sinner may receiue forgiuenesse These two haue their seuerall proofes to wit 1 He may depart from grace Therefore sinne 2 He may repent Therefore haue forgiuenesse Euery one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Your proposition so vnderstood is true but your assumption is false Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article But suppose that euery sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England yet this Article will not profit you for A man may depart from grace by neglecting to obey it by losing it In the first sense I grant the Article doth teach departing from grace but in this sense the Article hath nothing in fauour of you much lesse hath it your falling from grace in expresse words for yours is of losing the habit of grace If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that sense I reioyne it may bee so taken in this place because he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies first neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace before hee commits sinne and this I take as granted Therefore you must proue that the Article doth vnderstand it otherwise then so else it can haue no stroke in your businesse Let it be admitted in courtesie that the Article speaketh of the losse of grace yet it will come farre short of your purpose for it cannot speake of the losse of the habit of grace I proue it from the Article it selfe and your owne doctrine thus The habit of grace is lost by sin So say you Grace in the Article is not lost by sinne But contrary Grace is lost therefore sinne committed So saith the Article Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace By this it is most euident and past doubt that there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the losse of the habit of grace But pardon him this mistake I will giue my word for him hee neuer studied the Article to find the true sense of it Doe you thinke his studie so meane as that he would condiscend so low as to English Articles I assure you no. I tell you and he tells it me Appeale pag. 11. Hee neuer studied Bastingius Chatichisme Fenners diuinitie Bucanus Trelcatius Polanus and such like His learning is all old The Apostles Canons Polycarpus Denis Linus Cletus Clemens Annacletus Amphilochius and others of their time are his puefellowes and hourly companions And he hath good reason for it too The neerer the fountaine the clearer the streame the further off the fouler pag. 12. His second argument beginneth Appeale p. 32. and is thus to be framed Whatsoeuer is
iustified man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God Appeale page 59. The Church of England holdeth and teacheth punctually that a man may fall from grace Appeale page 73. It is the Doctrine of the Church of England that a man iustified may fall away from grace Ap. p. 89. And when he had belaboured himselfe almost out of breath to proue that falling from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England the Ancients and the Scriptures he concludeth in these words I doe not say more then I am vrged to doe by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles and Doctrine publikely professed and established in our Church Appeale page 37. Other faire flowers that argue him one of the learnedst in the Church of England might bee collected hither but I content my selfe with these because the Reader may finde them in their owne places His last argument in this matter is set downe Appeale page 36. in these words Your prime leaders haue vnderstood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I haue reported it and accordingly they haue complained against it I answer it is very likely hee would conclude from hence Therefore you must so vnderstand it also I let passe his bitternesse for that hurteth none that thinke not of it The Doctrine of the Church of England is vnderstood according to the primary sense and meaning thereof and sometimes also in a forced interpretation some haue complained of and obiected against this latter and so farre I grant this whole reason and good reason they had too for so doing It becommeth the Pastors people of the Church of England to discouer detect the corruptors of their faith But against the first neuer any excepted neither is there any reasō why Take the words of our Church as they lie force them not to serue a turne and they are familiar to vnderstanding and of a manifest truth And thus haue I dispatched all his arguments whereby he thinkes to proue falling from grace to be the Doctrine of the Church of England In the next place commeth his proofes to bee examined which he produceth to proue that a man may fall from grace Of which he hath no small store in his Gagge from page 159. to page 165. wherein hee hath followed Bellarmine de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. step by step omitting nothing that is of any force nor adding any thing that can supply any defect in Bellarmine Hee borroweth of him so much as his confidence in the plentie and perspecuity of diuine testimony Bellarmine saith Quod attinet c. The testimonies of Scripture are so many and so cleere that it is to be admired how it could come into the minde of a man to say Grace could not be lost Mr. Mountagu saith The Scripture speaketh plaine that a man may fall from grace Gagge page 161. Falling from grace is fully cleared and resolued in Scripture Gagge page 165. The Scripture is expresse for falling from grace Appeale page 36. I will giue answer to all the allegations produced let them be Bellarmines or Mr. Mountagues or whosoeuer else Truth may be defended against any opposer The whole multitude of their allegations may be reduced vnto two Sylogismes the former whereof standeth thus If euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity then he that hath grace may lose that grace For The most righteous man liuing cōtinually doth or may mortally transgresse Where mortall sin is committed God is disobeyed Where God is disobeyed he will not abide Where he wil not abide grace cannot consist Where grace cannot consist it must needs be lost Gagge page 161. But euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Therefore he that hath grace may lose that grace I answer the words righteous and righteousnesse in this argument must be taken for the act not the habit and he doth so vnderstand it I take as granted This being so the assumption is true and needs no proofe yet notwithstanding hee alleadgeth many places of Scripture as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. Iohn cap. 15. 2. Matth. cap. 24. 12. Rom. cap. 11. 20. 21. 1 Tim. cap. 6. 20. cap. 1. 18. 19. cap. 4. Gal. cap. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. Heb. cap. 6. 4. and he concludeth that infinite are the testimonies of Scripture to the purpose that these speake vnto All which may be applyed vnto the assumption of this reason and cannot bee applyed to any other sentence neither doe they affirm any more but this viz. euery righteous man may and some doe omit holy actions and commit sinne in the actuall disobedience to Gods law Then hee addeth diuers examples of righteous men that neglected their obedience to Gods law and committed actuall sinne Which must be referred vnto the proofe of the latter part of the assumption and can belong to no other by which it is manifest that all this goodly shew and bumbasted brag of infinite places of Scripture all teaching falling from grace at the last commeth to no more but what euery man will grant and being granted will profit him nothing hee is not thereby one hayre the neerer to this conclusion A man may lose the habit of grace For The consequence of the proposition is naught and the proofe thereof false in many branches thereof auowed onely vpon his owne word without the least shew or pretence of proofe Surely this man meant not sincerely when hee vndertooke to proue that which no man did euer deny but takes as granted and leaues vnproued that which all men doe deny that ioyne not in faith with the Church of Rome That it may appeare I say true I will giue you an account of some faults in the consequence of the proposition and proofe thereof The consequence of the proposition dependeth vpon this sentence The habit of grace departeth from him that actually disobeyeth Gods law If this sentence be true his consequence is good if it be false the consequence is naught the latter part doth not follow vpon the former but this sentence the habit of grace c. is most false as will appeare To make it seeme true in the proofe of his consequence he doth first distinguish of sinne and then telleth vs what kinde of sinne it is that maketh grace depart Lastly hee giueth a reason why that departeth through this but how truely this is affirmed and substantially proued we shall see in the next passage The first branch of his proofe saith Euery righteous man may or doth sinne mortally In which sentence he taketh two things as granted 1 Some sinnes are mortall some veniall and not mortall 2 A man habituated by sanctitie may commit mortall sinne I answer if by mortall hee meant no more but sinne tending and conducing vnto damnation it would not be denyed him that sinne is mortall but thus
shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and â—eaning of his words which is the vâ—ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that sâ—â—ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the mâ—â—ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and fleshâ—â—â— the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could euâ—r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance
and an essence really subsisting when he did administer the sacrament to his Disciples and said This is my body c. then the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament But Christ gaue substance and an essence really subsisting c. Therefore the body of Christ is really present I answer The word substance c. in this place may be taken for the substance of Bread and wine or for the substance of Christs body That Christ gaue the substance of bread and wine I grant and so the assumption is true and hee must grant it likewise or else say with the Councell of Trent Sess 13. can 2. That it doth not remaine but is changed c. which I presume he will not doe But the word substance being thus vnderstood he must thus argue Hee gaue the substance of bread therefore the substance of his body was present These two doe hang together like harpe and Harrow so the consequence of the proposition is naught If by the word substance hee meant Christs body then the substance of his body is affirmed to be giuen but not explicated how hee gaue it nor proued yet that he gaue it This is his old vaine you must go seeke his meaning for the sense and take his word for the truth or else his is no man of this world I will bestow some paines to finde out both To giue may be after an humane sort that is when I deliuer a thing in my possession into the possession of another I had it then another hath it now hee is seized I am dispossessed of it If Christ gaue the substance of his body thus then the substance of his body was present But Christ did not giue the substance of his body on this manner If hee will say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sort hee must proue it by the word of God for it is impossible vnto naturall vnderstanding that Christ should deliuer the substance of his owne body out of his owne possession into the possession of his Disciples Furthermore Giuing may be after an heauenly and spirituall manner that is to say vnto faith If he say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sense Then he saith true and thus he must say or disclaime the faith of the Church of England for so saith our Church in the 28 Article But then Christ might so giue and yet not be really and substantially present in the Sacrament For we lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God Thus spiritually with the mouth of our faith we eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood c. as I haue alledged out of Bishop Iewel in his reply to Harding p. 238. see Defen Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this answer I hope no man will require mee to proue that Christ is not really present in the Sacrament that belongs not to me but because they affirme that hee is present and tels vs we must beleeue that God hath reuealed it therefore it is enough for vs to call for a sight of that diuine reuelation and in the meane time to with-hold our beleefe thereof euen vpon that ground which Bishop Iewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology part 2. cap. 12. diuis 1. p. 220. namely Christ nor his Apostles neuer taught nor the Primitiue Church neuer beleeued that reall presence Thus haue I ended this argument and the whole point of reall presence and I hope haue made it appeare that it is neither the doctrine of the Church of England nor a true doctrine CHAP. XV. The point of Images Master Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England Images and Idols may be two things vnto Christians they are not vnlawful in all manner of religious imployment The Images of Christ of the Virgin Marie and other Saints may bee had and kept in Churches honour and worship is due and must be yeelded vnto them Taken out of the Homilies against perill of Idolatry printed 1576. the second Tome The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may bee set vp in Churches Not that any diuinity or power is beleeued to bee in them for which they are worshipped or that anie thing is desired of them or that a trust is placed in them The words Idoll and Image bee words of diuers tōgues and sounds yet vsed in the Scriptures indifferently for one thing alwayes p. 27. to bring Images into the Churches is a foule abuse and great enormitie page 27. Be forbidden and vnlawfull p. 84. Not things indifferent nor tolerable pag. 96 97. There is a respect due vnto and honour giuen relatiuely vnto the picture of saints Christ they may be vsed for helps of piety in rememoration and more effectuall representing of the prototype Gagg p. 318. For the instruction of the vnlearned renewing the remembrance of the history and stirring vp of deuotion Gagg p. 300. But because the honour that is exhibited vnto them is referred to the prototype which they represent so as by the Images which wee kisse and before whom we vncouer the head kneele downe we adore Christ worship Saints whose images they beare Bishops ought diligently to teach so as 1 The people be trained vp in the articles of faith by the histories of our redemption expressed in pictures or other similitudes 2 Be put in mind by Images of the benefits and gifts which are bestowed vpon thē by Christ 3 To giue thankes to God for the Saints by whom mirales are wrought and good examples set before them and to follow their life manners  For instance in remembring more feelingly and so being impassioned more effectually with the death of our Sauiour when wee see that story represented vnto vs by a skilfull hand Appeale p. 254. Concil Trent Sess 25. de inuoca c.  CHAP. XVI The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed HEre we enquire of three things 1 Whether his doctrine of Images bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth therein with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth therein from the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is sufficiently testified by their words and his He saith Images may be had in Churches and Honour is due and to be giuen vnto them So saith the Councell He saith Honour is due and giuen relatiuely The Councell saith The honour exhibited to Images is referred to the prototype which is the same with his He saith They may be vsed for the instruction of the ignorant recalling the memory of the history and stirring vp of deuotion The Councell saith The articles of faith may be learned by them men put in mind of the benefits by Christ and stirred vp to giue thankes for the miracles and to imitate the vertuous actions wrought by the Saints Which differeth nothing from him He concludeth the point of Images thus Let practice
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
be nothing but grace for can it bee conceiued how our comming to saluation can bee attributed to God as his worke but by reason that hee doth giue grace Lastly it cannot bee conceiued how God should bring to saluation by Christ but by giuing of grace seeing none come to saluation by Christ but such as are members of Christ and none are members of Christ but by the meanes of grace And that it was the meaning of our Church to make finall grace one thing appointed by Predestination to be giuen vnto man it is apparent by that doctrine of the Article which followeth where it maketh Predestination to be the cause or reason wherefore God bestoweth grace and glory vpon man in the euent for thus it saith Wherefore they which bee indued with this excellent benefit viz. of Predestination be called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit they through grace obey the calling and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to saluation BY CHRIST Hereby our Church doth set forth the means appointed by Predestination wherby in course of time man shal enioy the thing appointed by Predestination and that is Iesus Christ vnder whose name all other subordinate meanes are fitly comprehended and that our Church meant so need not be doubted because it addeth other meanes of grace and saluation besides Christ in the doctrine of the Article following TO DELIVER FROM DAMNATIOM By this the nature of Predestination formerly deliuered is set out or made more plaine vnto vs for this being contrary vnto that doth make it the more manifest vnto our vnderstandings and the Scripture taketh the same course also as in many other places so in these He that beleeueth is passed from death vnto life There is no condemnation to him that is in Christ Rom. 8. 1. By damnation is not meant the state of damnation actually for that sense cannot stand with the doctrine of our Church which followeth but by damnation is vnderstood the possibilitie of being in the state of damnation preuented by the decree of Predestination for that sense doth agree very well with the doctrine of the Article which saith This decree is constant as is declared before SOME ELECTED OVT OF MANKINDE The subiect or parties predestinated are here sayd to bee man but not all men vniuersally it restraineth the same vnto some of mankinde by saying that they are elected ones and elected out of mankind 2. The subiect that receiueth Predestinatiō is described by two things The one by the name and vnder the title of man meerly without any addition whereby is signified that man conceiued in himselfe onely as an intellectuall creature without grace or works of grace is obiected vnto and set before the diuine will of Predestination and in that notion onely he receiueth the same Our Church doth not say that God waited till man had grace and then and vpon the intuition thereof he was moued to and did predestinate him That this may be the sense of our Church is cleere because it is a course agreeable and decent vnto the diuine prouidence and man himselfe and that this must be meant by our Church is certaine also for no other sense can be made therof agreeable to these words and those words that went before which say the reason mouing God to predestinate is secret to vs And grace is bestowed by predestination The other thing describing it is the word elect which signifieth an act of Gods will whereby our Church doth giue vs to vnderstand that the reason why this or that man is predestinate ariseth from Gods will and pleasure of which it is that the predestinate are singled out and seuered from the rest of mankind IN CHRIST Our Church referreth these words vnto the word elect thus Those whom hee elected in Christ In this sentence the word elect doth signifie 1. an act of Gods will 2 An act going before predestination 3 A collection of a certaine number of men from others to be predestinated vnto this or that measure of grace and glory for so it speaketh in the 17. arti saying Those whom he chose he decreed to bring to saluation The words in Christ tell vs that Gods eye was extended to the chosen ones in or through Christ Now this act of election may bee done vpon man in the intuition of Christ either as the end intended and aimed at in the act of election or as the meritorious cause thereof In the first sense wee may not take our Church seeing it saith the reason that moued God to predestinate is secret to vs wee must therefore vnderstand our Church to speake in the first sense for that is most agreeable to the course of Scripture to the dignity of Christ and to the operation of grace in man What heart is it that will not rather make it selfe subordinate vnto Christ then Christ subordinate vnto him And that our Church meant thus we haue yet better reason to thinke viz. because this whole description of predestination is takē out of the first chapter to the Ephesians where the Apostle hauing said in the fourth verse He hath chosen vs in him He concludeth in the 12 verse That we should be to the praise of his glory which sheweth that Christs glory was the end intended aimed at in the act of electiō BEFORE THE FOVNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAYD That is before the Creation The world is created either in the reall being thereof or in the decree to create Our Church speaketh not of reall creating for then it should say the decree of Predestination is before actuall Creation This it could not meane or that is as much as if it had said the decree of Predestination is eternall for before that creation there is no duration but eternitie But our Church meant not by these words to say Gods decree was eternall for it had said so in expresse words a little before and this phrase of speech doth not make that more plaine but doth rather more obscure it Our Church then speaketh of Gods decree to create and so it setteth forth the moment wherein in our apprehension man is predestinate by God and is as if it had said Gods decree of Predestination in our apprehension goes before his decree of creation And the rather all men should vnderstand our Church thus because this order is agreeable to the nature of the things themselues Predestination being more worthy of loue then Creation That being supernatural perpetuall and mans last perfection This being naturall temporary and at most but a way vnto that therefore it is more orderly to conceiue the decree of Creation to be subordinate vnto the decree of Predestination then Predestination vnto Creation If any thinke that man cannot be predestinate before he be actually made I answer in Gods will of execution it is true man cannot inioy the being of the thing appointed by Predestination before hee hath actuall being himselfe now the will of execution is not now in