A DANGEROUS PLOT DISCOVERED. BY A DISCOURSE, Wherein is proved, That, Mr: RICHARD MOUNTAGVE, in his two Books; the one, called A new Gag; the other, A just Appeal: Laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome, and Arminius: under the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England. A Work very necessary for all them which have received the truth of God in love, and desire to escape error. The Reader shall find: 1. A Catalogue of his erroneous points annexed to the Epistle to the Reader. 2. A demonstration of the danger of them. cap. 21. num. 7. etc. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the Chapters contained in this Book. IEREM. 5. 31. The Prophet's prophecy lies, what will you then do in the end thereof? The son of the handmaid, shall not▪ inherit with the son of the free Woman. LONDON, Printed for Nicholas Bourne, at the Exchange. 1626. TO THE HIGH AND HONOURABLE COURT Of PARLIAMENT▪ The humble supplication of the Author. WHereas, Mr Richard Montague, hath written two Books, the one, called A new Gag; the other, A just Appeal: Which many esteemed as dangerous unto our Church, and State. I esteemed it my duty, to read them, and to satisfy myself in the point; whether they were so faulty, as was pretended or not. When I had read, and well considered of them; I could not but resolve, that they were in deed dangerous unto our Church. For that he endeavoured by them to change our faith, into the faith of Rome, and Arminius. Which deed I could not but detest: because that faith of Rome, and Arminius, is false and erroneous: And upon that detestation, I became an humble suitor unto the Lord God, to preserve our faith in the purity thereof, seeing he is the Author of truth, and his eyelids preserve pure knowledge. Now, out of the same affection, I prostrate myself & this Cause, before your reverend, honourable, and grave judgements, and high authority: with all submission, and fervent desire; Craving That you will 1. take this Cause into your consideration. 2. Preserve the faith of our Church in the purity it hath had hitherto. 3. Endeavour to prevent the corrupting of it in time to come. I do most willingly confess, that I may seem to some, to deserve blame, in that I do thus presume, to offer myself, into your most honourable presence, and Tribunal. Yea, I am ready to give that judgement against myself, when I consider the meanness of my condition, and the poor talon which I offer unto you. But none of those things could discourage me in this business: when I consider, 1. Your most honourable, and fatherly care, over this Church, and State, of which you are members; receiving with all readiness, and mildness, the complaints; yea of the meanest suitors. 2. Your service herein, will be acceptable to God; for, by his Law, The Foxes must be taken, that eat up the Vines, yea, it is an honour, beyond earthly honour, to do it: for thereby a name is purchased, excelling humane titles: even the name, to be called Good servants, and faithful unto the Lord God; and they are also admitted into their Master's joy. Again, this office is most seemly for your most high and honourable Court: because, You are (therefore) called together, by his sacred Majesty, our most gracious King: That things amiss might be redressed: And, the redress of evils in the Church, and our faith, is of all other, most comely, and graceful: for, thereby, the Word of God receiveth freer passage, and men's salvation is furthered. The doctrine of our Church, doth call for your protection against all intruders, (even of itself) though all men should hold their peace: Because, it deserveth protection, in as much as it was penned, and composed, by most reverend, learned, and holy Authors, & Fathers of our Church. It is in itself, most agreeable unto the divine, and sacred Revelation: yea, wanting nothing, any kind of ways, of a safe, and fit expression of, and direction unto, our Christian faith: so as we may truly say, the Church of England is not inferior therein, unto any Church in the Christian world. Lastly, This cause does indeed, in a special sort belong unto you, for you are possessed with it (in part) already. This doctrine of our Church received the authority it hath, first, from that most high and honourable Court, whereof you are. By it also it hath been preserved in that state, till this present time. Wherefore I rest well assured, That you will not impute my boldness unto me. Now, I might allege some reasons to move you, to undertake the work: but I will not do so. For that would be very unseemly and ill befitting: For what man (well advised) would light a small and dim candle, to further the light of the Sun in his greatest strength? And this would be my case, if I should move you by reasons: For you know more than I can write or speak. Who would put him forward, that is more ready to do, than any can be to ask? And this is your case, experience doth witness it: In whom we see not the spirit of jehu, that was zealous for the Lord of Hosts, but rather of the Lord of heaven and earth, who is ready to hear before we call upon him; yea, to call to us, when we are negligent to call upon him. And thus would you do, if it were fit for your place and authority: so mindful, willing, & ready are you in God's service, and the good of your Country. Wherefore I have only this to say, Go on— For the Lord is with you. We your Countrymen, true lovers of our Church and State, are with you, to help you with our prayers unto God, to render thanks unto God, and our gracious & renowned Sovereign: and to you, saying, in the words (once) spoken by King David; Blessed be God, and blessed be You. And to give his sacred Majesty, and You, the honour due unto you; saying, Many of your Predecessors have done well, but You surmount them all. Thus I commit You and your Labours, unto the protection and favour of the Almighty. LONDON. This first of june. 1626. ¶ To the Reader. ALthough, I have no delight in making a Preface: for I see not any great need of it: yet I here present thee with one, because, Custom calls for it. In this Preface, I will advise thee of some things, even of such (and no more) as shall help thee, to make the better use of the ensuing Discourse; which, I will do also with as much brevity as I can. First know, That, this Treatise was chief intended for my own satisfaction, but is now published for the benefit of others. The manner of handling the points in it, is scholastical; and it might be no other; because the things themselves, and the party opposed, require it. Besides, this course of writing is profitable for thee; for thereby, 1. The matters in question, are laid before thee nakedly, and, as it were, in both ends of the Balance. 2. All impertinent Discourses are prevented, and all raylings avoided: so as, now thou hast nothing to judge of, but the matter itself. I have directed my Disputation against both of Mr: Montague his Books; The Gag, and the Appeal: because the whole evil, could not be found out, in any one of them alone. All the sentences, and several passages, in this Discourse, pretended to be collected, and framed out of Mr: Montague his Books, are truly, and plainly, and ingenuously collected, and framed according as they are in his Books themselves. If any error be committed in them, it ariseth from the greatness of their number, or from his obscure manner of setting down his intent. It may be, some will account the publishing hereof to be needless: because others have done so much already, as is fit to be done, in this business. I answer; The publishing hereof, is to good purpose: For, many witnesses to the truth▪ gives the greater glory to it, and procures a freer passage for it, amongst men: Besides, I doubt not, but, by this Discourse, the Reader shall be put in mind, of some things, which he would have forgotten, or not observed, in the Books that are published already. Lastly, None of this kind▪ have been published already: For herein, more points are handled, then were touched in them: and, these which are discussed in this, are framed in another manner, and do tend to an end, which they did not. I have concealed my name: not because I am, (or have cause to be) unwilling it should be known: But because, I desire to forestall personal quarrels; so frequent with Mr: Montague: And, because, I suppose, the annexing of my name hereto, is of no great use unto the Reader; for as much, as he must receive satisfaction, in the points of faith, from the divine testimony, not from any humane authority whatsoever. One thing (only) remains: That is, That, I entreat thee, to seek for satisfaction, and an assured ground, for thy faith, in the present questions: For, it is thy duty so to do. The Apostle jude doth exhort that we contend, for the faith, once given to the Saints. If thou standest an Idle beholder, not regarding which end goes forward: what wilt thou say? How wi●t thou answer it unto God? Wilt thou say, This sentence of the Apostle jude, is not a Commandment? I answer; the Apostles phrase, and manner of speaking, will then refute thee: For, every such exhortation, is either a Commandment, or presumes a duty already commanded otherwhere: as we may see by the like places of Scripture, 1 Thes. 4. 2. 2 Thes. 3. 12. Wilt thou answer, That, it is no Commandment unto thee? ●he●e words will then reprove thee also; for, they are extended unto all men, without limitation: And that Epistle is called a general Epistle. Wilt thou say, it is an affirmative Commandment; and▪ therefore it may not, bind thee at this time: because such Commandments do n●t bind to all times? I answer; Thou canst not be free from this Commandment, (even) it th● time, unless thou canst find, some part of the div●ne Revelation that shall free thee: For, Thyself canst not free thyself therefrom: seeing thou art to be at God's dispose: not at thine own choice. Therefore, If thou wilt fancy to thyself, this, or that reason, to exempt thyself from this Commandment, thou art no other, but, the man that saith: A Lion is in the way, I shall be slain in the streets. Lastly, when wilt thou then think thyself bound by this law, if thou be free at this time? Is not the faith of God now at the ●take? Do not the Foxes out of their holes, seek to eat up the Lor● Vine? Does not the Bo●re out of the Forest labour to root up the Lords Plant? Now, now, therefore is the time, yea, high time for thee to take thyself bound by this law of God, or never. Wilt thou imagine, that thou shalt not give an account of thy neglect of this duty? Surely, than thy thoughts are most vain; for, canst thou forget the Lords voice, that saith, Arise, O you dead, and come unto judgement; and sha● we come to judgement, and not account with the Lord▪ Besides, canst thou forget that voice, which saith: Every man shall give an account, for every idle word▪ much more, for every fruitless deed? I say, this thy negligence is a ●ee●▪ because it is voluntary, thou dost choose to be negligent. It ●● fruitless, because, no good comes of it, unto God's glory, or thine own salvation. Wherefore, I will conclude, fouled thy hands no longer together, like the sluggard: give thy eyes no rest, nor thy eyelids no slumber; spare for no labour; grudge not for cost, till thou be settled, and grounded upon the Rock of Gods revealed truth: so shalt thou stand in the perilous time, and be ready to go into the Bride-chamber, when the Bridegroom cometh. And, this is all I will say to thee. For thy furtherance, I have annexed hereunto, 1. A Catalogue of the erroneous points which are contained in his Book, and the places where they are. 2. A list of the heads of every Chapter in the Book. His points of the Popish Faith, are these which follow. 1. THe Church is judge in Divinity questions, that be in Controversy. 2. We receive the decisions of the Catholic Church, as the dictates of the holy Spirit. cap. 2. 3. The Church representative, cannot err in points of faith. cap. 4. at the beginning, and num. 2. pag. 12. 4. There ever was, and will be upon earth, a visible Church, unto which Complaints may be made. cap. 5. at the beginning, num. 4. p. 26. 5. The Church of Rome, is a true Church of Christ, a part of the Catholic Church, which we profess to believe in our Creed. cap. 6. at the beginning, and num. 7. p. 37. 6. We grant the general being, working, and concurring of with God's grace: after preventing grace, man doth freely renounce the calling of grace, and freely run. cap. 7. p. 53. 7. justification consisteth in remission of sins primarily, and grace infused secondarily. cap. 9 pag. 83. cap. 10. num. 17. etc. 8. Both remission of sins, and grace infused, are the acts of God's spirit in man cap. 9 p. 83. c. 10. num. 23. etc. 9 A man (yea the Elect) may lose the habit of grace cap. 11. p. 37. 10. Sin is mortal, and venial. 11. The habit of grace is common to the predestinate, and not predestinate. cap. 12. num. 2. & 3. 12. Every child duly baptised, is thereby put into the state of grace and salvation. cap. 12. num. 11. p. 55. 13. Mortal sin only disobeyeth God's law. cap. 12. num. 17. p. 64. & 65. 14. A man habituated by grace, may commit mortal sin. cap. 12. num. 17. p. 63. & 64. 15. There is no difference between the Church of Rome and ours, in the point of Real presence. cap. 13 p. 81. The only difference between us, is about Transubstantiation. cap. 14. num. 2. p: 82. 83. 16. The pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and Saints, may be set up in Churches. Respect is due, and honour given Relatively unto them. They may be used for helps of piety: To represent the prototype: Instruct the unlearned, renew remembrance. cap. 15. p. 94. & 95. 17. A man may do more than he is tied unto by any Law of God. cap. 17. p: 107. These works are left to a man's choice; They procure reward to him that doth them, and he that doth them not, is without danger of punishment therefore. cap. 18. num. 2. p. 109. They are to be found in Virginity, and wilful Poverty. cap. 18. num. 12. p. 120. 18. Final persevering in obedience, is the instrumental cause of man's salvation. cap. 20. num. 27. p. 161. 162. The points of the false Faith of Arminius do follow. 1. I Conceive of predestination, that it is God's act of drawing them out which took hold of mercy. cap. 19 p. 126. 127. cap. 20. num. 3. & 4. & num. 7. p. 139. 2. Man being prevented by grace, he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that grace. Man being drawn, he runneth as his assistance, his own agility and disposition is. cap. 7. p. 53. cap. 8. num. 22. & 23. The heads of every Chapter, are as follow. Master Montague hath corrupted the faith of our Church cap. 1. The point of the judge of Controversies propounded. cap. 2. discussed. cap. 3. The point of the Churches not erring cap. 4. The point of the Churches perpetual visibility. cap. 5. The Church of Rome, is a true Church cap. 6. The point of propounded. cap. 7. debated. cap. 8. The point of justification propounded. cap 9 argued cap. 10. The point of falling from grace propounded. c. 11 argued. cap. 12. The point of Real presence propounded. cap 13. debated. cap. 14. The point of Images propounded. cap. 15. discussed. cap. 16. The point of Works of Supererogation propounded. cap. 17. disputed. cap. 18. The point of Predestination propounded. cap. 19 debated cap. 20. The Conclusion of the whole, claiming Master Montague his promise cap. 21. CHAP. I. Master Montague hath corrupted, the Faith of the Church of England. THE whole Disputation following serveth to prove this sentence; by showing wherein, and by what, he hath corrupted it. This sentence presumeth, that the Church of England hath published her faith, which will not be denied, because the Records thereof (chiefly the Book of Articles) are, or may be in every man's hand. That he hath corrupted it, will easily be granted too, if I show, that under the name and pretence of the doctrine of the Church of England, and defence thereof, he hath brought in the erroneous faith of the Church of Rome, and Arminius. And this I will perform; first, by answering his general plea to excuse himself therfrom in this Chapter, and then by setting down the particular points wherein, and whereby he hath corrupted it, in the rest of the Chapters following. First, he pleadeth not guilty of both accusations, of Arminianism, and Popery. Appeal. p. 9 I reply unto him. I will join issue with him herein, and make it good that he is guilty. He would argue his innocency on this manner. 1. I disavowed the name and title of Arminian; for I will not pin my belief unto any man's sleeve. I answer, if you join in that faith, whereof he was the author, you cannot avoid to bear his title; no more than others that have sided in the like case. Every artist beareth the name of that art which he professeth, but you join in faith with him, (as afterwards shall appear) therefore you must bear his title. 2. He saith, he never read word in Arminius. p. 10. I answer, this will not thrust off his title. For of them that were called Arrians, many thousands never read word in Arrius. It is communion in his faith, (not his writings) that procures that title. He would prove himself innocent of the Popish faith on this manner; I nor am, nor have been, nor intent to be, a Papist of state or of Religion. p. 111. I answer, his thoughts may change, and so he may be, what he doth not now intent to be; The liking of some points first, is a good beginning, and a fair way, to like all at last. We do not inquire what you are, or intent to be, but what you have done. Therefore this plea is nothing to the purpose. He would prove he neither is nor means to be a Papist, by two reasons; the first is, The original grounds of Popery have no warrant from revealed truth. p. 111. The second is, he hath handled them as few besides himself hath done, in so exasperating a style. p. 110. I answer, this proves the thing which is not in question, therefore deserves not be answered: but to them, I say, you have left a door open for the first (to escape.) You say, you are not tied to your own opinion. Gag. p. 328. If your judgement change, you are as ready for Popery, and will judge it no less warranted by revealed truth then now you do the contrary. You tell us of some that draw one way, and look another. You may be one of them for any thing is done, & are so too (in all likelihood.) For railing at them doth not show you had no favour to them, because the contention of friends many times is the bitterest, and odious railing, was the fittest curtain to conceal your friendship to them, where open friendship would presently have been detested. If circumstances will argue your guiltiness, I can urge you with some store. 1. Your writing is crabbed and hardly intelligible, full of raylings and debasing of others, extolling & vaunting of yourself, advancing the credit of Popish Writers, debasing the reputation of many of precious account in all the Protestants Churches. 2. You often times leave the question between you and the Papist, to quarrel with Protestants. 3. You grant your Adversary many points of his faith, and fain a difference where there is none. 4. You drop in the Popish faith here some, and there some, as if you would, but you are not willing to be seen. If they were together, every one would perceive them, being in sunder, a wise man might be overtaken by them. 5. You bring in points of speculation, that will find less opposition, but being received, will draw on matters of practice. 6. You profess yourself for reconciliation, which can be understood of none, but with the church of Rome. Appeal. p. 292. Touching the matter itself, thus he saith; I call therein for trial for it, by God and my Country, the Scriptures, and the Church of England; dare any join Issue with me upon this, they dare not. p. 9 I answer, I dare and do accept the Challenge. And that the proceed may be orderly, I will set the doctrine of Mr. Montague in the first place, of the Church of Rome in the second, and of the Church of England in the third. Then I will show his disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs. In the last place, I will show the faith of Rome (wherein he doth agree with them) to be erroneous. CHAP. II. The point of the judge of Divinity Controversies. Mr. Montague. Ch. of Rome. Ch. of Eng: In Divinity questions that be in Controversy, there must be a judge to determine whether party contending, hath law & right upon his side, which we say is the Church. gag. p. 28. It is the office of the Church to judge of the true sense 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 belief in plain causes. And in doubtful points that require determination, we appeal to the Church for judgement in that rule. gag. p. 14. 15. General Councils may oer in things pertaining to God. arti: 21. If a question be moved in controverted matters, the Church must decide and settle that doubt, by applying and declaring the Scriptures. p. 14. Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, The decision of the Catholic Church we receive as the dictate of the holy spirit. gag. p. 19 have neither strength, nor authority, unless 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 address to the direction of God's spirit, and that in the Church. gag. p. 6. CHAP. III. The point set down in the former Chapter is discussed. IN the first place the meaning of the term judge must be understood, which is thus explicated; A judge is an office, ordained by God, to give 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 appeal unto it. And 3. they must rest satisfied with the judgement thereof. Of which there is no question with him in Divinity questions that be in Controversy. The parts to be debated be three. 1. Whether that proposition the Church is judge, etc. 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 saith. The Word of God, and the ancient practice of the Catholic Church doth avow it. gag. p. 15. I answer, Doctor Carleton, Bishop of Chichester, saith all contrary in his book called Directions to know the true Church, p. 54. He writeth thus: Undoubtedly, the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith; this is the Catholic determination of the judge of Controversies of faith, which hath been in all succession preserved. And p. 57 Till the Council of Trent, the Church held the same determination still concerning the judge of Controversies in faith. Now unto whether of you too shall credit be given, surely unto him rather than unto you. For he is your superior in learning and authority, he is your Diocesan, whose voice must you hear, but the voice of your Pastor? And you are in the Affirmative, giving an authority to the Church, which he denieth; you must show us the commission for this authority, for we dare not yield the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it. It is your own rule gag. p. 17. A Nunci● must go to his Commission. If your proofs be good, your Diocesan must stand by. 1. Your proofs from the word of God, we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed: Whom we are commanded to hear, Luk. 10. 16. They are judge in Divinity Controversies. But the Church. (That is) the Governors of the Church which succeed the Apostles, are those whom we are commanded to hear, Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is judge, etc. I answer, the proposition is false. I show it by many reasons. 1. It doth allege this place of Luke as if that office of a judge 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 show it by many reasons; but this one shall suffice, viz. no place of Scripture doth tender unto us the commission for that office. 3. The word hear, may be understood for the common hearing of the Word of God Preached and read, as well as for an appeal thereto, and resting in the sentence of a judge: yea and better also; for it is most frequently used in that sense, but little in this. Again, the Text leadeth clearly to that sense; but not at all to this. The assumption speaks of the governor's of the Church, severed from other Ministers which are not governor's. In which sense the assumption doth need proof, but he hath brought none: but his own affirmation. Besides, the assumption is false by the authority of the Text itself, which sendeth us to all the Apostles successors jointly, by the term you, which distinguisheth not between one successor and another. His proof from the word of God being dispatched. The ancient practice of the Catholic Church comes next, but he says nothing of it, therefore I cannot answer any thing to it. It may be he looks for proof from us out of former times, to show that The Church is not judge in matters of faith. Which is unorderly: yet notwithstanding to the end that the judgement of Antiquity in this point might be fully known. Bishop Carleton in the book alleged, p. 52. etc. allegeth Counsels, Fathers, & Popes, all pronouncing this sentence. The Scripture is judge in Controversies of faith. Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastor, and not to you. Lastly, if the Church be judge of Controversies of faith, than God hath assured unto it an infaillibilitie and freedom from error in judgement, And assured such a conspicuous being unto the Church, perpetually to the end of the world, that it may be fit to be appealed unto, and give sentence in every Controversy of faith, in the time wherein it riseth, for without the first it cannot be a fit judge for matters of that kind, and without the second, some Controversies of faith might rest undecided: But the Church hath neither of these two assured unto it by God, as my answers in the two next Chapters will show: and therefore the Church is not judge 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 give this for his reason; to wit, he and they do take the word Church in a different sense, and give for instance as he doth. gag. p. 19 He takes the Church to signify a true, not a pretended Church, which they do not. And again, Appeal. p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Council with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop, but without the Pope as head; but they do not so. By Church they understand the Pope alone. To this I answer; this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of judging, 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 principal thing in question, and that is enough. But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Council of Trent to the full, which understands by the word Church, a true, not a pretended Church, and the Pastors of the Church, not the Pope only. For it calls that Church (in the words immediately going before) the Mother of all believers. Which name cannot agree unto a pretended Church, nor to the Pope alone. Neither do the jesuites expound the word Church, by the word Pope: but only do apply that sentence of the Council to the Pope by inference and accommodation, as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations: The sum whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogism as this is. That office of teaching which belongs to the Church. belongs to the Pope, and his Council. But this office of teaching, viz. judging of Divinity Controversies, belongs to the Church. Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Council. 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 Council, because the Pastors singly may err. The Pope must be joined with them, because it belongs to him, to gather, direct, and confirm Counsels. In the assumption of this reason, he consenteth with the Church of Rome, and that is the principal part of this Argument. In the proposition he consenteth with them thus fare, That this ●●ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church universally, and to the Pope as one of them, and that in a Council. He only denieth the Pope's authority, to call, direct, and confirm Counsels, 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 judge in Divinity Controversies, with the Church of Rome. The third thing to be debated in this question, he resolveth, gag. p. 13. 14. & 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England, and doth allege the 21. Article for it, saying, the Church hath authority in Controversies of faith. But all this is untrue. I have set down that Article in the former Chapter, the sight whereof will avow it. Yea the Article is full for the contrary. For 1. It gives the title of witness of the Scriptures unto the Church, and the Church cannot be both a witness and a judge of the Scriptures. 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more. Which it must have done, if it had esteemed it to be the judge, to apply and interpret the Scriptures. 3. It restrains the force of the sentence of the Church, To examination and trial by the Scriptures. But so must not the sentence given by that judge, 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. FOUR M ▪ Montague. The Church representative cannot err in points of faith. gag. p. 48. Ch. of England. General Counsels may err even in things pertaining unto God. arti: 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow, I have not any thing to set down under the name of the Church of Rome, because I find not the Council of Trent to have 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 Church's authority in judging Divinity Controversies, as shall appear in the particular passages following. This being premised, I proceed to examine; 1. Whether this proposition (the Church represensative cannot err in points of faith) be true or not. 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome, or not. 3. Whether this proposition descent from the Church of England, or not. First, the sense of these terms, 1. Church representative, 2. err, 3. points of faith, must be set down. 1. By Church representative, he understands a Council truly general, Appeal. p. 121. 2. By error, he means an aberration from a rule. Appeal. p. 6. viz. the Scriptures. gag. p. 13. 3. By points of faith, is meant every sentence to be assented to as true, upon the authority of God the reveale● thereof. Not erring in points of faith, supposeth a sentence to be given, which is the subject of not erring, in delivering whereof they cannot err. According unto which sense the proposition may be set down in these words; A Council truly general, in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition, cannot vary from the Scriptures. That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition, himself confesseth. gag. p. 48. where (of it) he saith. So say they, so say we. And Bellarmine's words doth show it. Which writeth thus: The Church representative cannot err. de. eccle. lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod etc. in those things which it propoundeth to be believed and done. Nostra etc. He takes erring to be a varying from God's 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. etc. Wherein is Mr Montague his sentence just. Notwithstanding he denieth, Appeal. p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist (that is as I conceive) that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point, and gives this reason for it; Points of faith be fundamental, or accessary. gag. p. 48. Fundamental are such as the belief whereof, be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church, as the reasonable soul is for the essential being of a man. Appeal. p. 123. In points accessary, there may be error; but none in points fundamental, gag. p. 48. Of points fundamental, only do I speak, and in them only do I conceive infaliibilitie. Appeal. p. 123. I answer, this explication serves well to puzzle the Reader, but hath no force to clear Mr: Montague from agreeing with the Ch: of Rome, for many reasons. The term fundamental is borrowed. We shall then know the true sense of it, when we know what a foundation is in proper speech. A foundation is that part, whereupon the rest of the building is placed. Fundamental points of faith must be like unto this; they must be such whereupon some other thing is builded, which is borne up, and sustained by such points of faith. Things accessary are such as are attendants, not things principal in being or causality: This being considered, I say, 1. First, the distinction itself is naught. No points of saith be accessary, all are fundamental, in as much as the whole divine Revelation, and every particular proposition thereof, is the foundation of our salvation which is built thereupon. And so saith the Homily of reading the Scriptures, 1. part, where it calleth the Word of God, the foundation whereupon the wise builder doth build. And the Apostle doth say no less, when he saith, We are built upon the foundation of the Apostles, etc. Eph. 2. 20. And the thing itself doth faith the same, for as much as there is no sentence, in the divine Revelation, but doth conduce to everlasting happiness. 2. His description of a fundamental point of faith, is of his own devising, without warrant of the thing itself, or any other Author. He doth allege, Appeal. p. 128. Bishop Morton for his Author thereof: but falsely. The Bishop (even as he hath alleged him) hath not one word of a fundamental point of faith, that hath any place in this question. 3. The description (as it lieth) is not intelligible, how a foundation can be as essential to the thing built thereupon, as the soul is to man, passeth humane understanding, seeing man's soul is the primary essence of man; a foundation is but part of the matter, whereof the building is made. Again, what he means by belief, needs a second explication, there is nothing in his discourse that shows it. 4. To what the points of faith be fundamental, he shows not: this therefore must be understood, because points of faith are fundamental diverse ways, 1. Some points are fundamental to other some, viz. this point, There is a God, is fundamental to all other points of faith. The like instance may be given in many other points, wherein the primary are the foundations to the secondary points of faith. 2. Points of faith are the foundations to our salvation. 3. Points of faith are the foundation to the Church, in as much as the Preaching of the pure Word of God therein, doth serve unto the being of a Church, in the judgement of the Church of England. Arti: 19 He yields us another description, Appeal. p. 116. in these words; Points fundamental be such as are immediate unto faith. He proves this, as he did the former, (just never a whit.) We must believe it to be thus, because he saith it. We must guess at his meaning, for he doth not tell it us. I think by immediate unto faith, he means such points as are objected unto faith first & before others, such as these, viz. That there is a God, is believed before all other points that concern virtue and happiness; That there is a divine Revelation, is believed before all other that concern supernatural holiness and happiness; That there is a Mediator, the man Christ, is believed before all others, that do directly tend to salvation. He being thus understood, his description is false, for the primary or first objecting unto saith gives them not any thing like to the foundation of a building. It is the succeeding Articles of faith (which doth suppose the precedent) that make the preceding to have the likeness of a foundation. This Article, That there is a God, is a foundation to all others universally, because all of them do follow and suppose this. 2. Some Articles are fundamental, which are not objected first unto faith, for that there is a divine Revelation, is not objected first unto faith, yet it is the foundation unto all other Articles of divine faith. The like instance may be given of many other Articles, which are foundations in the like sort: which yet are objected unto faith many degrees after the first. He doth explicate these fundamentals, by these properties: viz. The knowledge and belief of them is absolutely necessary to salvation: no man can be saved, that doth not know and believe them. That some points have these properties I grant, and namely, those three I have already spoken of: but that these properties are so peculiar unto fundamentals, as that they belong unto them all, and unto none but such (which is the thing he intendeth) he hath not proved, nor can. Besides, this necessary order between some points of faith and heaven, doth not make them fundamental, because that necessity ariseth from the things themselves, in respect that they are the entrance into the way to heaven. 5. The application of the distinction is false. He doth not conceive the Church to be infallible in fundamentals. For if he did, then also he doth give the Church authority to judge in fundamentals, because that goeth with this. But he doth not give the Church that authority, but denieth it unto them. Which I prove by his own testimony. 1. In his Appeal he disputeth, p. 126. in this form, and in these words: Counsels are to determine things which be of doubtful issue. Fundamentals are no such. Out of which proposition and assumption, this conclusion issueth. Therefore Counsels are not to determine points fundamental. 2. Out of his Gag and Appeal, I argue thus: In Divinity questions and controverted matters, the Church is judge. gag. p. 14. & 28. Fundamentals are not divinity questions, nor controverted matters. For Fundamentals be plainly delivered in Scripture. Appeal. p. 125. Therefore the Church is not judge in fundamentals. Although these things which I have answered, be sufficient (I hope) to take away the reason, which he pleadeth to excuse himself, from agreeing with the Church of Rome, in the point of the Church's infallibility: yet I will add a reason from his own testimony, and the thing itself, to prove that his agreement, on this manner: If he doth give to the Church infallibility in points fundamental, all points of faith be fundamental, than he doth agree with the Church of Rome, in the point of the Church's infallibility. For the Church of Rome doth give infallibility to the Church in all points of faith. But he doth give infallibility to the Church in points fundamental. And all points of faith be fundamental. 1. To man's salvation. 2. One to another. 3. To the Church (as shall be proved if need require) Therefore he doth consent with the Church of Rome, in the point of the Church's infallibility. And thus much shall suffice touching the second point. That he doth dissent from the Church of England, the words on both sides set down in the beginning of this Chapter do sufficiently show; so that to be●●ow further labour therein, is indeed altogether lost, yet notwithstanding, that it may appear to be so, without all exception, I will answer to those proofs which he allegeth to excuse himself therefrom; which are as followeth, Appeal. p. 128. The first whereof must be framed thus: That possibility of erring, which Arti: 19 ascribeth to general Counsels, is in things wherein they have erred. For It avou ch, that general Counsels have erred. But in fundamentals they have never erred, because there is no such extant. Therefore the Article doth not ascribe possibility of erring to general Counsels in fundamentals. I answer, this argument proves nothing, but begs the question, in that 1. It takes as granted, some points of faith be fundamental, other some are not, which is denied him. 2. The assumption is as doubtful as the conclusion. The proposition is also false, the words of the Article attributeth unto the church possibility of erring, without limitation, either indefinite or assigned It saith, General Counsels may err in things appertaining to God. If this proposition be understood, to speak not of all, but of some things pertaining to God, than nothing is determined thereby of certainty, but that may not be granted; for that is a delusion, no decision. The proof added to the proposition confirms it not, for that proposition is not a limitation of a Counsels erring: but a proof that Counsels may err; on this wise: Counsels have erred. Therefore Counsels may err. If it be replied, that this reason is not good, except erring in the consequent be taken, in that sense, wherein it is used in the Antecedent. I rejoined, the argument is good, although erring in the antecedent, be taken for erring in some things, and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things, because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith, is not free at all. The proof added to the assumption standeth thus▪ That which hath not erred hither to, cannot err hereafter, etc. But this proposition is manifestly false, because freedom from error, and infallibility in judgement, is not made by not erring in time past, but by a special & peculiar providence of God, which they may want at some other time, who (in the thing) have not erred in time foregoing. His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort. If the Article speaks of things pertaining to God, and those are not all fundamentals, than it may be understood of things not fundamental. I answer, this reason hath the fault that the former had, it presumes that points of faith, are some fundamental, some not fundamental, which is denied, and therefore it begs the question. 2. I will grant the distinction for this time, and say further, the word (only) must be added to the latter part of this reason, otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose; that being added, I deny the consequence, because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God, as I have proved in my answer. And I prove further by your own testimony, thus; If the Article in saying Counsels may err in things, etc. do not mean all but some things, than the doctrine of the Church of England is not plain direct, without farfetched obscure interpretations, easy even & perspicuous of itself, fitted for the use, capacity, & instruction of the simple and ignorant, who are not capable of obscurities. But the doctrine of the Church of England is plain, direct, &c as yourself doth truly affirm. Appeal. p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Counsels may err in things, etc. doth mean universally all things pertaining to God. His third reason is in the same. p. 124 thus; The Article speaketh of debating and discussing, I speak of deciding and determining. Therefore I descent not from the Article. I answer, the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false. Ordaining is deciding and determining. The Article speaketh of ordaining. Thus it argueth Counsels may err. Therefore things ordained by them, not taken out of Scripture, have no authority. Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining. His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect. The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversy. I speak of things plainly delivered in Scripture. Therefore I descent not from the Article. I answer, the words plainly delivered in Scripture, must signify things not in controversy. That being granted, the second branch in the antecedent is false. He himself otherwhere delivereth the contrary. Those things whereof the Church must judge, are the things where in according to him, the Church is free from error. But things in Controversy, are those according to him, whereof the Church must judge. See what he saith, gag. p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed. more obscure and involved. And p. 14. In controverted matters, if a question be moved, the Church must decide and settle that doubt. In plain● cases no deciding judge shall need, but such as are ambiguous, must be determined by the judge, etc. Therefore according to him in things in Controversy, the Church is free from error; and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter, he layeth down in his Appeal. p. 160. in these words: There is a rule of faith, we acknowledge it. Things that are strait, and direct, and according to that rule, confessedly need not application, are not commonly brought to be, applied to that rule, but things of different or doubtful standing, these need application, and are applied by the perpetual practice of the Catholic Church. And thus have I ended all the reasons, which he bringeth to excuse himself, from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point, which are too weak to excuse him, therefore I may safely conclude; He doth descent from the Church of England, touching the infallibility of the Church. Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not, and I will repeat the proposition for help of memory, and this it is; A Council truly general, in giving sentence of a divinity question, cannot vary from the Scriptures. His proofs for it, we find set down in his Appeal. p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture; the former on this wise; They to whom the spirit is promised, to lead them into all truth joh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinity question, vary from the Scriptures. But to a Council truly general, the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth. joh. 16. 13. Therefore a Council truly general, in giving sentence of a divinitte question, cannot vary from the Scriptures. I answer, There is no whole part in this argument; Not in the proposition, which supposeth, that These words, joh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which have an office to judge, whether this or that sentence in Divinity, be agreeable to the Scriptures or not. But this supposition is of his own making, and hath been refuted in the last Chapter going before, wherein it doth appear by my answer to him. That office was never committed to any. Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg; but not demonstrate the question. For further refutation thereof, I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office, than the Apostles had it. For those words were spoken to the Apostles (I take as granted.) But the Apostles had it not; for they had the office to reveal the sacred mysteries, with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand. It cannot be imagined, that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authority of revealing, and submit themselves to the office of application and exposition of things already revealed; this being inferior, as the building, that superior, as the foundation; that being performed without labour and industry, this not without much of both; that being an immediate continuation of Christ's ministry, this mediate: none of which may be admitted without special direction in the Word of God, wherein there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit. Moreover, although this exception were not taken, yet the proposition is false. These words may be spoken to such as have not that office, this leading into all truth, and that office of applying and expounding things revealed, doth not necessarily go together. The word, leading, may signify no more, but an act of doing so much as is required on God's part, which hath not always the event accordingly, but oftentimes is frustrate by man's default. 2. The words; all truth, may import no more, but that whole which is required unto the salvation of every particular man, so necessarily, that without it that cannot be had. The assumption is no better, the Text alleged hath not one word touching a general Council: If it be replied, that those words were spoken to the Apostles, and from them to the Pastors of the Church which succeed them, and because those Pastors cannot consult and give sentence touching a thing in question, except they meet together, therefore these words were spoken of a general Council. To this I rejoin. The Text thus explicated, yields these questions. 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church. 2. In what respect those Pastors do succeed the Apostles. 3. Who hath the authority, to gather the Pastors of the Church together. 4. Whether all or some, and what number of Pastors have authority to determine. 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is. 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength; all which questions are no less doubtful, than the conclusion which the Text is brought to prove; whereby it doth beg the question, but proves it not. His second proof must be thus framed; They with whom our Saviour Christ is present, according to his promise. M●t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinity question, cannot vary from the Scriptures. But with a Council truly general, our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise. Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Council truly general, etc. I answer, this place of Scripture doth yield these questions. 1. What is meant by Christ's presence. 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting, or the thing whereabout they meet. 3. Whether that promise extend also unto a greater number. 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet, Pastors or not Pastors. Every one whereof, is no less difficult to be determined by the word of God, than the present question, therefore he doth beg the question, and not prove it. Farther answer then this, there needs none unto this argument, seeing that no proof can be more base and impotent, then that which depends upon things equally, or more doubtful than the thing to be proved. Other proofs than these two, he hath not in this point; and these two are urged by Bellarmine, de Concil. cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. & lib. 2. cap. 2. as his main strength in this question, and have been answered by Lubbertus and whitaker's to the full, but they were poor Divines, Mr: Montague needs not regard or take knowledge of them. CHAP. V. Mr. Montague. Ch. of Rome. Ch. of Eng: There ever was, and will be ever upon earth, a visible Church, somewhere or other, with visible cognisances, marks, and signs to be discerned by. viz. God's Word preached, Sacraments ministered, Priesthood, and ordination. Appeal. p. 135. Unto which, complaints may be made. Gag. p. 49. I Have nothing to set down in this point under the name of the Church of England, because I do not find any thing decreed therein by our Church, neither could it well, for as much as in this point the Negative only is defended against the Church of Rome; That affirmeth a visibility, which the Church of England denieth, which Negation is employed in the 19 Article, wherein the visibility of the Church assigned by the Church of Rome, is acknowledged in some things, and it is silent for the rest, which is as much as if it did say in these things, we confess the Church is always visible, and other visibility we do deny. According to order here must be inquired, 1. Whether that proposition be true or not. 2. Whether that proposition do consent with the Church of Rome, or not. 3. Whether that proposition do● descent from the Church of England, or not. Before any of these can be disputed, his sentence touching the visibility of the Church must be unfolded, that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question. Which may be done thus; It hath these two parts. 1. The Church is visible. 2. This visibility consisteth in the enjoying of the Word and Sacraments. Priesthood & ordination. ability to hear complaints. That the Church is visible in the enjoying of the Word and Sacraments, Priesthood and ordination (so fare as they are required of necessity unto the administration of the Word and Sacraments) is not in question, so much is granted on all sides. The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19 Article, in these words: The visible Church of Christ, is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. All the question is about the last branch, viz. Whether the Church do enjoy all her officers with that freedom, that it may be able and fit to determine every doubt that ariseth, touching either faith or manners, as appears num. 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition, set down by himself. gag. p. 49. There ever was, and will be a Church, unto whom complaints may be made. Now the question is truly put, the next labour must be to inquire of it, those 3. ways which are set down. That it doth consent with the Church of Rome, himself confesseth, when he saith, gaggp. p. 50. This Controversy (to wit, of the visibility of the Church, taught by the Church of Rome, and denied by others) may cease. If he did not agree with them, he would have held it on foot, there being so good reason for it: they maintain it as a ground of an Article of their faith: and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it. And Bellarmine's doctrine doth show it, de Ecclesia lib. 3. where he writeth thus; The true Church is visible. cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subjected unto lawful Pastors, in the profession of the Christian faith, and the use of Sacraments, cap. 2. Nostra autem, etc. The Church is therefore visible, because of this subjection, cap. 12. Septim●, etc. This visible Church cannot fail. cap. 13. Which sentence hath these three branches. 1. The Church is visible. 2. This visible Church cannot fail. 3. The Church is visible by subjection to Pastors in matters of faith. In the two first, Mr: Montague and the Church of Rome agree expressly: In the third, they agree in the thing, because subjection to Pastors in matters of faith, supposeth, that there be Pastors to whom complaints may be made, and who are fit, and have freedom & ability, to hear complaints in matters of faith. He saith, there will ever be a Church, to whom complaints may be made. Bellarmine saith, there will ever be a Church wherein there is ruling and obeying in matters of faith. cap. 13. Which sentence he presumeth in the beginning of that 13. Chapter, is denied by Calvin, and others, against whom he doth prove it there, and defend it. cap. 16. That it doth descent from the Church of England, he might as truly have confessed. For, if the Church of England had judged, that the Church should be perpetually so open unto the eye of the world, as to enjoy the liberty to hear Complaints, and determine them, than it would have confessed it, and taught it, because it hath taught visibility in all other things that they do: and it would have set down the whole truth in the point; but this it hath not done, therefore it is most certain, the Church of England doth deny that visibility of the Church, which they claim, & he yields unto. He is very desirous to persuade the world of his agreement with the Church of England, therefore he telleth us, Appeal. p. 134. In the 19 Article, Church, and visible, are convertible terms. Therefore the 19 Article tendereth no invisibility. The sense of this Conclusion is; The 19 Article doth not teach that the Church is invisible. But that is a private opinion of some, and so he doth interpret himself, Appeal. p. 133. This Conclusion is nothing to his purpose, if he will show his agreement with the Church of England, he must show us a record for this proposition: There ever will be a Church, unto whom complaints may be made. For so saith he, number 1. & 4. Your antecedent is false. Church and visible in that definition, cannot be convertible terms. For they are not predicated one of another. Secondly, both of them make the subject part of that definition. The term Church, b●ing the thing defined, is restrained unto a special notion by the word visible. 3. Term's convertible, are adequate in their essence, so are not these, Church and visible; for visibility is but an adjunct unto the Church Your Consequence is also naught, for as yourself confess, Appeal. p. 134. It is a position drawn out from the 19 Article, that there is a Church of Christ invisible. And indeed so it is, for to say the Church is visible, is to grant the Church is also invisible, else how can there be a divided member unto visible. He labours to show wherein the Church is invisible. p. 135. But I leave that, because it is nothing to the point in hand, as I have showed. The proposition in question is set down num. 4. & 6 which is denied to be true, and that upon good ground, for God hath never promised to his Church any such freedom, liberty, and outward estate in the world, that it should be able at all times to hear complaints, and determine of them. Neither doth this freedom and glorious outward estate, belong to the nature of a visible Church, in the sentence of the Church of England, which hath bounded the total & adequate nature of the visible Church within shorter limits. And indeed, who would be so grossly mistaken, as to think that the Catholic Church hath no being in the world, unless it be in case to meet jointly together in one court, to make laws, that shall bind the whole Church in matters of faith and manners? It stood him upon, to prove that proposition, num. 5. viz. There ever was &c. to be true; for if it be false, than the Church cannot be judge in Divinity Controversies, because the judge of Divinity Controversies extendeth unto, and is present at all times, to determine all controversies in faith and manners, that shall arise in any time. But this he hath not done. He hath not so much as one sentence, piece of a sentence, or word, that may tend to prove this proposition; There ever will be a Church, unto whom complaints may be made. In his Appeal. p. 135. he bestoweth much labour to prove, that The Church is always visible. First, by reasons; then by authorities of Doctor Feild, Doctor Humfryes, Doctor Willet, Bishop Morton, Bishop jewel, Doctor White, with many vaunts, & much confidence in their authority; concluding that they are ignorant, malicious, or factious, that think otherwise: But all in vain, for that was never denied, nor never in question between the Church of Rome, and any others: If another did thus, he would call it a man of straw of his own making, and tell him, he shot his boult at it, when he had done; and such like terms. But I pardon him the fault, I perceive it is his Custom, to prove what all men grant, and to take for granted, what is denied, he cannot leave it. Therefore I leave this, and pass to the next. But I make too much haste, I find an argument in his Appeal. p. 139. which may not be passed over in silence. In these words, and in this form he setteth it down. The Church of Rome hath been ever visible. The Church of Rome is, and ever was a true Church, since it was a Church. Therefore the true Church hath been visible. He chargeth that this be remembered, & that his friends do Chew the Cud upon it. A good advice. A necessary Caution, I will as diligently observe it, as he lovingly gave it. I answer, the Church of Rome is taken sometimes for one particular Church, and other sometimes for all those also which join in faith with it. In this place it is taken in the first sense: otherwise the argument would be ridiculous. That being so taken, it is manifest. This Syllogism is false for the form. For The Conclusion thereof is universal thus; The Church etc. But it ought to be singular, or indefinite, thus: Some true Church hath been visible. Perhaps he changed the Conclusion wittingly, because if he had concluded thus, he saw his Conclusion is nothing to purpose; he ought to have concluded; The Catholic Church is perpetually visible, as appears num. 12. And his Readers, poor simple men, had not skill enough to find out that fault well; let us chew this good stuff a little more. Let it be as he will, take the conclusion as you find it: yet the conclusion is nothing to the purpose. For he ought to have concluded, what the Church shall be in all times to come. The Church shall be visible. He doth conclude, what the Church hath been in time past. The Church hath been visible. particular Church, for he saith in the place now alleged, it is a part of the Catholic Church. And again. Appeal. p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome, and doth range it with a Church in England, France, Spain, all which do denote particular Churches. That he doth consent with the Church of Rome, it cannot be doubted, for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith, that their particular Church▪ is the mother and mistress of all Churches. Concil. Trent. sess. 7. de Bab●is. can. 3. & sess. 13. de extreme. unct. cap. 3. sess. 22. de sacrif. missae. cap 8. That it doth descent from the Church of England, will easily be manifested, which hath rejected by Parliament Law, the Pope's authority in all cases of government, hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church, without any relation to the Church of Rome, hath set it down in the book of Articles, and the common Liturgy, and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome, by rejecting the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and other Counsels depending upon the Pope's authority. All which is also declared by Bishop jewel in his Apology, in diverse places; some whereof I will repeat. 1. We have departed from that Church, saith he, whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world, which Church also already had departed from God's Word, and yet have we not departed so much from itself as from the errors thereof. par. 4. cap. 11. divis. 1. 2. We have renounced that Church, wherein we could neither have the Word of God sincerely taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administered, and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man, or one that hath consideration of his own safety. par. 5. cap. 15. divis. 3. 3. We have forsaken the Church as it is now, and have so gone from it, as Daniel went out of the Lion's den. divis. 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together, and they shall see, that themselves have most shan●●fully gone from the Apostles, and we most justly have gone from them. cap. 16. divis. 1. 5. We have departed from him, who is without all doubt the forerunner and standard-bearer of Antichrist, and hath utterly forsaken the Catholic faith. part. 6. cap. 22. divis. 2. Lastly, we have restored our Churches by a Provincial Convocation, and have clean shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome, who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ, nor to an Apostle. And these are the reasons and causes, why we have restored Religion, and forsaken these men. cap. the last. The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received, not as a private opinion, but as the voice and judgement of our whole Church. For, 1. he himself did conceive it to be so, otherwise he would not have named his Book; An Apology in defence of the Church of England, which he doth. 2. This work of his hath passed for many years in the public knowledge of our Church, without the least blame. 3. After this long deliberation, it is reprinted, with special direction from authority, and to the end it might be had in every several Parish in the Kingdom, which is executed accordingly. Whereunto I will add the necessity, which the church of England conceived to be of that separation, which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author, as followeth: 1. They have no cause to call us again to believe as they believe. If we should content ourselves to return to the Pope and his errors, it should be a very dangerous matter, both to kindle God's wrath against us, and to clog and condemn our souls for ever. part. 6. cap. 22. divis. 1. 2. We have fallen from the Bishop of Rome, because the case stood so, that unless we left him, we could not come to Christ. par. 6. cap. 20. divis. 2. 3. The holy Ghost, Apocal. 18. commandeth us to departed from the Church of Rome, for so it is written; Come away from her, O my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, lest you be also partakers of her plagues. Answer to Hardings' conclusion. From whence I thus argue; The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome, to avoid damnation. Therefore the Church of England judgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church. And Mr: Montague doth profess himself to be no Child of the Church of England. Thus he writeth. Appeal. p. 112. I profess myself none of those furious ones in point of difference now adays, whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome, the nearer unto God and truth. That we ought to have no commerce, society, or accordance with Papists in things divine, upon pain of eternal damnation. Much joy may he have, in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome, I will hearken to the warning given by the Church of England, and be furious with it rather than hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper. That this proposition, The Church of Rome is a true Church. Is false and untrue, will appear by my answer to his Arguments. Before I come unto that, I must set down what he meaneth by true Church, which I find written. Appeal. p. 140. in these words; It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church, not a sound Church every way in their doctrine. Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions, yet I pass by it, and come to the proposition in question, which according to his own exposition must be conceived in these terms. The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church. His proofs for this we find written in his Appeal▪ p. 113. the first whereof is set down in these words; I am absolutely persuaded the Church of Rome is a true Church, etc. I answer, his persuasion (though never so absolute) is no compotent rule for any divinity question, much less for this, which doth so nearly concern an Article of faith, as the Church of Rome would have it. It may be the other two reasons, which he hath for this matter, is the ground for this his absolute persuasion, therefore I pass from this, and come to the second, in these words; In essentials' and fundamentals they agree. I answer, this is a very riddle, and no proof. What he means by essentials, what by fundamentals, with whom, or what they agree, he showeth not; nor are the things evident of themselves. When he speaketh to humane intelligence, he shall have answer. If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, none can prepare himself to battle. Let us aim at his meaning, it will open the whole Cause the better. It may be, by fundamentals, he means such Articles of faith, as must be believed explicitly unto salvation. If this be his meaning, I deny that they agree in fundamentals; for in such Articles they have no divine faith, because the immediate and formal reason of that their belief, is the authority of the Pope and his Council, whose sentence is humane and not divine, for want of a Commission from God for that office, as hath been showed, Chap. 3. His third proof is comprehended in these words, Appeal. p. 113. They hold one faith, in one Lord, into whom they are inserted, through one Baptism. I answer, this wanteth not obscurity; he seemeth to esteem himself safest, when he is least understood. I suppose he would say thus; The Church of Rome teacheth the same faith which God revealed, and hath the same Sacraments which Christ instituted. I answer, if he were as able to prove, as he is ready with confidence to affirm, I would grant him the question upon this only reason. But the spite is, he hath no proof at all, and his own word is not sufficient, therefore we are where we were, see how handsomely he disputes. In the last argument, he gave them agreement in fundamental points of faith (that is to say) in some, not in all points, for all points of faith, be not fundamental, himself avoucheth, Appeal. p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith; a sudden change; there some, not all; here all, not some. The matter itself of this argument, shall be further handled anon, num. 13. etc. He will supply this want, by the authority of janius, who is neither Papist, nor Arminian; his words are these. The Papal Church, is a Church according to that it hath, which belongeth unto the definition of a Church. I answer, it is very doubtful, whether this sentence be truly alleged or not, because it neither affirmeth nor denieth any thing of certainty; but let it pass as it is, it maketh nothing for you. He must say, The Church of Rome, hath the essence and being of a true Church. For so say you. But of this he hath not a word. If you say, he supposeth The Church of Rome hath something belonging to the definition of a Church. I rejoined, he may so suppose, and yet not agree with you; for that supposal may be a concession in courtesy, and not an affirmation of a truth; which two things do really differ in your own judgement, Appeal. p. 14. when it was your own case. Of this judgement I hope you are still, now the case doth not concern yourself. And there is great difference between something pertaining to the definition of a Church, and the essence whereof you speak; for that must signify part of the essence, and may signify the general thing, wherein the Church doth agree with other societies; this must be taken for the specifical and adequate being of the Church. Lastly, I will willingly grant him, the Church of Rome hath something pertaining to the definition of a Church, and that it is a Church according to it; and this is all he allegeth out of junius, yea, I will assign him, what that something is, viz. It is a company of men on earth, which pertaineth to the definition of a Church, by the confession of them and our Church. The 19 Article saith, the Church is a Congregation of men; and so saith Bellarmine, de eccle. lib. 3. cap. 2. And more than so, I will grant him, viz. that the Church of Rome is so fare forth a Church (that is to say) a company of men joined together in one society, by one common bond; but this will profit him nothing, as is manifest by the thing itself. Thus fare all the allegations which he maketh to persuade, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, have been examined, and found too weak, for his absolute persuasion that it is a true Church to be grounded upon. Wherefore I have good reason to conclude this point in his own words. Appeal. p. 161. If you have any special illumination or assurance by divine revelation, or rather strong persuasion, through affection, much good may it do you, keep it to yourself, press it not upon others. To which I add. If you will not be advised, but insist upon so vain a conceit, you do amongst wise men but beat the are, for as much as there is the description of the Church in the Scriptures, and the authority of the Church of England against you, neither doth there want proof for the same thing amongst the Divines of the Church of England. But in stead of many, I will name only two, that is, yourself, and Doctor Carleton, Bishop of Chichester, no Papists, Arminians, nor Puritans, no shallow heads, that Jcumme off the surface, no novellers unacquainted with old Learning, none of the brethren frantic for the holy Cause, but just to an hair, as yourself will desire. Thus you writ: The Pope is interessed in that Apostasy, which is a departing away from Christ, & his Kingdom, his doctrine, and his Sceptre. Appeal. p. 149. & 150. It may seem probable, that the Turkish state may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Papacy, in making up that Antichrist, and Antichristian Kingdom, or state opposite unto the state & Kingdom of Christ. Turkism opposeth Christ openly by fiery force, and Popery is opposite by fraud and guile. Appeal. p. 158. The Scripture is our absolute rule of faith and manners, we consent and agree, it is Antichristian to dissent from, to reject that rule, and him an Antichrist that doth so, or proposeth any thing, as to be believed against that rule. The Pope doth this, let him then be an Antichrist in St. john's acceptance. There are many Antichrists. Appeal. p. 160. & 161. From hence, thus I argue; 1. That Church which is Antichristian, and an Apostata, that hath departed from Christ, his kingdom, doctrine, & Sceptre, that is no true Church: But according to you, the Church of Rome is Antichristian, and an Apostata, etc. For according to you, the Pope of Rome is an Antichrist, and an Apostata, etc. And such as the Pope is, such is that Church, for as much as they receive their faith from the Decree and determination of the Pope. Thus writeth Suarez, defied, etc. tracta. 1. disp. 5. sect. 7. num. 6. & 9 A general Council, in which the Pope is present, either in his own person, or by his Legates, and confirmed by the Pope, is an infallible rule of faith. And this he also there saith, is a matter of faith. Therefore according to you, the Church of Rome is not a true Church▪ 2. That Church which opposeth the Kingdom and state of Christ, is not a true Church. But according to you, the Church of Rome opposeth the Kingdom and state of Christ. For according to you, the Pope, Papacy, Popery, opposeth the Kingdom and state of Christ. Therefore according to you, the Church of Rome is not a true Church. How this sore shall be healed, it passeth the skill of all such, whose learning exceedeth not the age of Plato. It may be, he hath some that is of an elder stamp; and by it can show, how a church may be a run away from Christ, and a household▪ servant unto Christ. How that church which rejecteth Christ's law, kingdom, & Sceptre, and in that respect is a rebel, doth also at the same instant, retain, obey, and yield subjection unto Christ, his kingdom, and Sceptre. And this he must do, or else confess, what he built in one place, he destroyeth in another. This he cannot do, because Christ, his kingdom, nor his Sceptre, cannot be divided into parts, nor the Church extended thereunto, as unto parts, neither can the doctrine of Christ, be so objected unto the faith and obedience of the Church, as that it may reject some part thereof, and believe other some: but it must obey and believe every part thereof actually, and intentionally, or non● at all. There is one God, one faith, one hope, one Baptism, not deviding, but composing Christ in his members and profession, are his own words. Appeal. p. 43. Therefore by his own authority, I may safely conclude against his own proposition now in question; The Church of Rome is not a true Church. Bishop Carleton writeth thus in his Book, called Directions to know the true Church▪ The Church of Rome which now is, is not the true Church of Christ. p. 78. & 92. The Church of Rome as now it stands, hath no communion with the Catholic Church. p. 88 & 100 The present Church of Rome, is no Church of Christ, but an assembly, I say not of heretics, but of fare worse and more dangerous, than any heretics heretofore have been. p. 65. Touching the danger that they are in, which have communion with the Church of Rome, in the Popish doctrine, and the receivers thereof, he writeth thus; These traps are laid with great subtlety, to enthral their souls, let them, at least, that are seduced, lift up their eyes, and see the snares that are provided to catch them, and behold the danger that is before them, if they will wilfully fall into these snares, then may they blame themselves for their own destruction. p. 63. & 64. The damage redoundeth to the destruction of their souls. This thing the simple people ought more carefully to look to, more exactly to prevent, than any damage that can grow in their worldly state. p. 43. The means to be saved, are now taken away by these that are now in the Church of Rome. p. 84. Which testimony, as it is free from all exception that might any ways disable it, so also it caries with it many circumstances of credit, especially, to Mr: Montague, for he saith, Appeal. p. 69. Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance, since is his reverend and much reverenced Diocesan, his superior in learning and authority. A thing much urged by himself. Appeal. p. 28. Unto all men, I find these circumstances, yielding credit unto him. Our Church and state doth take knowledge of him for learning and virtue; for it employed him for our Church in the Synod of Dort, and that as the principal of our Divines that were sent thither, are Mr: Montague his own words. Appeal. p. 69. Since that, our Church hath advanced him unto Diocesan authority. Lastly, his testimony agreeth fully with the testimony of Bishop jewel, set down before, whose doctrine is indeed the doctrine of our Church; the book itself is dedicated unto his Majesty that now is, and thereby hath a Royal Confirmation and Protection. But which is most of all, this testimony is commended by clear and evident demonstration, which out of the said book is thus to be framed; Every particular assembly that holdeth not unity with the Catholic Church, is no true Church of Christ, but an assembly of heretics. p. 5. For the Church is but one, not two, nor many. p. 4. But the Church of Rome hath broken off this unity with the Catholic Church. p. 5. Therefore the present Church of Rome, is no church of Christ, but an assembly of heretics. p. 65. The assumption of this argument, he proveth thus; The Church is one, 1. by the unity of the body; 2. by the unity of the head; 3. by the unity of the spirit; 4. by the unity of faith. p. 6. But the church of Rome doth not hold the unity by the body. p. 8. nor the unity of the head. p. 13. nor the unity of the spirit. p. 19 nor the unity of faith. p. 22. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not unity with the Catholic Church. Although all those are necessarily required to prove a Church, to hold unity with the Catholic Church, as he saith, p. 6. & he bringeth proofs, that the church of Rome holdeth not unity in any one of them, in the several places which I have quoted, yet I will content myself to bring his proof for the last, because (as he truly also saith) where one of them is found, all of them are found. p. 7. And contrariwise. His proof for the last, standeth thus; They that hold the unity of faith with the Catholic Church, they have the same rule of faith with the Catholic Church. p. 34. & 39 For The faith of the Church is said to be one, because the rule of faith is one, and the same, from the beginning of the Church to the end. p. ●4. But the Church of Rome holdeth not, but hath changed that rule of faith. p. 32. & 49. For Whereas the rule of faith was ever confessed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures: now in▪ the Council of Trent, unwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith, and so they teach, that the whole rule is in the Scriptures, and traditions. p. 33. 49. & 50. Therefore the Church of Rome, holdeth not the unity of faith with the Catholic Church. I might add the several proofs, which this reverend Author bringeth, to prove the several parts of this argument, but I forbear it, because the principal doubt lieth in this, that he saith The Scripture is the rule of faith. And The Church of Rome hath changed that rule. Which needeth no proof, because Mr: Montague avoucheth the same. Appeal. p. 16. On this wise: There is a rule of faith, we acknowledge it etc. The Scripture is an exact and absolute rule of faith and manners. The Pope doth descent from, and reject that rule; proposeth some things as to be believed against that rule. Which is no less, then as if he had said expressly, The Scripture is the rule of faith, and the Church of Rome hath changed it, & made a word of God of their own invention. Which are the Bishop's words in the place alleged. In that book is set down a second argument for the same purpose, thus to be framed: They that have changed the judge of Controversies of faith, have changed that whereby the Church is known to be a Church. But the Church of Rome hath changed the judge of Controversies of faith. p. 64. & 73. For, The written Word of God doth suffice to end all controversies of faith, and is the Catholic determination of the judge of Controversies in faith. p. 54. They teach, that men must believe nothing, but that which the Church teacheth; by the Church they mean themselves, who are their teachers. p. 39 They tell us, that the rule of faith is that which the Church teacheth. p. 47. & 48. Therefore the Church of Rome hath changed that whereby the Church is known to be a Church. Unto 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 upon this foundation, that is, upon the faith contained in the Scriptures. Therefore the Church of Rome ceaseth to be a true church. Unto this testimony, I may add these three more. viz. Doctor Reynolds in his Verses upon the third conclusion, handled in the Schools, Novemb. 3. 1579. Doctor Whitaker, in his disputations of the Church. quest. 6. cap. 1. and Mr: Perkins, in his Prologue to the Reformed Catholic; all which do avouch our departure from the Church of Rome, upon pain of damnation. It may be, Mr: Montague will except against these three, as incompetent to testify against him; for of the two first, thus he saith; Doctor Reynolds, all his excellency was in his reading. Appeal. p. 123. And of Doctor Whitaker, he saith, that he was a thorough man, and an earnest promoter of novel opinions, against other learned Divines. Appeal. p. 71. And of them all three, that they were Puritan, delighting in contention. To which, I answer; These exceptions may truly be sentenced by Bishop jewel, in his reply unto Master Hardings' answer, the 8. Article, and the 1. division, set down in these words; He as a man overmuch obedient unto his affections, breaketh up his way with unsavoury and bitter talk; and as a Cock that is well pampered with Garlic before the fight, he seeketh to overmatch his fellow, rather with rankness of breath, then with might of body. But these Books will keep that credit, which was first given them by the principal Doctors of the several Universities, who allowed them for Printing, and which since they have gotten by the use, which the Church hath had of them, which is sufficient against Mr: Montague, whose Books were no sooner seen, 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 prove this their sentence, on this manner, by an Argument used by the Homily aforesaid. p. 428. That Church whose faith is erroneous, that must be avoided. But the Church of Rome is a Church whose faith is erroneous. Therefore the Church of Rome must be avoided. Which argument doth convince so evidently, that I presume, he will not except against any part thereof; but if he do, there is sufficient in Mr: Montague himself, besides other where, to fortify 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 descent from an reject that rule, proposeth some things as to be believed against that rule. From whence I thus argue; They that reject the exact and absolute rule of faith and manners, their faith is erroneous. 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 reject that rule of faith. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous. Secondly thus; They whose faith dissenteth from the rule of faith, their faith is erroneous. 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 believed against that rule. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous. If he reply, that all this is to be understood of some points of faith, not of all, of some part of the rule, not of the whole. I rejoined, his words are without limitation▪ or distinction; thus, The Pope doth descent from, and reject the rule of faith. And give this for proof, namely, in that it Proposeth any thing as against that rule. Again, faith is one, as himself truly affirms, Appeal▪ p. 43. and the rule of faith is one, as faith itself is one. These things are evident, I need not bring further proof for them. All which being duly considered, I doubt not, but even Mr: Montague himself will give sentence; That, The Church of Rome hath not the essence and being of a true Church. One thing more in this question must be remembered; Thus he writeth, Appeal. p. 83. This proposition We must for ever upon pain of damnation descent from the Church of Rome in all things, and have no peace at all with them. Is a strange Bugbear. I answer, the sense hereof must be first had, before the truth can be judged of. By Bugbear, is meant a fiction, or pretence, used unto Infants to keep them in awe, and they are so used by the way of dalliance, because Infants have not the use of reason, and thereby are uncapable of government by means that are of a higher nature, they that cannot judge of truth, nor taste of substance, must be led with shows, 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) unto whom I answer, he meant to say no less than thus, and I find it by himself. In his Preface to the Reader before his Gag, a little after the beginning, he bringeth his adversary saying; There is no salvation to Protestants, which he doth call terrible shawe-fowle, to scare poor souls that have not the faculty of discerning cheese from chalk, horrible affrights t● put young children out of their wits, that cannot distinguish a physiognomy indeed from a visor. Where he gives the same sense to shawe-fowle, that I give here to Bugbear, which two words signify the same thing, according to himself in the place last alleged. And thus stands the case with the Church of England, and these grave and learned men, whose words and proofs I have alleged, and all other of our Church to whom they have written in this sentence of Master Montague. But this is an imputation more odious than humane ears can bear 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 she sport herself, & befool her children with God's Word and their salvation? Are all her children such silly Infants, that for want of true reason must be governed by shadows? No marvel though his Diocesan fares no better, where his Mother speeds so ill. He complains of false, injurious, unhonest, fiery, frantic, etc. Informers and Promoters. But under what colours, in what rank shall this Champion be marshaled, if you set him in the Vanguard, he will be in the enemy's front before the rest of the battle approach, if you place him in the Rear, you restrain his valour. He complaineth, the mother is stricken through the sides of a brother, but here both mother and all her children stricken through the heart with one stroke together, she a dallier, all them fools, or Infants,▪ What shall I say to it? If this be your obedience to your Mother, reverence to your Diocesan, and kindness to your friends, then— Of this point enough, I proceed to the next. CHAP. VII Mr: Montague. Church of Rome. Ch. of Eng: is in us subsisting, not in title only. gag. p. 108. 1. There is is as true as Gospel, we grant it as much as themselves. gag. p. 114. There is in us both the faculty and use of , is certain in faith, and decreed in the Council of Trent. Suarez. opusc. 1. lib. 1. num. 1. cap. 1. The grace of God doth prevent us, that we may have a good will, and worketh with us, when we have that good will. Arti: 10. Freewill is a power whereby we eat, etc. we assent, disagree wittingly, willingly, without constraint. Appeal. p. 99 consisteth not only in the faculty of working voluntarily, or of choice & willingly, that is, not against the will, but also it includeth a power of doing and of not doing, which usually is called a dominion over his own actions, or an indifferency in working, in that respect that the faculty so working, of its nature is not determined unto one, but can will this or another thing, which is opposite thereunto, and nill or not will. Suar. op. 1. l. 1. n. 2. c. 1 The predestinate to life, be called according to God's purpose, by his spirit, they through grace obey that calling. Arti: 17. 2. Man in the state of nature entire, had bestowed on him a faculty, whereby most freely and absolutely, he was Lord over his own octions, & could do or not do, what he pleased & would. gag. p. 107. & 108. If we have any will to rise; it is he that preventeth our will, and disposeth us thereunto. Homily for Rogation, 3. part. p. 456. 3. That liberty was much impaired by sin, not extinct or amolished in corrupt nature, such as now it is. p. 108. 4. Man hath in actions of piety, and such as belong to his salvation. gag. p. 109. Man's is not lost and extinct after the fall of Adam, nor is a thing consisting in title only▪ Concil. Trent. sess. 6. can. 5. 5. We grant the general being, working, and concurring of freewill with God's grace. p. 115. 6. Man hath after preventing grace, in cooperation to the increase of grace. p. 108. Man is disposed unto the turning of himself unto his own justification, by exciting and adiuvating grace, in assenting and cooperating freely with the same grace. 7. Man doth freely renounce the calling of grace, & freely run themselves. p. 112. 8. I think no man will deny; That man's may resist the holy Ghost, in preventing and operating grace, not suffering him to work the work of grace in them, so may he also against adiuvating grace. Ap. p. 89. When God toucheth man's heart by the illumination of his holy spirit, man doth not altogether nothing, receiving that inspiration for because he can▪ also reject the same. Concil. Trent. ses. 6. cap. 5. and can descent if he will. can. 4. Man being drawn, he runneth, as his assistance, his own agility and disposition is. gag. p. 110. Man being prevented by grace, he than putteth too his hand to procure augmentation of that grace. gag. p. 110. CHAP. VIII. The point of , set down in the former Chapter, is debated. IN this point, as in the former, three things are to be inquired of; 1. Whether the propositions delivered by him be true, or not. 2. Whether those propositions consent with the Church of Rome, or not. 3. Whether those propositions descent from the Church of England, or not. Of the second and third, we have his sentence in his gag. p. 107. & Appeal. p. 83. where he saith; The particulars in this point of , controverted between the Church of Rome and ours, are of no great moment. And in his Appeal. from p. 84. to 95. he endeavours to prove; That The Church of Rome and our Church, do agree in the particulars delivered by Mr: Montague, & set down in the precedent Chapter. To which, I answer, howsoever it be with our Church (for of that hereafter) from hence it doth necessarily follow; that, He consenteth with the Church of Rome in those his prepositions, set down in the last Chapter. Because he will not deny to consent to those things, which in his judgement the Church of England consenteth unto. And that indeed he consenteth fully with the Church of Rome, will appear by the sight of the doctrine on both sides, set down in the Chapter going before. What it saith of the nature, use, remaining, causes, manner of working, effects, adjuncts, objects of freewill, the same saith he: he comes not short one word; so that it seemeth little better, than a transcription out of the Romish faith, and opinion, taught amongst them. That he dissenteth from the Church of England, a little labour of mine is required to show it; It is his task to show his agreement therewith, for he undertook to defend the doctrine of the Church of England, therefore he must show, that the doctrine which he defendeth, is the doctrine thereof. But that he cannot do, except he prove the Church of England doth consent with the Church of Rome; and (it seems) that he himself perceived so much, therefore he laboureth, Appeal. p. 84. etc. to prove their consent by this argument: Whitaker, Chemnitius, Mollerus, Perkins, S●ecanus, Hemingius, Willet, the Helvetian Confession, the Confession of Saxony, do agree with the Church of Rome. p. 87. Therefore there is no difference between our Church, and the Church of Rome. Which argument is not barely alleged; but accompanied with all due Circumstances. First (for the credit thereof, that it might not come barely without authority, he telleth us. p. 95. 1. He examined this question between them and us of freewill, with as great diligence as he could. p. 95. 2. He thought thus before, and so he thinks ●ow. p. 84. 3. He confirms the antecedent, by laying down certain points of freewill, maintained by some one that side▪ which he calleth the most moderate amongst them. p. 90. and confessed by those of ours. p. 87. 4. He interprets the conclusion, and saith, he means by that Church and ours, moderate and temperate men on either side. p. 83. I answer; If his intent be not to prove the agreement between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, but between some professors of Divinity on either side, than all his labour is in vain: for the question he ought to prove, is touching the agreement, not of private opinions in the Churches, but of the Churches themselves, which two differ much, as himself affirmeth. Appeal. p. 134. This being public and authorised, that not so: and he professeth in his Epistle before his Appeal, his resolution is to leave private opinions, as Irchius to shift for themselves, and defend the doctrine of our Church, publicly and universally resolved on; but according to his words alleged, that is not his intent, therefore all this argument is one of his Ireehius, necessary to be disbanded, and sent away to shift for itself, that our Mother the Church be no more troubled with it, yea, to be sent as a vagabond to the parish where it last dwelled, not suffered to pass without due correction; and is his own advice in his said Epistle before his Appeal. But I will suppose that he speaks of the agreement of the Churches themselves, and answer accordingly. The antecedent is false, some of these that he nameth on the part of the Church of England be strangers. We are not bound unto them; no Law directeth us; our Church doth not compel us to be bound unto them, which is his own plea, Appeal. p. 70. Those of our Church whose agreement he allegeth, are much injured by him. It is notoriously false that he saith; They are as fare from agreeing with the Church of Rome in the point of freewill, as Master Montague is from— As I can and will most evidently declare, if need be, but there is no place for that now; for it is beside the present question. The consequence is also false; these men you name of our church, are not the church of England, no more than one handful is the whole harvest; a few trees the whole Forest: neither is their doctrine the doctrine of the Church of England; for her doctrine is proposed in Synods, confirmed by Law, commanded and established by Act of Parliament, as appears by your own description, Appeal. p. 111. If that be so I yield: If that be not so, why do you infer our Church's agreement from their agreement? These sores will not be healed with your own protestations, see your disputation: I examined the question with diligence. That they agree is my confirmed thoughts. Therefore they do agree, and that agreement is the agreement of the Church of England. Thus have we done with the Vanguard, & the main battle of this disputation, the Rear approacheth next in this order. They that do not acknowledge this agreement, 1. Do not read so much as their own Protestant Writers. 2. In their Pulpits they brawl at the shadow of their own fancies. 3. Abuse the simple Credulity of the unlearned. 4. Make themselves ridiculous to the Papists. 5. Harden the Papists in their superstition. 6. Mistake ignorantly that which they do not understand. 7. Traduce confidently and virulently. Appeal. p. 88 I answer, I come to dispute, therefore I will speak hereunto so fare as it concerns the matter in hand. I list not to change words with him, though (perhaps) I could pay him with interest, therefore to the point. All those heavy and bitter accusations, are not given absolutely, but with reference unto, and inference upon the agreement, of the Church of England, with the Church of Rome, in the point of , if he hath proved that he thinks, he may affirm these. Whether he hath done that or no, I will leave to the judgement (I will not say) of him that is of the meanest capacity, but of Mr: Montague himself, who must give sentence against his own proof, or else undergo the heavy sentence of all men that shall read my answer. What I might answer to the rest, I am not fare to seek, but because it doth tend to strife, and not to edification, therefore I hold my peace, God is the reprover of such evil language, and revenger of such wrongs, to whom I leave it, and proceed to that which remains appertaining to this argument, which I find thus written: If you with your new learning (for old you have little or none) can teach me more than yet I know, I will yield and thank you for such instructions. Appeal. p. 90. I answer; What is become of Mr: Montague his disputing? What is become of his Logic, or where was his Caution? Why man? Oh, he had to do with poor Divines, silly men, of no performance. He might say what he would, they must take it for good, therefore he put this sentence upon them, of purpose to gull them, and it seems so in very deed, for it doth neither affirm, no● deny, prove, nor disprove, but because every drop of old learning is honourable, as age itself is, 〈◊〉 will make the b●st of it. If an Assumption, and a Conclusion be added, we shall know his ●rrand, which he may (yea must) do one of these three ways. 1. But I will not yield, nor thank you for such instructions. Therefore you cannot teach me more than yet ● know Or after this sort: 2. But you cannot teach me more than yet I know. For Your learning is new, old you have little or none. And mine is old, for the course of my studies was never addressed to modern Epitomizers, I went to inquire of the days of old, and hitherto I have not repent me of it. Appeal. p. 11. Therefore I will not yield etc. I may dispute also from hence, a third way: Thus 3. But you can teach me more than yet I know. Therefore I will yield and thank you for such instructions. If he will dispute the first way, the Syllogism is true: but every boy in the Schools will laugh at him, for the assumption is folly, and the consequence of the proposition is madness, no man (well in his wits) would say, I will not yield, therefore you cannot teach. If he disputeth in the second manner, his Syllogism is false, and concludes nothing; every poor Sophister knows that. But in this manner he must be understood, for his proofs do lie directly for the confirmation of this assumption, and cannot otherwise be applied. But let it be as he will (for the form) the assumption is a blast of vainglory, the answer is ready; Let him that putteth off his armour boast, and not he that putteth it on. If you had lead Causabon in triumph, I would have advised you to brag of glory, and stay at home: but because you have not, I come not so fare. The confirmation of your assumption, is an apple of the same tree: but (the best is) if you touch it, it falls to powder. But I pray, tell me, how do you know all their learning is new, have they no books of the old? Have they no guts in their brains, to make use of such books? no tongues in their heads to impart their learning to others? Or do you know, they have none by any special testimony from their own mouths, or your own illumination? Is it true indeed, is your learning all old? Have you engrossed all the books thereof? Does wit keep her Commonwealth in your breast? Then happy man are you; but thrice unhappy the world, from whom the old learning is sequestered, 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 go on, to show 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 Syllogism, but then behold your staidness (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 upon conditions of peace. Even now you found him insulting over his captivated adversary: now you see him creeping and fawning unto him over whom he insulted; and do you know what manner of one he is, to whom he speaketh? If you do not, he will tell you, and you must believe him, for old learning cannot deceive you: this he is, A poor Divine, short sighted, slenderly traveled. He knows Fenners divinity, if you put him out of that, he is as blind as a Beetle etc. But howsoever the game goeth, this he saith (and tie him to his word, you shall find him either better or worse than you make of him) If you will teach me, I will yield and thank you too. And because you shall see he is not in jest, he repeats his promise again, with an addition, Appeal. p. 95. in these words; If you can make it appear, that there is any such material difference between the Church of Rome (in the point of freewill) and the Church of England, than I will turn over a new leaf, even in this Article opposing the church of Rome as fare as any etc. I answer; it must be here observed, that he confesseth his agreement with the Church of Rome, else unto what can he yield? What leaf can he turn over? How can he oppose the Church of Rome in this Article of , more than he does now? So that he cannot hereafter deny that he agrees with it in this point of . I accept of your offer, I look for your performance, when you have received the condition which I now tender unto you. In the first place, I will set down what the Church of Rome meaneth by the word Grace, so often used in this and the other questions following, which the Reader must observe; because the knowledge thereof doth serve abundantly to the understanding of the present question of , set down and disputed in the 7▪ and 8. Chapters: so doth it also serve no less for the understanding of the question of justification 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 understand and observe what they say touching Grace, shall hardly know what is true or false in these qu●stions. The sense of that word Grace, we may ●ake from Thomas, who hath described it, 1. 2. q. 110. art: 1. C. by 4 properties, viz. 1. It is a certain supernatural thing. 2. It is the gift of God. 3. It is in man. 4. It draweth man above the condition of his nature, unto the participation of the divine good. Now that this Grace might be the more distinctly known, he doth divide it 1. 2. q. 111. ar: 2. C. Into actual and habitual: he calleth it actual, because it moveth man's mind unto good: he calleth it habitual, because it remaineth in man, by the way of a form, and is the beginning of all supernatural 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 Council of Trent hath it, sess. 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. where it speaketh of justification itself, and the preparations thereunto. The doctrine of the Church of Rome in the point of the concurring of God's grace and man's will in the conversion of a sinner unto God, is comprehended in these 15. propositions. 1. Grace signifies a help, coming from God, a created being, supernatural to man, remaining in him, leading him unto eternal life. 2. Grace is either actual or habitual; this doth finish man's sanctity, that gins and continues it by degree● unto the finishing of sanctity, and is called a preparation thereto. 3. Actual grace is preventing, exciting, operating, all of them expressing the first motion of grace. And subsequent, adiuvating, cooperating all these, expressing a second motion of grace. 4. The preparation to sanctity, consisteth in certain actions, viz. 1. faith. 2. fear. 3. hope. 4. love begun. 5. hatred of sin. 6. contrition. 7. purpose of a new life. 5. Unto these prepratory actions, grace and man's will doth concur. 6. Grace preventing etc. doth work thereunto without man's will, it being only passive, moved and not a mover. 7. By grace preventing &c. man's will is made able to be willing unto the doing of those prepratory acts, if it will. 8. Unto the actual doing of those prepratory acts, there is required an assent, purpose, censent, resolution, or determination of the will, before it be applied unto the working of them actually, and in the thing. 9 Grace cooperating &c. worketh not without the concurrence of man's will. 10. Grace cooperating &c. standeth ready to join 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 concur with man's will in case it consenteth, resolveth, and determineth, that it will believe, fear, hope, etc. before it be applied unto actual working of them. In case where it doth not so consent, etc. grace doth doth not cooperate. 12. The actions of faith, fear, hope, etc. are produced by the joint concurrence of man's will and grace cooperating. 13. Upon the producing of faith, fear, hope, etc. the habit of grace is immediately infused. 14. The infusion of the habit doth follow the said actions infallibly in the event. 15. That infallibility floweth from the ordinance of God, and the disposition that man hath thereunto by the doing of the said actions. It may be, some will require me to prove these propositions to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I answer, I am not to seek for that, I am ready to do it, upon the least call; but here I forbear it, because it is familiarly known to be theirs, so as the proofs would be needless and tedious, therefore I proceed in my Course. The point of in question, concerneth the 8. proposition, the reason of the doubt ariseth thus; If man's will must assent, resolve, determine to believe etc. before it be applied to actual believing etc. And grace preventing etc. worketh it not: than it is doubtful from what root or principium that consent etc. first ariseth, and from whence it floweth. But man's will must resolve, etc. the 8. and 11. proposition saith it. And it flows not from grace preventing etc. so saith the 7. proposition. Therefore it is doubtful of what, and from whence that determination of the will first floweth. This doubt, both the Church of Rome, and Mr: Montague with it do resolve, by the doctrine delivered by them both, set down in the precedent Chapter, on this manner; The will doth assent, consent, and determine etc. of itself, out of that inbred liberty, which is in the will itself: and this liberty consisteth 1. in an indifferency, and indeterminatenes unto doing or not doing, to the doing of this, or the contrary thereunto. And 2. in a dominion over his own actions, to do as he pleaseth. That their doctrine set down (as is before said) doth yield this answer, they that are acquainted with the writings of the learned in the Popish Church will witness with me: and ● do make demonstration thereof on this wise; If man assenteth freely unto the grace of God exciting, and can reject the inspiration which he receiveth, than that assent etc. proceeds out of the will itself, and the indifferency and dominion over his own actions, to do or not to do, to do this, or the contrary, as he pleaseth. But man assenteth freely to the grace of God that exciteth, and can reject the inspiration which he receiveth. Therefore the assent and determination to believe etc. ariseth first of, and floweth from the will itself, and that indifferency and dominion that it hath etc. So Suarez disputeth. opusc. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. num. 7. etc. & lib. 3. cap. 12. num. 11. & 12. see Alvares. disp. 89. num. 1. & 2. The consequence of the proposition supposeth; That 1. Man's will hath naturally freedom and liberty. 2. The freedom of man's will consisteth in an indifferency and dominion etc. 3. The freedom of man's will, & the free use of that faculty remaineth in that man that hath grace. 4. Man hath freewill in such actions as belong to his salvation. 5. Man's freewill remaineth after preventing grace, etc. All which propositions, we find set down in the six first propositions of Master Montague, in the former Chapter: and some of them expressly in the three first propositions of the Church of Rome, and the rest in the two last propositions of the Council of Trent, set down also in the former Chapter. The assumption containeth Mr: Montague his 7. and 8. propositions, and the two last propositions of the Council of Trent, set down also in that last Chapter. By which discourse the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this point, and the dependence that one part thereof hath of another, is laid out clearly, and to the full, so also is the agreement of Mr: Montague with them declared to be, without question. The necessity of the consequence will appear. num. 8. Lastly, etc. It may be, some will desire to know the reason why the Council of Trent, did satisfy this doubt by decreeing the nature or quality of the assent; and not the root or fountain from whence that assent did flow and arise. I answer; this question is not demanded without reason, for the Decree of the Council doth resolve the doubt by consequence, and not immediately, and thereby goeth (as it may seem) a way which is farther about, and more obscure. To satisfy the demand is easy. 1. The nature of the thing itself required that course, for the faculties themselves of man's soul, are so fare removed from our knowledge, that in themselves they cannot be judged of: But all the knowledge we have of them, is by the effects which do flow from them, Again, the course of the divine Revelation required it, for it is silent & saith nothing of the faculty itself: but saith enough (at least as they suppose) touching the act. And this it seemeth was the reason of this Decree; for in the fift Chapter of that sixth session, it saith these words; Turn unto me, do admonish us of our liberty. Where it doth argue, the nature of the faculty, by the nature and quality of the act of the will. Lastly, the Council doth not indeed and in the thing, take that way which is more obscure, but rather that which is more clear and more certain. For the nature and quality of the act doth argue, & set out the nature and quality of the faculty, from whence it floweth by necessary inference and absolute certainty. A necessary effect, cannot flow but from a necessary faculty. Every man will grant, the necessity that is in the sight of the eye (when all circumstances do concur) can arise from no other faculty, but such as is determined and necessitated unto seeing. The eye seethe the visible object (and cannot choose but see it) where all other circumstances do concur, because the eye itself, or faculty of sight by creation is apted, fitted, and disposed unto seeing, and hath not in its liberty to see or not see, when a visible thing is objected thereunto, and all other circumstances do concur. The same may be said of those actions which proceed from their next efficient cause, contingently and freely. Of which every man will say, I did this with that freedom and liberty, that at the very moment when I begun to do it, and always before, it was in my power not to have done it, or to have done the contrary thereunto. Therefore the faculty from whence this act floweth by creation, is not apted, fitted, or necessitated unto the doing of actions of this kind, and restrained from actions of all other kinds. But in itself is indetermined unto actions of any kind, remaineth indifferent unto doing or not doing, to the doing of this, or the contrary. Hath dominion over actions of every kind, to do or not do; to the doing of this or the contrary, as it pleaseth without the restraint or guidance of any superior, extrinsecall, or previal worker, leading and limiting the same unto this, rather than unto that. In so much, as if man's action of consenting etc. had been so free, as the Council hath decreed it to be, than it is most true that it had first proceeded from a faculty no less free. Thus much shall suffice, to set down the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching this point. And that Mr: Montague maketh man's will itself, the first root or foundation of this supernatural consent, it doth manifestly appear by other testimonies, proper to himself, which doth argue it on this manner; If man receiveth grace, preventing and cooperating unto the work of his salvation, and no other than the first root or foundation of that supernatural consent, must needs be the will itself. For out of preventing grace, it cannot proceed, for that serveth and worketh no further, but to make man able to consent if he will, and cooperating grace worketh nothing, but where man hath consented, and is ready to join in the work with it. But Mr: Montague saith, unto the work of our salvation, we have received grace, preventing, cooperating, Appeal. p. 94. 104. And doth no where acknowledge any other. Yea, more than so, the next worker unto preventing grace (according to him) is man himself. gag. p. 110. From whence doth follow, that in his judgement man's will itself is the first root or foundation of our supernatural consent. If he answer, he giveth to grace the power of sustaining and upholding. Appeal. p. 94. I reply, this helpeth not the matter, for to sustain, is only to preserve man in his being, and also it belongeth to God's general providence, he doth so to all creatures; but we speak of his special providence, ordering man unto eternal life. If he say, he joineth the assistance of preventing grace unto man's will. I reply; this is to as little purpose as the former, for the assistance of that grace, is inspiring, enlightening, exciting, as himself yields. Appeal p. 94. and no more, as all men do confess, which belongeth to the understanding only, it extendeth not to the will. Besides, although it did extend to the will, it can be first no root to send forth that supernatural consent, unless it doth determine the will unto one object, and make it not only able to will, if it will, but also to will actually, & in the thing; so taking away the indifferency of the will, that indeed and in the thing, it becomes a consenter, and hath not liberty to divert the use of his faculty therefrom; but this he will deny, and doth seem to do so. Appeal. p. 94. I say, this is proper to him, because the Council of Trent addeth adiuvating grace unto these, and saith, Man doth prepare himself by exciting and adiuvating grace, which is much less than Mr: Montague saith, and beareth a construction fare more favourable, than his doth, in the understanding of the Dominicans (as they that read them do know) see Alvares. de Aux. disp. 95. num. 3. & disp. 99 2 ●. conclusio. In the next place, the doctrine of the Church of England, set down also in the last Chapter, must be compared with the same doctrine of the Church of Rome, and Mr. Montague; that the consent and difference may be apparent. The Church of England doth fully consent with the Church of Rome, in the doctrine thereof, set down in this Chapter, num. 5. So fare as it concerneth the concurrence of grace and man's will in our sanctification, and the marks thereof (called eliciated &c. imperated, in respect that they flow from the inward sanctifying grace, and are wrought outwardly by the choice & command of the will.) Or by necessary consecution and supposition. The only difference lieth in the doubt propounded, num. 7. and in the liberty of man's will, taught by the Church of Rome, as aforesaid, for the resolving of that doubt. Now the Church of England, satisfieth that doubt, on this wise; The Predestinate to life, be called by God's spirit. They through grace obey that calling. Arti: 17. unto which it doth dispose them. Homily, pag. 456. Which is all one, as if it had said; They through grace, and the disposing thereof, do consent, resolve, determine, etc. to believe, fear, hope, etc. For thereunto by grace, or God's spirit, is man called and disposed. In which is also employed; that, The eliciated act of Consenting etc. is not free: man cannot at the instant of eliciating that act, reject grace, and descent from the Calling thereof. Which sentence, is inferred on this wise; Every act so wrought by God's spirit, as man's will is obedient thereto and disposed thereby, is not free. For The operation of grace, or God's spirit, is determined to one. But man's consenting, which is obedience to the call of grace, etc. is an Act so wrought by God's grace. So saith the Article and Homily. Therefore the act of consenting is not free. What it doth give to man's will; our Church giveth to grace: that act which it maketh free; our Church maketh necessary. In this doctrine and inference therefrom, the Church of England doth directly oppose the faith of the church of Rome, in such express and manifest sort, as hereafter there can no doubt be made, whether it doth descent therefrom or no, or wherein that dissent should lie; so that now nothing remaineth, but that Mr: Montague should oppose the Church of Rome, according to his promise, set down num. 5. But (methinks) I hear him say, this difference is not material, it importeth not any thing worthy of difference and dissent, but proceedeth from minds transported with faction, therefore I am not yet tied unto that promise. I answer; he seemeth indeed to attribute the difference and opposition to the Church of Rome in this point of freewill, to arise from no other ground, but faction, Appeal p. 84. etc. But altogether untruly, for the Church of England holdeth not a faction against the Church of Rome, but hath made a separation for the avoiding of damnation, as hath been declared, Chapter 6. num. 6. Neither was she so ignorant, as to take a shadow in stead of a substance, nor of such an idle head solemnly to determine and decree matters of no moment, to be matter of faith. But if any man should be of that ill mind, that in any thing he could think so of her; yet in this point he could not do so; for this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous, therefore for it alone (let the matter itself be what it will be) must she be opposed to the uttermost; because such a faith is an addition unto the Word of God, threatened to be punished by eternal damnation. The matter itself is also of great moment in itself. Our Church doth give all the honour of our salvation (in the event & in the manner of working) unto God; theirs doth divide it between God and man, and gives only this honour to God, that he maketh man 1. able to begin to tread in the way unto salvation; and 2. supplies man's defects, and joins with him in the progress itself: but he leaveth unto man and the inbred liberty, that is in the created faculty of his will, to begin and produce the first act, or to make void the beginning and possibility already wrought by grace, and to prevent, reject, and forestall the offer and operation of the second supply and power of grace, regulating both the first and second work of grace. If man will consent unto, & obey the first work of grace, than the second does join with him, and thereupon he goeth on indeed in the way to heaven. If man refuseth to consent unto, and obey the first work of grace, than the whole work thereof ceaseth & comes to nothing, and the work of the second grace never cometh on; beginneth not at all. The work of man's salvation ceaseth, he is where he was, as if grace had never wrought upon him. Now that this is injurious unto God, is so manifest that it needs not be proved, seeing the greatest share of man's ability, to do those things that shall lead him to heaven, is given to man himself: the lesser unto God. That man may be saved, it is of God, who beginneth and joineth with man, unto the doing of that which he could not do of himself. But that this power is brought unto act, is attributed to man himself, and the only liberty of his own will. Grace doth nothing by any effectual efficiency upon the will, determining the same to God, or restraining it from the contrary. To conclude; seeing that I have performed the condition of your promise at num. 5. If you can make it appear etc. I do now expect the performance of your promise, which you made in these words; I will 1. yield; 2. Thank you for your instructions; 3. Turn over a new leaf. 4. Oppose the Church of Rome in this Article as fare as any. Every honest man will be as good as his word, and so (I hope) will you. In the last place, those 10. propositions taught by Mr: Montague, and set down in Chapter 7. must be examined, whether they be true or no. The first of them, begins thus; is in us subsisting, not in Title only. This proposition in the terms wherein it lieth is true, for by the faculty of the will, and the elective and free power thereof, man is really distinguished from all other creatures. What shall be said to it in his sense, shall be declared, num. 16. The second, beginneth thus; is a power etc. The first branch of this description of freewill is true, and cannot be denied. The second branch that placeth it in a faculty of doing freely, and in an absolute dominion over his own actions etc. is utterly denied, by reason he is not able to prove it. He bestirs himself to prove the first branch of his description, or the first proposition (according as he will be understood) by experience, and the authority of Scot Appeal. p. 99 But of this second branch, he hath not a word, which argues he can bring none for it, seeing this doth need it more than that. Secondly, if man hath this freedom and dominion, than God hath less charge, providence, and government over the actions of men, then over any other created effects; for in them God is the only principal efficient of the work: they are instruments to work in subordination unto, and by the force of him. But man is hereby made a principal efficient of his works; superior, or (at least) equal unto God by giving unto him freedom, and absolute dominion over himself, to do as he will. God made man, and gave him his being, he yields him his concourse, whereby he doth sustain him in his being. All this while God is no efficient of man's actions, except very remotely. Man by his being hath a dominion over himself, and freedom to do as he will, hereby he is an efficient next and principal unto his own actions, if not the only efficient; for man's actions have relation to the force of man in the doing of them, but they have no relation unto God at all. The effect may say, by man's power I had my being, and by God's power man had his being. But it may not be granted, that God hath no providence over man's actions, or less providence then over the actions of other creatures; for the Scripture is plain, and full to the contrary. Thirdly, there is no necessity why this freedom and dominion should be given to the will, for as much as the properties given to the will, in the other part of the description, is enough to make it a free faculty. Which I say not of myself: I learn it from Suarez. opusc. 1. cap. 1. num. 2. And he saith, that many grave and ancient Divines, yea, Thomas, and some of the Fathers are of that judgement. At least Mr: Montague ought to content himself with that liberty of the will, and not to strive for this dominion, because the church of Rome doth forbear to call that by the name of freewill, lest it should agree in manner of speaking with the heretics of this time; as Suarez avoucheth in the place last alleged. The third proposition, hath these words; That liberty was etc. I answer; If by liberty you mean the use of the faculty in supernatural actions, than the proposition is false; for, man by sin lost grace, as you truly teach, gag. p. 108. And without grace, man's will is not capable of doing supernatural actions, which for their essence, first, and specifical nature, are beyond the ability of the force of the Created faculty, and which cannot be done without the grace of God, as Suarez teacheth. opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 1. 2. 3. And proveth, cap. 15. num. 20. And in this sense, we must understand those Divines which teach the loss of freewill by Adam's sin. Therefore the Council of Trent (and Mr: Montague with it) pursue their own shadow, when they decreed as against an adversary, when indeed they had none. Which is further confirmed thus; If liberty be taken to signify the faculty itself, than that third proposition is granted, and that upon the same reason himself allegeth out of the Council of Trent, gag. p. 108. Adam by sin lost not his nature. The fourth, fift, and sixth propositions, contain thus much; Man's free faculty, and the free use thereof, is in him that hath grace. I answer; the free faculty and grace are both together in one man, and so fare this proposition is true. 2. If the use of that free faculty be committed, unto the dominion and dispose of the will itself: then the proposition is false. It can never be proved, that the use of the free faculty of the will is left unto the dispose and dominion of the will itself, but the dominion and dispose thereof, is reserved unto the Lord God: and he saith no less, when he promised to take away the stony heart, and give a heart of flesh, and to imprint his laws therein. Let Mr: Montague show, where God saith to a man prevented by grace, I have made thee able to do holy works if thou wilt. I commit thyself unto thyself, go forward or backward as thou wilt; there I will rest, I will take no further care of thee, nor have no further command over thee; but this cannot be done, therefore I may conclude, the proposition thus understood (and so he doth understand it) is false. But if the use of the free faculty, be committed unto the Lord God, to dispose of as he please, so as man's obedience unto grace that calleth, be given to grace (as the Church of England speaketh, Arti: 17.) and the entity of man's nature be used by grace only, as an instrument thereunto, than I grant this proposition is true. The use of the free faculty is in him which hath grace. But in this sense he cannot understand it; for than man's actions cannot be so free, as he pretendeth in the seventh and eighth propositions following. In this sense, freewill is merely titular, having a name without the thing, as we use to speak when a man enjoyeth a thing, but hath no use of it; and in this sense, our Divines have said true, who affirm man's freewill is in title only; so also is it most truly affirmed of them that say, man's will is a serving, not a freewill. The seventh and eight proposition, containeth thus much; He that assenteth etc. assenteth freely, and can deny his assent if he will etc. The word can, in this proposition, doth signify a power of using the free faculty with indifferency, in the very instant in which a man doth work; and so Suarez doth understand it, opusc. 1. lib. 1. cap. 1. num. 8. And so must the Council of Trent be understood, sess. 6. cap. 5. For all other senses thereof, are violent and extorted, not agreeing with the phrase used by the Council of Trent, nor their intent in decreeing. If Mr: Montague can prove this, let him take all for me. I will not oppose the Council of Trent, and himself (a Disciple thereof) in this question of freewill. If he cannot prove it, why doth he put himself into God's seat, by intruding and urging Articles of faith. I am out of doubt, he cannot prove it; for Suarez hath attempted many things, and heaved at it with both his shoulders, but all in vain, it may be, Suarez hath no old learning, nor Logic so good as Ramus taught in Cambridge, no Metaphysics at all, but is ignorant in this question. He could Preach, Lecture, brawl, and prattle a little in a Pulpit, but dispute he could not; set him to an argument, and you break his brains; but be it known unto you, all these things are otherwise with Master Montague, therefore what Suarez could not, he can do, and that you shall see in his gag. p. 112. Thus he disputeth. In Matthew 23. and 37. there is an opposition of man's wilfulness unto God's will, God would, judah would not. Therefore freely men renounce the Calling of grace, and freely run. I answer; the last branch of the conclusion, which speaketh of running with God's grace, cannot follow upon the Antecedent, because man's will in sinful acts is an efficient after a different sort, and in another manner, than it is in supernatural actions. In them it is a principal efficient (that is, sinneth of itself) in these it is a subordinate efficient, as yourself teach, Appeal. p. 94. therefore sin doth flow from the will one ways, and supernatural actions another. The first branch in the conclusion doth not follow upon the Antecedent, which hath not a word of freedom, liberty, or dominion in resisting, but barely chargeth them with the eliciated act of resisting. If it be replied, that resisting is an act of the will, and every act of the will hath that freedom and dominion. I rejoined; this reply is refuted already, num. 14. Therefore it comes too late to take away my answer. The Antecedent by the word Call, doth understand the Calling of God, and the inward calling by grace, otherwise there can be no show of goodness in the consequence. If you would have us believe, that our Saviour did speak of that kind of calling, you ought to have proved it, because it may be understood of the outward calling by the Ministry of our Saviour; but because you have not proved it, your argument (at the upshot) is resolved into your own authority, and so is of no worth. He saith in his gag. p. 112. that many other places of Scripture do serve this purpose, but he does not name nor urge any in particular, therefore they can receive no answer. He hath two other Arguments by collection, and a third from Acts the 7. & 51. the words whereof be these Appeal. pag. 89. etc. You resist the holy Ghost. In this argument he raiseth his confidence, because the very word resist is used there. I answer; a poor foundation for confidence. It hath the same fault the former had: it affirmeth of resisting simply; our question is of freedom in resisting, so it is nothing to the purpose. You understand it of the work of grace in the soul, but you prove it not: it may be understood of their resisting of the outward Preaching of the Gospel, therefore we have your own authority, and no more; we have no reason to think that God inwardly enlightened etc. all these persons that are said to resist the holy Ghost. The next, concludeth thus; In whom there is concupiscence, he may resist and rebel against the law of the spirit. But in a man regenerate, there is concupiscence. Therefore a regenerate man may resist the spirit of God. I answer; This conclusion is nothing to the purpose; for our question is of the preparation unto the habit and freedom in resisting; but this conclusion is of a man habituated, and of resisting simply. If it be understood of resisting freely, than the proposition is false. For Concupiscence hath nothing to do with freedom of will: this is a perfection given by Creation; that is a defection procured by sin. His last Argument, is in these words; If a man justified, may fall away from grace, than he may resist the grace of God offered. But the first is the doctrine of the Church of England. Therefore a justified man may resist the grace of God offered. I answer; this conclusion hath the very same fault which the former had. Besides, it saith grace is offered to a justified man, how that can be true, himself must declare; for a justified man hath grace already, unto such a man grace cannot be offered. The consequence of the proposition is naught, losing of grace, hath no affinity with resisting of grace, that signifies the absence of a thing enjoyed, this the repelling & thrusting back of a thing offered, but not received. The assumption is also false, as shall be proved. cap. 12. His ninth proposition, saith; Man being drawn etc. By man's running, he seems to understand a running by the force of the created faculty; for the words will bear that sense: and he saith further in the same proposition, man doth run as his own agility is; he saith further, gag. p. 108. the whole question in the point of freewill is concerning the force of the created faculty. In this sense that ninth proposition is false, and to be detested. It seems he perceived thus much: therefore in his Appeal. p. 91. & 94. he labours to cure that ulcer, by saying Supernatural actions, are true and real operations of man's soul, but the soul is elevated & actuated to that height by grace, of which it is, that man's will is a subordinate agent unto grace. Which declaration comes very short, therefore I will add a passage in Suarez, which doth express the same thing more fully, in his opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 15. num. 20. he writeth thus; Man's will cannot have any connatural power, which by its nature is a worker of a supernatural act, either as a total or partial cause, but when the creature doth so work, it worketh as an instrument of God, & although it worketh by his own entity, yet notwithstanding, not out of a force natural, but obedientall. This addition I make by his own authority, for he doth profess in his Appeal. p. 90. that he takes the foresaid explication from Pontificians. I answer; All this labour might have been spared, because it helpeth the matter nothing at all. It makes it more obscure than before. Every man can understand what you mean, when you say, the will doth work by the natural force, but when you say, the entity of the will doth work by a supernatural force, elevation, and actuation, he will be to seek of your meaning. Moreover, this explication doth take away the free use of the free faculty, which you contend for, or leave man's will to work, by the natural force of the created faculty, which is the thing you would thrust off; and I show it thus: This elevation and actuation, if by grace, is either a moral or a physical work; if physical, than the will is determined unto one: the free use of the faculty is abridged and restrained; for this work of grace is previal in nature and causality, and truly efficient upon the will, before it be applied unto operation in the second act. If it be moral, than the will doth work of the natural force thereof, because the moral work of grace, is no more but a persuasion offered to the understanding, and resteth there. It hath no influence unto, nor reflection upon the will, which is uncapable of judging of truth and falsehood: only it cannot will any object, but that which the understanding saith is good, which connexion between the understanding and the will, is natural, no work of grace. To conclude, two propositions may be inferred from this explication. 1. Man doth not produce supernatural acts by the force of his created faculty. 2. Man hath no freewill in supernatural acts. You are at your choice; if you have the first, you have 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 unto hell. de Concor. in q. 14. art: 13. disp. 40. Nostra itaque etc. The tenth, and last saith; Man being prevented by grace, he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of grace. I answer; to procure, may signify the act of an efficient, either moral by the way of merit, or physical, by the way of real 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 justification cannot be merited; much less will any be so void of piety, as to say, man can compel God to give him grace; but what ever his meaning be, here it must be observed, man's hand is the next cause of a supernatural act, unto preventing grace, and the putting thereof forth is attributed unto man himself, which is a large doctrine of freewill, as I have showed in the former part of this Chapter, num. 4. Far exceeding the limits of the Council of Tren●, sess. 6. cap. 5. 6. Which joineth grace and man's will always together in his preparation, and assigneth adiuvating grace between preventing and cooperating, which showeth his consent with Arminius, in those gross points which the Church of Rome durst not Patronise. CHAP. IX. The point of justification. Mr: Montague. Man hath a double estate of sin wherein he was borne. produced in life and action. acquisite, renewed according to the spirit. gag. p. 141. In the first state he is not Iust. p. 141. To justify hath a 3. fold extent, To make Just. To make more Just. To declare or pronounce Iust. p. 140 justification properly is in the first sense. gag. p. 142. & 144. A sinner is then justified, when he is made Just. That is, translated from state of nature to state of grace; as Colos. 1. 13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us, etc. Which is motion, as they say, betwixt two terms. And Consisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace infused secondarily. Both the act of God's spirit in man. p. 142. & 143. In the state of Grace, a man is Just, when he is changed, which must have concurrence of ow● things: Privation of being to that which was the body of sin. Wherein A new constitution unto God in another state. Of grace whereto. In which he that is altered in state, changed in condition, transformed in mind, renewed in soul regenerate and borne a new to God by grace, is Just in the state of justification. p. 141. To speak properly, God only justifieth, who alone imputeth not sin, and createth a new heart within us. The soul of man is the subject of this act. In which, unto which, are necessarily required certain preparations, and previous dispositions to the purpose; As knowledge of God, etc. fear, hope, contrition, love, desire of, purpose for a new life, and such like. But these are all with and from faith. The principal endowment of grace, may worthily be ascribed unto the root and original of Christian pity, Faith. gag. p. 143. 144. The Church of Rome. The justification of a sinner, is a translation from that state in which man was borne a son of the first Adam, into the state of grace. Concil. Trent. sess. 6. cap. 4. justification itself, is not only remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man, by a voluntary receipt of grace and gifts, from whence a man is made Just of unjust. cap. 7. There is required on man's part, that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will, unto the obtaining the grace of justification. can. 9 Man is disposed unto the justice of justification. By faith, fear, hope, love begun, some hatred and detestation of sin, a purpose to be baptised; to begin a new life; and to keep God's commandments. cap. 6. We are said therefore to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning, foundation, and root of every justification. cap. 8. Cap. 10. It decreeth that justification received, is increased. The Church of England. That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification. Arti: 11. To be washed from sins in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin, is that justification or righteousness, which S. Paul speaketh of, when he saith, No man is justified by the works of the Law. The forgiveness of sins and trespasses, is that righteousness which is taken, accepted, and allowed of God for our profit, and full justification. 1. Sermon of salvation, a little after the beginning. There is nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith. 1. Sermon of Salvation, a little before the end. CHAP. X. The Doctrine delivered in the former Chapter is argued. THere be three things in it inquirable. 1 Whether this proposition, A sinner's justification consisteth also in grace infused, be true or not? 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not? 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of England or not? I have set down Mr. Mountagu his doctrine touching this point, which containeth many propositions, and because it might appear how fare he agreeth with the Church of Rome, I bring but one of them to be disputed: because if this be found false & against the doctrine of the Church of England, than all the rest will be found false likewise: and I desire to contract the disputation unto the narrowest scantling. That that first proposition is false, doth manifestly appear by the answers made unto the disputations of Thomas, Vega, Soto, Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasques, and others that do maintain the same. To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needless, because there is nothing brought to prove it. That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in every one of his propositions is manifest to the full. The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set down also in the former Chapter will show it. And that not only in the justice that doth concur unto justification, and all other things which depend thereupon, but also in the nature and being of the remission of sins, as shall be declared no. 23 etc. Which must be observed, because it is a matter of great importance: it is little observed, and maketh up his agreement with them, and his disagreement with the Church of England in every part and parcel of this point, teaching in all things as they do; in nothing as the Courch of England doth. That he doth disagree from the Church of England, the very reading of the doctrine of them both, set down in the last Chapter will declare. Our Church placeth our whole justice, and adequate nature of justification in remission of sins, he placeth it also in grace infused. It maketh remission of sins one thing, he another; as shall be showed hereafter no. 26. etc. Notwithstanding all which evidence, he laboureth in his Appeal, pag. 168. and 188. to persuade the world; that, He consenteth not with the Church of Rome, nor dissenteth from the Church of England. But all his labour is in vain, the contradictory will prove true, as this discourse will declare. He pleadeth for himself two things. First, by grace infused he meant and intended only concommitanter, that is, grace concurreth with remission of sins in a justified man, pag. 168. 169. & 170. Secondly, in that description he went not punctually to work, but described justification at large, for that act of God of remission of sins, and the necessary and immediate concomitance unto, and consequence upon that. Appeal, pag. 172. 178. He chargeth such as do not understand that proposition in this sense, with ignorant or wilful mistaking his meaning, or obstinate refusal of satisfaction. Appeal, pag. 168. 172. I answer; All this is a fair show put upon a foul cause, a mere pretence without show of truth. I will make it appear, first by my answers to the arguments he brings to prove he meant thus. And then by proofs from the things themselves. This was not his intent, but his words must be understood as they lie without interpretation. His first argument, p. 168. is to this effect. I did attribute grace infused to justification secondarily, Therefore I intended grace infused is in a justified man. I answer; This reason is reasonless: There is no show in the Consequence, the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to think you meant so, neither do you show how it should. Again, your own words do prove you meant not that, by the word secondarily: but that grace infused doth constitute justification in a second notion: For if justification be a motion between two terms, the one of sin wherein a man was; the other of grace whereto a man is brought, and that is the first, this the second, than grace doth constitute justification in a second notion; but you teach the first, Gag, pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be understood to mean the last. In the next place he telleth us; that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught, that a man justified is sanctified also. I answer; This proveth not that he meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is justified, but supposeth that he did mean so, and sheweth why he did mean so, therefore it is nothing to the purpose. Besides, it is utterly false, he had no purpose to say any such thing; for the question then in hand, was whether faith only doth justify: which could not yield him any occasion to say Grace was in a justified man, they being two things every way distinct and without the show of affinity. Again, never any Papist living did write or say that we deny a justified man to be sanctified also, therefore you had no occasion thus to say. In the last place, pag. 171. he hath these words, If a justified man be also sanctified, then might I allow one common word to contain & express both the parts. I answer; 1. This supposeth he meant as he pretendeth, & showeth the reason why he comprehended two things distinct in nature under one name; but proves not that he meant to say as he pretendeth. 2. He bestoweth much labour, and spares for no cost to prove the first part of this reason, but to no purpose; for that was never denied by any man in the Church of England, nor in any other Church that joineth in faith with it. But the consequence is utterly false, for these two parts are not essential unto that whole which you call justification. Therefore when you make one word to contain them both, the sentence is untrue, disagreeable to art, and a monster in nature. He is unskilful that puts a childs-shooe upon the foot of Hercules, that addeth to the statue of a man the limbs of a beast, and just so do you in this place, if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification under the name of justification. And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse, (and this too much too) for of three things two of them are wholly besides the matter, and void of truth in themselves, the third disproved by his own plain testimony. In the behalf of the second part of his excuse, he saith, page 172. justification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sins, and largely for that act of God, and the necessary, & immediate concomitance unto, and consequence upon that, &c, and the like doth Caluine, Perkins, Beza. I answer; This supposeth that he did describe justification largely, when he said, justification consisteth in remission of sins, and grace infused, but proves it not: therefore it is nothing to the purpose. But let it be supposed, he can prove it at some other time, and go on with him to examine what he bringeth: I say it is utterly false, the Scripture doth never take the justification of a sinner any other ways but one; you bring no proof that it doth, & your word is not sufficient: when your proofs come, you shall have answer: for the authority of Caluin, etc. I need not much weigh in this question, because I know yourself accounts it worth nothing. Caluin saith no such thing. The last thing he pretendeth is, that His intent was to confute the Gagger. I answer; This hath no force to prove, that Therefore I described justification, as comprehending Sanctification, when I said it consisteth in remission of sins, and grace infused. For so to describe it, is not the way the confute, but to be confuted: first, because that description is false: secondly, in it you agree with the Gagger in an Article of his Faith, decreed by the Council of Trent. Moreover, your antecedent is false: you had no such intent: For the thing to be refuted, was Faith only doth not justify, so saith your adversary, which you might have refuted without relation to the nature of justification; for he must prove (at least) that something else besides Faith doth concur to justification, or confess he said not truly. It was not required on your part to prove all other things were excluded; therefore there was no need or occasion of making a description of justification. But suppose there had been good reason why you should have made a description of justification, yet the making of this description, doth argue your intent was not to refute the Gagger, but to establish and confirm the Gaggers' position; for if justification be as you have described it, then without all doubt, more things are required to justification besides Faith: and Bellarmine doth dispute just after the same manner, de justi. lib. 1. cap. 18. Lastly, upon this description of justification, you proceed, and say, man is the subject thereof, and that thereunto there are required certain preparations to the purpose; the first whereof you say is knowledge of God and his Law, etc. that is indeed assent unto the Law of God, which is Faith, according to the Council of Trent: for you do not speak of such a knowledge of the Law, which is without an assent to the truth thereof. You proceed, and teach that Faith is the root and original of the rest of the preparations: just as the Council of Trent doth, which proves your intent was to justify, and not to refute your adversary's position. If notwithstanding all this, you will still affirm your meaning to be such, as is set down no. 4. and plead your own authority for the proof thereof (as best able to declare what you meant) then first your meaning is not expressed by your words: secondly, the whole course of your Doctrine saith one thing, and your intent is another: thirdly, your meaning was without reason to guide it: fourthly, the Doctrine that carrieth your meaning, doth destroy what you meant to build: but you will deny all these four, therefore you must confess you had no such intent. After he hath thus declared what his intent was in this description, he goeth on, pag. 174. to show what his intent is touching the nature and adequate being of justification, which he proclaimeth in these words; Be it known unto you; that, I believe justification is (in strictness of terms: Not regeneration, nor renovation, nor sanctification. But) A certain action in God, applied unto us: Or, A certain respect, or relation, Whereby we are pardoned and acquitted of our sins, Esteemed righteous before God; And Accepted by him in Christ unto life everlasting. I answer; If this proclamation had been published by an authority sufficient to compel us to have assented thereunto, then had it been possible, that you had given satisfaction: but for want of that, you must give us leave to touch, to handle, to search, before we take. Thus therefore I proceed: This great ado is about nothing: you tell us now what you do believe when you writ your second Book. We inquire what belief you did express by your writing in your first Book. Let this fault be remitted, we will rest satisfied with this, if there be sufficient cause why, but alack there is no such matter. And thus I show it: You did not believe that justification is as now you pretend, for if you had so believed, you would have expressed that belief, because your intent was to refute the Gagger, as you profess. Appeal page 173. Now this belief had been an easy and ready way to have refuted him, seeing that the question there disputed was, whether, A man is justified by Faith only: As is evident by the 18. Chapter of your first Book; and it would necessarily follow: That a man is justified by faith only, if justification be as you now describe it: which I take as granted without further proof: and Bellarmine by implicaiton, confesseth no less, de justi. lib. 1. cap. 18. Add quod. Again, if you had then believed justification is as you describe it now, than your thoughts in all likelihood would have now been orderly digested: but here is nothing but confusedness, and thus I show it: 1 First, you describe by a negative, which Art forbids. 2 Secondly, you place the Genus in two things, viz. action. respect, or relation. If you would express one thing by those distinct terms, than you intent a thing impossible: for an action is an emanation from a worker, Respect and Relation (as it is here used) importeth an adjunct unto a subject. If your meaning be, to express two things distinct in nature, by these distinct terms, than you● description is ridiculous: I need not show how. 3 You say it is an action in God, which signifieth an action immanent, which is false; justification is an action transient, and yourself confess it, when you say, justification is by Faith, and made in an instant, G●gge page 146. which do import actions wrought upon the creatures in time. You also tell us, this action i● applied unto us, which signifies an action transient, which is contrary to the former; and so you say, and unsay, with one breath. 4 You say, pardon of sins is by a respect or relation in God. Which sentence is wholly without sense, For respect, or relation, hath not any force, by which an effect should be produced; neither can it be conceived what you mean by Respect, or Relation, or how pardon of sins, should flow from, or depend upon, that Respect or Relation. And so much for the Genus. 5 You place the special nature of justification in three things, viz. First, Remission of sins: secondly, Esteeming righteous: thirdly, Accepting to eternal life, as untruly, and unreasonably, as the former: for these three are really distinct; and, therefore cannot concur jointly together unto the primary and formal being of justification. Indeed esteeming righteous is an act of GOD'S understanding, and called Intuitive knowledge, which supposeth the thing already in being. justification is the act of Gods will, from whence it receiveth being. Acceptation to life, signifies an act of God willing eternal life unto man, (as Vasquez hath truly observed:) which belongs to Predestination, and not to justification? Lastly, justification is a motion from one positive to another. But Esteeming righteous, and Accepting to life, is not such: therefore not essential to justification. He doth father this confusedness upon other men, and expressly nameth Mr. Perkins for one, Appeal, page 174. but it will not excuse him: for Mr. Perkins writ a comment (as himself there allegeth) wherein it was meet for him to use amplifications for clearness, and unmeet to be tied unto the exact use of Art: because that is obscure: but Mountagu is a Disputer, and therefore must avoid straggling. Besides, Mr. Mountagu despiseth Mr. Perkins with no small degree of scorn, as is manifest by what he writeth of him in his Appeal page 270. therefore it is plain, in this description he was not guided by Mr. Perkins his authority. We may conclude this Description is his own, it hath not Mr. Perkins for shelter. 6 Those superfluities being pared off, your sentence is this; justification is remission of sins. You do not believe, that, justification is remission of sins; for if you do, then do you not believe, that there is an increase and augmentation of justification by the increase and access of God's grace: for remission of sins admits no increase, and augmentation, much less by a new access of God's grace, which appertaineth to Sanctification, and not to justification. But you do believe the consequent, and do profess it in your Appeal, page 168. 169. If it be answered, remission of sins is increased by daily receiving remission of new sins, and by increase of grace, and good deeds, viz. by declaring him to be just, that is already made just. In which sort he writeth, Appeal, page 162. 169. 197. I reply, this answer doth not take away the force of my argument; for it is avowed only upon his own word, he doth not prove it to be so, nor show how it can be thus, although there be very great need of both; for remission of sins doth take away the very being of sin that is past, as the Scripture speaketh, saying; Thou art the Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world; which cannot admit any increase: because, sin being remitted, there remaineth nothing, and that which is nothing, cannot receive any increase: neither can God's act of remitting, receive increase, himself doth confess it, Appeal, page 195. where he saith, justification as it is the work of God, is without Magis or Minus. The remission of new sins, doth not increase remission of sins, nor can possibly; because, the sins already remitted, are wholly taken away: the act of God remitting them, was extended unto the total abolishing of sin; so is it with the act of remitting new sins, whereby there is no place for increase: for, that which is so done already, that no more can be done thereto, that cannot be increased. The antecedent is the Doctrine of our Church; in the first Sermon of salvation, a little after the beginning; where it saith, we are washed from sin in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin. The same thing we find, page 377. and 382. of that Book following. Neither can the declaring, that sin is remitted, increase the remission of sin, which is no more, but as if you should say, the tree is known by the fruit: as yourself teach, Appeal, page 197. but to increase, is as much as when warm water is made hotter, by continuing on the fire, with an augmentation and access of that heat; as yourself say, Gag, p. 142. which two things do much differ. Would Mr Mountagu say his riches were increased, if it were declared truly and fully what riches he hath? I hope he would not. In the like case he must say, the declaring, that sin is remitted, doth not increase remission. If he will go on to maintain that answer, than I conclude in his own words, Appeal, page 185. Go and befool yourself for opposing common sense and reason. When I had come thus fare, I supposed here had been an end of his pretended excuses; but when I went on to peruse the rest, I found he had spent many pages to prove against, or for, just no body, Appeal, page 183. that Such is the changed estate of men justified, that they are also regenerate, that are justified. I say neither against, nor for: because it was never a question on foot by any parties in this world: for answer, I may return him his own words, Appeal, page 196. In what place do they speak; God save your honest credit, and name me the place, quote the very words of the Authors, which are parties to that disputation. But this is impossible for him ever to do. If it be answered, he would never have put himself thus far into the eye of the world, to bark at the moonshine in the water: he allegeth Becanus, Appeal, page 169. whose words seem to incline somewhat that ways. I answer, something is the matter indeed, but he hath not expressed it. The reason why I will not determine, nor inquire after. I will proceed to show what it is, and by that it will appear, it serveth not his turn any thing at all. The Church of England teacheth thus touching original sin. 1 Original sin, deserveth damnation. 2 Original sin remaineth in them that are regenerated. 3 Original sin (although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet it) hath of itself the nature of sin, Artic. 9 Again, in the first Homily of Salvation, it saith thus: 4 They which sin in act, are washed from their sins in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation. The Council of Trent decreeth, sess. 5. can. 5. in these words: The grace bestowed in Baptism, doth take away whatsoever hath the true, and proper nature of sin, and sin is not only razed, and not imputed. Out of this Doctrine on both sides, they infer against us, as if we said, After remission of sins and justification, a man remaineth a sinner truly, and that he is always foul and unclean. As we may find in Bellarmine de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and de justi. lib. 2. cap. 9 and cap. 7. Secundo, Tertio, etc. and cap. 11. Unto which, some of the learned in the Church of England do answer as he allegeth, Appeal, p. 169. etc. We are fare from that opinion; for we teach together with remission of sins we do receive divine grace, enabling man to forsake sin. What is to be said to the point itself, will come afterwards, when the nature of remission of sins comes to be showed; no. 31. §. But how. Only thus much sufficeth to set down the true state of the question between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England in this point, which he harpeth so much upon; which doth also evidently show, that this point hath nothing to do with faith unto justification, neither could it have lengthened out his foggy and misty pretences brought to excuse himself from agreeing with the Church of Rome, and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point. Wherefore I leave 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 conceive they did not, I see no reason to descent from them. There can be no fit answer to be given hereunto, then to return you your own words, Appeal, ●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 find, what you intent; a mere trick of juggling companions. Marry I find some things in the Council of Trent, which I dare say will not down, nor digest with you, a● opposing your conceit, or rather dream, or wilful perverting the meaning of the Council; the which, because I have a fit time. I will not let it alone till another. Where you say [If they meant] your meaning is, to refer us to the decree of the council of Trent: where It maketh justification to be the pulling of us out of the power of darkness, and the translation into the Kingdom of Christ. Sess. 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the justification of a sinner, that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne, into the state of grace, cap. 4. That you refer us hither, or unto no other place in the Council, I take for granted. Where you say if they meant no more but thus, your purpose is to send us to your own words a few lines before: viz. He that is justified is also regenerate. Now we have the true sense of the antecedent part; I let pass the consequence of your proposition, and come to your assumption, which must be set down in these words. But the Council of Trent in these places, Sess. 6. c. 3. and 4. etc. meaneth no more but that, a justified man is also sanctified. Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring us the proof of it in these words: As I conceive 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 falsehood to fall from the pen of a man that understands chalk from Cheese, or that had conscience to declare the truth, when he understood it. This might be made to appear by diverse passages in the Council of Trent: but I will content myself only with these three. 1 Sanctification is by grace infused. justification itself is sanctification. Therefore justification itself is by grace infused. The proposition and assumption are the words of the Council of Trent, cap. 7. In which, 1. it speaketh of the same justification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters. 2. By justification itself, it meaneth the quiddity, essence and being of justification: both which are manifest of themselves, they need no proof. And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused, is likewise as certain. 2 The only formal cause of justification, is the very being thereof. Grace infused is the only formal cause of justification. Therefore grace infused is the very being of justification. The proposition is a principle in nature, and agreed upon for truth, therefore may not be questioned. The assumption is the express words of the Council of Trent, in the 7. Chapter. 3 If grace infused doth not concur to the being of justification, than it is by remission of sins only, excluding grace infused. But the being of justification, is not by remission of sins only, excluding grace infused. Therefore the being of justification, is by grace infused. The consequence of the proposition is so necessary, that it cannot be questioned. The assumption is the words of the council, c. 7. can. 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption, he will supply by the proof thereof; which forsooth is his own conceit: he conceived, they meant not otherwise than thus, therefore you must conceive so to. Unto which I might return answer in his own words, Appeal, pag. 178. Shall I bring proofs to Anaxagoras for the snow is white? Who would not suffer himself to be persuaded so: nay, because he was otherwise by preconceit persuaded, he said, it did not so much as seem white unto him. Your opinions are your own, you will opine what formerly you have thought, so do for me, and there an end. But I cannot so let it pass, because you keep not these conceits at home; but so much are you filled with them, that you must needs vent them, or burst. And you cannot be contented with that: but you rail and revile such as descent from you; and (more than so) we must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome, in the point of justification, that have dissented for many ages, till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung up in the world. Therefore, unto his conceit, I oppose the resolved judgements of all the Schoolmen, that have lived in the Church of Rome, till the Council of Trent, all agreeing in this one sentence, Grace infused, is essential unto justification. And shall we think, the Council of Trent, would determine against them? Surely no: Besides, the Council of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas, who was the first that brought the body of Divinity into a complete order: Peter Lombard, Richard, Altisiodore, Albert, and Alexander, (the Predecessors of Thomas) not attaining thereunto, yet consented with him, in this thing. Since the Council of Trent, all on that side without exception, do understand the Council of Trent to place the primary and proper being of justification, in grace infused. I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his (daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred years, delivering their judgements singly, and afterwards decreeing the same in a Council jointly; and last of all, the same decree so interpreted and defended universally) but I leave it, and conclude in his own words, Appeal, p. 248. You understand not the state nor depth of the question; but scum upon the surface, and gibberish you cannot tell for what. And thus much is enough (and too much) to have said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to prove he did not mean as he pretended there: but he meant to make grace enfused essential to justification: In which also I will content myself with some arguments, and let the rest pass: The first whereof I frame thus, 1 That wherein justification consisteth, is essential thereunto; not an accident to a justified man. But in grace infused (according to him) justification consisteth. Therefore grace infused) according to him) is essential to justification. etc. 2 Every term of that motion which is called justification, is essential unto justification. But grace infused (according to him) is one term in this motion, which is called justification. Therefore grace infused (according to him) is essential to justification. 3 If a man be just when he is changed from sin to grace, than grace is essential to justification. But (according to him) a man is just when he is changed from sin to grace. Therefore (according to him) grace is essential to justification. If any except against the consequence of the proposition, because the term changed, may be referred unto the term Just; as a thing that doth follow a Just man, and so doth declare that a man is just already, before he is changed. And indeed I do find this argument for substance in his Appeal, pag, 174. and this exception in his Appeal, pag. 185. where he saith, I do not make this change the same with justification in the act; but an incident, instant, necessary consequent, thereupon. From which answer he inferreth against him that understandeth his words, in any other sense; that he is 1 No Scholar, or Divine; but one at odds with his own little, or frantic wits, Appeal, p. 176. 2 An opposer of common sense, reason, well known and confessed divinity on all hands: therefore a fool. 3 A man that doth not understand himself, nor him, pag. 185. Unto his foul, and ugly imputations, inferred upon his answer; I say nothing: the Prophet David in the 52. Ps. v. 2. 3. 4. 5. will give him his lesson for that. To the exception itself, I answer; It is very manifest, that he did make this change from sin to grace, essential unto the act of justification. The phrase and manner of his speaking in this point; and the thing itself, doth evidently declare it. For 1. The like phrase he useth when he saith, a sinner is then justified, when he is made just: which can be understood no otherwise then as if he had said, he is justified at the instant when he is made Just, and by virtue of his being made Iust. 2. To justify (according to him) is to make Just; and to make just, is to be translated; and the word translated is the same with the word changed; therefore (according to him) to be changed is to be just, or justified. 3. If to be changed doth set out a man already just, and doth not signify his being just, than his purpose was to prove that some men are just, and not to describe justification. But he doth describe it (as himself professeth) Appeal, pag. 173. and indeed so he must, or else he saith nothing to the purpose. 4. If the word changed do signify sanctifying grace, which always goeth with justification; then he must say a man is not justified, till he be so changed. For he referreth being just, to the time when he is changed: but he will confess that a man is just, or justified, before he is so changed, & doth declare so much, Appeal page 172. where he maketh sanctification a consequent upon justification, and page 174. he saith, justification is not sanctification. My last argument in this point I frame thus: 4 If God only justifieth, because he only createth a new heart, then to create a new heart, is to justify. But (according to M. Mountagu) God only justifieth, because he only createth a new heart: For, He saith, God only justifieth, who alone createth a new heart within us: In which sentence he bringeth the latter act of creating, to prove the former of justifying. Therefore (according to Mr. Mountagu,) to create a new heart, is to justify, and consequently, grace infused, is essential to justification. He bringeth the substance of this argument, in his Appeal, page 188. and 192. as an objection made against him, but torn in pieces, that the strength thereof, and the weakness of his answer thereto, might be concealed. He answereth unto it, three things. 1 God only doth justify, pag. 188. 2 God only doth create a new heart within us, p. 192. 3 Faith justifieth instrumentally, p. 193. He annexeth proof for them all: And concludeth, if this be Popery, I confess I am a Papist, p. 191. And am content to pass for a Papist, p. 194. & complaineth against the obiectors, with his wont bitterness, page 189. 190. and 191. I answer, this plea is idle: no living man did ever deny any of his three propositions; nor did charge them to be Popery; (at least,) The argument which he answers unto, hath no such thing (as the Reader may see.) A worthy disputer, that either knows not, or cares not what he speaks unto. The fire cannot but burn, nor he forbear his railing, therefore he must not be blamed for it. I argue against both his Expositions, set down, no. 4, thus: When he said justification consisteth also in grace infused, he meant to say, grace infused was always in a justified man, and by justification, he understandeth the whole state of a man reconciled to God, or neither of them: For, He pretendeth both, and both must be true, or neither true. He that is found false in one thing, deserves not to be trusted in any other. But he did not take that sentence in both these senses. I prove it: First, for he saith, Appeal p. 169. I professed at first to take justification only in this acceptation, viz. For the declaration of the act of justification upon man by the lively fruits of a true faith, and for absolution. Which is but one of the senses, (at most) and seems to be the first: now if he meant only the first, or but one of them, his own pen must give the verdict, he meant neither of them in deed and in truth. Secondly, if he make grace infused, accidental to a justified man, or in him that is justified, declaring him that-hee is just, than he did not describe justification, as comprehending Sanctification; for unto this justification, grace infused is essential and constitutive; and therefore if you meant the first, you meant not the second. Thirdly, if in that sentence he intended to describe justification, as comprehending Sanctification also; then he intended not to say, grace infused, is accidental to justification, or a justified man: for unto this justification, and man justified, grace infused is essential, making full and complete the work of sanctification, so as if he meant the second, he did not mean the first. I prove against either of them singly. If when you said, justification consisteth in grace infused; you meant to say a justified man hath grace infused, then both those sentences do express the same thing. But that they do not. As the very sight and reading of them will manifest. In the first sentence, justification considered in itself, and without any person receiving the same, is said to consist in grace. In the second sentence, not justification in itself, nor with the party receiving it; but the party justified, conceived otherwise then as he is justified, is said to possess or enjoy grace infused, together with his justification. Therefore by the first sentence, you did not mean the second. 2 If by this sentence, justification consisteth in grace infused, he meant to describe justification, as it comprehendeth the whole state and condition of a man regenerate & reconciled to God, than he agreeth fully with the Church of Rome, which taketh it so. For, It describeth justification to be A translation from that state, in which man was borne a Son of the first Adam, into the state of grace, and adoption of the sons of God, Council of Trent, sess. 6. cap. 4. And more fully it saith, justification itself, is not only remission of sins, but also sanctification and renovation of the inward man, by a voluntary receipt of grace, and gifts, from whence a man is just of unjust, a friend of an enemy, and heir according to the hope of everlasting life, cap. 7. But by that sentence, he meant so to describe, etc. (as is before set down, no. 7, Wherein also he placeth his confidence, Appeal page 172. to give satisfaction if any will be taken. Therefore when he saith, justification consisteth in grace infused, he agreeth with the Church of Rome. Now at the last we are come to a final conclusion, touching the consisting of justification in grace infused; wherein after many turnings, windings, and shift; now this ways, than that ways; some unto the matter, some besides the matter: we are come by his own direction, and the evidence of the thing itself, unto this conclusion, that he agreeth with the Church of Rome. In the next place we must inquire Whether he agreeth with the Church of Rome, and dissenteth from the Church of England, in assigning of the nature of remission of sins. Touching which, thus he saith: Both forgiveness of sins, and grace infused, are the act of God's spirit in man. To the same effect the Council of Trent decreeth in these words. Grace bestowed in Baptism, doth take away whatsoever hath the true and proper nature of sin, sess. 5. These sentences of the Council, and Mr. Mountagu, do fully agree. He saith, the spirit, It saith, grace; He saith, the spirit in man, It saith, grace received; He saith, remission of sin, is the act of the spirit; It saith, grace taketh away the true and proper nature of sin: all which words are of the same value and signification. All the Interpreters of the Council, do extend this decree, unto all sins: (as well personal as original) and that upon good reason, as I suppose. Likewise what the Council saith of grace bestowed in Baptism, They apply also to the habit of grace received out of Baptism: because it is the same habit which is received by Baptism, & without Baptism: which doth make their agreement clear to the full. Moreover; the most common opinion of the Expositors of the Council, do further say, as Bellarmine doth, the justific. lib. 2. cap. 16: Habitual grace, hath four formal effects, the first whereof is to purge sin. And thereby they make remission of sin a physical work of grace: as when one pin is driven out by another, or one colour is blotted out by another. Some others, (but they are not many) are of opinion, that grace doth remit sin by the way of merit: but the first opinion is most agreeable to the Council of Trent, which in that decree cannot be understood of taking away sin by the way of merit: because habitual grace bestowed upon children, cannot bring forth works; and no works, no merits: beside, if grace did merit remission of sins, than a man might have grace for sometime, and yet not have his sins remitted: For there may fall out sometime after a man hath received grace wherein he hath no opportunity unto the doing of a meritorious work. Unto which opinion, Mr. Mountagu his words do greatly incline: for he saith, justification by grace, and remission of sins, is the act of God's spirit. Which is as much as if he had said, in what sort grace doth make just, in that sort, grace doth remit sin; else he could not comprehend them both under one act: but must have referred them unto two acts. Now, it is agreed upon by all, & Bellarmine hath it, in the place last alleged; That, to make just, is a formal effect of habitual grace. And accordingly to remit sin, is a formal effect of habitual grace. Again, he saith; The soul of man is the subject of justification. In these words he speaketh of the soul, not simply, as being the object of an outward work: but as the subject receiving remission of sins into it; and how man should receive remission of sin (by grace) into his soul, and that remission not be a formal effect of grace, cannot possibly be showed. Lastly, if in his opinion, sin doth expel grace formally, than he must be of opinion, that grace doth expel (which is to remit) sinne formally. But he hath the first: Appeal, p. 173. where he saith, The property of those sins, that are more eminent, notorious, enormous, is to waste the conscience. Where, wasting the conscience, must signify the putting away of grace; for what is there in the conscience that can be wasted by sin, but grace? and the act of wasting, must be a formal act; because, sin is conceived in such a case to rest and remain in stead of grace. Therefore he must be conceived, to be of opinion, that, remission of sin, is a formal effect of grace. By this (I hope) it doth appear, that he agreeth fully with the Church of Rome. But to avoid all scruple, it is requisite that I remove one objection, which may be made after this manner: He placeth remission of sins in the pardon, and not-imputation of sins, Gag page 143. and in absolution therefrom, Appeal pag 169. Therefore he maketh not remission of sins a formal effect of grace. I answer; he may say both, and yet agree with them: for, although the Council of Trent, sess. 6. can. 11. and cap. 7. hath but employed (not expressly decreed) this manner of remitting sins: yet all the Interpreters by one consent do teach both expressly; except only Gabriel Vasquez, in 1m. 2 ae. disp. 204. per tot: yea, he must hold the latter: though he doth hold the former; for pardon, etc. is required also unto the perfect doing away of sin, as Thomas teacheth, 3. part, q. 22. art. 3. C. And Suarez proveth at large, the great. lib. 7. cap. 13. and 14. And thus much (I hope) is sufficient, to show his consent with the Church of Rome. I come now in the next place, to show his dissent from the Church of England in this point of remission of sins. What the Church of England hath decreed in the point, I will set down, and then apply it. It saith, Good works cannot put away our sins, Artic. 12. In which sentence, there is a direct contradiction put, unto the Doctrine last recited out of Church of Rome, and M. Mountagu. The term put away must signify that putting away which is called remission, and not satisfaction; for this doth make recompense for sin, but doth not put away sin; which importeth, the destroying of the being, & remaining of sin itself. By denying the putting away of sin to good works, the meriting of remission of sin by grace, and the effects thereof is denied: for otherwise then so, good works are not fit nor able to put away sin: and himself speaks thus of it, Gag. p. 156. Now forasmuch as good works are the fruits of a lively faith (as the Article speaketh) that is of the habit of grace; the remission of sins that it denyeth to good works, it denyeth to the habit of grace, and therein it denyeth that remission of sin is a formal effect, or physical work of grace; forasmuch as the remission of sin can be no other effect or operation of the habit of grace but formal, and Physical. The Homily of Alms, pag. 329. teaches the same thing expressly, which is a proof sufficient: that M. Mountagu doth descent from the Church of England, and no dissent in a matter of this kind, can be greater than a contradiction. Our Church doth teach positively, what remission of sins is; wherein it doth assign a nature, contrary to that, which the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu do give unto it. If I make that appear. I doubt not then to say: M. Mountagu dissenteth from the Church of England. I do it thus, The true knowledge of the remission of sin consisteth in the true understanding of these two things, viz. 1. what is meant by sin, which is said to be forgiven. Secondly, what act of God it is by which it is forgiven. Sin, of which a man may be denominated a sinner, may be conceived two ways: first, for the act of sin past: secondly, for the will of sinning: as Thomas hath truly observed, 3. part. q. 61. art. 4. C. The will of sinning, is not the object of that act, which the Scripture calleth remitting: because the will of sinning, importeth an indisposition unto good, and an aptness to sin, remaining in the will, from whence the Scripture doth not denominate a man a sinner: but from the act of sin. The act of sin past, is the object of remission, as is confessed on all sides. The Council of Trent hath decreed it Sess. 6. cap. 5. where it maketh such as are turned from God by sin, the men that are justified. So doth all the expositors of the Council, with one consent, make the act of sin the thing remitted; and from which a man is justified. Bellarmine hath it, de justi. lib. 2. cap. 16. with whose testimony I will rest contented, others may say the same thing; but not more, nor more clearly than he hath done. The Church of England teacheth it, in the first Homily of salvation; where it nameth (a little after the beginning) sins forgiven, by the name of trespasses: and again, sins from which man is washed, and which are not imputed, it calleth sin in act or deed. The act of God, whereby the sins of man are remitted, is set out by the Church of England, by diverse titles, according to the course, and phrase of Scripture: but of them all, one is the most fit, and of best signification for this present occasion; viz. The not-imputing of sin: which it useth in the first Homily of salvation, a little after the beginning, the words lie thus, Man is washed from his sins, in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin, that shall be imputed to their damnation. In which sentence, washing away the spots of sin, (which is the act remitting sins) is resolved into the act of not-imputing; where it saith, so washed as not imputed. He must not deny this Homily to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: for, he doth avouch it to be such in his Appeal, pag. 190. and 194. If it be said, the Church of England doth assign other acts of remitting sin, besides this, in using other titles: I answer; though it do use other titles; yet not assign any other act but this; for this doth extend as largely as them all, and they do but explicate this: therefore we may conclude, in the doctrine of the Church of England, The not-imputation of sin, is the sole and only act, whereby sins are remitted. Touching this act, ariseth all the difference between the Church of Rome, and our Church: with which Church of Rome, M. Mountagu consenteth; both of them assigning such an act of God, as doth really differ, and put a contrariety unto this. The Church of Rome teacheth, 1. that sin is remitted by a created being, (namely) the habit of grace. 2. That remission of sin is wrought in the soul of man. 3. That the manner how sin is remitted by grace, is formal and physical, as a painter that covereth a thing deformed with beauty and good shape. Our Church maketh, 1. the Creator directly and immediately the worker thereof. 2. It placeth the thing effected not in man; but in the outward estate and condition of man. 3. The manner of working to be merely efficient, viz. God (out of his prerogative Royal) discharging our account; Not putting our sins to our reckoning. And thus much is sufficient, to prove his total agreement with the Church of Rome, and disagreement with the Church of England in the nature of justification: and therewith I might put an end unto this whole point. But I will go a little further to the satisfying of the point propounded. nᵒ 12. etc. Wherein my labour will not be lost, for that which I shall say, will serve abundantly to show, 1. how divinely the Church of England hath determined in this point. 2. How little reason he had to departed from the doctrine of our Church in this point. 3. The great reason that every man hath to strive for the doctrine of the Church of England in this point, as for the faith once delivered to the Saints. Against this doctrine of the Church of England, the Church of Rome (as may well be conceived) doth thus dispute, If no other act doth concur unto the remitting of sin, but the act of not-imputing of sin, than a man, after remission of sin remaineth a sinner; truly, and always foul, and unclean. But a man, after remission of sin, remaineth not a sinner; truly, foul, and unclean. Therefore besides the act of not-imputing of sin, there is required some other act, unto the remission of sin, viz. The infusion of grace, whereby the true, and proper nature of sin, is taken away, rooted out, and abolished. This argument is framed out of the 4. and 9 arguments of Bellar. de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and also taken out of those places of Bellarmine alleged no. 13. the antecedent part of the proposition is found the Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. where he allegeth a passage out of Chemnitius, containing the same doctrine which I have cited out of the 9 Article, and the Homily, at no. 13. out of which he inferreth, that we say, that sin is remitted, because it is not imputed, and we acknowledge not, that it is taken away. And in his disputation de justi. lib. 2. c. 9 Praeterea, and cap. 11. Illud autem etc. the same thing is repeated: The consequent part of the proposition, and the inference thereof from that antecedent, is in de justi. lib. 2 cap. 7. Secundo, etc. Tertio, etc. I have assumed negatively the consequent part of the proposition; because they deny the antecedent part of the proposition: and as Bellarmine saith, in that place de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. The Council of Trent Sess. 5. can. 5 decreed against it. The assumption itself, is their own doctrine; as will be confessed on all sides. The proof of the consequence seemeth to be these two things; 1 The act of not-imputing, doth not take away sin. Confessed by our doctrine, no. 13. that saith, original sin is in the justified, and in itself is sin properly, and the spots of actual sin do likewise remain. 2 By the remaining of sin (that in itself is damnable) a man is foul, unclean, and a sinner truly. Now that I have set their disputation in true form, and order: I might say, If M. Mountagu will maintain his doctrine of remission of sins nᵒ 23, etc. then he must dispute thus too, & be a worthy child to his mother, and a famous refuter of the Gagger: If he will not dispute thus, he must revoke that as false in itself, and a stranger to the Church of England. Unto this argument many Divines do answer as he allegeth, Appeal p. 169. In these words, We are far from this absurd opinion; for we teach, with the action of God, remitting sin, concurreth another action of divine grace, enabling man to forsake, and mortify every greater sin, which God hath pardoned. But, how fit this answer is, to give satisfaction to any part of that argument; I leave unto others to judge: because, 1. Bellarmine doth confess no less than is in that answer, de justi. lib. 2. cap. 6. at the beginning. 2. It seemeth not fit to be applied to the consequence of the proposition; for that speaketh of doing away of sin already committed: but this answer speaketh of preventing sin not yet committed, neither doth it appertain to the assumption, which doth not charge us with the holding of any opinion whatsoever. Other Divines do answer otherwise; I will name one in stead of all: namely Doctor Abbot in defence of M. Perkins, of inherent justice, 2. part. p. 421. his answer is long, but I will contract it into (so short) a room as I may, using his own words. We say (saith he) a man may be formally just in quality. law. In course of law and judgement, the form of justice is, not to be subject to crime, or accusation; and he is formally just, against whom, no action, or accusation is liable by law, in this sort a man becometh just, by pardon and forgiveness; because pardon being obtained, the law proceedeth no further, and all imputation of the offence in law, is taken away, as if it had never been committed: and this is the state of our justice in the sight of God, our sins are forgiven us, and thereby no accusation is liable against us. Before I apply this to the argument, It must be observed, that, the word pardon in this testimony, is of the same value, and signification, with the word not-imputing, used in the argument: for, by pardon, he understandeth such an act, as whereby the imputation of the offence in law is taken away, and to take away the imputation of the offence, is not to impute the offence. This answer lieth against the consequence, and the proof thereof: affirming, that the act of not-imputing sin, doth take away sin, and proveth that affirmation, which proof I may dispose thus, Whereby we are made formally just before God, that takes away all sin. This proposition is a manifest truth, agreed upon by all parties. But, not-imputation of sin is that, whereby we are made formally just, before God: For, By it, all crime, action, or accusation and offence in law, is taken away, as if it had never been committed, the law proceedeth no further; which is formal justice in law, and our formal justice before God. Therefore the not-imputation of sin doth take away sin. I might proceed further to show the insufficiency of the argument; but I forbear so to do, this that I have said is sufficient to justify, and explicate the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the nature of remission of sins, and justification, which is as much as I intended, and this place requires. If Mr. Mountagu (notwithstanding all this) will insist and say, his words alleged, nᵒ 23. etc. are forced beyond his intent, and that (in his judgement) there is no other act in remission of sin, but pardon, or not-imputation, he must look unto it; for as Bellarmine affirmeth, de justi. lib. 2. cap. 1. & 6, That opinion is proper to Caluine. If that be true, (as it is most true,) how can he think it is the Doctrine of the Church of England? For as himself saith, Appeal, page 72. The Doctrine of the Church of England, is not likely to be upon the party of a faction, that hath so long had a schism on foot against it, to bring in Genevanisme into Church and State, etc. If it be not the Doctrine of the Church of England, what doth it in Mr. Mountagu his Book, that voweth to thrust out all private opinions, as Irchins to their holes, where they were bred, and Bastards to the Parish where they were borne, and to the whipping post according to law? and like a valiant and true Champion, to defend the Doctrine of his Mother, the Church of England. Therefore I may conclude, let him turn himself which ways he will, he shall find himself to agree, either with the Church of Rome, or with Caluine; if with them, than is he a Papist; if with him, then doth he take the course to bring in Popes into every Parish, as himself inferreth, and which thing himself curseth with a heavy and bitter curse, Appeal, page 44. I hope he will be rather a Papist, then a Caluinist, cursed to hell with his own mouth, I should now show that this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous, but he hath brought nothing to prove it true, therefore I have nothing to answer. The Council of Trent in the decree already reported, nᵒ 23. saith, three things, viz. first, notimputation, doth not take away sin; secondly, sin is abolished, and taken away; thirdly, the habit of grace doth take away sin. Bellarmine bestoweth great pains to prove the second, which was never denied, de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. for the first he doth only say it; for the third he hath not so much as one place of Scripture to pretend for it: only de justi. lib. 2. cap. 16. he offereth a proof from the nature of sin that is remitted, which can prove nothing; because it is as doubtful as the thing in question; by which it is manifest, the Scripture knoweth it not: and consequently it is erroneous. If Mr. Mountagu thinketh not thus, let him produce the word of God for the proof of it, and he shall have answer, till than it must go for such. CHAP. XI. The point of falling from Grace Master Mountagu. The Church of Rome. The Church ●● England I See no reason why I may not confidently maintain falling from grace, Appeal, page 37. He that is justified, may lose the grace of justification, which he haeth received, Con. Tren●, sess. 6. can. 23. After that we have received the holy Ghost, we may departed from grace given: therefore they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, Artic. 16. In the second part of the Homily of falling from God, we are sent unto a conclusion, not only of total lapse for a time, but also of final separation, and for ever, which is also according to the Doctrine expressed in the Articles: for he that saith a man may fall away, and may recover, implieth withal, that some men may fall away, and may not recover. By every mortal sin, a man doth lose the grace of justification, which he hath received, cap. 15. Which sentence m●st now be accounted his own: because he brings it as the Doctrine of our Church: & he professeth, Appeal page 48 what that Church believeth, I believe; what it teacheth, I teach. Sometime the Elect, Called, the justified, such as Peter was, do fall totally from God's grace. Appeal, page 16. By a wicked life, men do fall away from grace, Appeal p. 36. By all which places alleged we have his mind in this point to the full: I will set it down in several propositions, for the more ease of memory and understanding, and follow his order thus, 1 A man may fall away from grace. 2 A man may fall away from grace totally and finally. 3 The Elect, and justified, do sometime fall away totally. 4 By sin a man doth fall from grace. CHAP. XII. The point set down in the former Chapter is argued. THat we may proceed in this question, in the same order that we have done in the former, three things must be propounded. 1 Whether this proposition: A man may fall from grace: be true or not. 2 Whether that proposition consent with the Church of Rome or not. 3 Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not. I have propounded the first of his propositions to be discussed, and not any of the rest: because they do but explicate, and set out the meaning of this. The second, and third, sheweth who they be that do lose grace, and how fare they do lose grace. The fourth sets out the next cause that procureth the loss of grace. The handling of these three will come in (each one) in his several place. By the term fall away, is signified the loss of grace, and is as much as if it were said, he that hath received grace, may lose that grace, and be destitute thereof. By grace is meant the habit of holiness, or that inward form, disposition, or quality, out of which the works of piety, in the outward actions of man's life, do flow, and whereby he is ordered and set into the way of eternal happiness. The word may, signifieth the possibility in the event of the separation of man and grace, as we use to say, a man may lose his life. That he doth consent with the Church of Rome, (so fare as the Council hath decreed) it is plain and evident: now the Council must be conceived to speak of every man that is justified, whether predestinate, or not predestinate: for it speaketh of man justified without limitation. Secondly, it must be understood of the loss of all grace received. For it speaketh of the loss of the habit. If a man loseth the habit, he loseth all. Thirdly, it must be conceived that the Council speaks of a loss final in some: because it speaketh not of the recovery again of any, and that is as much as Mr. Mountagu saith: but because we have not these things expressly in the Council; therefore we must have recourse unto the Interpreters, for the undoubted mind of the Council: Bellarmine de justi. lib. 3. cap. 14. saith: We have example in three which lost their justice, and did recover it again: and of five that did so lose their justice, as that they became reprobates. Where we have Mr. Mountagu his sentence fully and plainly. For he saith, the Elect do lose and recover: others do lose and not recover. Other Authors of theirs do speak so as Bellarmine doth; but I need not name them, because it is common unto them all to speak thus. Mr Mountagu supposeth that the reprobate also do sometimes receive the habit of holiness, and so saith Bellarmine too, de justi. lib. 3. cap. 14 where he hath the same thing for his title, and concludeth it in the Chapter, Habemus igitur, etc. in these words: The justice of justification is not proper to the elect, but sometime common with the reprobate. Lastly, M. Mountagu saith simply, Sin procures this loss, where he must be understood, of those sins which (he telleth us, Appeal p. 173.) do waste the conscience: and not of those which he calleth sins of ordinary incursion; that is, to speak in plain English, as himself there says, of mortal; but not of venial sins: and so saith the Council too. Upon which I may conclude, M. Mountagu agreeth with the Council of Trent in this point to a word: and (upon the reckoning) we find that this his agreement in these four former propositions doth yield us his consent with them in two more, viz. 1 Sin is mortal and venial. 2 Grace habitual is common to the elect and reprobate. Touching the opinion of Arminius in this point, thus he writeth Appeal p. 16. I have been assured, that, Arminius did hold, not only Intercision for a time; but also abscision, and abjection too for ever. That a man called, and justified through the grace of God, might fall away again from grace totally, and finally, and become a cast away, as judas was, for ever. He must be understood to speak this of the predestinate, otherwise he putteth no diffence between Arminius and his own professed opinion; whether he consenteth therewith, or dissenteth therefrom, he saith nothing expressly. That he doth dissent from Arminius it is not probable; for he had sufficient reason to have protested his dissent, if he could have done it with truth. It is very probable he doth consent: because being charged with it he holds his peace. The old proverb is, the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltiness. Which seldom times proves untrue, what he is of certainty is known to God, and himself; he standeth or falleth to his own master: it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofs: wherefore I leave this and proceed. We have no reason to suppose, that, the Church of England was ever of opinion, that the habit of grace can be lost: for if it were, then must it also believe, that, 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified. 2 Some sins are mortal, other some venial. 3. The habit of justice, and the works thereof be perfect justice, and adequate unto the divine Law▪ 4. Purgatory, Pardons, Masses, Trentals, Dirges, etc. be profitable unto some that be dead; but we know by perpetual experience, that our Church abhorreth, and the professors of her faith publicly, and privately, protest their detestation, of all these Articles of the popish faith, therefore we have a cloud of witnesses, that, do all testify, that, the Church of England maketh the losing of the habit of grace no part of her faith. Moreover, in the 22. Article it doth expressly disclaim the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons. Lastly, This point of falling from grace hath been commonly, and universally rejected: as well by Ministers, as private men, and no man questioned (in the least sort) for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church: which is a most evident proof, that they taught and believed as our Church ever believed. If it be answered, some in our Church have taught falling from grace; I reply, It is true, some have so done, but they have been but a few, and cried down too, by the most, and thrust off with no small sign of dislike from authority. I have his own testimony, three times yielded, Gag. p. 158. and p. 171. Appeal pag. 26. affirming, that, our Church hath left this question undecided: which against him is a proof without question, that, his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England. And yet behold: He would persuade, that, his falling from grace is the public doctrine of the Church of England; del●uered, not in ordinary tracts, and lectures, but publicly, positively, and declatorily; and for proof hereof, he saith, he will bring us record thereof, Appeal, pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plain and express words of our Articles, etc. Appeal, p. 37. Appeal, p. 29. Thus he beginneth to perform his promise; In the 16. Article we read: After we have received the holy Ghost, we may departed away from grace, and fall into sin. That the full force of this argument may appear, and my answer may be directly, and fitly, applied thereunto, it is needful that I put it into due form, and thus it will stand. Whatsoever is comprehended in the 16 Article is the public doctrine of our Church. But that a man may departed from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article. Therefore that a man may departed from grace is the public doctrine of the Church of England. I answer; if he will stand to his proposition he may well be enrolled for a child obedient, and a Champion most valiant, unto 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 Counsels do not appertain unto faith: The disputations that go before, the reasons that be added, nor the explications that are brought, do not appertain to faith, but, only the naked decrees, and of them, not all, but only such as are propounded as matter of faith. So saith Bellarmine de Concil. auct. lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est, etc. and no Papist ever durst give more than thus; yet Mr. Mountagu dares give to the Church of England more than this. Every sentence in the Articles (with him) is matter of faith: and so he doth equal them unto the scriptures, to whom it belongeth that every sentence be a matter of faith, as Bellarmine truly averreth in the place last alleged. If he will disclaim that proposition, his argument falleth of itself. To answer more specially, that Article comprehendeth two conclusions, viz. 1 The baptised may sinne. 2 The baptised sinner may receive forgiveness. These two have their several proofs, to wit: 1 He may departed from grace. Therefore, sin. 2 He may repent. Therefore have forgiveness, Every one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England. Your proposition so understood is true; but your assumption is false. Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article. But suppose that every sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England: yet this Article will not profit you: for, A man may departed 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 favour of you, much less hath it your falling from grace, in express words: for yours is of losing the habit of grace. If it be replied the word depart may not be taken in that sense. I rejoin, it may be so taken in this place: because he that hath the habit of grace doth always first neglect the motion and calling of actual grace, before he commits sin, and this I take as granted; Therefore you must prove that the Article doth understand it otherwise then so, else it can have no stroke in your business. Let it be admitted (in courtesy) that, the Article speaketh of the loss of grace: yet it will come fare short of your purpose: for it cannot speak of the loss of the habit of grace. I prove it, from the Article itself, and your own doctrine, thus; The habit of grace is lost by sin. So say you. Grace in the Article is not lost by sin. But contrary. Grace is lost, therefore sin committed. So saith the Article. Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace. By this it is most evident, and past doubt, that, there is nothing in the Article that avoucheth the loss of the habit of grace. But pardon him this mistake, I will give my word for him, he never studied the Article to find the true sense of it. Do you think his study so mean, as that he would condescend so low, as to English Articles? I assure you no. I tell you, and he tells it me, Appeal, pag. 11. He never studied Bastingius Chatichisme, Fenners divinity, 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 pew-fellows, and hourly companions. And he hath good reason for it too; The nearer the fountain the clearer the stream; the further off the fouler, pag. 12. His second argument beginneth, Appeal, p. 32. and is thus to be framed, Whatsoever is taught in the Homilies, is the authorised, and subscribed doctrine of the Church of England, For The Book of Homilies was first composed and published in King Edward's time, approved, and justified, in Parliament in Queen Elizabeth's days, and authorised again of late to be read in Churches. But that a man may fall away from grace, is taught in the Homilies. Therefore falling from grace is the doctrine of the Church of England. I answer; a man would verily think he would have us believe his proposition to be a certain, and undeniable, truth: he bestows so much sweat in the proof of it: but (good man) he meant nothing less; or else at the turning over of a new leaf, he becomes a new man; for he professeth himself of another mind in the 260 pag. following, in these words: I willingly admit the Homilies, as containing certain godly and wholesome exhortations: but not as the public dogmatic resolutions, confirmed of the Church of England. They have not dogmatic positions, or doctrine to be propugned, and subscribed in all and every point. They may seem to speak somewhat too hardly, and stretch some saying beyond the use, and practice of the Church of England. The ancientest Fathers sometimes do hyperbolise in their popular Sermons, which in dogmatic decisions they would not do, nor avow the doctrine by them so delivered. Now after this enforcing sort may our Homily speak, and be so interpreted, which are all popular Sermons, fitted unto the capacity of common people. Well, there is good reason why we should take his second thoughts, for the better, and so leave him trampling his own proposition into the dirt, by which means, his assumption doth not deserve answer. But it may be, he will put new life into his proposition, by a special privilege that this homilily hath above the rest, namely that it is for explication of the doctrine contained in the Article. I answer; he seemeth so to pretend, Appeal, pa. 32. but it is false, we find not any direction from the Article to the Homily, nor any reflection in the homily upon the Article: neither can the one explicate the other: but are really distinct conclusions, and proofs. The Article saith, He departeth from grace, therefore he sinneth. The Homily saith, He falleth from God by a wicked life, therefore is deprived of grace. He that can make new Articles, can create new expositors. Although this be sufficient to satisfy the argument: yet I will go on to examine that which follows. In proof of his assumption, he saith, p. 32. The title of the Homily is of falling away from God, which very title is sufficient warrant for the Doctrine in this point. I answer; this title hath nothing to do with the loss of grace: falling from God signifies turning away from God's law, and so the Homily itself (a little after the beginning) doth expound the title, and saith, They that may not abide the Word of God, but following the stubbornness of his own heart, they go, and turn away from God. If by falling from God, should be meant losing of grace, than the Homily must be conceived thus to reason; If you lose your grace, than God will take his grace from you. For in that sort the Homily doth reason from falling from God, as the reading thereof will show: but it were most absurd to think that the Homily would so reason. His second reason for the same purpose, is taken out of the Homily itself, and standeth in this form; They that are deprived of grace and heavenly life, which they had in Christ, and become as without God in the world, given into the power of the Devil, as was Saul and judas, they lose grace totally, and finally. But according to the Homily, the truly justified are thus deprived. For: It is said, they were in Christ, they continued sometime in Christ. Therefore, according to the Homily, the truly justified may lose their grace totally and finally. By this argument, he thinks the cause is his at common law: ye must now yield, or turn heretic against the Doctrine of the Church of England; but he is much mistaken. The homily doth affirm thus much by the way of rhetorical enforcement, to persuade men to take heed they turn not away from Gods Law. It being so understood, I grant the whole reason, but it profits him not. He promised, nᵒ 5. the positive, and declaratory Doctrine of the Church of England; but rhetorical enforcements are not such. It may be, some will say, there is a truth in this enforcement. I answer; what truth soever there is in it, this is certain, the faith of the Church of England is not contained in it. No man (well advised) will send us to seek for the faith of our Church unto an argument, urging the practice of a duty, in a popular Sermon. But what that truth is, we may best learn from the Author of this Homily himself, whose meaning we find to be comprehended in these two things. By such threatenings of Gods taking away of grace. First, the great danger of sin: Secondly, the necessity of repentance is declared. Both which are set down in the first Sermon of Repentance, a little from the beginning, in these two sentences; 1 We do daily by our disobedience, fall away from God, thereby purchasing unto ourselves (if he should deal with us according to his justice) eternal damnation. 2 Whereas the Prophet had afore set forth the vengeance of God: it is as if he should say, although you do by your sin deserve to be utterly destroyed, and now you are in a manner on the very edge of the sword: yet if you will speedily return unto him, he will most mercifully receive you into favour again. By which it is evident, the opinion of the Author of the Homily was not, that, man that had grace, should by sinning be brought to that condition indeed and in the thing, that, his habit of grace should be taken from him, but, that the urging of such severity did fitly serve to restrain man from sinning: & to reduce him unto repentance. Which being so, all the confidence which he put in this argument, doth vanish, and come to nothing; and himself may be ashamed, that putteth so great confidence therein, p. 32. 33. and 34. I might also return him the like amplifications unto the several parts of my answer, as might fit to the several amplifications of his argument, but I let such things pass. His third argument, I find, Appeal, page 33. etc. in these words, 3 He that saith a man may fall away, and may recover, implieth withal, that some men may fall away, and may not recover. But the Article saith the first. Therefore it implieth the second. I answer; this argument requires little to be said to it: because it presumeth, that, the Article speaketh of losing the habit of grace; which he hath not proved, nor can; yea, I have showed the Article may be understood otherwise, & cannot be understood so, nᵒ 7. Lastly, the assumption is false; that 16. Article doth not say, A man may recover the grace he hath lost. But, The express words of the Article are, By the grace of God, we that fall into sin may amend our lives. Which two sentences do (most really) differ. This man is very willing to abuse the understanding, that dareth thus boldly falsify words upon record, against the sight of the eye. His fourth argument is set down, Appeal, page 36. and thus he beginneth; 4 In the public service of our Church, you shall find also as much as falling from grace cometh too. I answer; he promised positive, and declaratory Doctrine, and express words, affirming his falling from grace, and now he pays us with consequences; a fault you reproved very often, and many a fair title you gave your adversary the Gagger for it. Turn back again, and take a view how many of them belong to yourself: Was there ever any man so senseless, as to send us to seek the faith of our Church in consequences? Or does he think to find any so void of reason, as to believe him? Surely no, for that were a work endless. If the faith of our Church be in this consequence, why not in second upon the first, and a third upon the second, & c? And this is enough to satisfy the whole: but lest he should have an ill conceit of himself, if I should cut him off thus shortly: therefore I will set down what that is, which he telleth us, is as much as falling from grace cometh too, and this it is; Every Child duly Baptised, is put into the state of grace and salvation, by that laver of regeneration. Which must be acknowledged, and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: being taught, first, in the form of private Baptism: secondly, in the Catechism: thirdly, in the rubric before the Catechism. I answer; first, this is Bellarmine's second reason for this point, de justi. lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly, these are not records of the faith of our Church: no public act of our Church hath made them such. Besides, the Books themselves be incompetent for that use; the one being a form of administration of Prayers, and Sacraments: the other, short precepts for the instruction of Infants. He was near driven, when he catched at this shadow. Moreover, he affirmeth (most falsely) where he saith; this sentence, Every one duly Baptised, is by Baptism put into the state of grace and salvation, is taught in the places quoted. The words of the places themselves will show it: neither is there any such thing meant, or intended in them. It may be, he will reject this answer; because I make it. I reply in his own words, Appeal, p. 277. If you will not admit the answer, I can name you one who will say and approne as much; whom you dare not deny to be of credit, or style, as you doc some others: Appeal, page 294. A poor man that doubtless was out of his element, and meddled beyond his latchet. I mean Bishop jewel, whose words are these; In the Sacrament of Baptism (by the sensible sign of water) the invisible grace of God is given unto us, Artic. 5. diuis. 8. folio 250. Little ones being Baptised, and so the members of Christ, Artic. 8. diuis. 16. folio 291. Thus fare Bishop jewel is for Mr. Mountagu, but let him interpret himself, and make up his judgement full, touching the use of the Sacrament, and then we shall find him directly against him, and for that end he saith thus; We confess, that Christ by the Sacrament of regeneration, hath made us flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, that we are the members, and he is the head. This marvellous conjunction and incorporation, is first begun and wrought by faith, afterward the same incorporation is assured unto us, and increased in our Baptism: wherein must be considered, that the holy mysteries do not begin, but rather continue, and confirm this incorporation, Artic. 1. diuis. 13. folio 27. It may be here demanded; how this judgement of Bishop jewel doth prove against Mr. Mountagu. I answer, thus, If in his judgement, the Doctrine of the Church of England doth dive to the Sacrament of Baptism no more but the renewing, and confirmation of our incorporation into Christ, and grace by Christ; then in his judgement the places alleged out of the form of private baptism, and the Catechism, do not mean to say Every Child baptised is (thereby) put into the state of grace and salvation. For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England, set down in those places, or in any other, neither would he deliver the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then he did conceive it to be. But that he did so conceive of it, his words do show, and he addeth, that, our incorporation is begun first, and afterwards assured, and increased in our Baptism, which doth not begin it: which is so plain, full, and direct a contradiction unto Mr. Mountagu; as the mind can device, or words express. If (yet) this testimony will not serve, let the Church of England (in the 25. and 27. Articles) tell us, what effects it doth give unto the Sacraments: where it assigneth To the Sacraments in general, that they are: 1 Tokens of Christian profession. 2. Signs of Gods good will. 3. He doth by them quicken and confirm our faith. Of Baptism in special our Church saith, 1 It is a sign of regeneration. 2 An instrument whereby we are grafted into the Church. 3 By it, the promises of forgiveness of sin, and adoption are sealed. 4. Faith is confirmed, and grace increased. These, & no more but these, are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism assigned by our Church, it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptism. If it be answered: the Liturgy, and Catechism is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles. I reply; so to say, is wholly without authority, & fond without show of reason. The Articles were made upon great deliberation, and of purpose to settle an unity in matter of Religion; therefore it would not omit principal points, and set down others, that are subordinate, and not called into question. If the professors of the faith of our Church (publicly, and privately, in writing, and by word of mouth) have taught and believed of the Sacraments, no otherwise then is laid down in the Articles: and is maintained by Bishop jewel; and all of them do deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptism, and do deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome, then may we well say that the Church never meant to set down any other faith but that: for all the children were not ignorant in their mother's faith, nor the mother so careless of her faith, as to suffer it to be corrupted, and her intent to be changed. Forasmuch as, she could not be ignorant, what was done, nor wanted power to redress things done amiss. If it be said some have taught as M. Mountagu doth: I answer; it hath been in a corner then; He that did so Crept in at the window: neither shepherd, nor sheep knew it. If Mr. Mountagu will be one of them he may be for me. I envy not his happiness, nor will follow his course. To conclude this argument; M. Mountagu in this point agreeth with the Church of Rome, in another point of their erroneous faith. The Council of Trent hath decreed thus; The grace of justification is bestowed by the Sacraments, and that unto all, etc. sess. 7. can. 4. 7. & 8. The Sacrament of baptism is the instrument all cause of justification, without which no man is justified, sess. 6. cap. 7. And this faith of the Church of Rome is explicated and defended by Bellarmine: as in other places, so in these. 1 Of the Sacraments in general, lib. 2. cap. 3. 2 Of Baptism in special. lib. 1. cap. 11. Quarto propos●tio, etc. and cap. 12. Veri effectus, etc. Mr. Mountagu saith, Every child baptised is put thereby into the state of grace and salvation. Just as they do. And thus much for this argument, and all the rest which he pretendeth to take from the authentical records of the doctrine of the Church of England. He bringeth others from the testimonies of singular men, living in our Church, which indeed do not deserve answer: but because he hopeth by them to help a lame dog over the style, and to uphold a cause ready to fall: I will propound and examine them. The first whereof is set down, Appeal, pag. 28. in this form; They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew, composed, agreed, ratified, justified, and subscribed the Articles, and penned the Homilies. But all these have and do assent, to falling from grace. Therefore the learnedst in the Church of England assent therein. I answer; this Syllogism is false, the middle term is predicated in the proposition, and subjected in the assumption: it ought to be thus framed: They that composed etc. Did assent etc. They that composed etc. Were the learnedst, etc. Therefore some that were the learnedst etc. Did assent. I answer; the assumption is a vaunt of his bragging vein, and more than the parties themselves would assume, or he can prove: he knoweth not who composed them, etc. they were dead long before he was borne, and there is no record of their names. The proposition is false: neither the Articles nor Homily do teach falling from grace; as my answers thereunto do plentifully witness. His second argument of this kind is in Appeal, pag. 31. set down in these words. 1 It was the Tenet of Doctor Ouerall, That, a justified man might fall away from grace, and thereby incur God's wrath, and was in state of damnation, until he did recover again, and was renewed after his fall. 2 Which opinion was resolved of, and avowed for true, Catholic, ancient, and Oxthodoxe by the Royal, reverend, honourable, and learned Synod, at the Conference at Hampton Court. 3 The book of the proceed is extant, which will aver all that I say for truth against you, here, See the I answer; I think he would infer from hence, (I am sure he should infer.) Therefore some of the learnedst in the Church of England do maintain falling from grace. The antecedent hath three branches, the third is a proof of the two first. The first branch is false, I have read the book which reporteth Doctor Overalls' opinion, in pag. 41. and 42, in these words: The called, and justified according to the purpose of God's election, might, and did sometime fall into grievous sins, and thereby into the present state of wrath: yet They did never fall either totally, From all the graces of God, to be utterly destitute of all the parts and seed thereof, Nor finally, From justification: But were renewed. You report him to say, they fell into the state of damnation, which importeth a falling totally. The book reporteth him, denying falling totally, or finally: The second branch is also false: the book hath not a word that reporteth any confirmation of the opinion of Doctor Ouerall. His hap was hard, that amongst so many words, he could not light upon one true one, and his face very audacious that durst affirm a falsehood for truth, against the light of the noonday. He talketh of conscience, and honesty, and Chevril, and I know not what: He must tell us under which of those heads this allegation shall be ranged: for he hath best skill in such language; the allegation itself standeth under the censure of the reader, and the allegator at the bar of the Almighty; therefore I leave this and pass to the next. Hitherto I have spoken to the matter urged in the two arguments, now must I say a word, or two, touching the conclusion of them both, which saith, Some of the learnedst, etc. Unto which I have these two things to say, first, he getteth nothing though it were granted him. He ought to prove The Church of England teacheth his falling from grace. Which will not follow upon his conclusion; because those learnedst he speaketh of, may be a faction prevailing in the Church of England. Secondly, his intent is to say, all the learned in the Church of England do maintain falling from grace: for he saith, Ap. p. 28. Many in the Church of England, reputed learned, are of opinion Grace cannot be lost: which is as much as if he said, they have the name of learning, but have none indeed, all the learned say as I say. Which sentence is a most vain, idle, and insulting brag. If all were unlearned that deny falling from grace, than (I hope) Mr Mountagu is learned, that affirms the loss of grace, and that dareth sentence them all for want of learning, that deny falling from grace: but how learned he is, let this whole disputation show, wherein you shall find great plenty of notorious faults against learning, as false Sylogismes, lose consequences, notorious false premises, impertinent conclusions, false allegations, propositions contrary in their parts, headless divisions, manifest contradictions; a nosegay of some of them I do here present you. Thus he writeth. The Church of England leaveth the question [touching falling from grace] at liberty unto us, Gag, page 158. The question touching [falling from grace] is undecided in the Church of England, Gag, p. 171. The consented, resolved, and subscribed Articles of the Church of England, nor yet the Book of common Prayer, and other divine offices, do not put any tye upon me to resolve in this question [touching falling from grace] Appeal, page 26. Contrary whereunto he writeth as followeth. That man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England, Appeal, page 31. That a man may fall from grace, is the Doctrine of the Church of England, delivered publicly, positively, and declaratorily, in authentical records, Appeal, page 36. The Church of England itself hath directly and in express words taught, that, a justified man may fall away from God, and become not the child of God, Appeal, page 59 The Church of England holdeth, and teacheth punctually, that, a man may fall from grace, Appeal, page 73. It is the Doctrine of the Church of England, that a man justified, may fall away from grace, Ap. p. 89. And when he had belaboured himself almost out of breath, to prove, that, falling from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England, the Ancients and the Scriptures, he concludeth in these words; I do not say more than I am urged to do, by the plain and express words of our Articles, and Doctrine publicly professed, and established in our Church, Appeal, page 37. Other fair flowers that argue him one of the learnedst in the Church of England, might be collected hither: but I content myself with these, because the Reader may find them in their own places. His last argument in this matter is set down, Appeal, page 36. in these words; Your prime leaders have understood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I have reported it, and accordingly they have complained against it. I answer; it is very likely he would conclude from hence, Therefore you must so understand it also. I let pass his bitterness, for that hurteth none that think not of it. The Doctrine of the Church of England is understood according to the primary sense and meaning thereof, and sometimes also in a forced interpretation: some have complained of, and objected against this latter: and so fare I grant this whole reason: and good reason they had too for so doing. It becometh the Pastors & people of the Church of England to discover, & detect the corruptors of their faith. But against the first, never any excepted, neither is there any reason why: Take the words of our Church as they lie, force them not to serve a turn, and they are familiar to understanding, and of a manifest truth. And thus have I dispatched all his arguments whereby he thinks to prove falling from grace, to be the Doctrine of the Church of England. In the next place cometh his proofs to be examined, which he produceth to prove, that a man may fall from grace. Of which he hath no small store in his Gag, from page 159. to page 165. wherein he hath followed Bellarmine, de justi. 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. He borroweth of him (so much as) his confidence in the plenty, and perspecuity of divine testimony: Bellarmine saith, Quod attinet, etc. The testimonies of Scripture are so many, and so clear, that, it is to be admired how it could come into the mind of a man to say, Grace could not be lost. Mr. Mountagu saith. The Scripture speaketh plain, that, a man may fall from grace. Gag, page 161. Falling from grace is fully cleared, and resolved in Scripture, Gag, page 165. The Scripture is express for falling from grace, Appeal, page 36. I will give answer to all the allegations produced: let them be Bellarmine's, or Mr. Mountagues, or whosoever else: Truth may be defended against any opposer. The whole multitude of their allegations, may be reduced unto two Sylogismes: the former (whereof) standeth thus; If every righteous man may, and some do, leave his righteousness, and commit iniquity, than he that hath grace, may lose that grace. For, The most righteous man living, continually doth, or may, mortally transgress. Where mortal sin is committed, God is disobeyed. Where God is disobeyed, he will not abide. Where he will not abide, grace cannot consist. Where grace cannot consist, it must needs be lost. Gag, page 161. But every righteous man may, and some do, leave his righteousness, and commit iniquity. Therefore he that hath grace, may lose that grace. I answer; the words righteous, and righteousness, in this argument, must be taken for the act, not the habit: and he doth so understand it, I take as granted. This being so, the assumption is true, and needs no proof: yet notwithstanding, he allegeth many places of Scripture, as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. john 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 speak unto. All which may be applied unto the assumption of this reason, and cannot be applied to any other sentence: neither do they affirm any more but this: viz. every righteous man may, and some do, omit holy actions, and commit sin in the actual disobedience to God's law. Then, he addeth diverse examples of righteous men, that neglected their obedience to God's law, and committed actual sin. Which must be referred unto the proof of the latter part of the assumption, and can belong to no other: by which it is manifest, that all this goodly show, and bombasted brag, of infinite places of Scripture, all teaching falling from grace: at the last, cometh to no more but what every man will grant, and being granted, will profit him nothing, he is not thereby one hair the nearer to this conclusion; A man may lose the habit of grace. For, The consequence of the proposition is naught, and the proof thereof false, in many branches thereof, avowed only upon his own word, without the least show or pretence of proof. Surely this man meant not sincerely, when he undertook to prove, that, which no man did ever deny, but takes as granted, and leaves unproved that which all men do deny, that join not in faith with the Church of Rome. That it may appear I say true: I will give you an account of some faults in the consequence of the proposition, and proof thereof. The consequence of the proposition dependeth upon this sentence; The habit of grace departeth from him that actually disobeyeth God's law. If this sentence be true, his consequence is good: if it be false, the consequence is naught: the latter part doth not follow upon the former; but this sentence, the habit of grace, etc. is most false, as will appear. To make it seem true, in the proof of his consequence, he doth first distinguish of sin, and then telleth us what kind of sin it is that maketh grace departed. Lastly, he giveth a reason why that departeth through this: but how truly this is affirmed, and substantially proved, we shall see in the next passage. The first branch of his proof saith, Every righteous man may, or doth sin mortally. In which sentence he taketh two things as granted. 1 Some sins are mortal; some venial, and not mortal. 2 A man habituated by sanctity, may commit mortal sin. I answer, if by mortal, he meant no more, but sin tending, and conducing unto damnation, it would not be denied him, that sin is mortal: but thus he understands it not: for than he could not distinguish sin into mortal and venial: for all sin in this sense is mortal. If by venial, he understood no more, but sin not deserving damnation by God's not-imputing it, I will grant, that sin is venial: but he must not understand it thus: for so, all the sins of the justified are venial or (to speak in the words of the Church of England, first Homily of salvation, a little after the beginning:) Their sins are washed in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation. It remaineth therefore, that he taketh mortal and venial in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth. Which being true, that distinction is denied: and so he begs the question, and proves it not. It is also denied, that, a man habitually sanctified, can commit any such sin as the Church of Rome calleth mortal; and yet he proves this as he did the former, even by his own word. If you will not believe him, you must go look proof other where, but you must not look it in Bellarmine, for if he had brought any, Mr. Mountagu would have given it you in English. His next branch is this; Where mortal sin is committed, God is disobeyed. I answer; in this sentence, he attributeth disobedience unto mortal sin adequately, denying venial sin to be any disobedience unto God's law: for if he did not so, he must say, that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sins as he calls venial: 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 venial sin; therefore he conceiveth only mortal sin disobeyeth God's law. Just as Bellarmine doth: who teacheth, Venial sin is sin, by analogy, or certain proportion, and imperfectly, after a certain 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, etc. If you ask me, how Mr Mountagu proves this? I answer, with no worse proof than he hath done the former branches: and that is his own very word, which you need not stick 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 soever the word disobeyed be taken, this sentence is false, and must go for such, till he hath proved it; which yet he hath not done, nor attempted to do, let him show us in the divine Revelation one of these two things: 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace upon the committing of this or that sin. 2 This actual sin, is of that nature, that of itself, it doth expel grace. If he prove one of these, the question is at an end, the Divine Oracle must have credit. If you bring not that, you hunt a flea, and pursue a shadow. It is in vain for you to tell us a Just man may sinne, till you prove, that grace must give place to sin, by the ordinance and decree of God, or the nature of the things themselves. There be some other things in this proof to be examined: but I pass them over, because they depend upon these branches which I have answered unto, and do stand or fall with them. To conclude this argument, I say, It is worthy to be observed that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised unto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that position: but at the upshot, their proofs are for the thing denied by none, and they take for granted the things denied by all; which kind of disputing, in itself is most unsound; 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 deceitful, bearing a show of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture, which indeed do nothing concern the thing in question. It may be, some will urge these places of Scripture on this sort. If he that is habitually sanctified, always may, and sometimes doth commit such sins, as for which (in in the event) he is cast into hell, than a man may lose, and some do lose the habit of sanctity. But he that is habitually sanctified, always may, and sometime doth, commit such sins, as for which, in the event, he is cast into hell. Therefore, etc. 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 he goes to hell; for that leads to another end, and is always to be crowned with glory. But the assumption, or second part, which hath two branches, is wholly false: no one place of Scripture doth affirm, or infer either of these two sentences. The habitually sanctified may commit such sins as for which (in the event) he shall go to hell. Some habitually sanctified have committed such sins, as for which he is now in hell. If any require me to show, that, the places alleged do not prove 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 form, and I will make my answer good. It is enough for me to give them an Issue. They must prove the Issue, or leave the cause behind them. I will put some of their allegations into form, and answer to them, which I do thus, He that may leave his actual righteousness, and commit such actual sin, as for which he is threatened by God, in the event, to be cast into hell, he may commit such sins, as for which, in the event, he shall be cast into hell. But the man habitually sanctified may leave his actual righteousness, and commit such sin, as for which he is threatened by God, in the event, to be cast into hell. So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, he shall dye therein. Therefore the man habitually sanctified, may commit such sin, as for which, in the event, he shall go to hell. I answer: although the proposition seems not to be evidently true: because, God may so threaten sin, to show unto man what the desert of sin is, and not what in the event 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 alleged make it appear to be so: for these three words, viz. Righteous, Righteousness, Iniquity, may import the act, and none of them can signify the habit: as the text itself doth evidently show, which doth interpret the word Righteous, by the word Righteousness, and Righteousness it calleth an Act, saying, all his righteousness that he hath done, etc. If it be replied, actual righteousness, doth suppose the habitual, as the fountain, from whence it proceedeth, & without which actual righteousness cannot be. I answer: Actual righteousness may proceed from actual grace, because actual grace doth make man's will a sufficient root or beginning, and an able-next-cause of supernatural actions, as Suarez teacheth, Opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. nᵒ 1. and the Council of Trent hath decreed, Sess. 6. cap. 6. where it saith, a man doth believe, fear, hope, trust, love, detest sin, desire a new life, etc. (all which are supernatural actions, or actual righteousness) by grace exciting and adjuvating, which is actual, not habitual grace. If Mr Mountagu will deny this, the Scripture itself will avow it, which speaketh of some that fall away: which argueth they did righteously before time, but now commit sin. Of them that fall away it saith also, they had tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the life to come; which two things signify actual grace. They cannot signify habitual grace, because the beginning of, and preparation unto our sanctity, may well be resembled unto, and set out by tasting: which is the beginning and preparation, unto that feeding which is for satisfying of hunger, and nourishment of the body. But the habit of grace, which is the highest degree and measure of our sanctity, cannot be set out by the metaphor of tasting. For the habit is no less than meat received into, and remaining in the body of man, sustaining his being, and giving him power to do the actions of life, cheerfully and readily. If it be demanded further: what holy actions do proceed from the habit of sanctity? I answer, They are such as are done, 1. out of the love of God, and his Law: 2. out of an intention of, and a delight in obedience to God. 3. They be such holy actions wherein a man doth continue, either always without intermission, or return from actual sinning by repentance. And the reason hereof is good: for (in the confession of all men) the habit doth dispose a manunto doing with willingness, readiness, and delight: and the habit of sanctity doth determine the soul of man unto doing the works of righteousness, as may be proved against such as deny it, with Suarez Opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. nᵒ 1. So as although a man do the works of righteousness never so fair in outward appearance, never so many, for number, and continuance: yet, they proceed not from any habit or settled inward quality of holiness, if they be done for private ends, and be wholly discontinued at last. And thus I have (as I hope) plainly, and truly opened, and resolved, the whole difficulty in this argument: and thereby shown it insufficient to uphold their falling from grace. Which being well observed, will give satisfaction unto all other places of Scripture, which are alleged in this question. In favour of the second branch of their assumption at nᵒ 19 They dispute thus, Gag p. 164. judas had the habit of grace. judas committed sin for which he is in hell. Therefore some that had the habit of grace committed sin for which he is in hell. I answer: He hath proofs for his proposition, and assumption. This I grant as a thing evident. That I deny as a thing manifestly false. His proof for his proposition is in these words. judas was numbered with the twelve Apostles, had all the prerogatives which they enjoyed, God gave him to Christ, as well as Peter, or john. I answer; this proof is childish, the reading of it refuteth him: all these things alleged were outward privileges, no inward habit of grace. If he conceive them otherwise, he must prove it: his word will not make articles of faith: a goodly disputation, that in conclusion (always) resteth upon the disputers word: you must believe that, or rest where you began. Other toys of this kind you may have enough, in the place where I had this, but it is loath some to name them. One more I will propound and examine, that there be no doubt remaining. This it is, Peter had the habit of grace. Peter committed such a sin as for which he was in the present state of damnation. Therefore some that have the habit of grace did commit such sin as for which he was in the present state of damnation. I answer: The whole doubt of this argument, lieth in the words state of damnation. The sense of that being truly known, the argument will be found good or bad. A man is then in the state of damnation, 1 When he wanteth that inward quality that must order, or set him in the way unto holiness in this life, and happiness in the life to come. And secondly, when he standeth actually bound over (by God as he is a judge) unto hell fire, for the sin committed. If it be his intent to say, that Peter was thus in the state of damnation, his assumption is false, and a miserable begging of the question, by affirming upon his bare authority, a principal thing in question. But if by state of damnation, he meant; the desert of sin only, than I grant the whole: but the conclusion is nothing to purpose; we speak not of the desert of sin in itself, but of damnation itself actually in the event. To conclude my answer to all the arguments of this kind: Now we see he beateth the bush, and maketh offer to take the game: but he wanteth all means for the purpose, the fowl must come into his fist, or he must go without her. His other argument for the main question I find written, Gag, page 161. which is to this effect, If Adam and Lucifer did lose their original state, than man may lose his habit of grace: for the one was in the state of innocency in Paradise: the other in heaven in glory: to whom man in grace (at most) is but equal, not superior. But Adam and Lucifer did lose their original state. Therefore man may lose his habit of grace. I answer; this argument is as shallow and shuttle, as any of the former; the weakness of the consequence is seen by a piece of an eye: All men will grant, the providence of GOD in this or that act, is not regulated by the former act of his providence. What if he did so to Adam and Lucifer, could he not do otherwise with other men? what is there in the nature of the things themselves, or of GOD, that should tie him to do in this as he did in that? surely nothing. His actions towards the creatures were all free, and he at liberty to do, or not do, this ways, or that ways, as he pleased; until he had decreed what, and how he would do. He doth all things according to the counsel of his own will; that is, according as Suarez doth truly interpret it, opusc. 4. disp. 1. sect. 1. nᵒ 9 God worketh all things according to that counsel which is accepted by the good pleasure of his will: this is sure, God did so by them, and we believe it, because he hath said it; that he doth so by other men, we believe not, because God hath not said it. We know some men are in the possession of the habit of grace; if you will have us believe this possession to be casual, show us where God hath said, he will take it away, else we dare not believe you: for it is plain, none can take it away but God: and he will not take it away, unless he hath revealed so much unto us, which he hath not done: and so much for all his arguments taken from Scripture. He urgeth Fathers, with no less confidence of plenty, and plainness, for him: pretending also, the authority of our Church commanding all men to receive their testimony, Appeal, page 36. and 37. He bringeth some by name, Gag, page 165. etc. But this is a very bubble, and comes from that foisting fountain, that the rest of his brags have done. Bellarmine hath no such confidence in the Fathers: he nameth but two, and out of each of them, one sentence, and so sitteth him down; which Bellarmine would never have done, if he could have found more. If Mr. Mountagu will say, Bellarmine is a poor Ignaro, and hath no old learning, himself hath read more Fathers than Bellarmine ever heard of, which is his own language in another case; all the world would laugh at him: but not believe him. The conclusion is, Bellarmine neither brags nor brings, therefore Mr. Mountagu doth both in vain. I will finish my answer to his Fathers by his own direction, Gag, page 165. There needs no proof by Fathers, where holy Scripture is silent: Fathers may be pretended by false play, but none (indeed and in truth according to their words and meaning) can be produced. Let him try when he will, in a Logical form, and he shall find it. Thus have I concluded my answers to all his arguments brought to prove his falling from grace, taken from the Scriptures, and Fathers. His last argument for the same purpose, I find, Appeal, page 17. which he beginneth thus, If you deny falling from grace, you are a Papist. I answer; this sentence beginneth an argument, which is continued by diverse other parts which follow. It is called a dilemma, in plain English, a Net, a Snare, a Toil, to catch the old one; the battle is before and behind, turn you which ways you will, it will catch you. But soft and fair, old Birds will not be caught with chaff, if the stuff of your Net be unsound, your game will escape. This sentence doth neither affirm nor deny, put it into a lawful form; and it speaketh thus; He that denyeth falling from grace, is a Papist. This sentence is false: for falling from grace is an Article of the Popish faith, as himself confesseth, Gag, page 158. and I have proved by the Council of Trent: cap. 11. The denial of the Popish faith cannot argue a man to be a Papist, in the judgement of any man living. He is a strange Papist, that treads the faith of Papists under his feet; but more strange that a man should be a Papist for denying the Popish faith. Well, but he will prove it by the words which follow, viz. For I demand, did Peter fall, or did he not fall, when he denied Christ? I answer; every interrogation hath the force of an affirmation; now this is referred as a proof unto the precedent sentence, by the word for: which doth immediately follow the same; thus than he doth dispute; Peter did either fall, or not fall. Therefore he that denieth falling from grace, is a Papist. I know you laugh at this naughty consequence: but you must not do so. Homer may take a ●●p▪ well, let that pass, Peter did fall or not fall; what of that? we sta●d now between two, you must tell us which we shall choose, for that end, these words follow; If abnegation, and abjuration, and execration will enforce a fall, he did. I answer; this leaveth the matter no less doubtful, than it was: this giveth us leave to say, But it did not enforce a fall. Therefore Peter did not fall. Or thus. But it did enforce a fall. Therefore he did fall. When you have said all, you have said nothing. It may be the next will dispatch the matter. You say, If he fall, he needs must fall totally, or finally: for show me a third? I answer; this is fair, but fare off; whither this tendeth, none but yourself knows, if yourself do know, you shall be crowned for a choice one. You divide a total fall from a final: and that is absurd. Every final is a total, and some total is also final, yourself being judge. There may be a fall, neither total nor final; as when God's concourse or actual grace is withheld: but the habit remaineth. And this is possible, seeing there is actual grace, and habitual, as Suares does prove plenteously, the great. pro●egom, 3. cap. 6. and 3 part, lib. 1. no 4. etc. yea, actual and habitual grace also, do differ in their use. This, serving to make man's will fit to eliciate supernatural actions after a connatural and perfect manner, by an inrrinsicall and connatural faculty (as Suarez teacheth, opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no. 1.) That, tending to dispose unto this, (as the Council of Trent, sess. 6. cap. 5. and 6. decreeth, and Suarez consenteth in the place alleged) and to move the habit unto working being obtained, as Aluarez proveth, de Auxilijs disp. 88 and the thing itself by perpetual experience doth show; see Alua. disp. 24. nᵒ 37. and Bellar. de great. lib. 1. cap. 4. Quatuor dona: have patience, it may be, it will come anon, in the mean time he proceeds thus; Now then in such denial, St. Peter, did he fall, or did he not fall? I answer; the word Then, importeth an inference, so that this sentence is inferred upon another; but what that other is, we shall not find in any part of this argument: for they are all either disiunctive, or connext propositions. Before we had heads without a tail, now we have a tail without a head: this demand came once before, it seemeth it will abide a second seething: well, let that be, what will become of it, we shall see anon: and that is well (no doubt) for the second seething hath made it wholesome food; thus you go on; You must answer he did not fall. I answer; and so must you too; or be a rebel against your Mother the Church of England, which in the first Sermon of Repentance, a little before the end: where (after it had reckoned up Peter's denial of his Master, and dissimulation at Antioch) it concludeth: After this grievous offence, he was not utterly excluded, and shut out from the grace of God. With whom I also say: Peter did not lose the habit of grace by the denial of Christ: but what of all this; he will now tell you, in these words; So that you join with the Gagger, and subscribe to Bellarmine, who maintain, that Peter's faith did not fail: avoid it if you can. I answer; and so must your mother the Church of England join with the Gagger too; avoid (you) it if you can: for I say no more than what I have learned of her, and so must you also (avoid it if you can,) for you profess to believe what it believeth, and teach what it teacheth, in whose faith and confession you hope to live, and dye▪ Appeal, p. 48. You have spun a fair thread, you have hunted all this while, and covered your nets close, to catch your mother, and yourself in the pitfall. I will do you that favour, as to let you and the Church of England lose, I will stand by it myself, and will profess, Peter lost not his faith when he denied Christ. But you must give me leave to express myself, which I do thus; The act of faith is either eliciate, or imperate. The first is the act of the soul only, remaining in itself not known to man, which we call believing. The second is wrought by the body also, and cometh to the knowledge of men, as when a man doth profess by his tongue, to give credit, and trust unto Christ. Peter lost not his faith in the first kind; but in the second. I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart, believe that he was indeed the Christ; and trusted unto, and relied upon him, as such: even in that very moment when in words he denied that he knew him. Peter's denial being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distress he feared. If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus, I subscribe to them, and that upon good reason: for Peter had long believed on Christ, and had now no cause to change that belief, therefore we may not say he did change it; unless the divine revelation had said it, which hath not a word of any such thing, but look better on your books, and you shall find Bellarmine saith; Peter lost his charity, but not his faith, because he was Pastor over the whole Church, and was to teach it the true faith, de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more than I say: by which it appeareth that Bellarmine's doctrine is not the perseverance I maintain: nor my sentence so good Popery, as M. Mountagu hath delivered, contrary to his unjust challenge, Appeal pag. 18. It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith; to establish his own employed, Gag. pag. 163. which is on this wise. Faith is either in the end, or the act. But this distinction I fear not; because end and act are not parts of faith; neither as specials, to the general, nor as constitutive parts, making a constituted whole: beside, what he saith, of the end of faith, is a riddle which (I doubt) himself understandeth not: Thus fare have I answered to the consequent, or position as it lieth; I will now put the disputation into due form, and answer thereunto. Thus than it lieth; If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace, than you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger: who say, that, Peter lost not his faith. But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine, etc. where he saith, Peter lost not his faith: for that is Popery. Therefore you must not deny, that Peter lost his habit of grace. I answer; This whole argument is a mere caption, and no proof: it supposeth, that, the loss of the habit of grace, is denied to Peter only; which is false: and the conclusion nothing to the purpose. And so he must be understood, for the Papists deny the loss of faith unto Peter only. But I will take it as it lieth, and answer to it. The weakness of his cause will the better appear by my answer, which is this; I grant the assumption, I promise you, I am, and will be as fare off from joining in that article of the Popish faith, as M. Mountagu, and further too. For he comes very near it in giving the Church the office to determine all controversies in faith. Yet you get nothing by it; for the consequence of your proposition is naught, I may say the first and not the second, in the sense wherein they take it; for they say he lost not his faith, neither in the habit, nor act, by a special providence, and peculiar dispensation: upon the reason, and for the end, as is aforesaid, nᵒ 25. but, I say, he lost it not, neither in habit, nor act, by that providence and dispensation, which is common to him with all other men that have received the habit of grace; who must needs keep their faith so long as they keep the habit of grace; because the habit of grace consisteth in faith, hope and charity. Unto this sentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary. They say, all men lose their faith, when they lose the habit of grace, (only Peter is excepted, by a peculiar privilege as I have showed, nᵒ 25. Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his snare, and we find the snare is broken, and the game is escaped, and with it, his whole disputation in this point of falling from grace is ended. He tells us of some that have whirlegiggs in their heads, Appeal, pag. 81. Which is true of himself, if it be true of any, but he may be pardoned that fault, his heart was so full of anger, and his pen of railing, that he had no leisure to attend upon Art and Divinity. CHAP. XIII. The point of real presence. M. Mountagu. The Church of Rome. The Church of England. There is, there need be, no difference, between the Church of Rome and our Church, in the point of Real presence, Gag. 253. Appeal 289. Our Lord jesus Christ, true God, & man, is contained truly, really & substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. conc. Trent. sess 13. c. 1 That is, whole Christ, body, and blood, together with the soul & divinity, and not in a figure or virtue only. can. 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receive the same, the bread which we break, is a partaking of the body of Christ, and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ. CHAP. XIV. The point of Real presence is debated. THe order observed hitherto, must be observed here also: Three things are sought after, 1 Whether his doctrine of real presence be true or not. 2 Whether he consenteth, in the real presence, with the Church of Rome, or not. 3 Whether he dissenteth, in the point of Real presence, with the Church of England, or not. His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himself. Thus he writeth, There is no difference between the Church of Rome, and ours, in the point of Real presence. Gag. p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament, is as real and substantial as any Papist. Gag. p. 251. If the Priests and jesuits, were not common Barretters of Christendom for private ends, this controversy on foot, touching the real presence, might cease. Gag. p. 251. They that in the point of real presence, do make a difference between us, and the Papists, were bred up by the devil in a faction, and by him brought up in a faction, and by him sent abroad to do him service, in maintaining a faction. Gag. p. 253. and Appeal p. 291. The only difference, between the Church of Rome, and ours, is about the manner. Appeal p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ. Gag. p. 256. 255. Namely, whether by transubstantiation or not. 252. 254. The Council of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation, which we condemn. Gag. p. 252. And in this, viz. how it is made the flesh of Christ, he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome, and ours, blaming them for this, p. 252. and for nothing else; and reproving their proofs▪ because they prove not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation. Gag. p. 252. and 254. Out of which, we may conclude: Mr Mountagu believeth, as the Council of Trent hath decreed, touching the real presence: and the doctrine of it is his doctrine; so as, what the Council saith of reserving, carrying about, and worshipping of the Sacrament, must be accounted the faith of Mr Mountagu; because the first doth necessarily infer the second. If Christ be really present, than the sacrament, must be so reserved, carried, worshipped. And so much for the second branch. If this be true, than Mr Mountagu doth not descent from the Church of England in the point of real presence. To the end he might persuade us that he doth not descent from the Church of England, he telleth us, Appeal p. 289. The point of real presence is not Popery in the divinity of the Church of England▪ That is, the Church of England, agreeth with the Church of Rome, in the point of real presence: as he doth explicate himself a few lines after. If that be so, than I grant he doth not descent from the Church of England. But all the doubt will be, how he will prove, that the Church of England doth join in faith, with the Church of Rome in the point of real presence. His proof (such as it is) I find set down, Appeal p. 289. etc. and may be concluded in this form; Whatsoever is taught by the Bishops; Bilson, Andrew's, Morton: by Protestants; Fortunatus, Caluin, Beza▪ Sadael, is the doctrine of the Church of England. But the faith of the Church of Rome, touching the real presence, is taught by these, etc. Therefore, the faith of the Church of Rome, in the point of real presence, is the doctrine of the Church of England. This form of disputing may not be excepted against, because all his allegations in the place quoted, will be to no purpose, if he doth not thus dispute; for the allegations do serve to prove this assumption, or can be of no use at this time. To the proposition I answer two things. First, The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in books, authorised publicly for that end, and subscribed unto as such. But these men's writings are not such: For no statute, law, or ordinance, have ratified them: and commanded subscription unto them as such. Therefore your proposition is false. Secondly, your own words are these, Appeal. p. 58. and 59 Whereas you would make the world believe that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat, as if he were the father and founder of our faith, as if our belief were to be pinned unto his sleeve, and absolutely to be taught after his institutions: show me good warrant for it, and I yield. This is impossible, therefore your proposition is false, even by your own sentence: his own pen giveth judgement against his proposition as false: that being false, this reason cannot be good, although his assumption were never so true. The assumption is utterly false; and I do admire, that shame did not withhold him, from alleging Caluin and Beza as consenters unto the Romish faith in the point of real presence; seeing that Bellarmine in his fi●st Book and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin, and Beza principal opposers thereunto: and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Council of Trent in special sort against Caluin, and forgetteth him not, in no one passage of his disputations in this point. The words of the Bishops, (even as he hath alleged them) are not so much as like unto the Romish faith, as he that readeth them will presently judge. I do not attempt to apply them to his assumption. Two of them are yet living, who will (I doubt not) by lively voice, disclaim the decree of the Council of Trent, and their consent thereto, touching the real presence, and so fully refute his assumption as false. He inferreth further from hence, on this wise; If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and professeth, (as it is indeed) I leave you to those that must look unto you. I answer; this inference presumes too fare, and comes too late, I may rather infer contrariwise. If the Romish faith of real presence be not the Doctrine of the Church of England, (as indeed it is not) my answer hath showed it in part, (and I will show it to the full hereafter,) than I leave you as a corrupter of our faith, to be punished as such, according to law in that case provided. I find in his Gag, page 250. he writeth thus, Our Catechism in the Communion Book saith expressly, the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper. And a few lines after he concludeth in these words, The Protestant is as real and substantial, as any Papist. He seemeth to infer the latter sentence upon the former: the meaning whereof is this: Protestants acknowledge the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament, no less than Papists. What his intent was, is best known to himself. It was needful for me to propound it, and let it be known by my answer thereto, that no real presence is intended by our Church in the words alleged: which answer I will take from Bishop jewel, who hath already made it for me, in his reply unto Hardings' answer, Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these; Christ's body and blood, indeed, and verily, is given unto us, that we verily eat it, that we verily drink it. In these words there is as much contained, as Mr. Mountagu allegeth out of the Catechism. But mark now what he denieth, and answereth further for the explication thereof. Yet we say not, that Christ's body is let down from heaven, or made really, or fleshly present in the Sacrament: we lift up our hearts to heaven, and there feed upon the Lamb of God: thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith, we eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood, even as verily as his body was verily broken, and his blood verily shed upon the Cross. This answer of Bishop jewel is full to the purpose, and of no less authority, than the Catechism alleged: which being taken in this sense, we may safely conclude, that our Church is no friend to the real presence in those words of the Catechism. A third thing also is in his Appeal, pag. 291. thus set down; Both we, and the Papists confess, This is my Body; and that is enough; and contend merely about the manner how it is my Body, (that is) how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ, Gag, page 256. The council of Lateran decreed transubstantiation, and we deny the same, Gag, page 252. Which sentence, by the course of the place where it is, must be applied to the present purpose, in this form; They that agree in this sentence, This is my Body, there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of real presence. But we and the Papists agree in this sentence: This is my Body, and contend merely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ, etc. Therefore we and the Papists have no cause to be distracted about the point of real presence. That it was his purpose thus to dispute, the place itself where that sentence standeth, will show: where he bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place, and then the words alleged, as a proof thereof: and referred thereunto, by this word, seeing, etc. I will take my answer unto this, from the same Author and place, page 236. from whence I had my former, viz. the reverend Bishop, whose words be these; Indeed the question between us this day, is not of the letters or syllables of Christ's words: (for they are known and confessed of either party:) But only of the sense and ●eaning of his words, which is the v●ry pith, and substance of the Scriptures: and he committeth fraud against the laws, that (s●●ing the words of the law,) overthroweth the m●●ning: If it be true, that the only sense of Christ's words is, that his Body is really and flesh●●● the Sacrament, it is great wonder, that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could ever see it. This answer is full to every point of Mr. Mountagu his argument. First, he saith, they agree in words, touching this sentence, This is my Body: and so fare he 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 descent between them. For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures; and he that overthroweth the meaning, corrupteth the Law. 3 He saith they understand Christ's words of a real and fleshly presence of Christ's body. Which the Bishop denyeth, whereby it is evident that he putteth the difference between the Church of Rome and ours in this; viz. that They affirm a real presence, We deny it. And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason, that placeth the difference between them, and us, merely in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ, which they say is by transubstantiation. The Bishop saith, we descent about the real presence. M. Mountagu saith no: for (saith he) our dissent is merely about transubstantiation. By which it appeareth, M. Mountagu his arguments (in the behalf 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 give the reason for it, which he allegeth in the like case in his Appeal pag. 291. viz. The Devil bred him up in a faction, and sent him abroad, to do him service in maintaining a faction. And thus he must reply, or blot out of both his books that bitter sentence, which was written against all such, as make any difference between the Romish Church, and ours, in the point of real presence. I rejoin to it in the Bishop's words, p. 237. If he be of God, he knoweth well, he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand. Moreover, if he hath the understanding of a man, he knoweth it is evidence of truth, not bitterness of railing that carrieth credit in a divinity question: let him first take away the Bishop's proofs, and show wherein he is a liar, 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 rail because he had nothing else to say. And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of real presence with the Church of England. I will now deliver some reasons to prove, that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of real presence, as followeth. 1 Many of our nation have given their bodies to the fire for denying it. 2 It hath been proclaimed against, by our Ministers, without any blame from authority, or known opposition from any of ours. 3 Our Church hath determined what is to be held, touching the nature, and effects of this Sacrament, and hath not a word of the real presence. Our Church hath determined, that the Sacrament is to be eaten, taken, and given, only after a spiritual manner, and by faith: and denyeth worship to it. Arti. 28. That the wicked receive the sign, but are not partakers of Christ. Arti. 29. That it ought to be administered to all men in both kinds, Arti. 30. which it would not have done if it had granted the Popish real presence. Lastly, Bishop jewel 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 Apology beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward, and again in his Reply to Harding, Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to prove, that the Church of England rejecteth the popish real presence. It remaineth in the third place, that we examine whether the popish real presence be true or not: but of that I find nothing in him: it was meet for him to have proved it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Devil, as he doth in the words which I have alleged. That he proved it not in his Gag it is no marvel: for there he goes hand in hand, with his Adversary. That he did it not in his Appeal, was, because, he could not: for there he had good cause to show all his strength: Only I find in his Gag pag. 250. these words: He gave substance, and really subsisting essence, who said, This is my body, this is my blood. These words are little other than a riddle: yet I will make the best of them. My answer thereunto will explicate the matter, and take away that which might seem to fortify the popish real presence: thus it may be framed, If Christ gave substance, and an essence really subsisting, when he did administer the sacrament to his Disciples, and said, This is my body, etc. then the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament. But Christ gave substance, and an essence really subsisting, etc. Therefore the body of Christ is really present. I answer; The word substance etc. in this place may be taken for the substance of Bread and wine: or for the substance of Christ's body: That Christ gave the substance of bread and wine I grant, and so the assumption is true, and he must grant it likewise, or else say with the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. can. 2. That, it doth not remain: but is changed, etc. which I presume he will not do: But the word substance being thus understood, he must thus argue, He gave the substance of bread, therefore the substance of his body was present. These two do hang together like harp and Harrow, so the consequence of the proposition is naught. If by the word substance he meant Christ's body, than the substance of his body is affirmed to be given, but not explicated how he gave it, nor proved yet that he gave it. This is his old vain, you must go seek 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 pains to find out both: To give may be after an humane sort (that is) when I deliver a thing in my possession, into the possession of another: I had it then, another hath it now: he is seized, I am dispossessed of it. If Christ gave the substance of his body thus, than the▪ substance of his body was present. But Christ did not give the substance of his body on this manner. If he will say Christ gave the substance of his body in this sort, he must prove it by the word of God; for it is impossible unto natural understanding, that Christ should deliver the substance of his own body, out of his own possession into the possession of his Disciples. Furthermore, Giving may be after an heavenly and spiritual manner, that is to say, unto faith. If he say Christ gave the substance of his body in this sense; Then he saith true, and thus he must say, or disclaim the faith of the Church of England: for so saith our Church, in the 28 Article. But then Christ might so give, and yet not be really and substantially present in the Sacrament. For we lift up our hearts to heaven, and there feed upon the Lamb of God. Thus spiritually, with the mouth of our faith, we eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood, etc. as I have alleged out of Bishop jewel in his reply to Harding, p. 238. see Defen. Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this answer. I hope no man will require me to prove, that, Christ is not really present in the Sacrament: that belongs not to me: but because they affirm that he is present, and tells us we must believe, that God hath revealed it; therefore it is enough for us to call for a sight of that divine revelation, and in the mean time to withhold our belief thereof, even upon that ground which Bishop jewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology, part 2. cap. 12. diuis. 1. p. 220. namely, Christ nor his Apostles never taught, nor the Primitive Church never believed that real presence. Thus have I ended this argument, and the whole point of real presence, and (I hope) have made it appear, 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, unto Christians they are not unlawful in all manner of religious employment. The Images of Christ, of the Virgin Marie, and other Saints, may be had, and kept in Churches, honour and worship is due, and must be yielded unto them. Taken out of the Homilies against peril of Idolatry, printed 1576. the second Tome. The pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and Saints, may be set up in Churches. Not that any divinity, or power is believed to be in them: for which they are worshipped, or that any thing is desired of them, or that, a trust is placed in them. The words Idol, and Image, be words of diverse tongues, and sounds: yet used in the Scriptures indifferently for one thing always. p. 27. to bring Images into the Churches, is a foul abuse, and great enormity. page 27. Be forbidden and unlawful, p. 84. Not things indifferent, nor tolerable, pag. 96 & 97. There is a respect due unto, and honour given, relatively unto the picture of saints, & Christ: they may be used for helps of piety, in rememoration, and more effectual representing of the prototype. Gag p. 318. For the instruction of the unlearned, renewing the remembrance of the history, and stirring up of devotion. Gag p. 300. But, because, the honour that is exhibited unto them, is referred to the prototype which they represent: so as, by the Images which we kiss, and before whom we uncover the head, & kneel down, we adore Christ, & worship Saints, whose images they bear. Bishop's ought diligently to teach, so as, 1 The people be trained up 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 upon them by Christ. 3 To give 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 remembering more feelingly, and so being impassioned more effectually with the death of our Saviour, when we see that story represented unto us by a skilful hand. Appeal. p. 254. Concil. Trent. Sess. 25. de invoca. etc. CHAP. XVI. The point set down in the former Chapter is discussed. HEre we inquire of three things. 1 Whether his doctrine of Images, be 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 given unto them. So saith the Council. He saith, Honour is due, and given relatively. The Council saith, The honour exhibited to Images is referred to the prototype: which is the same with his. He saith, They may be used for the instruction of the ignorant, recalling the memory of the history, and stirring up of devotion. The Council saith: The articles of faith may be learned by them, men put in mind of the benefits by Christ, and stirred up to give thankes, for the miracles, and to imitate the virtuous actions wrought by the Saints. Which differeth nothing from him. He concludeth the point of Images thus; Let practice and doctrine go together, we agree. So that the question is not; what may be given them. Gag. p. 319. These words (as they lie) be void of sense: they contain neither affirmation nor negation: they bring nothing that is affirmed of, or denied unto: (to speak formally) they have neither subject, predicate, nor vinculum. If this word your be added unto the words practice, and doctrine, and the word than be put before the words we agree, than that sentence may be understood: but he will not abide him that shall do so, for he rageth against him that shall do so, Appeal. p. 256. etc. Whether those words be added or no, his agreement with the Church of Rome, doth sufficiently show itself in them: for, 1. these words are spoken unto the Church of Rome, with whom he hath this present disputation: for in the former part of this discourse he saith unto them, Whatsoever you say, etc. In your practice, etc. So that it is all one, as if he had said, Let your practice and doctrine go together, etc. 2. By doctrine he 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 between him and them is not what may be given them. Which is as much as if he said, I consent unto their whole doctrine. 3. By the doctrine of their Church, he must understand the decree of the Council of Trent: for their Church hath no other doctrine but that: the rest is opinions of singular men: so that his sentence now set down, is as if he had said, I agree with the Council of Trent in the point of Images. Now the Council of Trent hath decreed in the place alleged; that, The honour to be given to Images, is kissing of them, uncovering the head, and bowing down before them. Which must be understood to be Mr Mountagu his sentence also. Notwithstanding all this plain evidence, yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome: because, The ignorant amongst them give them honour due unto God, and the learned amongst them (as Thomas by name, and others with him) persuade, that as much honour is to be given to a wooden Crucifix, as to Christ himself in heaven. For thus he writeth, and in this he putteth the difference between himself and them, Gag, page 299. and 319. I answer; this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome: for the one instance alleged is matter of fact: and hath not to do in this business, which concerns only the faith of their Church; the other which is the sentence of Thomas, is matter of opinion, which the Council 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, he differeth from them in one opinion held by some amongst them: and this is all he saith; and therefore for all this he consenteth with them in matter of faith, which is the thing we seek for. I answer further; It doth not appear, that he doth descent from them in this opinion neither. For he yields honour unto Images, Gag, page 318. but, doth not show us what is the nature thereof, whereby we might be able to discern the difference of that honour which he gives, from that which they give. If it be replied, the Council giveth little honour to Images, and that which Thomas giveth is the main and chief thing to be blamed. I answer; that honour which the Council giveth, is falsely given, and is a matter of faith, which we may not receive: for every false faith is an addition to the divine revelation. If you ask, whether he agreeth with the Church of England, or not: He will answer, he doth agree with it, and doth affirm so much in effect, Gag, page 318. 319. but it is a mere pretence without show of truth: he can allege no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England, which appointeth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set up in Churches, or that any kind of honour should be done unto them, being set up there: or, which assigneth unto them any use in religion: much less, that they should be helps of piety, etc. The case being such, it was a face without a face, that said, we and Protestants do them all, Gag, 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 prove it thus; The Doctrine concluded and urged in the Homilies, is the Doctrine of the Church of England. For, The Book itself, and the use thereof, is established by public authority, and the subscription of all Ministers, Artic. 35. But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and urged in the Homilies. Therefore he doth contradict, etc. The assumption or second part, will be apparent to him, that readeth the words on both sides, set down in the former Chapter. It saith, Idol and Image is the same thing: and allegeth the use of Scripture for it. He saith, Image and Idol may be two things, that is, are not one; It saith, Images may not be brought into Churches, and that being there, they be unlawful, and intolerable: He saith, they may be brought into Churches, they are not unlawful, 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 employed in religion, for helps of piety, the instruction of the ignorant, and the stirring up of devotion, etc. for these are more than that, because Images in Churches may be for ornament, or for no use. The Homily doth deny the placing of Images in Churches, therefore it must also deny them to be helps unto piety, etc. now he teacheth contradictory to this, in making Images helps unto piety: therefore he doth contradict that which followeth upon the words of the Homily, by necessary consequence. Let us see how he will avoid this objection, and for that end, thus he saith, Appeal, page 260. I admit the Homilies to contain godly exhortations: but not as the public dogmatic resolutions of our Church, or Doctrine to be propugned and subscribed in all and every point. I answer; in the 12. Chapter, nᵒ 8. he extolled the Doctrine of the Homily, as an authentical record of the Doctrine of the Church of England. In this place he denies them to contain the dogmatic resolutions of our Church, (so constant is he, and so settled in his judgement.) Let us take what he will admit; which we find to be three things: first, they are exhortations; secondly, godly; thirdly, To be propugned and subscribed in some things. I require no more: Exhortations they are, (that is) matters of manners, all of them are not matters of faith, and therefore they do not all contain resolutions of faith: but some of them be matters of manners. He grants them to be godly, therefore true, for falsehood cannot tend to godliness. They are subscribed, in some things, therefore in this that I have alleged; because it is not a rhetorical enforcement, nor a Tropical kind of speech, but the conclusion enforced; which is set down in words that have no other sense but as they lie, without interpretation. This is enough to prove my proposition, and thus I dispute from it. Every exhortation propounded, enforced, esteemed godly, commanded to be subscribed unto by our Church, is the Doctrine of our Church. But the Doctrine of the Homily alleged, cap. 15, is an exhortation propounded, enforced, etc. by our Church. Therefore the Doctrine of the Homily alleged, cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of England. Thus he confirmeth the objection which he is desirous to thrust off: The sight of truth may be hindered, but the being of truth cannot be defeated: he that attempteth to conceal it, in the event makes it more apparent. Now we come to see what truth there is in his Doctrine touching Images: but I find no proof for that. It may be he expecteth arguments to prove, that Images in Churches are unlawful: and that no honour is to be given unto them, but that should be unorderly: for he that will have us believe that we are bound to give honour to Images by the divine revelation, aught to show us record for it: and me thinks it had been comely for him to have borrowed proofs from Bellarmine, de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9 10. and 11. 12. As well as he fetched positions from the Council of Trent. To answer Bellarmine, is but labour lost: for I know not how fare he will join with him in his proofs, and it would be too tedious; for he brings much more than will sort with this occasion, and present business. Let Mr Mountagu urge what he liketh best, and he shall have answer: till then, I rest satisfied with the Homily, that disputeth thus against Images in Churches; 1 If the worshipping of Images do always befall Images set up in Churches, than it is unlawful to set up Images in Churches. But the first is true, perpetual experience doth show it: and the affinity that is between man's corruption, and the worshipping of Images doth procure it, pag. 128. Therefore the last is true also. 2 That thing which is used in order unto supernatural actions, and is not warrantd in the divine revelation for that end, is unlawful. But Images in Churches are so used, and are not warranted etc. pag. 88 Therefore Images in Churches be unlawful. Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetorical enforcements, and no Doctrine of the Church of England; I will save him that labour. I do allege those arguments for the truth that is in them; not for the authority that doth commend them. Let him show wherein they be untrue, or confess they are true, and it sufficeth. But he is not able to show this, and therefore we may safely conclude; this man was strangely transported, when he wrote on this manner, & in these words; If the Church of Rome had given no more to Images but an historical use, our Church would not have departed from them about that point (as I suppose) for so our doctrine is, Appeal, p. 251. Our strictest writers do not condemn it, p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed, but they are singular illuminates, let them gang alone. I answer; what the doctrine of our Church is, in this point of Images, I have declared in the foregoing Chapter. If you can bring any record, for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England, that putteth upon Images this historical use, namely of suggesting unto, moving, or affecting the mind, even in pious, and religious affections, which you father upon it, p. 253. you may do well to bring it forth, that, the world may see it. But because you cannot, I must entreat you to take the words of Bishop jewel unto Harding in the defence of his Apology, p. 350 without offence; which are as followeth, Leave, leave this hypocrisy, dissemble no more, it is not manly: your credit faileth overmuch, your word is no sufficient warrant. If you will fall into your wont fury, it is the Bishop that must bear it; They are his words not mine and uttered upon the like occasion that you offer here. I could add a farther refutation, and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of England, by the testimony of Bishop jewel; but I defer it unto the next passage, where the reader shall find it. He wanted proofs for his doctrine of Images: but he will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof, and negation of the contrary: For thus he writeth: There is no Popery in the historical use of Images, Appeal, pag. 252. I answer; There is Popery in it: for it is the faith of the Church of Rome, as I have showed in the chapter going before: and it is contrary to the word of God, as I will show anon; both which are sufficient to make it Popery, even in your own judgement: for thus you writ, Popery is contrary to the word of God, Appeal. p. 310. But he doth deny that this use of Images is contrary the word of God: for thus he writeth, 1 The historical use of Images, is true doctrine in itself, Appeal, p. 251. 2 That Images may be made, for ornament, memory, history, no law of God forbiddeth, Appeal, p. 265. I answer; Bishop jewel is a witness so competent, to show us what is true, or not true; what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case, that I shall need to produce none but him. Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article, p. 378. etc. 1 The first end of Images is, the attaining of knowledge, although perhaps somewhat may be learned by them; yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attain knowledge. Saint Paul saith, faith cometh by hearing, not by gazing. This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people, for where greatest store of such Schoolmasters be, there the people are most ignorant, superstitious, and subject to Idolatry. 2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently move the mind, but every thing that may move the mind, is not meet for the Church of God. God's house is a house of prayer, not of gazing. Whoever adoreth, or maketh his prayer beholding an Image, is so moved in his mind, that he thinketh the Image heareth him, and hopeth it will perform his prayer. Alleged out of S. Augustin, p. 318. 3 Touching remembrance it is like the first, and therefore is already answered. Thus fare the reverend Bishop. If old learning can satisfy this illumination, the Bishop must gang alone. If it cannot, old learning shall have a writ of dotage. The Bishop shall have the Church of England that furious one, and all her children to bear him company. The Homily concludeth p. 132. That Images ought to be abolished: so doth the Bishop p. 383. But Master Mountagu will none of that, Appeal, p. 255. The reason which our Church and the Bishop doth allege is this, viz. because they are the cause of much evil, M. Mountagu saith no; they are sometimes profitable, Gag. p. 318. But I will follow the Church of England, and the Bishop: let him gang alone for me. By these arguments of our Church, propounded, and defended against his exceptions, it doth evidently appear, that Images in Churches, and employed (as he appointed) are unlawful; and from thence may necessarily be inferred against the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu; that, Honour is not due to Images. If he doth not rest content with this proof, it stands him upon to show us the divine law, which inioyneth man, to give honour to Images: forasmuch as, without such a law, the honouring of them, is an humane invention, & a service done unto God, which he rejecteth as odious and abominable: and consequently the faith decreed by the Church of Rome, and received by M. Mountagu, touching the having, employing, and honouring of Images, is erroneous. CHAP. XVII. Of works of supererogation. M. Mountagu. The Church of England. A man may do, with the assistance of God's grace, things as counselled only, and not commanded. Voluntary works, besides over, and above God● commandments, 1, are works of supererogation. 2. Can●●t be taught, without pride, arrogancy, and impiety. A man, in some one point, may do more than is exacted. A man may do more than he needed to have done out of strict command, Gag. p. 104. A man may do more than he is tied unto by any law of God, Gag, pag. 105. CHAP. XVIII. The former point of works of supererogation, is disputed. ACcording to our former course, three questions are to be handled. 1 Whether there be any such works or no. 2 Whether in affirming of them, he consent with the Church of Rome, or not. 3 Whether he descent from the Church of England therein or no. In this Chapter, I have brought no Doctrine, under the name of the Church of Rome, because hitherto I have followed the Council of Trent, which hath decreed nothing in this point. Therefore the faith of that Church in this point, is to be taken out of the Doctrine commonly received amongst them touching it, and because there is no Author amongst them fit to report what that is, than Bellarmine: I will set down what he saith of it, it is this; Holy men may do such things for God's sake, which they are not bound to do; and these are works of supererogation, de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 4. Respondeo non, etc. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. 9 13. The G●gger hath the same thing reported by Mr. Mountagu in his Gag, page 104. in the margin, in these words, Man by assistance of God's grace, may do some things counselled: and these we call work of supererogation. That he doth consent unto this Doctrine of the Church of Rome, he professeth plainly, and fully. Thus he writeth: I willingly subscribe unto the point of counsels Evangelicall, Gag, page 103. and further he saith, of the definition of works of supererogation, which I have reported out of him, nᵒ 1. given by his adversary the Gagger. If these were your works of supererogation and no otherwise, I would not contend with you, page 104. He doth agree with them likewise in explicating and setting down the nature of a Council evangelical, (as he calls it.) Bellarmine saith thus of it: It is a good work showed; not commanded: it differeth from a Precept in this, a Precept bindeth of its own force, a Council is committed to man's free choice; when a precept is observed, it hath the reward; being not observed, it hath punishment: but if a Council be not observed, it hath no punishment; if it be observed, it hath the greater reward, de Monachis, lib. 2. cap. 7. Just on this manner writeth he; Imperious laws, require exact obedience upon pain of punishment, Appeal, page 219. A Council is a mandat, not properly▪ but with condition, left unto a man's choice to do it, or not to do it, page 221. lastly, he saith, the obedience to Counsels, procureth reward to him that obeyeth them, Gag, page 105. and he that keepeth them not, is without danger of punishment therefore, Gag, page 103. A man would think by this, that he would not stick to confess that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of works of supererogation: but indeed he doth deny it: for thus he writeth, You call works of supererogation, such as be laid up in store for employments, the treasure and stock of the Church, to satisfy for other men's offences, not the things done as counselled, only: these are only titular, those are indeed works of supererogation which you mean, but these I deny, Gag, page 103. etc. I answer; this excuse is headless, what hand ruled his pen when he wrote thus, passeth my skill to judge: he doth hear the Church of Rome with one consent to affirm, voluntary works are works of supererogation: and the Church of England saith the same expressly, and in so many words: and yet (forsooth) he will needs bear them both down, they give voluntary works the name only of works of supererogation; but they meant it not. But I pray who told him so? he nameth no Author for it, nor can name, (I am sure.) Well, he had it by special illumination, and therefore he might know their meaning without them, and you must believe him, for such knowledge is certain, and cannot deceive you. Be it so: he doth disagree in the name: but that will not infer his disagreement in the thing. He hath confessed his subscription to Evangelicall Counsels, (that is) to voluntary works, as I have showed in the former Chapter, and that is all which is sought after: now we find his agreement with them in the thing: let him give what name he will unto voluntary works. But he saith, It is an error in Divinity, not to put a difference betwixt such works as a man may do, or not do without guilt of sin, or breach of law; and the Papists works of supererogation. If any man not knowing, or not considering the state of the question, hath otherwise Written, or Preached, or Taught, it was his ignorance, or fancy, or misunderstanding, or misapplying; Appeal, page 215. I answer; in stead of proofs, we have evil language: I will scum off the froth, and examine what he saith in good sober sadness. This is the sum of his sentence. He that saith voluntary works (in the judgement of the Church of Rome) be works of supererogation, is ignorant or fantastical. Unto which proposition I may add this assumption and conclusion. But the Church of England saith, the Church of Rome calls voluntary works, works of supererogation, Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome, as I have showed out of Bellarmine, nᵒ 1. Therefore the Church of England, and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantastical. 2 O Mr Mountagu, who do you make yourself to be? do you know the faith of Rome better than your Mother? nay, better than yourself? you subscribed that Article, and thereby professed those words of her to be true; is the other end of your tongue turned outwards, that you now unsay what you said then? did you then know, and now are ignorant? But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and yourself; do you think to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fools, that understand not their own faith? but you would be thought fare from this: therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts. 3 The proposition doth suppose, that, Works laid up in store, to satisfy for other men's offences, called the treasure of the Church, are the Papists works of supererogation. And so he speaketh expressly, Gag, page 103. 105. 106. 〈◊〉 this is a mere presumption without truth; avouched barely upon his own word without tendering any proof. You must prove what you say, or else you bring words of the wind. Against you I prove thus; 1 That which is laid up in store to satisfy for others, is not works, but the value and price of works, viz. satisfaction, Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Propos. 4 Propos. cap. 3. 1 Propos. Therefore that which is laid up in store to satisfy for others, cannot be their works of supererogation. But let us suppose that the voluntary works themselves be so laid up, yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation, and thus I show it: If voluntary works, laid up 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 from them is also laid up in the treasury of the Church, to satisfy for other, as Bellarmine teacheth the Indulg. lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo, non est. But that works done according to the Moral 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 believe him) The Church of England Hath no doctrine against Evangelicall counsels, Gag. page 103. For now voluntary works and evangelical counsels are the same, as we have heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis. lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad etc. and as himself doth expound it, out of Philastrius, and Nazianzen, Gag. p. 10. But this imputation is an untruth so ●oule, that it deserveth no other answer, but his own words: Blush for shame, Gag. p. 250. For the Church of England saith expressly, Voluntary works, beside, over and above God's commandments, cannot be taught. Arti. 14. And further it saith, Man cannot, for God's sake, do more than of bounden duty is required, which is as much as if it had said, There be no voluntary works at all. But it may be, he will say, ye do him wrong, he speaketh not absolutely: but so fare as he knoweth; I answer, Those are his words indeed: but mark the sense, those words seem to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his denial: for is it credible that he could not read this Article? Or that he did not know, 1. That the Church of England had made this Article. 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those works indeed which it doth deny in words? Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England? Surely none of these may be conceived. Therefore we may conclude (as a thing very probable) that his intent was to avouch that denial, upon his own knowledge. Now the judgement of our Church, and of Master Mountagu, in the point of voluntary works, is fully known; & that they are contradictory; it may be concluded, he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary works. But before I pass from it, one thing is worthy observation. viz. Mr. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories. He subscribed the Article that saith, there is no voluntary works, and he subscribed that there is voluntary works, Gag. p. 103. etc. Can any man tell what this man would do to be Chief mufti? I doubt himself cannot. But pardon him: his ends were contrary; He must subscribe the Article, or miss advancement. He must subscribe the other, or be no reconciler. He meant to attain both; He hath gotten the first, & he professeth himself for the second, Appeal pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his books: 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 do voluntary works. Wherein I might first prove the negative: but it seemeth better; to resolve with M. Mountagu, Appeal, pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seek, or go about to beetle it into his brains, because he saith, Appeal pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion, there are Evangelicall counsels. And he resolveth Appeal, pag. 224. to join in opinion with them. And he gives this reason for it, Appeal, p. 240. I am tied not to preach or publish otherwise (according to the Cannons prescribed unto Ministers in such cases, Anno 1571.) Knowing it to be the resolved doctrine of antiquity as I do. I am not excusable if I transgress the Cannons. But notwithstanding; because he may change his mind, therefore I will proceed and prove, There be no voluntary works. My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleged nᵒ 6. etc. Whose authority only ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu; because he hath subscribed those words of the Article as true, and hath vowed to forsake all others, and follow his mother the Church of England, Appeal, pag. 183. And the rather, because those words do so plainly and fully deny voluntary works. My second argument shall be the same which I find in the Article on this sort to be framed; Whosoever teacheth voluntary works, they be proud, arrogant, and impious. For saith the Article, Voluntary works cannot be taught, without pride, arrogancy, and impiety. But no man may be proud, arrogant, and impious. Therefore voluntary works may not be taught. It may be objected, that the first part of this reason is extended too far; because it reacheth unto antiquity. And also it doth pass too hard a sentence upon such as teach voluntary works. I answer, both parts of this objection be false: and the respect we own, unto the first composers, and confirmers of that Article, doth bind us to think so: for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu, and govern their passions, better than he can govern his. Besides, the thing itself doth say no less. Never any Father taught the popish voluntary works. If M. Mountagu will say the contrary. He must show those fathers, that teach of voluntary works, as Bellarmine doth, de Monachis. lib. 2. cap. 7. and 8. which he is never able to do. Against the second part of the objection, the Article disputeth thus, They that teach, that, men render unto God, so much as they are bound, and more also, they are arrogant and impious: For, They take upon them more than is true, against the word of God, which saith, when you have done all that are commanded to you, say, we be unprofitable servants, Luke 17. 10. But they that teach voluntary works, teach that men do render unto God, so much as they are bound, and more also. And so doth Bellarmine expressly teach, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6, Secundo Comparando, and cap. 12. at the very end thereof, and in many other places. Therefore they that teach voluntary works, are arrogant and impious. If Mr. Mountagu can satisfy the premises of this argument, he may avoid the conclusion: but I despair of that: for he must join with Bellarmine in the assumption, because he that keeps not the law, cannot do voluntary works, which is more than a man is bound too: seeing those proceed from a common, enjoined, and limited perfection of love: As we learn from Bellarmine, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6. Tertio Comparando: and Mr Mountagu himself teacheth no less, when he saith, obedience to Counsels proceeds from grace, therefore of love. He saith, they are left to a man's choice, therefore his love is voluntary, and unlimited. He saith also, these works are worthy of more praise: therefore they proceed out of a higher degree and perfection of love, Gag, page 103. And that the doer of these works, doth keep the law, the thing itself doth testify: for he that is able to do works of greater perfection, must needs be able to do works of less: seeing the less is comprehended in the greater: beside, he that cometh short of keeping the Law, how can he go beyond the Law, in loving God, by doing works left unto his choice? If any man will say, he may do these voluntary works, and yet come short of doing the works of the Law, as Mr. Mountagu doth, Gag, page 104. he must show me the man that did so, and the actions wherein they did so, and prove it sufficiently, else I must believe our Church, Artic. 14. and the things themselves that say the contrary. He cannot avoid the proposition: for Bellarmine cannot, though he hath done his best for that purpose, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. Respondeo Petrum, etc. as he that readeth it may see: and I will show. Bellarmine answereth to this argument, thus, The Lord doth not say, Luke 17. and 10. you are unprofitable. But willeth them to say, we are unprofitable servants. For, It is his will that we should be humble, and not boast of our merits. Himself saith afterwards, Thou good servant and faithful. But he calls him only, unprofitable, that disobeyeth the Law, and is cast into utter darkness, Mat. 25. 26. & 30. verses. I reply; this answer, (as it lieth) is nothing to the purpose, it doth not gainsay any part of the argument: yet I will bring the particulars, and see how they may be applied to the purpose, He saith, Our Lord bid them say they were unprofitable: himself did not say so. I grant this; neither does the argument say otherwise. It may be he would infer from hence; Therefore they say, they are unprofitable servants; but are not. If this conclusion were true, the answer would be sufficient, and the argument of no force: but this part of his answer cannot infer this conclusion: for then, our Lord should teach him to lie, which Bellarmine dareth not affirm: yea from thence it may be truly inferred, that they were indeed unprofitable servants: but Christ is the teacher of truth, and in bidding them say they were unprofitable, it is as much as if he had said himself, they were indeed unprofitable: for he would not put any sentence into man's mouth, which himself would not affirm: these things I take as granted, and offer no proof for them. He saith; 2 It is his will we should be humble, and not boasters. I grant this also, neither doth the argument say the contrary. It may be he brings this to prove, That, The foresaid confession was not according to truth. But it doth not prove it: for humility and false speaking do not go together. It doth rather infer the contrary; he would have us humble, therefore he would have us speak the truth; for both of them are virtues proceeding from the spirit of truth; and there is no greater sign of humility, then when men confess their failings truly: He saith further; 3 They that so confess, are called good servants and faithful. Let this be granted also, and it will agree well with every part of the argument. I suppose his intent is to say, Therefore they that did thus confess, were indeed profitable servants. But this doth not follow from that; for our Saviour might call them good, though they failed in some things, wherein they were unprofitable servants; and yet speak according to truth: for his servants are accepted of him, to all purposes of love, no less effectually, then if they were absolutely good and unprofitable in nothing. Again, he blotteth out their failings, (whereby they are unprofitable) out of his Book, whereof it is, that they are not imputed unto them, and they stand before God, as if they had never failed: Lastly, such do enjoy the habit of grace, and bring forth the fruits thereof: by which they are truly good, and from whence they may truly have the name of good, and faithful servants. He saith fourthly, They only that disobey the Law, and are cast into utter darkness, are called unprofitable servants. This sentence, hath not to do with the argument any more than the former; and it is false in itself. Others also that do not so disobey the law, as that they are therefore cast into hell, may be called unprofitable servants, which I prove by this argument, The Saints are truly called unprofitable servants, because every breaker of the Law, may truly be called an unprofitable servant. But the Saints do so break the Law, that they are not therefore cast into condemnation. Therefore some that do so break the Law, that they are not therefore cast into condemnation, are called unprofitable servants. That the Saints do break the Law, is clear, by 1 joh. 1. 8. 10. and that therefore they are not cast into condemnation, it is as certain by Rom. 8. 1. But these two, i e. the sanctified and unsanctified, are called unprofitable servants in a different sense. They that go to hell, have that name totally, universally, and finally; they never have the name of good servants: for they are totally and finally unprofitable servants, as the place now alleged, Mat. 25. 26. & 30. verses showeth, which saith, that the unprofitable servant gained nothing by his talon; and that by his own choice and resolution. The other that go not to hell, hath both: they are unprofitable for a time: they are profitable finally, or for ever. They are called unprofitable in some respect, viz. In respect of their failings, and as they are in themselves; but they are called good and faithful, totally, finally, and universally, by means of their grace, of the not-imputing of their failings, and of God's favour, wherein they are made good, by the receiving of all supernatural good things. By this, (I hope) it doth appear, the argument which our Church useth against voluntary works, is strong and sufficient against the pretences of Bellarmine. I come now to defend this Doctrine of the Church of England, by answering such arguments as I find brought by Mr. Mountagu, against it. Bellarmine de Monachis, lib. 2. cap. 8. at the end saith; Evangelicall Counsels be chief of continency, obedience, and poverty. Mr. Mountagu in his Gag, page 103. doth instance them in virginity and wilful poverty; Bellarmine allegeth Mat. 29. and 21. 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. to prove that these be Evangelicall Counsels, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 9 arg. 5. and 7. Mr. Mountagu reporteth the same places, Gag, page 105. and granteth, that they speak of Evangelicall Counsels; by which he disputeth in this sort; Wilful poverty, Mar. 19 and 21. single life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. may be done. Wilful poverty, Mat. 19 and 21. single life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. be voluntary works. Therefore some voluntary works may be done. I answer; the first part of this argument is false; the places alleged do not show, or commend wilful poverty, and virginity unto all men. Those places belong only to particular persons and times. In Matth. our Saviour speaketh unto the young man, that would know what he should do to come to heaven: The Apostle in his Epistle to the Corinth's, directeth his answer to such as doubted, what to do in case of marriage; and we do not find in the word of God, that these answers are extended any further, and many things in the places themselves do restrain them only to those persons and times. The second part of the Argument is also false. A voluntary work; first, is good; secondly, more than the Law requires; thirdly, grateful or acceptable to God; fourthly, a means leading to eternal life; fifthly, left unto a man's choice, not strictly commanded to be done or not done; as we learn by Bellarmine in the place alleged, and Mr. Mountagu, Gag, page 104. 105. and 106. But this selling, Mat. 19 and abstaining, 1 Cor. 7. have not these properties. Therefore they are not voluntary works. That they are not means leading unto heaven, will easily be granted, by every man, that hath any experience in the word of God, or the work of grace: for there is no promise of heaven made to a man, upon condition of hispoverty, or virginity, rather than to him that is rich and married. If any man thinks otherwise, let him show that promise in some other place of Scripture; I say in some other place of Scripture, because it is usual with the holy Ghost, to repeat, illustrate, & urge the means of salvation, and the connexion of heaven thereunto, in more places than one. If that cannot be found (as without doubt it cannot) than it must be showed, that, these places alleged do contain it expressly, and without doubtfulness: for the holy Ghost would not content himself to show us a means of salvation, by obscure and doubtful terms. Bellarmine affirmeth, that wilful poverty, and virginity in the places alleged be means of everlasting life, and Mr Mountagu joins with him in it. Gag. p. 105. and 106. Bellarmine proves the first is to be a means of life, because our Saviour saith to the young man, thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And M. Mountagu confirms it with the same words. Gag. p. 105. I answer unto them both, our Saviour made not this promise, unto his selling; but to his coming unto, and following of Christ. I prove it, because, this promise is annexed immediately unto his coming, and his coming importeth a denial of himself, and taking up his cross: which is, an obedience due unto God necessarily, as Bellarmine confesseth in that 9 chapter alleged, Septimum etc. respondeo haec, etc. and also because that denial, etc. is assigned as a means of salvation, & urged as a necessary duty in many places of Scripture. But the Scripture hath not any such word of wilful poverty. Again, when the Disciples in the chapter alleged; verse 27. pleaded that they had forsaken all, and followed him, & demanded what they should have, he promised them everlasting life; and assigneth only their following of him, as the means thereof, but hath not a word of their leaving of all, ver. 28. Bellarmine bringeth proof in that 9 chapter, alleged, I am vero, etc. that virginity is a means of salvation: and that both the places of Scripture alleged in the argument, do speak unto all the faithful. At contra, etc. But I pass them over with silence, because M. Mountagu hath not a word of them, and the proofs themselves are so slight & childish, that to set them in form, and to answer them, would be loss of my labour, & a burden to the reader. Thus I conclude my answer to the argument: because M. Mountagu hath brought nothing in confirmation thereof more, than I have satisfied. Bellarmine hath other arguments to prove voluntary works; but they are not worthy answer: because M. Mountagu doth omit them, and these two places of Scripture, are the chief and principal. And with this I might end this whole point, but, that, he is importunate, Appeal, p. 22 1. with one argument, whereby he is sure to make you confess, that, a man may do voluntary works, these are his words, If you will needs deny Evangelicall counsels, you will be foundworse by fare than Papists. I answer; Show us wherein we should be worse than Papists, & then you say some thing that may perhaps bring us to your bow. If that will serve turn, he will not stick with you. Herein, he saith you are worse, in that, You are convicted in your consciences willingly to break those words of our Saviour; Go sell all that thou hast and give it to the poor, which you are persuaded is a precept. I answer; I let pass by▪ quarrels, and come to the matter. By precept you mean a precept to us, else you cannot charge us to break it, that do not so sell. That being observed, you charge us falsely. Show us the man that hath said, that those words of our Saviour are a commandment unto us. Bellarmine de Monachis. lib. 2. cap. 9 will show you two men, that denies it, viz. Caluin and Martyr, he bringeth them both saying, these words were spoken only to the young man. And he that readeth his Confirmation of his 5 argument shall find it so. If you will prove the doing of voluntary works by our own confession, you must bring us things true, and not falsehood against the light of the Sun. Yet so joyous, confident, and jocund is he in this argument, as if all were his own, as if he had spoken nothing but what was as true as Gospel; therefore he proceedeth on this wise: If you do not sell all that you have and give it to the poor, you must give me leave to think you dissemble. If you demand of him wherein that dissimulation should lie, he is not to seek for answer; thus he doth show it you; You would persuade men of a case of necessity, that yourselves may feed fat upon their folly. I answer, when I read this passage, I could not but stand amazed, and my heart within me became cold, to see the liberty that an angry mind, and an evil tongue will take; but staying my s●lfe a while, at last I remembered him that said, I will lay my hand upon my mouth, and him that was a lamb dumb before the shearer, that opened not his mouth. That endured such speaking against of sinners. This gave me satisfaction for the injury of this evil sentence: touching the Author whereof, I say no more but this, Lord forgive him for he knoweth not what he doth, and so I might put an end to this whole point: But, stay: he must talk a few cold words with you, before you part, and these be they; He that said a man may do more than he is commanded, was no Papist, they that say it is Popery, are men of poor capacity, not apprehending what is popery, what is not; they misdeem, mistake, misname popery, Appeal, p. 217. & 218. I answer; this suiteth well with the last passage: both of th●m together do witness (without exception) that Mr Mountagu is a careful observer of Counsels, for these sentences be unmeasurable railings: and I am sure they were never commanded, and I presume never counselled by God. He must show us then, who gave him a law for them, or whose Counsels they are. By Popery he must mean the erroneous faith of Rome. That being so▪ his bitterness is joined with falsehood, (a sweet Garden that yields such flowers.) That it is▪ he faith of Rome is already agreed on. That it is erroneous, hath been hitherto inquired of in this question. It was your duty to have showed us your voluntary works in the Scripture: but you have not▪ therefore we must resolve, you cannot; If they be not there, you must confess, they be erroneous. Therefore the understanding and capacity of them that deny them, was rich enough to find out your Popery: and give the right name to it. I could give him that urgeth Popish voluntary works, such titles as he doth justly deserve, and which might equal those which he (unjustly) gives, to such as refuse them: but I leave them as fittest for his eloquence: and such Revilers to the dispose of him, that hath pronounced a woe unto such as are strong to do evil. CHAP. XIX. Of Predestination. Master Mountagu. The Church of England. I conceive of God's act, or decree, of Predestination after this sort Appeal, p. 61. to 65. 1 God decreed to create man. 2 He created man good. 3 Man fell from that good. 4 By that fall he was plunged into Perdition. 5 God saw him and had compassion of him. 6 He stretched out deliverance to them in a Mediator. 7 Drew them out which took hold of Mercy; this I must profess. Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed, by his Council secret to us, to deliver from curse, and damnation, those whom he hath chosen, in CHRIST, out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ, to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. CHAP. XX. The point of Predestination is debated. THis Chapter examineth two questions only. 1 Whether his doctrine of Predestination be true or not? 2 Whether he consenteth in it, with the Church of England, etc. We omit to inquire, whether he consenteth with the Church of Rome or not: because the Counsel of Trent hath decreed nothing (that I can find) touching the nature of Predestination; and the most common opinion of their Schools dissenteth not from the Church of England: Some do descent, as Occam, and others with him in former times. And in latter times Gabriel Vasquez, and some others with him; but the difference, is rather in Position, and manner of speaking; then really, and in the thing. The disputation in this Chapter is restrained unto the second only: for of this point, he saith, Appeal, page 61. Take it as I conceive it, and so shall profess it, until I am informed and ascertained, that the Church of England teacheth all otherwise then I conceive of it. This showeth you lose but labour, when you attempt to draw him from his opinion by any arguments taken from Scripture, or man's writings; bring him the Church of England, and it sufficeth; if you bring not that, he is still where he was. The doctrine of the Church of England is not concealed from him, nor is the sense obscure; he needeth not dig deppe to find it, there is none worse than he that will not understand. Before I can show what the Church of England teacheth, and how he dissenteth therefrom; I must take a view, and have a clear understanding of the things delivered by him. In which there is seven distinct branches, as the reader may see, in the former Chapter: The seventh branch, hath these words: He drew them out which took hold of mercy. This branch doth appertain to Predestination, for it concerneth man's ordering unto his last end, and perfection. The other six, belong not thereto; for they speak of man's being, and the causes thereof, and things pertaining thereto. They have not a word of ordering man, to any end. If this seventh branch be framed according to Art, it will stand thus; Predestination to life, is an act or decree of God's will, whereby he purposed to draw them out of the state of perdition, which took hold of mercy. In this frame, we have the thing defined, and that whereby it is defined; I restrain the question unto Predestination to life, because our Church doth so: Artic. 17. and the Scriptures are more frequent in that; and no marvel why, because the Scriptures were written for the direction, and consolation of them that shall go to heaven, I have framed it altogether by his own direction: the question of Predestination is put so by himself, as I will now show. Appeal, page 38. he calleth it an act or decree of God, which must needs be an act of his will: and so he termeth it, Appeal, page 61. This act is immanent, not transient; for he saith in the same place, he conceives it, setting by, all execution of purpose: and again he saith in the same place, he that is actually Saved, is so saved, according to the purpose of his decree. So saved, are So ordained by God, Gag, page 177. He saith further, Gods will is the cause of things, either positively by disposing them, or by permission, &c, Gag, page 177. He doth take this act of Gods will, to be a positive, not a permissive disposing: for he saith, whatsoever was done in time, was So disposed of, and ordered before all time, Gag, page 178. The word Them, imports, that man is the subject of Predestination; a certain number of men, not generally all; and so he speaketh, Appeal, page 51. The words out of, etc. 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 observed by God, toward the Predestinate, and related in the former Chapter, do expressly show; which also he hath, Appeal, page 52. fully and plainly. These words which took hold of mercy, do signify, that in God's foreknowledge, the Predestinate do finally believe and repent, etc. before they are predestinated, or before the will of Predestination is termined unto them: and that this faith & repentance, etc. is the obiective reason, moving, and regulating the divine will of Predestination, unto the party predestinated; so as if you ask 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 he took hold of God's mercy in the means of salvation offered, by believing and repenting; and this I take from himself: where he saith, He that is actually saved, is So saved, according to the purpose of Gods decree consequent, not antecedent, Gag, p. 177. And again, he saith; men are not saved without relation to their repentance, Appeal, page 74. which thing is most fully declared, Appeal, page 58. where he blameth this sentence: Gods decree to glorify Peter, was without any consideration had of, or regard unto his faith, obedience, repentance: which sentence for substance he setteth down, and rejecteth, Gag, page 179. And Appeal, page 74. he saith, without final persevering, they are none of Gods elect. Where he saith, he drew them out, etc. he placeth the whole term or end of predestination in giving eternal life. This thing he implieth also, Appeal, page 78. where he saith, It is your own, God appointed to give grace and glory; as if he should say, this sentence is proper to you; I disclaim it. If man hath grace before he be predestinate, than grace is not the term or end of Predestination: he affirms the first, so must he do the last. Thus we have his sentence of Predestination, and the sense thereof: now we must compare the Doctrine of the Church of England with it; that, thereby we may see, whether our Church hath opposed the contrary thereto or not, which he affirmeth it doth, Gag, page 179. I will set down again the Doctrine of the Church of England in an orderly form, for the better understanding thereof: It is this, 1 Predestination is God's decree, Eternal. Constant. By his Council secret to us. 2 To Bring to salvation by Christ. Deliver 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 tie the following part of the sentence, unto that which went before. GOD'S DECREE; These words signify that thing which Predestination hath in common with other actions of God's will, called the general nature: it doth express also, the principal efficient; namely, GOD, and an act of his will. ETERNAL; This doth set out, what kind of act Predestination is, (to wit) such an act as is essential unto God: yea, it is of his essence, for nothing is eternal, but the being of God. This act of his will doth remain in God, & is usually called an immanent act, for it passeth not out of God, working a real change in the creature, which is the property of a transient act. We conceive 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 believing is an act which proceedeth from the faculty which the soul hath to believe. But Predestination is an eliciated act (in our apprehension only:) 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, unto the creature, is rational, not real: God is a being of himself, without respect unto any created effect. CONSTANT, This importeth the certain event and infallible performance of the thing decreed by Predestination; so as he to whom God hath appointed grace and glory, shall not fail of either of them, but enjoy them both without missing: And that this is the true intent of our Church, it is very plain: because it doth not call the decree itself, or God in decreeing, Constant. For that it hath already declared in the word Eternal, which signifies a duration without beginning or ending; which doth so fully and plainly express, the constancy of God in decreeing, that the word Constant cannot add any thing thereunto. BY HIS COUNSELL. By these words, our Church showeth; 1. that God's understanding is joined with his will, in this act of Predestination; for counsel is an act proper to the understanding: 2. This act of the understanding (to speak according to humane capacity) is to judge the act of Predestination to be good, and to persuade thereunto, by the allegation of reason: for so we conceive the understanding to direct the will; and, this is the nature, or condition of Council; he that counselleth doth thus. SECRET TO US, By secret is meant unrevealed; the judgement then of our Church, set down in this sentence, may be expressed in these words. The reason, that moved God to predestinate this, or that person, is unknown to us. TO BRING TO SALVATION; These words, do set forth the special, and proper nature, and formal being of Predestination: by which it is distinguished from all other actions of God; and they import the term or end of Predestination, or the thing appointed to be given by this decree of God; which consisteth in happiness or glory after this life; signified by the word salvation: and grace in this life, by the words, bring unto, by Christ. For God doth not bring man to salvation, but by means, and that means can be nothing but grace: for can it be conceived, how our coming to salvation can be attributed to God as his work, but by reason that he doth give grace? Lastly, it cannot be conceived, how God should bring to salvation by Christ, but, by giving of grace: seeing none come to salvation by Christ, but such, as are members of Christ; and none are members of Christ, but by the means of grace. And that it was the meaning of our Church, to make final grace one thing appointed by Predestination to be given unto 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 upon man in the event, for thus it saith, Wherefore they which be endued with this excellent benefit, viz. of Predestination, be called, according to God's purpose, by his Spirit, they through grace, obey the calling, and at length by God's mercy, they attain to salvation. BY CHRIST; Hereby our Church, doth set forth the means (appointed by Predestination,) whereby in course of time man shall enjoy the thing appointed by Predestination, and that is jesus Christ, under whose name, all other subordinate means are fitly comprehended: and that our Church meant so, need not be doubted; because it addeth other means of grace, and salvation, (besides Christ,) in the doctrine of the Article following. TO DELIVER FROM DAMNATIOM. By this the nature of Predestination formerly delivered, is set out or made more plain unto us; for this being contrary unto that, doth make it the more manifest unto our understandings; and the Scripture taketh the same course also, as in many other places, so in these: He that believeth is passed from death unto 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 understood the possibility of being in the state of damnation, prevented 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 OUT OF MANKIND. The subject, or parties predestinated, are here said to be man, but not all men universally; it restraineth the same unto some of mankind, by saying that they are elected once: and elected out of mankind. 2. The subject that receiveth Predestination, is described by two things. The one by the name, and under the title of man merely, without any addition; whereby is signified that man conceived in himself only, as an intellectual creature without grace or works of grace, is objected unto, and set before the divine will of Predestination, and in that notion only he receiveth the same. Our Church doth not say, that God waited till man had grace, and then, and upon the intuition thereof, he was moved to, and did predestinate him. That this may be the sense of our Church is clear: because it is a course agreeable and decent unto the divine providence, and man himself: and that this must be meant by our Church, is certain also, for no other sense can be made thereof agreeable to these words, and those words that went before, which say, the reason moving God to predestinate, is secret to us: 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 give us to understand, that the reason why this or that man is predestinate, ariseth from God's will and pleasure, of which it is, that the predestinate are singled out, and severed from the rest of mankind. IN CHRIST. Our Church referreth these words unto the word elect, thus; Those whom he elected in Christ. In this sentence, the word elect, doth signify, 1. an act of Gods will. 2 An act going before predestination. 3 A collection of a certain number of men, (from others) to be predestinated, unto 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 salvation. The words in Christ tell us, that God's eye was extended to the chosen once in or through Christ. Now this act of election, may be done upon 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 we may not take our Church, seeing it saith, the reason that moved God to predestinate is secret to us: we must therefore understand our Church to speak 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 itself subordinate unto Christ, than Christ subordinate unto him: And that our Church meant thus, we have yet better reason to think, viz. because this whole description of predestination is taken out of the first chapter to the Ephesians, where the Apostle having said in the fourth verse, He hath chosen us in him; He concludeth in the 12 verse, That we should be to the praise of his glory: which showeth that Christ's glory was the end intended & aimed at, in the act of election. BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAID. (That is,) before the Creation. The world is created, either in the real being thereof, or in the decree to create. Our Church speaketh not of real creating; for, than it should say the decree of Predestination is before actual Creation. This it could not mean, or that is as much as if it had said, the decree of Predestination is eternal: for before that creation, there is no duration but eternity: But our Church meant not by these words to say, God's decree was eternal: for it had said so, in express words a little before, and this phrase of speech doth not make that more plain: but, doth rather more obscure it. Our Church then speaketh of God's 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, God's decree of Predestination (in our apprehension) goes before his decree of creation. And the rather all men should understand our Church thus: because this order is agreeable to the nature of the things themselves: Predestination being more worthy of love then Creation: That being supernatural, perpetual, and man's last perfection; This being natural, temporary, and at most but a way unto that: therefore it is more orderly, to conceive the decree of Creation, to be subordinate unto the decree of Predestination, than Predestination unto Creation. If any think that man cannot be predestinate, before he be actually made: I answer; in Gods will of execution it is true, man cannot enjoy the being of the thing appointed by Predestination before he hath actual being himself: now, the will of execution is not now in question, but the will of intention only: man may be predestinated in the will of intention, before he hath an actual being; for God may so decree, when man is but in possibility to be: as Suarez well observeth: AS VESSELS MADE TO HONOUR; In this last branch our Church assigneth the end of Predestination, & the manner how it floweth from the same. The end is signified by these words, made unto honour; by honour is signified, both the glory & honour given unto God, by declaring his attributes; as providence, and love unto the reasonable creature; as also the honour which the creature receiveth from God, in beholding him face to face, wherein the true and proper nature of blessedness consisteth. That being the supreme, this the next end of Predestination: And that our Church doth mean thus, there is no cause of doubt, because it agrees well with the present words, and the thing itself. It openeth the manner how the one floweth from the other, by saying, as vessels made to honour; wherein the Predestinate are likened unto vessels, that receive honour unto themselves, and are instruments in honourable offices unto God. In saying, as vessels, our Church showeth, that this end issueth from the act of Predestination, immediately, and of the thing itself. There is nothing in man, added unto the divine will of Predestination, to make it fit and apt for these effects: for such is the condition of a vessel, it cannot say to the Potter, thou hadst sufficient reason out of myself, why thou shouldest make me a vessel unto honour, neither can it challenge the Potter for injury unto it, if he doth make it a vessel not unto honour. Lastly, our Church saith, the Predestinate are made unto honour, (to wit) by Predestination: whereby efficiency of every kind is attributed unto God's will: no part of this honour is yielded unto the Predestinate himself: for than it must have divided the act of making to honour, between God and the Predestinate: but this it doth not, but giveth that act, only to Gods will of Predestination. And thus have I gone over the Doctrine of the Church of England, whereby it doth appear, that our Church opposeth Mr. Mountagu his Predestination so fully, as nothing more can be required. Mr. Mountagu saith, 1 Glory only is decreed by Predestination. 2 Man was in perdition, before he was Predestinate. 3 Man had final grace before he was predestinate. 4 Man's final grace moved God to predestinate him. Our Church saith, 1 Final grace and glory is appointed to man by Predestination. 2 Man was Predestinate, before his actual being was decreed. 3 Predestination is of God's will, the reason thereof is not from man, nor known to us. Notwithstanding this proof, he will make you believe that our Church opposeth this Doctrine of Predestination. He bringeth his first reason for that purpose Appeal, page 59 thus to be concluded; That which is opposed by many of the learned, and most conformable in the Church of England; that is opposed by the Church of England. But this sentence, Predestination is without relation to faith, etc. is opposed, etc. Therefore this sentence, etc. is opposed by the Church of England. I answer; I will speak to the point in question, and let the rest pass. The proposition, or first sentence of this reason, is false, by his own rule, Appeal, page 48. and 49. where he saith; The presumptions of servants, are not the Lords directions, every one that Prateth, Readeth, Lectureth, Preacheth, or Professeth, must not look to have his discourses taken as the dictates, or Doctrines of our Church: yes (saith Mr. Mountagu, page 59) If they be of the learned and most conformable in our Church; nay (saith Mr. Mountagu, pag. 49. Our Mother hath sufficiently made known her mind in Books that are public, promulgated, authorised, and subscribed, these are those passages, at which the lisping Ephramites are to be tried. Some that be learned in our Church, doth oppose that sentence, and so fare I grant the assumption: but their number exceeds not. If Mr. Mountagu conceiveth otherwise, he is one of the Duke of Burgundy's spies, that taketh a field of Thistles, for an army of Pikes, page 320 and so the assumption is false, that speaketh of many. Those some do oppose indeed: but privately and in a corner. Let him show, where ever that sentence was opposed in Print, or in public place, without control: therefore their opposing is not our Churches opposing. His next reason is thus, Appeal, page 59 & 73. If our Church itself doth teach, that a man may fall away from God, and become not the child of God, than it opposeth that Doctrine of Predestination. But our Church doth so teach, directly, and in express words. I answer; He makes this matter like a Pedlar's Horse, that is acquainted with every door, a Knight of the Post, to depose in every cause: In this cause his witness is false, his Pedlar's ware will not sell. Our Church doth not so teach. Mr. Mountagu (the Gagger being witness) saith expressly, Our Church hath left it undecided, and at liberty, p. 158. and 171. and I have proved our Church doth not teach it, Chap. 11. 12. It is bold importunity, to urge that for true, which himself denieth to be true, but better that then nothing. It may perhaps be believed by some, where silence is a sentence of guiltiness. He telleth us further, page 59 Our Church hath gone on in these high points, in great wisdom, not concluding upon God's secrets. I answer; I grant thus much: Let him go on in the words of our Church, and stick to them, and it sufficeth: but what he would infer from hence, I know not, I am sure he may infer, thus, Therefore himself in dissenting from our Church, hath not done wisely. His third argument I find, Appeal, page 72. which is to this effect. That which was styled against the Articles of Lambeth, a desperate Doctrine, at the Conference at Hampton Court, before his Majesty without reproof, or taxation of any, is not the Doctrine of the Church of England. But this Doctrine of Predestination, was so styled, viz. by Doctor Bancroft, etc. without reproof of any. I answer; the proposition is as probably false, as true, such a fault might be let pass for diverse reasons of state, and observance. The assumption is a manifest untruth. The Book that reporteth that Conference will show it: for it reporteth that speech of Bishop Baneroft, page 29. in these words, Many in these days, neglecting holiness of life, presuming too much of persisting of grace; laying all their religion upon Predestination. If I shall be saved, I shall be saved; which he termed a desperate Doctrine. Here is not a word of Mr. Mountagues tale. According to him, the Doctor saith thus, this sentence, Predestination is without relation to man's faith. Is a desperate Doctrine. According to the Book, the Doctor saith, this sentence, The Predestinate may neglect holiness of life, because if he shall be saved, he shall be saved, Is a desperate Doctrine. These two sentences, are not so like, as the Hare's head, and the Goose giblets, the one reproves the nature assigned to Predestination, and telleth them, that Predestination is not such as they say it is. The other reproveth men that abuse the Doctrine of Predestination: but meddleth not with the nature thereof, what difference then there is between the nature of Predestination, and man's abuse of Predestination, in the course of his life: such difference there is, between Mr Mountagu and the Book; he speaks of the first, that of the second. But now let us suppose the Doctor had said these words. Predestination, without relation to faith, is a desperate Doctrine. Then the second branch of his Assumption is likewise false, because it saith, that speech was not reproved: but I find otherwise in the Book, which reporteth, page 43. a speech of his Majesty, that maketh Predestination, to be without relation to faith, his words be these; Predestination depends not upon any qualities, actions, or work of man: but upon God's decree and purpose. Which sentence is contradictory unto that sentence which Mr. Mountagu saith, was condemned as a desperate Doctrine, by the Doctor: and therefore it is a sufficient reproof of his speech. His fourth reason I find, Appeal, page 72. etc. it is on this wise; If Predestination without relation to faith be the Doctrine of the Church of England, then should it make a party with Caluin. But it would not make a party with Caluin; for that were the next way to bring in his discipline. Therefore Predestination without relation to faith, is not the Doctrine of the Church of England. I answer; this pelting stuff is not worth the viewing; all the world knows that the Church of England doth agree with Caluin, in very many things, and it must do so, or else it must agree with the Church of Rome, in all the points which Caluin rejecteth, which are all the decrees of the Council of Trent, a very few excepted. If I should say all the Articles, and the Homilies agree with Caluin, for the main matters of faith, I should say no more than what might be proved. Other exceptions might be taken to this argument, but I pass by them: Thus have I put an end to this poor stuff, loathsome to the answerer, and disgraceful to the disputer; Ducklings, not Eagles, catch Flies. Hitherto we have hunted a shadow, and laboured to catch the wind, now he will lay hold on the body, and thus he bringeth it. The positive Doctrine of the Church of England, is no other, but this, [touching Predestination.] 1 Sin came into the world, by the Devil, not God. 2 Death came by sin: 3 God prepared a Mediator, Christ. 4 Willed life to every believer. 5 His good pleasure was, all men to be saved, Gag. page 180. I answer; he would conclude from hence, thus: Therefore, our Church doth not teach Predestination to be without relation to faith. For the place requires this conclusion, as he that readeth these places may see, viz. pag, 178. that God, etc. page 180. the positive etc. page 179. the Church, etc. p. 181. I nor teach etc. Now, we have his reason, I will examine the truth of it. I answer, in his own words, Appeal, pag. 57 (used in another case.) The Church of England doth not teach thus, touching Predestination, and why may I not say so, except you show the contrary, or bring me forth a Creed, a Cannon, a conclusion in being for it, in the Church of England? But let it be as you will, If this be all that our Church hath taught, of Predestination, than it hath said nothing of it; for Predestination is, a decree, or dispositive act of God; will, as we have learned by yourself Nᵒ 4. Now, these words show us from whence sin came, and whither it will, what be the means to escape it, and it speaks of God's velleity, or willingness unto man's freedom therefrom; but of any positive act, ordering man to the supreme end, Mr. Mountagu brings not a word, as the doctrine of our Church. Besides this, I have the witness of one M. Mountagu that bringeth more positive doctrine from the Church of England then this, viz. out of the 17. Article, in his Appeal, p. 51. and these are his words, In the 17. Article the Church speaketh of Election only. 1 That there is a Predestination by God unto life. 2 That it was an act of his from everlasting. 3 That he founded it, and resolved for it, i● the man, and Mediator Christ, both for the purpose and performance. 4 That it is, and was, of some special ones, alone elect, called forth, and reserved in Christ, and not generally extended unto all mankind. 5 This purpose of his, is like unto himself, unchangeable, done according to the Council of his will. Which must needs be more, than the former five propositions, nᵒ 14. for there is never a one of these (except the third) so much as mentioned in those former: seeing this Master Mountagu allegeth authority, and the former M. Mountagu bringeth none; this testimony must be received, the former rejected: whereby this reason is as poor, miserable, and lame as the former. Therefore I will leave it in the Spittle-house with them, and proceed. From this passage alleged out of the 17. Article, he discourseth thus; 1 What our Church resolveth touching this, is resolved in the 17. Article, the very words of that Article, being expressed in terms as fare as concerned that decree, Appeal p. 58. 2 This is all that I can find touching that purpose, and decree of God, Appeal, p. 52. 3 In all which passage containing God's decree, is not one word, touching your absolute decree of God, to glorify man, without any regard unto his faith, etc. Appeal, p. 58. I answer; I will not strive about the first, and third branches. The whole question is about the second, wherein he presumeth that, His five propositions related nᵒ 15. do contain the whole doctrine of the 17. Article, touching the decree of Predestination. If it were true, I would grant him, that, our Church doth not teach, That Predestination is without relation to final grace: but he presumeth an untruth. The 17 Article hath not all his five propositions: It presumes the first, because it doth show what Predestination is: but affirms it not: it hath not the third, nor fift any ways. It hath more by much than you report, all which is made evident nᵒ 5. and 6. so that I shall not need to spend time to show it. Touching the second branch itself, I answer, it is hardly credible, that you did not see more than you report: yea, what you did see, seems very uncertain: for out of your Gag. p. 180. you report nᵒ 14. the doctrine of the Church of England, touching this point in fi●e propositions, four of them (at least) being wholly different, and altogether unlike these, and yet you say, The positive doctrine of the Church of England is no other but them. So as what you said there, and what you say here overthroweth 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, than you see our Church, doth define Predestination only by the general nature, efficient cause, and subject matter, for your fi●e propositions, nᵒ 15. contain them only; but you dare not say, you did see our Church so defining Predestination: for, than you profess to see a fault in our doctrine, not to be excused; seeing, that, the nature of every thing, is set out by the special and formal being, and end thereof: not by the efficient, & material cause, without them: But you may not so profess: for you say; Our Church hath gone on, in this point of Predestination, warily and in great wisdom, and prudence, Appeal, pag. 59 Besides, it is most injurious, and an imputation most false: Our Church hath defined Predestination, in that 17 article, by all the causes whereby it existeth, as I have shown nᵒ 5. 6. which course is most agreeable to art, if we may believe, Thomas 2 dist. 27. q. 1. ar. 2. ad 9 And it also hath explicated each cause, to make the definition familiar, and easy unto understanding: therefore we must conclude, you did see more in the 17 Article, than you will acknowledge. If you could not see more in the 17 Article than you profess, to see, than you can scum upon the surface: but not dive into the depth: then have you no cause to despise the capacity of other men, as poor, nor to vaunt of your own, as able to work wonders: seeing there is more in the Article than you can see; as hath been showed you. Thus fare of your reasons to excuse yourself, 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 removed, that we may conclude, The Church of England teacheth all otherwise, in the point of Predestination, than you do. Now, we should examine, whether he, or our Church do teach us the truth, in the point, that we 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 never at quiet with the secrets of God's Kingdom, you can never let his Predestination alone: that comfortable doctrine of election, and reprobation is your continual Theme. It is good to be wise unto sobriety, Appeal, p. 59 The sum of which words must needs be these; Predestination is neither comfortable, nor revealed. Therefore not to be disputed, nor our common talk. For that is wisdom unto sobriety. I answer; The Church of England saith, article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort. And lest it should be doubted, whether this be true, or no, our Church addeth a reason to confirm it, in these words; Because it doth establish their faith of salvation; and fervently kindle their love toward God. Whether of them shall we believe? Our Church, or M. Mountagu? S●rely our Church is worthy of more credit: For she passed her sentence with deliberation; and unpartially. He with ill affection. It confirms the position with an experimented truth. He with his bare word. Such a dutiful child is worthy his mother's blessing, that gives her the lie upon his own authority. Predestination is revealed to M. Mountagu, else he would not speak of it, so wise is he unto sobriety: but it is not revealed unto us, for we never came so near unto the spring head, as he hath done▪ and indeed we need not pretend revelation, to oppose unto him; we only say, show us divine revelation for your Predestination; and we believe it: till then, we reject it as your own fantasy. It is your boldness to meddle with God's secrets, or to device a predestination opposite to his revelation. He proceedeth with these words. I profess, I do love to meddle, in nothing less, then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination, Appeal, p. 60. I answer; he must conclude from hence, that, Predestination must not be disputed. Or else it is mere Gaggling. If he do thus dispute then have we a worthy disputation: for we have nothing to guide us but his own precedent. We must grant the consequent: because the authority of the antecedent doth enforce it, and good reason too: for who would not love and hate, what he loveth and hateth? He saith our predestination is desperate. I commend him for it. By the last words he spoke, he gave his mother the lie expressly: She said, is was comfortable. He denies it, with a scoff. Now he saith it is desperate, wherein he checks her also, for our Predestination is delivered, in her words, and conceived, according to her sense, and true meaning: as may appear nᵒ 5. and 6. He scoffs 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 judgement may we follow, our Churches, or his? To appeal to himself is a thing not equal: Popular positions do often err: private spirits are of weak assurance, Appeal, p. 8. Well then, whither shall we go to be resolved in this point? Unto the public Doctrine of the Church of England, contained in the Book of Articles, etc. he doth appeal, for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England, page 9 Agreed; no better match, no fit judge. Let the 17. Article speak. It saith, unto such as feel the works of their flesh mortified, and their minds drawn to heavenly things, the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable. But unto persons that be curious, carnal, without the spirit of Christ, Predestination is most dangerous: for by it, the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or unclean living. By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end, and the inference is plain and necessary. Unto the holy, Predestination is comfortable. If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine unto thee, than art thou carnal, and without grace. Mr. Mountagu is able to apply specially, what our Church hath decreed universally: therefore I leave that to himself, and all other whom it may concern; contenting myself with a bare relation of our Church's judgement. He writeth further, thus; Our Church in the point of Predestination, hath not determined specially, Appeal, page 59 of when, how, wherefore, or whom, Gag, page 179. I answer; this sentence tends to the same purpose, (or nothing) that the former did, viz. to dissuade 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 untruth so apparent, but some man dares adventure to avouch it: there is hardly a falsehood to be found more apparent, than this sentence of his, and thus I show it. Our Church hath determined whom, when, wherefore, how, viz. some out of mankind. before the Creation. of his will. by his secret Council. As the Reader may see in the 17. Article, and I have showed, no. 5. & 6. If our Church hath not determined thus (and all hers ought to follow her example) than Master Mountagu is much to blame; For, He hath determined whom, when, wherefore, how. viz. some of mankind. being in perdition. final grace. 1 willing them salvation. 2 providing a Mediator. 3 taking them out which laid hold of him. As the reader may find plainly laid down in the former part of this Chap. nᵒ 3. 4. 14. 15. His choice was ill, that bringeth falsehood for truth, against himself, and such is his condition in this place. Now for as much as he cannot discourage you by the force of these arguments: therefore he doth summon unto the disputation, in these words: I must confess my dissent through and sincere, in no one point, more than in this their Doctrine of Predestination, Appeal, page 60. I answer; the Dice are now cast, Caesar must be all or nothing: the combat is offered to all comers; the Gauntlet is cast down, take it up who dares. But let him know, he must prove his own Predestination, or leave the field. The first weapon he appears withal, is made of this fashion: God is not the Author of sin, or death, Appeal, page 64. This weapon is strengthened with some authorities of Scriptures and Fathers: from that place to page 69. But this weapon serveth not for this battle. The question is, whether, first, God found the Predestinate in perdition: secondly, whether Predestination be with relation unto final grace: thirdly, whether Predestination doth not appoint to give grace, for so you teach, and these we deny. But whether God be the Author of sin and death, is not thought upon at this time. Those three you must prove, or say nothing: for them you have offered no proof. It is a safe war, where there is no enemy: and a cowardly attempter, that refuseth the field where the enemy abideth. It may be, he will say, the refutation of this sentence, doth refute the latter branch of Caluins' opinion of Predestination, propounded, page 50. and rejected, page 60. because this sentence follows thereupon, p. 54. I answer; this helps not the matter, for the question now on foot,▪ is whether Gods decree to save Peter, be absolute, and doth proceed from Gods will only, page 53. which is denied by yourself, the Church of England, (as you pretend) the Lutherans, and Arminians. Against Caluin, and the Synod of Dort, p. 38. 53. & 56. There is not a word of that second branch, (which concerneth reprobation) objected against you, but it is foisted in by yourself only, and that upon good reason too; for you knew full well, that no man would defend this: but every man could defend that, against you. It was good policy to undertake to prove a confessed truth: for so you went with the stream, and to be silent in the proving of a manifest falsehood, for than you had been found guilty. You tell us your resolution this way, in these words; I never held it wisdom, to tyre myself with haling and tugging up against the stream, when with ease enough I might, and with better discretion should, sail with the flood, Appeal, p. 12. Now, although the case had been as you pretend, yet you had been abundantly faulty; for disputing against one branch, when there was two in the question: and for opposing a consequent, letting pass the antecedent and consequence: which is (indeed) to deny the conclusion, when you durst not meddle with the premises. He keeps the field still, and presenteth himself in this manner; The Church of Geneva dissenteth from the private opinions of Caluin and Beza, Appeal, p. 71. I answer; by private opinion of Caluin, he must mean this of Predestination, and from it he must conclude; Therefore his Doctrine of Predestination is not true. Otherwise he misses the present business. That being supposed, he cometh on the back, where he ought to come unto the face of his enemy: he ought to prove, that, his Doctrine is true, not disprove ours; but be it as he will, if you ask him how he doth know that the Church of Geneva doth so descent, he doth answer; Deodate did tell him so. If you doubt of his testimony, he tells you, he is a Minister, and a Professor in that Church, and sent to the Synod, from his Country: well, let him go for a witness without exception; the chiefest doubt is how it may appear, Deodate did say so: He putteth that out of doubt also by avouching, he told him so, even Mr. Mountagu, being the man, that Deodate was withal at Eton; which proof cannot be avoided: for he should never have had the company of Deodate in Eton, unless he had been such a man, whose word is as true as steel: yet nevertheless his word is of small authority, for I have found it deceitful, nᵒ 11. 12. therefore I dare not trust it; but let us yield him, that Deodate did tell him so: and that therefore our Predestination is not true. Then he must be conceived thus to dispute; Your Doctrine of Predestination is not true, therefore mine is true. A substantial dispute, and well worthy a rich Divine, and old learning; mine is, because yours is not; he telleth us of some that have whirligigs in their heads, Appeal, page 81. I am sure he is one of them in this argument. He ends not with this, but goes on still with these words, This sentence: God did decree to glorify Peter, without any consideration had of his faith, etc. is a private fancy of some particular men; Appeal, page 58. never heard of, till of late, page 31. From hence he must infer; Therefore this sentence, God did decree to glorify Peter, etc. is not true. I answer; The Inference is naught, truth in Divinity standeth in a conformity unto the divine revelation, not unto the sooner, or later apprehension, and report of men. If you mean, it is not revealed, than your terms of Private fancy, and yesterday hearsay are but toys for Children. How dare you say our doctrine of Predestination is a private fancy, and a Novel opinion, seeing King james of famous memory for learning and knowledge, hath expressly avowed it, in these words; Predestination depends not upon any qualities or work of man: but upon God's decree and purpose. As I have shown nᵒ 12. This testimony doth give us sufficient odds above you; for Our sentence hath royal confirmation, and yours hath none: herewith also, I would content myself, were it not, that he urgeth, with great vehemency; That, This sentence above said, is the doctrine of Novellizing Puritans, Appeal, p. 60. For the removing hereof, and to give full satisfaction in the point; I will add somewhat more thereunto, and show, that the doctrine of Predestination which we defend, is neither new, nor the invention of Novellizing Puritans. And because I will avoid all his suspicion and imputation of faction and dissension, I will allege the words and judgement of other men, not any of mine own. Bellarmine saith, the great. lib. 2. cap. 9 after this sort: No reason can be assigned on our part, of God's Predestination: not only merits properly so called, but also the good use of freewill, or grace, or both together foreseen of God: yea also merit of congruity, and condition without which, he that is predestinated should not be predestinated. For explication he saith further, I add, On our part, because on God's part, 'Cause may be assigned, viz. In general, the declaration of his mercy, and justice; In particular, God doth not want his reason, why he would predestinate unto life, this man, rather than that, although the same be hidden unto us. Thus fare Bellarmine. This sentence he undertaketh to prove, in the tenth chapter following, 1. by Scriptures. 2. by the testimony of the Church. 3. by reason founded upon Scriptures, and Fathers, which he beginneth thus. Some out of mankind are chosen unto the Kingdom of Heaven. 1. Effectually, so as they come thereunto infallibly. 2. Freely, and before all foresight of works. This proof he makes good by the Scriptures in that chapter, By the testimony of the Church in the 11. Chapter, namely, by the allegation of many particular testimonies; and then in general he saith, All the Fathers esteemed of by the Church, even all of them without exception, did manifestly teach this sentence, after the heresy of Pelagius was begun. And also, it was approved by the public sentence of the Church. Lastly, he concludeth in these words; This sentence ought to be esteemed, not the opinion of some of the learned; but the faith of the Catholic Church. He proves also the same doctrine of predestination by seven reasons, in the twelfth chapter, every one of them being no other; but the application, and accommodation of Scripture, unto the point: and doth defend this sentence, against opposition in the 13. 14. and 15 chapters following. These testimonies of Bellarmine must be allowed of by M. Mountagu for many reasons. 1. Because he is a jesuit; and jesuites have the preeminence for the present in the Church of Rome; as himself informeth Appeal, pag. 203. and Bellarmine was a man of better spirit than some of that society, as himself avoucheth, Appeal, pag. 239. whom he doth there also profess to be ingenious, and biddeth him, well to far. He doth commend him, and prefer him too, before others, saying: Bellarmine is a man of as strong a brain, and piercing apprehension, as any new upstart master in Israel of the pack, Appeal, p. 77. But, it may be he will say, Bellarmine is factious in this point. I answer, I will therefore fortify Bellarmine's testimony; but not with the testimony of any other jesuites, though I might allege Suarez, who is not only so full in this point as Bellarmine is, but also doth exceed him in the explication and urging thereof: and that most frequently, but I will forbear that, and only add the Dominicans; and because I will avoid needless allegations I will content myself with Aluarez, who in his book de Auxiliis disp. 37. nᵒ 6. & 9 etc. Disp. 120 nᵒ 4. saith, There can be no cause, reason, or condition on man's part assigned of Predestination: but it is to be referred unto the mere, and undeserved will of God. Which, he saith further, is according to the judgement of Augustine: approved of by many Popes, and taken out of most evident testimonies of holy Scripture. The testimony of these two, must needs be of great force unto every man that doth duly consider them, because, 1. They are our adversaries, whose testimony is of more weight then if they were friends. 2. They are such adversaries, as purposely do refuse to speak as we do. If then they concur with us in words, and the thing itself, than it is manifest, the truth compels them: for there is nothing else to induce them; they want not evasions (if any were to be found) for they are men of learning, they have parts of nature, they are industrious themselves, and are abundantly assisted by others; neither are they ignorant that this their doctrine of predestination is the opinion of Caluin. To conclude, this is a sentence not peculiar to themselves, that is, to the society of the jesuits, and the family of the Dominicans whereof they are, but it is a doctrine universally received, by their learned; as may appear by Aluarez in the 37. disputation alleged, and Suaerez opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 16. nᵒ 7. and that which goes before: only some of them do differ in the manner of handling it, namely, whether, both grace and glory, or grace only, be thus freely predestinated. Lastly, it may be truly esteemed the faith of the Council of Trent also: because that Council knew it to be the judgement of Caluine, whose sentence they meant to reprove in all things they could: yet they decreed not a word against it: and it is apparent, they did not forget it, because they spent so many years in that Council, which is a plain argument, they throughly considered all the differences betwixt them and Caluin. Besides, in the sixth Session and twelfth Chapter, it decreeth against such as resolve with themselves, that they are certainly in the number of the Predestinate; judging this to be the opinion of Caluin, which is a plain proof, that they forgot not Caluins' opinion in the rest of his Doctrine touching Predestination. I hope, this proof is sufficient to clear this point from novelty, faction, etc. terms which it pleaseth Mr. Mountagu to give it: for what can be more? Writers (ancient and latter) Churches (of Rome and ours) agree in it, confirm & urge it. If this be novelty, faction, puritanism, desperate, detestable, and horrible, to the ears of pious men, Mr. Mountagu is happy, and his Dutchmen with him, that have chosen the contrary sentence: but no reasonable man will believe it, therefore I proceed. His next flourish is in this sort, The Lutherans detest and abhor it, Gag, p. 179. Strange (though too true) imputations are raised against it. Odious things are inferred from it, Appeal, page 54. pressed to purpose, and you cannot avoid (to my poor understanding) their conclusions, Appeal, page 52. This discourse may serve to disgrace; but not to disprove: for he assigneth no imputations, nor consequents, nor consequences, nor antecedents in particular. but speaks only, of such, and only avows them upon his own affirmation, and understanding, which are of little worth, for his word is found false, nᵒ 11. 12. and himself saith, his understanding is poor. Let him bring those particular imputations, those consequents, which (he says) are so odious, and consequences which (he saith) are so necessary, and antecedents, from which they flow; let him show what is imputed, and unto what, and the world shall see, he speaks never a true word. He telleth us of Roving, Rolling, Rambling, I might add, Ruffling, Scuffling, Schambling, Muffling, Buffling, Brangling, Shifting, Tricking, Shambling, and many more than these, if I had Mr. Mountagu his eloquence, and I might put them all, as titles to the disputations (foregoing) in this point; and yet should I come fare short of the excellency and worthiness of his Disputation, therefore I hope the Reader will judge as he find s, and supply what I want. He will speak but once more, and that shall drive the nail to the head: thus he saith, Without final persevering in obedience, they are none of Gods elect, these being the appointed instrumental causes of all their salvation, Appeal, page 74. This reason must be thus framed, If final persevering in obedience, be the appointed instrumental cause of man's salvation, then final persevering in obedience, etc. is the thing, without which no man is of Gods elect. But final persevering, etc. is the appointed instrument all cause of man's salvation. I answer; by instrumental cause of salvation, Mr. Mountagu must mean (at least) the meritorious cause of heaven, which being so, his sentence in plain English is thus much; Final obedience is the meritorious cause of salvation. In which sentence he agrees with the Church of Rome; for the Council of Trent hath decreed, that Eternal life is propounded as wages unto such as do well to the end. Ses. 6. cap. 16. Good works do merit eternal life. This Doctrine of the Council is urged and defended by Bellarmine in his Book, de lusti. lib. 5. as the Reader may see to the full. Hereupon we may conclude against Mr. Mountagu, in his own words, written in another case. Which follow; The Ape discovers himself by cracking of nuts, Appeal, p. 308. So doth this man, who, what, and what side he is of, A Tridentine in faction, and engrayned in affection that way: howsoever pretending conformity by subscription, ibid. But it may be, Mr. Mountagu will say, he did not know that the Church of Rome taught thus much: I answer; his own words will then refute him, for thus he writeth; If a man continue constant in the course of good works, he is sure of heaven causally, in Bellarmine's judgement, as procured by them, Appeal, page 210. To the parts of the Argument, I answer, first, The assumption is denied by our Church, which saith, By our deeds we cannot merit heaven, nor bring us to the favour of God, nor win heaven; Homily of Almsdeeds, second part, page 326. 327. & 329. Upon this reason: because, then, A man is a Merchant with God, and so defaceth, and obscureth the price of Christ's blood. Now, our Church hath overthrown his assumption: there is no need that I speak further thereunto: but yet, that the efficacy of truth taught by our Church, may fully appear; you shall hear himself deny this his own assumption: for thus he writeth; Bellarmine saith, Heaven is of works causally, wherein I differ from him, Appeal, page 210. There is a reward for the righteous, not for works, or of works, Appeal, page 208. Some man perhaps will say, he doth then contradict himself. I answer; that salueth not the wound he giveth unto his assumption, the voice of truth in his own mouth against himself, is of more worth than many witnesses. This part of his reason being naught, the rest hath no force to infer the conclusion; yet I proceed to the rest. The foresaid argument (at the best) (and amongst his best friends) is not worthy answering. It is no better than the dry bones of a Hackney ridden to death, many years past. I find it propounded and answered, by Bellarmine, de great. lib. 2. cap. 13. Quintum etc. by Suarez, opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 19 nᵒ 22. etc. by Aluarez de Auxilijs disp. 37. nᵒ 3. Tertio Deus, etc. nᵒ 21. Ad tertium, etc. To the consequence of the proposition, I answer, that it is most feeble and false. A man may have everlasting life in the event, by reason of his final persevering: and yet not be decreed thereunto, by reason of his final perseverance foreseen. I show it out of the said Authors, thus: In Predestination, there is God's will of Intention. Execution. This distinction I find in Bellarmine, de gratia, lib. 2. cap. 14. Respondeo illud. In Suarez, opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 18. nᵒ 4. De deo part 2. lib. 1. cap. 14. nᵒ 7. And in Aluarez, de Auxilijs disput. 37. nᵒ 19 If any doubt of the truth of this distinction, the Authors alleged do bring proof enough for it; and chief Suarez in the places alleged, & in his opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 19 nᵒ 4. etc. to whom I refer the Reader. Supposing then that the distinction is without question, I answer; God's action of execution, wrought in time, doth indeed represent Gods eternal will of execution: for the will of execution, is no more, but a disposition of execution, or the execution itself preconceived in the mind of God, as the Authors alleged do truly speak. In this sense Mr. Mountagu saith truly, So saved, are So ordained by God. Whatsoever cometh to pass, cometh So to pass, because God hath said, So, and no otherwise it shall come to pass, Gag, page 177. The one is original of the other, and the one is evidence of the other, Appeal, page. 61. But this is not to our purpose, for we speak not of Predestination, as it contains God's will of execution; but of intention. The acts of God done in time, do not represent Gods eternal will of intention; which is no more, but a decree appointing, that the thing shall be. The will of intention meddleth not with the manner how the means shall produce the effect, and how the effect shall flow from the means, it assigneth not which is the means, which the end, as the said authors have abundantly proved. It is the first act of Gods will, touching man's salvation, and is not regulated by any former. God was wholly free to will it, or not to will it, to will it unto this man, or unto another, there being nothing in the creature to restrain this liberty, and determine the divine will unto one: so that you must show us divine revelation, that affirmeth the final perseverance of Peter, was the reason to move God, to appoint him unto glory. It is not an inference made from an act of temporal execution, that can be a sufficient ground to enjoin us to believe it: but such revelation there is none, therefore we may conclude, there was no such reason, leading God to predestinate this or that man unto glory. Here, I may inquire of M. Mountagu whether he hath read this answer, & others like unto it or not: (one of them is certainly true.) If he hath not read it, where is his transcendent reading he so much doth vaunt of? where is that divine that so often calleth others ignorant, poor, and scummers upon the surface; and such like terms Now these poor divines, these simple ignaroes, must giberish to him, he knows not what. If he hath read them, where was his conscience, when he urged an argument so often answered, and so much opposed? and (which is more) when he tendered it barely as a thing granted, without (so much as) one word out of the divine revelation to confirm it, or to take away those answers which are made to it? What will he plead? Is Suarez, Aluarez, and Bellarmine some of his poor Divines, mere Gaglers, Blunderers, Ramblers, etc. not worth the answering, not worth the regarding, the naming? If his will be, to show himself ridiculous, he may thus answer: and (to say the very truth) his deeds do thus answer, though we have not his words for it. I might go on with this inquiry; but I content myself with this, leaving it to the judgement of the understanding reader. Thus have I applied the answers of these authors unto the argument, which doth abundantly, show the weakness thereof: and I might content myself with that: but I will add somewhat more which the argument itself doth lead unto. This argument set down nᵒ 27. speaketh of Predestination, and if it were a decree to give glory only, and thereby it doth beg the question; because, that is denied him, by the Church of Rome, and ours. If he say, he takes Predestination to be a decree to give grace also, than this argument must be framed thus; Final persevering in obedience is the instumentall cause, that Peter received grace in the event. Therefore without final persevering in obedience, God did not appoint by Predestination to give Peter grace. The antecedent or first part is denied by all which live in the Church of Rome: yea, even by them, that would have Predestination to glory to be upon the foresight of works; and they must so deny, because the Council of Trent hath decreed, sess. 6. Preventing grace is given by God, man having no merits, cap. 5. We are justified freely, because none of those things which precede justification (whether faith, or works) do merit justifying grace itself, cap. 8. The same thing touching the free giving of the first Grace, we learn from our own Church, which taketh it from S. Augustine, and tendereth it unto us, in the Sermon of Fasting, p. 172. In these words. No man doth good works, to receive grace by his good works. Good works do not bring forth grace. Grace belongeth to God, who doth call us, and then hath he good works, whosoever receiveth grace. Which sentence is so full and plain, and of such authority, that I shall not need to say any more, to show the insufficiency of the Argument: therefore here, I will end my answer thereunto, which also must put an end to our Disputation, touching this point of Predestination, because he doth not offer any further occasion. By that which is past, it doth appear, that he dissenteth from the Church of England, in this point of Predestination; and that he hath nothing (of any worth) to say for himself, or against our Church. Now we should discover, with whom he doth consent in the point: for with some he doth consent; else it is a private fancy, peculiar to himself. With the Church of Rome he doth not consent. I take that as certain: therefore he must consent with the Lutherans, and Arminians. I name them both, because both have shares in the business. The Lutherans do urge this doctrine of Predestination, but not very strictly; nor as a matter undoubtedly revealed: nor do they press it in all the particulars brought by M. Mountagu: and therefore it must be ascribed to Arminius (by us) because he is the man, whose voice was nearest unto us; he urged it with more particulars, and upon greater necessity, than the Lutherans do: he chose rather to see the Country that bred him, brought him up, and advanced him, come to utter ruin, rather than he would hold his peace, or retract this sentence of Predestination. I forbear to confirm this by the particular passages written by Arminius, Vorstius, and other of that side; because it would be tedious, and without all benefit. What hath passed, is sufficient to show, he teacheth falsehood, and untruth. Therefore here I will end the whole Disputation. There be also other points of Faith, in his two Books, which oppose the doctrine of the Church of England, and which deserve a reproof: but because these are propounded and handled by him in the first place, and their opposition is most dangerous, therefore have I contented myself with the refutation of these only, reserving the rest till some other opportunity. CHAP. XXI. The Conclusion of the whole Disputation, claiming M. Mountagues promise. ALthough it hath been his fashion to spend many lines, with much bitterness, and ill language; very ill beseeming a man of gravity, and a Minister: yet in the issue he promiseth fair, (if you will believe him) writing in these words; Let him, or any other, go honestly, sincerely, soberly, Scholarlike to work: Let him come home to the points controverted, without Rolling, Rambling, Raving, join issue, instantly with the question where it lieth: I am for him: no man more ready, more willing, more submiss, more desirous to go calmly to work, for God's glory, the Church's tranquillity, the good and benefit of myself and others. Thus fare he, in his Epistle to the Reader, set before his Answer to the Gagger, near to the end thereof. I answer, I have accomplished your desire; you invite to the discussion of the things you have written. I hope you will accept it in good part: I have observed the course of disputation you have appointed. And, because, I would not trust mine own Art (altogether,) therefore have I followed B. jewel, in his answer to Master Harding. To show yourself a plain man, you profess further, in your answer to the Gaggers' Preface, toward the end. 1 Our faith is to be regulated by the Scriptures. 2 Bring me in any one point, or all points, to this rule. Tie me to it, try me there. I fall down and adore it. I would not, I will not, swerve from it. 3 The present doubts hang in the Church of England: I do appeal to the public doctrine thereof, let that which is against them, on God's name, be branded with error: and as error be ignominiously spunged out. Let the author be censured (as he well deserveth) by authority. If I be so taken with the fact, or evidence be clear against me, or I be convicted by sufficient witness, to have erred thus, I will recall, and recant, whatsoever is so exorbitant: and further, will deal so with my own writing, as they did with their curious books, Acts 19 & 19 Appeal p. & 9 I answer; I have performed the condition, in the judgement (I hope) of every Reader, able to judge of a disputation. I look for the performance of this your promise: if you fail, the fault must rest upon yourself; and so I leave you to your own choice. But you think to escape that; and yet be without blame: by objecting against the persons, and plea of them that stand against you. Of their persons, you say, They are Puritans, Selfconceited, Presumptuous, Maligners at States, Irregular, Loving parity, Factious, Turbulent. (page ● 3. Over precise professors. p. 4. Malicious. p. 5. Hornets ill affected, Purer Brethren, Great Rabines in Israel, whose pens, and pulpits be infallible in judgement. page 6. Popular-spirits, Singular illuminates, Simple ignoran●ees, Classical dictator's, Groners for Parochial Popes. p. 7. Partiaries, p. 14. Peremptory, resolved, conclusive, false slanderers, p. 15. Calumniators, indirect dealers, p. 22. Men of cheverellised consciences, Calumniators, neither honest nor plain, having presbyterian tricks of Legerdemain, p. 23. Traducers, Saint-seeming, bible-bearing, Hypocritical Puritans, glosers, timeservers, Colluders with the State, page 43. Closers (in show) with our Church, but teachers of things contrary to what they have subscribed, crafty pretenders to bring in Popes to every parish, and Anarchies in the State, separatists from others, singular, a part, afaction, a division, brethren of Amsterdam, p. 44. A faction of novellizing Puritans, men intractable, insociable, incompliable with those that will not maintain dissensions. p. 60. Men that have whirlegiggs in their brains, And be far at variance with their own wits, p. 81. Clamorous Promoters, That read not ordinary protestant writers, that brawl at the shadow of their own fancies: fight with shaw-fowles of their own setting up. Talk confidently, Traduce virulently, mistake ignorantly, page 88 Men of new learning, that have little, or none old, factious, furious, p. 90. Of the preciser cut, zealous Disciples, p. 95. Such whose wits be not their own, p. 96. Such as profess themselves senseless, p. 99 Ignorant of others, wedded to their own conceits, p. 101. Fervent ones, violently precise, p. 108. Of uncharitable, , fiery, Puritanical zeal, Malice, Indiscretion, Such as run a madding, of transported spirits, p. 110. Schismatics conforming for preferment, p. 111. Men that hold with the Hare and run with the hound, of moving, violent, Quicksilver, Gunpowder spirits, That run into extremes,▪ Furious ones, p. 112. Promoters, without Christian charity, common wit, sense, understanding, honesty; Such whose passions are malignant and possessed with deep malice. Shameless slanderes, p. 129. Ignorant, malicious, factious, poor divines, p. 138. Frantic, good fellows that are and ever will be I know what, p. 139. Halfers in opinions for private ends, rotten at the core, professing conformity, but are opposites, p. 142. Men partially addicted, maliciously bend to calumniate, Honest informers, detractors, p. 145. Puritanical opposites, p. 146. Men that have set themselves to calumniate, Ignorant of the point they undertake against. That cannot or will not understand, p. 168. Fools opposing common reason, confessed divinity, p. 185 Great Masters in Israel, Liars against their own knowledge, p. 191. Ignorant, peevish, profane, p. 207. Misdeeming informers, wanting sincere and honest dealing, p. 209. Malicious, peevish, Puritanical, p. 213. Men of poor capacity, without apprehension, p. 218. Dissemblers, p. 222. Such as understand not the depth of the question, scum upon the surface, gibberish they cannot tell for what, page 248. Pigmies of this time, p. 273. Younglings, p. 274. Of uncircumcised lips, p. 275. Of your shorter cut, singular in their own conceits, Such as ramble, and are ready to grind the teeth, p. 279. Furious Puritans, p. 281. Ignorant, insolent, arrogant, presumptuous. 283. Good brethren, seeming holy, and precise, Tormentors of words, malicious detractors, 285. Bred, and sent abroad by the devil, to maintain a faction, p. 291. Neither discreet, nor moderate, nor, understanding Divines, 293. Foore men, that meddled beyond their lachet. And were out of their element, p. 295. Ignaroes', intolerable, insolent, malicious traducers, Of Puritanical, quicksilver spirits, p. 304. Such as love faction, and division, p. 305. Counterfeiting hypocrites, p. 308. Of a brazen forehead, p. 319. Zealous ones, charitable informers, frantic fellows, frighted with Panic fears, of uncharitable conceits, p. 320. Of Predominant frenzies, Ignorant stupidity, p. 321. Against their plea, you say It is Private opinions of the Informers. Classical resolutions of the Brethren, p. 6. Dismembered passages, p. 15. Of pure malice, indiscreet zeal, Lost-wits, p. 17. Mistake for advantage, p. 20. Shreds cut out from several parts, laid together and patched up for advantage, p. 22. Things broken and dismembered, which do not cohere nor ensue, nor follow instantly upon each other, laid together out of charitable pure intent, p. 24. Passages dismembered, misshapen, and abused, p. 26. Scholastical points, mere speculations, of themselves not apt to breed danger. That have been pursued without all danger but of tongue-tryall, p. 42. Private imaginations of opiniative men, ignorant of others, wedded to their own conceits, p. 101. Idle dreams, fancies, and furies, p. 114. The fruits of angry and idle brains, p. 115. Confusedness, p. 116. Sottish malice and ignorance, p. 128. misshapen calumnies, false suggestions, p. 129. The grunting of swine, p. 288. I answer; first, in the very words of that learned, holy, and reverend Bishop jewel. If I should quit him with courtesy of speech, I should be like unto him, but I thought it good to use such temperance of words, not as may best answer your eloquence, but as may be most comely for the cause. Thus he writeth in his Preface before his Defence against Harding, nᵒ 1. Although I should grant these imputations, whereof I shall speak, nᵒ 2. yet should you gain nothing. And I show it in Bishop jewels words also. I beseech you, if you have leisure, harken a little, and hear yourself talk, behold your own words, so many, so vain, so bitter, so fiery, so furious, altogether in one place. These be the figures and flowers of your speech: yet must we think that you can neither stamp nor rage, howbeit I trust, no wise man will judge our cause the w●rse, for that your tongue can so readily serve to speak ill, Defenc. part 2. cap. 1. diuis. 1. p. 83. By such discourses, he is able to prove whatsoever thing shall come to hand: when Scriptures fail, than discourse of wit must come in place: and when wit and discourse will not serve, then good plain round railing must serve the turn, than he flingeth now at his Informers, now at his Promoters, now at the Puritans. Thus he jumpeth, and courseth this way and that way, as a man roving without a mark; thus he showeth a mountain of words without substance; and a house full of smoke without fire; when all is done, we may say of him, as the poor man said that shore his Sow. Here is great cry, and little wool. But truth is plain, and homely, and hath no need of these hablements, but who so will take upon him to maintain untruth, must be forced to lead his Reader from the purpose, to feed him with words, for want of matter, and briefly, to do even as here you do. In the Preface to the Reader, near to the end. To the particular imputations, I answer likewise in Bishop jewels words. So terrible are you in your dealing, be not afraid good Reader of all this smoke; for thou shalt see it suddenly blown all to vanity, from whence it came. Thus he writeth in his Preface before his Defence, nᵒ 6. Touching some of the particulars I have my answer out of the same Bishop too, in these words, You say we read neither the old writers, nor the new; but are utterly ignorant and void of all learning; it were a very ambitious and childish vanity to make vaunts of learning. For as much as you seem desirous of the ●ame of great reading; ye shall have the praise and glory of it (Mr. Mountagu) without contention: we will rather say with St. Paul, we know nothing but only jesus Christ crucified upon his cross: yet notwithstanding we are neither so ignorant, but that we are able and have leisure to read as well the old Doctors, and the Fathers of the Church: as also your light, uncivil pamflets, and blotted papers, which (God wots) in all respects are very new, and we are much ashamed of your papers, and novelties, to see them with untruth, & other uncourteous speech, so fully fraughted. I answer further, you say we have no learning, capacity or understanding: but these are your own words, you have brought nothing that hath showed it, or, that is fit to try, whether you say true or not: you have brought some arguments; but they are so silly, that a child may answer them: you please yourself with some Latin, Greek, Poets, History, Fathers, Counsels: but they serve to no purpose, for they neither prove, nor disprove any thing in question. If you will bring arguments that savour of understanding, or dispute from Latin, or, Greek words, Poets, History, Fathers, Counsels, in a Logical form of true Syllogism, then shall you readily find, where reading, learning, capacity resteth: Till then, you may use them, and brag of them, but he that hath his eyes in his head, will say there is no cause. You say, we are Puritans, which you esteem a reproachful name: but you tell us not what you mean by it; therefore you would fain speak ill, but no man can understand you. I think that name belongs to yourself rather, for, a Puritan is he that is pure in his own conceit, and is not washed from his filthiness; according to the sentence of the holy Ghost. Proverb. 30. & 12. Now this seemeth to agree to yourself, for, you say, you have received the earnest of your salvation, App. p. 48. Therefore you are pure in your own conceit. Now you are not washed from your filthiness, except your unmeasurable railings formerly related, be no filthiness. If you will say they be not filthiness, then must you resolve us, what Solomon meant, when he said, There is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, Prou. 30. & 14. And David, when he said, Their throat is an open Sepulchre, etc. Did Solomon and David commend or discommend those of whom they spoke? You tell us, that Puritans do refuse, some of the doctrine, or discipline of the Church of England, or both, Appeal, p. 118. and this doth fitly agree to yourself, for in all the points now disputed, you reject the faith of the Church of England, and bring us the Popish faith in stead of it, as hath been evidently declared. You tell us the things objected against you are collected out of diverse places, and laid together for advantage: In both parts you intent to blame the plead against you; but the first part is against yourself, for, Art and plain dealing, required you to set your opinions together. An objection is well made, when it is truly made, though it be gathered out of many severed places. You mean they are laid together unjustly: but the several places out of which they are brought will say, that is false: diverse sentences brought into one place, do make each other the clearer unto understanding, to that end are they now laid together, and for no other, as the reader may find. To scatter them into diverse places with the intermission of other things, was a good means to conceal the snake, till a fit time was offered: he that giveth poison, must conceal it. To gather them together, was the labour, diligence, and faithfulness of him that did it. He that discovers a hidden evil, is more worthy than he that suggesteth that which is overt, and lieth aloft. You would fain Tridentize it, & so go on, hanging hoof, against hoof: (that I may use your own words) Appeal, p. 270. As the fearful Hare, doth double, and redouble, her course, and intricate her passage, to conceal herself, even so do you: he therefore that would find you out, must take you where you are to be had, seeing you are not where, and how you ought to be. You tell us of the points in question, 〈◊〉 are not ●●gerous. Of themselves. In the event unto us. Because They are scholastical speculations merely. The author is No fomenter of Faction. Schism. A Patri●t. Reconciler. Appeal, p. 42. 43. They that think not so Make clamours of they know not What. Wherefore. Are Frantic fellows. Frighted with Panic fears. Have without cause fired the Beacons. disturbed the Country. Esteem a field of Thistles, to be a battle of Pikes. Appeal, pag. 320. I answer; It is no marvel, though you set your whole strength, to remove the suspicion of danger, from the points you have delivered; yea it would be much marvel, to see you do otherwise▪ for he that layeth a snare, must conceal it, lest his purpose be frustrated; but your labour is spent in vain, a weak sight may see them full of danger. That they are dangerous to our eternal estate, and of themselves, fitted to bring sad events, is manifest; for all of them are articles of erroneous faith. Now an erroneous faith is an addition unto the divine revelation, threatened by God, to be punished eternally, Revel. 22. & 18. verse, Some of them be articles of the erroneous faith of Rome, and that they be dangerous unto our salvation, we have the testimony of Bishop jewel, who saith expressly, That, they are dangerous to kindle God's wrath, and condemn our souls for ever, Apol. part. 6. c. 22. divid. 1. And c. 20. divid 2. he saith, unless we leave them, we cannot come to Christ: With whom agreeth our reverend Bishop Carleton in his directions to know the true Church, p. 63. & 64. For of the Romish faith he saith, That it is traps and snares, dangerous, and tending to man's destruction. Yourself do no less, when you say, Popery is original of superstition, enemy unto piety, Appeal, p. 321. The particular points, whereof we have disputed, do say no less. For, if we must take our faith in all matters of doubt, from the sentence of a Council, then can we have therein no divine faith; and consequently no salvation. If a man believe, that a sinner is justified (from the actual sin which he hath committed) by a created being, that remaineth settled, and seated in him, than he believeth, that, thereby those sins are so done away, that no being thereof remaineth, and that all the powers, and faculties of man, are disposed, and fitted, unto obedience as amply and largely as the Law appointeth, and prescribeth obedience, and consequently is in danger of damnation: for such a man resteth in his own justice, to keep him from hell, and to order him to heaven; and thereby trusteth unto a sliding foot, and a broken tooth, for as much as God hath laid out the way unto them in another line. He that believeth that the continuance of grace (whereby man is fitted unto holiness in this life, and happiness in the life to come, by God's appointment) is so contingent, and uncertain, that every man that hath it, may be, and some men are, deprived thereof, and left in the state wherein he was first borne, and wholly destitute of all inward fitness to holiness and happiness; he is in danger of damnation: for, such a one believeth, that some men at this instant, are in the way to heaven, and holiness, beautiful, and glorious, in the eyes of God: but in a moment, ignominious, and hateful unto God, and in themselves tending unto nothing, but wickedness, and damnation: and consequently is or may be in this condition, of, in, and out, every moment, and instant of his life: so also, he believeth that all men may, and some men do, retain their sanctity, in their inward disposition, and outward actions for many years, but in the last moment of their life, are deprived thereof, and are cast into hell. Which faith can in no sort agree unto the joy and consolation of heart, which the sanctified do enjoy: Nor unto that love of God, and the righteousness of his Kingdom, which every such a man doth find by experience: Nor unto that great love, and delight, which God beareth unto, and taketh in his Saints; so largely expressed in the Scriptures: Nor unto the divine providence which governeth the world with infinite wisdom. He that believeth Images are profitable to the stirring up of devotion, and may be had in Churches, and employed for that use, is in danger of damnation: for such a man will not cease till he hath them, and so employ them, and thereby is in danger of worshipping of them, through their fitness, and man's corruption; and he that doth worship them, doth commit idolatry, and idolatry is punishable with damnation. He that believeth honour is due to Images, believeth that in giving honour unto them, he doth an action supernatural, acceptable to God, and that leadeth to heaven; seeing that, no honour can be due unto them, but by Gods revealed appointment: and consequently he is in danger of damnation: because such a man endeavoureth to serve God, and to come to heaven, by an obedience devised by himself: forasmuch as God hath not appointed any honour to be given to Images. He that believeth, that Christ is really, and substantially present in the Sacrament, will honour the Sacrament, with honour due to God: which (that I may speak in the words of Bishop jewel in his Reply, the 8. Article, p. 283.) cannot be attempted without great danger: for it is Idolatry: seeing Christ is not there really and substantially: and all Idolaters shall have their portion in the second death, Reuel. 21. verse 8. He that believeth, he assenteth unto God that calleth, and exciteth, freely: so as, he can reject and descent from that calling and excitation (if he will) is in danger of damnation: for such a one believeth, that he so consenteth out of the liberty and dominion, that his will hath to do, or not to do, to consent, or descent, and not yield that consent in obedience unto any previall work, and true efficiency of grace, disposing him thereunto: and consequently, that himself doth first and originally make the difference between himself and another, that dissenteth from that grace of God that calleth: and that he hath of himself, something which he hath not received, whereof he may boast, contrary to the word of God, that saith, Who hath made thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? 1 Cor. 4. and 7. verse. By the like deduction, the danger of your Doctrine of Predestination will appear, which is no less against the place of the Apostle now alleged, than the point of : for the Apostle speaketh in terms, that comprehend God's purpose, or decree eternal, as well as actions wrought in time. I might show the like danger, to arise from the rest of the points delivered by you, and urge the danger of these other ways: but I think this sufficient, to make it apparent, that they are dangerous unto a man's soul. Touching the danger which (of themselves) they are apt to breed, unto our outward estate, I shall need to say little; because what you say of yourself, Appeal, page 42. I say for myself. I am loath to touch here, or to meddle beyond my slipper, the State is not the subject of my profession: I pray for the prosperity of Prince, and Policy: but let their courses alone to whom they concern. Yet notwithstanding, I hope I may with licence, and good leave, allege what is manifest to all men, and delivered by yourself. Thus you writ; Popery is for tyranny, Appeal, p. 321. And so say I, with the general consent of all those that know Popery, and are not subject thereunto. By tyranny, you mean, tyranny over Kingdoms: for you oppose it (in the place alleged) unto Anarchy, now (I hope) every man will say, Tyranny is a notorious evil to any State or Kingdom. If you had not said thus, the thing itself would have said it for you: for Tyranny is, where one man doth rule the whole, by an unbridled and unlimited will and pleasure. Now this the Pope claimeth over all Kingdoms, whose will is accounted a law, to whom no man may say, This is not well done: nor call his actions into question. If you say you have not taught this, therefore your Popery is not for tyranny. I answer; this must follow upon the Popery which you have taught: for you give to Councel● an authority to determine matters of faith, and require all men to receive their sentence as the dictates of the holy Ghost. You allow the Church of Rome a share in such Counsels, by granting that it hath the essence of a true Church; you also allow the Pope himself a place in those Counsels. Upon which it will follow; that the Pope must call, direct, and confirm all such Counsels: and consequently, that the Pope hath such authority over temporal States and Kingdoms, as is aforesaid; for that authority of the Pope over Counsels, hath bred, and confirmed this authority of his, over temporal States, and Kingdoms; as he that readeth Bellarmine, de Rom. Ponti. lib. 5. cap. 1. Tertia sententia, etc. and cap. 6. to the end of that Book, will find. If we receive these points of Popery hitherto discussed, then must we receive all the rest of the Popish faith, for these are no truer than they; nor are these received by any, which doth not receive them. If we receive all Popery, than we give place to the rabble of their Monks, and Friars, etc. where they are entertained, great possessions, much goods, many people, are severed from the use of the State, and appropriated unto the use, and benefit of the Pope, and State of Rome; by which means our own State is much disabled to maintain itself against foreign opposers; and a foreign State enjoyeth a great addition to defend itself, and to offend; yea, to subject ours unto the will of the Pope, and State of Rome; which things, (I doubt not) will be confessed on all hands, to be no small danger to our State: and this shall suffice for this time, to show the dangers that do perpetually attend upon this faith of Rome, which you persuade us to receive. You tell us, you are a Patriot, equal to the best: you show us wherein, by saying thus, I embrace the total doctrine and discipline of the Church of England; and will maintain it, to be ancient, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolical, Appeal, page 111. I trust to make good, against any and all whosoever, that the Church of England is so conformable unto purest antiquity, in the best times: that none can be named in all points, more conformable, Appeal, page 48. You must give me leave to answer hereunto in your own words: which I find, you have written concerning some, viz. You do conform only for preferment, hold with the Hare, and run with the Hound, Appeal, page 111. and 112. you are rotten at the core, page 142. your goodly gloze, and timeserving colludings with the State, are but like Watermen, looking one way, rowing another, page 43. and 44. Yourself (at least) cannot be offended with me, for applying those words of yours, unto yourself: for it is but justice to fill you, in the same cup you have filled unto others. Neither may it be ill taken of any other: for you may be of that number, notwithstanding this protestation: because (that I may use your own words) you must remember All your words are not Gospel, Appeal, page 272. Therefore until I may perceive that you manifest what you protest, by real practice, you must give me leave to think you dissemble in the point; and would persuade men, that you are not to be distrasted, that yourself may feed fat upon their folly, Appeal, page 222. I find you also writing thus of some: Your holy cause (you see) will not succeed by opposition; therefore you come up, and seem to close with the Church of England in her Doctrine and discipline: but indeed, you infuse secretly, and instill cunningly, a foreign Doctrine, pretended craftily to be our Churches▪ so that a● length, you may wind in foreign discipline, and the rest of foreign Doctrine, Appeal, page 43. and 44. If you conceive thus of others, it is like enough you saw it first in yourself: for there is none so suspicious of another, as he that is guilty. You know our English Proverb, The Mother would never have sought her Daughter in the Oven, but that herself had been there first: you can apply, what I exemplify, to speak in your own language, Appeal, page 320. yea it is more than likely that this was your intent: For you wave the Doctrine of the Church of England: Teach contrary to that which you have subscribed: as you challenge others, Appeal, page 44. which you would never have done, but for some special end, and no other end can be assigned but this; and unto this end it serveth fitly. If I should reason thus, The learnedest, the most conformable, the renowned, rewarded, etc. yea the faith itself, of the Church of England, is for Popery. Therefore Popery is the true faith. Then every man will be ready to embrace the faith of Rome, and good reason too, seeing this testimony wanteth nothing to give it authority; the party himself, a friend, (nay more) a Brother that hath been borne, bred, and brought up in the confession of the Church of England, that hath learned, loved, admired, and proposed to himself to follow indeclinable, the Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, Appeal, page 111. No new upstart Master in Israel. But one that adhereth and consenteth unto, the Apostles, and their true successors, immediate and mediate, Appeal, page 45. and 46. The Doctrine of the Church of England, is proposed in Synods, confirmed by law, commanded, and established by act of Parliament, Appeal, page 111. As the quality of your person, & pretence, so your outward condition in our State and Church, do serve very fitly, to bring in Popery; for you are known unto, and approved by his sacred Majesty, King james; as you do solemnly inform us in the Preface to your Appeal, and in the Book itself. page 43. You are beholding unto, and favoured by, men of principal rank, in the government of our Church and commonwealth: as we learn from your Epistle, set before your Treatise of the Invocation of Saints, near to the end thereof. You are indeed rewarded with preferments, many for number, great for value. Who would deny his consent unto Popery, when it is brought by a messenger thus accomplished? You are a Minister and a Preacher, therefore when you bring in Popery, you go compendiously to work; for you are like enough to gain, and draw your Parishioners with you, at least to make them more feasable than other ways they would be: as yourself writes in the third page of your Preface to the Reader, set before your Gag. You are a Preacher unto many congregations, therefore you must needs draw the more people after you; and they draw others; for we see by experience, things new and strange, stay not always with them that receive them first. Moreover, by Preaching Popery, they may be accommodated according unto the disposition of several men; he that is inclinable thereunto, may be followed seriously, plied at all times. He that is averse may be observed, and dealt withal as opportunity is offered. Lastly, preaching is of greatest efficacy, for it cometh under the name of God's ordinance, it is more fit to enter into, and prevail upon, the thoughts of man, than any other course: like as the small rain res●eth upon, entereth into, and softeneth the earth, more than the great and hasty showers. By preaching popery may be let in softly, without noise, slowly without violence, like as liquid bodies are distilled by a soft fire, & being once entered, taketh faster hold like unto a screw, that is not heard when it entereth, nor can be pulled out when it hath taken hold. This course, to bring in popery was now requisite: for all violence was in vain, no attempt that way could prevail, it made us more wary, and resolved against it: like the boisterous wind, that causeth a man to lay faster hold upon his clothes, to keep them about him. What disputations have they had to prevail against us, for continuance, & multitude of years: for learning and subtlety? What devices have they used to keep ours from them, to convey theirs unto us? Cunning counsels to grace it, desperate janissaries to convey it into every Kingdom, Province, division, family, household, singular person, if it were possible? What wars and treachery have they omitted, the Histories of Wicklife, Hus, Ziska, Henry the second, King john, and Queen Elizabeth, (besides many others) will show. More of any of these are not needful, nor can be expected; yet what have they gotten, have they won a party unto their faith, or one man to believe as they do? Surely this they have gained, enen a garment died red in the blood of the Saints, and a name, but not of the sons of Abraham, who never had the glory of heresy, and poison of false doctrine, cruelty, treachery, murder, usurpation. Now, now therefore, is the time when you must change your copy, turn over a new leaf; bethink yourself of a new course; turn your threatenings into flatter; your loud sound into still voices; your long disputations, into distilled dropping, your enmity into pretended friendship, your conjoined armies into severed corner creepers; your armour into Gowns; your swords into scythes, your bills into mattocks: Finally, let no voice of war be heard in your streets: Sound, and resound; lift up like a trumpet the voice of Peace, tune your instruments, to make that harmony to be more delightful, than the sweet Singer of Israel; and then perhaps you may gain him unto your side, whom God hath given over to believe lies: but for the rest, they will, and always shall, have just cause to say, as we now do, The snare is broken we are escaped, thanks be unto God. I might give satisfaction to every one of his particular railings, for there is sufficient for it: but I will not burden the reader so much. This that I have said, is sufficient: because these things being thus, none of his other bitter invectives can be true. Though they were true, yet do they make either wholly against him, or nothing at all for him. I conclude this whole discourse, in the words wherein Bishop jewel concluded his, to Master Harding, pag. 652. Deceive not the simple, they are bought with price, they are the people of God, for whom Christ hath shed his blood. Your shifts be miserable, you trouble yourself, as a Bird in the lime. The more ye stir, the saster ye cleave; the longer ye strive, the weaker ye are: ye cannot bridle the flowing Seas, ye cannot blind the Sun beams. Kick not still against the spur: Give unto the glory of God: (will ye will ye) the truth will conquer. God give us both humble hearts, and the people eyes to see, that all flesh may be obedient to his will, Amen. FINIS.