CHAP. I. Maister Mountague hath corrupted, the Faith of the Church of England.

THE whole Disputation fol­lowing 1 serveth to proue this sentence; by shewing 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 (cheifly the Booke of Articles) are, or may be in every mans hand.

That he hath corrupted it, will easily be granted too, 2 if I shew, that vnder the name and pretence of the doc­trine of the Church of England, and defence thereof, he hath brought in the erronious faith of the Church of Rome, and Arminius. And this I will performe; first, by answering his generall plea to excuse himselfe ther­from in this Chapter, and then by setting downe the particular points wherein, and whereby he hath cor­rupted it, in the rest of the Chapters following.

First, he pleadeth not guiltie of both accusations, of 3 Arminianisme, and Popery. Appeale. p. 9. I reply vnto him. I will joyne issue with him herein, and make it good that he is guiltie.

He would argue his innocency on this manner. 1. I disavowed the name and title of Arminian; for I will not pinne my beliefe vnto any mans sleeue. I answere, if you joyne in that faith, whereof he was the author, you cannot avoyd to beare his title; no more then others that haue sided in the like case. Every artist beareth the name of that art which he professeth, but you joyne in faith with him, (as afterwards shall appeare) there­fore you must beare his title. 2. He saith, he never read word in Arminius. p. 10. I answere, 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 proue himselfe innocent of the Popish 4 faith on this manner; I nor am, nor haue beene, nor intend 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 intend to be; The liking of some points first, is a good beginning, and a fayre way, to like all at last. We doe not inquire what you are, or intend to be, but what you haue done. Therefore this plea is nothing to the purpose.

He would proue he neither is nor meanes to be a 5 Papist, by two reasons; the first is, The originall grounds of Popery haue no warrant from revealed truth. p. 111. The second is, he hath handled them as few besides himselfe hath done, in so exasperating a stile. p. 110. I answer, this proues [Page 3] the thing which is not in question, therefore deserues not be answered: but to them, I say, you haue left a dore open for the first (to escape.) You say, you are not tyed to your owne opinion. Gagg. p. 328. If your judge­ment change, you are as ready for Popery, and will judge it no lesse warranted by revealed truth then now you doe the contrary. You tell vs of some that draw one way, and looke another. You may be one of them for any thing is done, & are so too (in all likelihood.) For ray­ling at them doth not shew you had no favour to them, because the contention of friends many times is the bitterest, and odious rayling, was the fittest curtaine to conceale your friendship to them, where open friend­ship would presently haue beene detested.

If circumstances will argue your guiltinesse, I can vrge you with some store. 1. Your writing is crabbed and hardly intelligible, full of raylings and debasing of others, extolling & vaunting of your selfe, advancing the credit of Popish Writers, debasing the reputation of many of precious accompt in all the Protestants Churches. 2. You often times leaue the question be­tween you and the Papist, to quarrell with Protestants. 3. You grant your Adversary many points of his faith, and faine 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 seene. If they were together, every one would perceiue them, being in sunder, a wise man might be overtaken by them. 5. You bring in points of speculation, that will finde lesse op­position, but being received, will draw on matters of practice. 6. You professe your selfe for reconciliation, which can be vnderstood of none, but with the church of Rome. Appeale. p. 292.

Touching the matter it selfe, thus he saith; I call ther­in for tryall for it, by God and my Countrey, the Scriptures, and the Church of England; dare any ioyne Issue with me vpon this, they dare not. p. 9. I answer, I dare and doe ac­cept the Challenge. And that the proceedings may be orderly, I will set the doctrine of M^r. Mountague in the first place, of the Church of Rome in the second, and of the Church of England in the third. Then I will shew his disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs. In the last place, I will shew the faith of Rome (wherein he doth agree with them) to be erronious.

CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies.

CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed.

IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood, which is thus explicated;

A Iudge is an office, ordained by God, to giue sen­tence in a doubt that is made, in things revealed by God.

This office hath these three properties. 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God. 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it. And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof. Of which there is no question with him in Di­vinitie questions that be in Controversie.

The parts to be debated be three.

• 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge, &c. be true or not.
• 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome, or not.
• [Page 6]3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England, or not.

Touching the first he sayth. The Word of God, and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it. gagg. p. 15.

I answer, Doctor Carleton, Bishop of Chichester, sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church, p. 54. He writeth thus:

Vndoubtedly, the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith; this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith, which hath beene in all succession preserved. And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent, the Church held the same determination still concer­ning the Iudge of Controversies in faith.

Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given, surely vnto him rather then vnto you. For he is your superior in learning and authoritie, he is your Dioce­san, whose voyce must you heare, but the voyce of your Pastour? And you are in the Affirmatiue, giving an authoritie to the Church, which he denieth; you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie, for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it. It is your owne rule gagg. p. 17.

A Nunci [...] must goe to his Commission.

If your proofes be good, your Diocesan must stand by.

1. Your proofes from the word of God, we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed:

Whom we are commanded to heare, Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies.

But the Church. (That is) the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles, are those whom [Page 7] we are commanded to heare, Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge, &c.

I answer, the proposition is false. I shew it by many reasons. 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place, in which respect the proposition is false, because that office is not instituted in that place. And this I take as granted. 2. At least the proposition resumes, that that office was already instituted, when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken. Which is false also, and I could shew it by many reasons; but this one shall suffice, viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office. 3. The word heare, may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read, as well as for an appeale thereto, and resting in the sentence of a Iudge: yea and better also; for it is most frequently vsed in that sence, but little in this. Againe, the Text leadeth clearely to that sence; but not at all to this.

The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church, severed from other Ministers which are not governours. In which sence the assumption doth need proofe, but he hath brought none: but his owne af­firmation. Besides, the assumption is false by the au­thoritie of the Text it selfe, which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly, by the terme you, which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and ano­ther.

His proofe from the word of God being dispatched. The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next, but he sayes nothing of it, therefore I cannot an­swere any thing to it.

It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times, to shew that

The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith.

Which is vnorderly: yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne. Bishop Carleton in the booke alled­ged, p. 52. &c. alledgeth Councels, Fathers, & Popes, all pronouncing this sentence.

The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith.

Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour, and not to you.

Lastly, if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith, then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement, And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church, perpetu­ally to the end of the world, that it may be fit to be ap­pealed vnto, and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith, in the time wherein it riseth, for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde, and without the second, some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided: But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God, as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew: and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith.

To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point, I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point, and giue this for his reason; to wit, he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence, and giue for instance as he doth. gagg. p. 19.

He takes the Church to signifie a true, not a pretended Church, which they doe not.

And againe, Appeale. p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop, but without the Pope as head; but they doe not so. By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone.

To this I answer; this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging, and in the subject that receiveth it, abstracted from particulars (namely▪ that Church) and differs on­ly in the assigning, in particular which is the Church. Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question, and that is enough.

But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full, which vnderstands by the word Church, a true, not a pretended Church, and the Pa­stors of the Church, not the Pope onely. For it calls that Church (in the words immediately going before) the Mother of all beleevers. Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church, nor to the Pope alone.

Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church, by the word Pope: but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommoda­tion, as is apparent by the whole course of their dispu­tations: The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is.

That office of teaching which belongs to the Church. belongs to the Pope, and his Councell.

But this office of teaching, viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies, belongs to the Church.

Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell.

The proposition (they say) is true, because Teaching is formally in the Pastors, & (otherwise then by them) [Page 10] the Church cannot teach. It must be a Councell, be­cause the Pastors singly may erre. The Pope must be joynd with them, because it belongs to him, to gather, direct, and confirme Councels.

In the assumption of this reason, he consenteth with the Church of Rome, and that is the principall part of this Argument. In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre, That this [...]ching belongs to the Pa­stors of the Church vniversally, and to the Pope as one of them, and that in a Councell. He onely denieth the Popes authoritie, to call, direct, and confirme Councels, which is the last, and least part of this Argument.

All which being considered, we may safely conclude, that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies, with the Church of Rome.

The third thing to be debated in this question, he re­solveth, gagg. p. 13. 14. & 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England, and doth alledge the 21. Article for it, saying, the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith. But all this is vntrue. I haue set downe that Arti­cle in the former Chapter, the sight whereof will avow it. Yea the Article is full for the contrary. For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church, and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures. 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more. Which it must haue done, if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge, to apply and inter­pret the Scriptures. 3. It restraines the force of the sen­tence of the Church, To examination and tryall by the Scriptures. But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge, which must be received, as the dictates of the holy Spirit.

The Conclusion is, He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England.

CHAP. IIII.

IN this point and in the two other which follow, I 1 haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome, because I find not the Coun­cell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them: but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines, for the a­vowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divini­tie Controversies, as shall appeare in the particular passages following. This being premised, I proceed to examine;

• 1. Whether this proposition (the Church represen­satiue cannot erre in points of faith) be true or not.
• 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome, or not.
• 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England, or not.

First, the sence of these termes, 1. Church representa­tiue, 2 2. erre, 3. points of faith, must be set downe.

• 1. By Church representatiue, he vnderstands a Coun­cell truely generall, Appeale. p. 121.
• [Page 12]2. By error, he meanes an abberration from a rule. Ap­peale. p. 6. viz. the Scriptures. gagg. p. 13.
• 3. By points of faith, is meant every sentence to be as­sented to as true, vpon the authoritie of God the reveale [...] thereof.

Not erring in points of faith, supposeth a sentence to be given, which is the subiect of not erring, in delivering whereof they cannot erre.

According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words; A Councell truely generall, in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition, cannot vary from the Scriptures.

That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition, himselfe confesseth. gagg. p. 48. where 3 (of it) he saith. So say they, so say we. And Bellarmines words doth shew it. Which writeth thus:

The Church representatiue cannot erre. de. eccle. lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod &c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done. Nostra &c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word; For he maketh that, the first foundation of our faith, and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof. de verbi dei interpret. lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc. &c.

Wherein is M^r Mountague his sentence just.

Notwithstanding he denieth, Appeale. p. 121. that he 4 is in this point a Papist (that is as I conceiue) that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point, and giues this reason for it;

Points of faith be

• fundamentall, or
• accessory. gagg. p. 48.

Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof, be so abso­lutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church, as the [Page 13] reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man. Appeale. p. 123.

In points accessory, there may be error; but none in points fundamentall, gagg. p. 48. Of points fundamentall, onely doe I speake, and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie. Appeale. p. 123.

I answer, this explication serues well to puzzell the 5 Reader, but hath no force to cleare M^r: Mountague from agreeing with the Ch: of Rome, for many reasons.

The terme fundamentall is borrowed. We shall then know the true sence of it, when we know what a foun­dation is in proper speech. A foundation is that part, whervpon the rest of the building is placed. Fundamen­tall points of faith must be like vnto this; they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded, which is borne vp, and sustained by such points of faith.

Things accessory are such as are attendants, not things principall in being or causalitie: This being conside­red, I say,

1. First, the distinction it selfe is naught. No points of saith be accessory, all are fundamentall, in as much as the whole divine Revelation, and every particular proposition thereof, is the foundation of our salvation which is built therevpon.

And so saith the Homilie of reading the Scriptures, 1. part, where it calleth the Word of God, the foundation wherevpon the wise builder doth build. And the Apostle doth say no lesse, when he saith, We are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles, &c. Eph. 2. 20. And the thing it selfe doth fay the same, for as much as there is no sentence, in the divine Revelation, but doth conduce to everlasting happinesse.

2. His description of a fundamentall point of faith, is of his own devising, without warrant of the thing it selfe, or any other Author. He doth alledge, Appeale. p. 128. Bishop Morton for his Author thereof: but falsely. The Bishop (even as he hath alledged him) hath not one word of a fundamentall point of faith, that hath any place in this question.

3. The description (as it lyeth) is not intelligible, how a foundation can be as essentiall to the thing built therevpon, as the soule is to man, passeth humane vnder­standing, seing mans soule is the primary essence of man; a foundation is but part of the matter, whereof the building is made. Againe, what he meanes by be­liefe, needs a second explication, there is nothing in his discourse that shews it.

4. To what the points of faith be fundamentall, he shewes not: this therefore must be vnderstood, because points of faith are fundamentall divers wayes, 1. Some points are fundamentall to other some, viz. this point, There is a God, is fundamentall to all other points of faith. The like instance may be given in many other points, wherin 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 serue vnto the being of a Church, in the Iudgement of the Church of England. Arti: 19.

He yeeldeth vs another description, Appeale. p. 116. in these words; Points fundamentall be such as are imme­diate vnto faith.

He proues this, as he did the former, (just never a [Page 15] whit.) We must beleeue it to be thus, because he saith it. We must guesse at his meaning, for he doth not tell it vs. I thinke by immediate vnto faith, he meanes such points as are obiected vnto faith first & before others, such as these, viz. That there is a God, is beleeved be­fore all other points that concerne vertue and happi­nesse; That there is a divine Revelation, is beleeved be­fore all other that concerne supernaturall holines and happines; That there is a Mediator, the man Christ, is be­leeved before all others, that doe directly tend to salva­tion. He being thus vnderstood, his description is false, for the primary or first obiecting vnto saith giues 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 haue the likenesse of a foundation. This Article, That there is a God, is a foundation to all others vniversally, because all of them doe follow and suppose this. 2. Some Arti­cles are fundamentall, which are not obiected first vnto faith, for that there is a divine Revelation, is not obiected first vnto faith, yet it is the foundation vnto 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 obiected vnto faith many degrees after the first.

He doth explicate these fundamentalls, by these properties: viz.

The knowledge and beliefe of them is absolutely necessary to salvation: no man can be saved, that doth not know and beleeue them.

That some points haue these properties I grant, and namely, those three I haue alreadie spoken of: but that [Page 16] these properties are so peculiar vnto fundamentalls, as that they belong vnto them all, and vnto 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 fundamentall, because that necessitie ariseth from the things themselues, in respect that they are the entrance into the way to heaven.

5. The application of the distinction is false. 6

He doth not conceiue the Church to be infallible in fundamentalls. For if he did, then also he doth giue the Church authoritie to Iudge in fundamentalls, because that goeth with this. But he doth not giue the Church that authoritie, but denieth it vnto them. Which I proue by his owne testimony.

1. In his Appeale he disputeth, p. 126. in this forme, and in these words:

Councels are to determine things which be of doubtfull issue.

Fundamentalls are no such.

Out of which proposition and assumption, this con­clusion issueth.

Therefore Councels are not to determine points fundamentall.

2. Out of his Gagg and Appeale, I argue thus:

In Divinitie questions and controverted matters, the Church is Iudge. gagg. p. 14. & 28.

Fundamentalls are not divinitie questions, nor con­troverted matters.

For Fundamentalls be plainely delivered in Scripture. Appeale. p. 125.

Therefore the Church is not Iudge in fundamen­talls.

Although these things which I haue answered, be sufficient (I hope) to take away the reason, which he pleadeth to excuse himselfe, from agreeing with the Church of Rome, in the point of the Churches infalli­bilitie: yet I will adde a reason from his owne testimo­ny, and the thing it selfe, to proue that his agreement, on this manner:

If he doth giue to the Church infallibility in points fundamentall, all points of faith be fundamentall, then he doth agree with the Church of Rome, in the point of the Churches infallibilitie. For the Church of Rome doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in all points of faith. But he doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in points fundamentall. And all points of faith be fun­damentall. 1. To mans 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 Churches infallibilitie.

And thus much shall suffice touching the second point.

That he doth dissent from the Church of England, 7 the words on both sides set downe in the beginning of this Chapter doe sufficiently shew; so that to be [...]ow further labour therein, is indeed altogether lost, yet notwithstanding, that it may appeare to be so, without all exception, I will answer to those proofes which he alledgeth to excuse himselfe therefrom; which are as followeth, Appeale. p. 128. The first whereof must be framed thus:

That possibilitie of erring, which Arti: 19. ascribeth to generall Councels, is in things wherein they haue erred. For

It avou cheth, that generall Councels haue erred.

But in fundamentalls they haue never erred, because there is no such extant.

Therefore the Article doth not ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls.

I answer, this argument proues nothing, but begs the question, in that

1. It takes as granted, some points of faith be funda­mentall, 1 other some are not, which is denied him.

2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion. The proposition is also false, the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring, with­out limitation, either indefinite or assigned It saith,

Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God.

If this proposition be vnderstood, to speake not of all, but of some things pertaining to God, then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie, but that may not be granted; for that is a delusion, no decision.

The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not, for that proposition is not a limitation of a Coun­cels erring: but a proofe that Councels may erre; on this wise:

Councels haue erred.

Therefore Councels may erre.

If it be replyed, that this reason is not good, except 9 erring in the consequent be taken, in that sence, where­in it is vsed in the Antecedent.

I rejoynd, the argument is good, although erring in the antecedent, be taken for erring in some things, and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things, because the Church that is not free from error [Page 19] in some points of faith, is not free at all.

The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus▪

That which hath not erred hither to, cannot erre hereaf­ter, &c.

But this proposition is manifestly false, because free­dome from error, and infallibilitie in Iudgement, is not made by not erring in time past, but by a speciall & peculiar providence of God, which they may want at some other time, who (in the thing) haue not erred in time foregoing.

His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort. 10

If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God, and those are not all fundamentalls, then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall.

I answer, this reason hath the fault that the former had, it presumes that points of faith, are some funda­mentall, some not fundamentall, which is denied, and therefore it begs the question. 2. I will grant the di­stinction for this time, and say further, the word (only) must be added to the latter part of this reason, other­wise it concludeth nothing to purpose; that being ad­ded, I deny the consequence, because the Article spea­keth of all things pertaining to God, as I haue proved in my answer. And I proue further by your own testi­mony, thus;

If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things, &c. doe not meane all but some things, then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct, without far-fetched obscure interpretations, casie even & per­spicuous of it selfe, fitted for the vse, capacitie, & instru­ction of the simple and ignorant, who are not capable of obscurities.

But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine, di­rect, &c as your selfe doth truly affirme. Appeal. p. 245.

Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things, &c. doth meane vniversally all things pertai­ning to God.

His third reason is in the same. p. 124 thus; 11

The Article speaketh of debating and discussing,

I speake of deciding and determining.

Therefore I dissent not from the Article.

I answer, the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false. Ordeining is deciding and determining. The Article speaketh of ordaining. Thus it argueth Councels may erre.

Therefore things ordained by them, not taken out of Scripture, haue no authoritie.

Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and de­termining.

His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect. 12

The Article speaketh of things that are in Contro­versie.

I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture.

Therefore I dissent not from the Article.

I answer, the words plainly delivered in Scripture, must signifie things not in cōtroversie. That being granted, the second branch in the antecedent is false. He him­selfe other-where delivereth the contrary.

Those things whereof the Church must Iudge, are the things where in according to him, the Church is free from error.

But things in Controversie, are those according to him, whereof the Church must Iudge.

See what he saith, gagg. p. 13.

Truth is

• manifest and confessed.
• more obscure and involved.

And p. 14.

In controverted matters, if a question be moved, the Church must decide and settle that doubt.

In plain [...] cases no deciding Iudge shall need, but such as are ambiguous, must be determined by the Iudge, &c.

Therefore according to him in things in Controver­sie, the Church is free from error; and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter, he layeth downe in his Appeale. p. 160. in these words:

There is a rule of faith, we acknowledge it. Things that are straight, and direct, and according to that rule, confes­sedly need not application, are not commonly brought to be, applyed to that rule, but things of different or doubtfull standing, these need application, and are applyed by the per­petuall practice of the Catholike Church.

And thus haue I ended all the reasons, which he brin­geth to excuse himselfe, from dissenting from the doc­trine of the Church of England in this point, which are too weake to excuse him, therefore I may safely con­clude; He doth dissent from the Church of England, touching the infallibilitie of the Church.

Now I proceed to examine whether this propositi­on 13 be true or not, and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory, and this it is;

A Councell truely generall, in giving sentence of a divi­nitie question, cannot vary from the Scriptures.

His proofes for it, we find set downe in his Appeale. p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture; the former on this wise;

They to whom the spirit is promised, to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divi­nitie [Page 22] question, vary from the Scriptures.

But to a Councell truly generall, the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth. Ioh. 16. 13.

Therefore a Councell truly generall, in giving sentence of a divinitte question, cannot vary from the Scriptures.

I answer, There is no whole part in this argument; Not in the proposition, which supposeth, that

These words, Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge, whether this or that sentence in Divinitie, be agreeable to the Scriptures or not.

But this supposition is of his owne making, and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before, where­in it doth appeare by my answer to him. That office was never committed to any. Wherefore this argu­ment doth indeed beg; but not demonstrate the que­stion.

For further refut [...]tion thereof, I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office, then the Apostles had it. For those words were spoken to the Apostles (I take as granted.) But the Apostles had it not; for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries, with which the office in question was no­thing fit to stand. It cannot be imagined, that the A­postles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing, and submit themselues to the office of ap­plication and exposition of things already revealed; this being inferior, as the building, that superior, as the foundation; that being performed without labour and industry, this not without much of both; that be­ing an immediate continuation of Christs ministery, this mediate: none of which may be admitted with­out speciall direction in the Word of God, wherein [Page 23] there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit.

Moreover, although this exception were not taken, yet the proposition is false. These words may be spo­ken to such as haue not that office, this leading into all truth, and that office of applying and expounding things revealed, doth not necessarily goe together. The word, leading, may signifie no more, but an act of doing so much as is required on Gods part, which hath not alwayes the event accordingly, but often­times is frustrate by mans default. 2. The words; all truth, may import no more, but that whole which is required vnto the salvation of every particular man, so necessarily, that without it that cannot be had. The assumption is no better, the Text alledged hath not one word touching a generall Councell: If it be reply­ed, that those words were spoken to the Apostles, and from them to the Pastors of the Church which suc­ceed them, and because those Pastors cannot consult and giue sentence touching a thing in question, except they meet together, therefore these words were spoken of a generall Councell. To this I rejoyne. The Text thus explicated, yeeldeth these questions. 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church. 2. In what respect those Pa­stors doe succeed the Apostles. 3. Who hath the au­thoritie, to gather the Pastors of the Church together. 4. Whether all or some, and what number of Pastors haue authoritie to determine. 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is. 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength; all which questions are no lesse doubtfull, then the conclusion which the Text is brought to proue; whereby it doth beg the question, but proues it not.

His second proofe must be thus framed; They with 14 whom our Saviour Christ is present, according to his pro­mise. M [...]t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinitie question, cannot vary from the Scriptures. But with a Coun­cell truly generall, our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise. Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Councell truly ge­nerall, &c.

I answer, this place of Scripture doth yeeld these questions. 1. What is meant by Christs presence. 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting, or the thing whereabout they meet. 3. Whether that promise extend also vnto a greater number. 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet, Pastors or not Pastors. Every one whereof, is no lesse difficult to be determined by the word of God, then the present question, therefore he doth beg the question, and not proue it. Farther answer then this, there needs none vnto this argument, seeing that no proofe can be more base and impotent, then that which depends vpon things equally, or more doubt­full then the thing to be proved.

Other proofes then these two, he hath not in this point; and these two are vrged by Bellarmine, de Concil. cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. & lib. 2. cap. 2. as his maine strength in this question, and haue been answered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full, but they were poore Divines, M^r: Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them.

CHAP. V.

I Haue nothing to set downe in this point vnder the 2 name of the Church of England, because I doe not find any thing decreed therein by our Church, neither could it well, for as much as in this point the Negatiue onely is defended against the Church of Rome; That affirmeth a visibilitie, which the Church of England denieth, which Negation is implyed in the 19. Article, wherein the visibilitie of the Church assig­ned by the Church of Rome, is acknowledged in some things, and it is silent for the rest, which is as much as if it did say in these things, we confesse the Church is alwayes visible, and other visibilitie we doe deny.

According to order here must be inquired,

• 1. Whether that proposition be true or not. 3
• 2. Whether that proposition doe consent with the Church of Rome, or not.
• 3. Whether that proposition do [...] dissent from the Church of England, or not.

Before any of these can be disputed, his sentence tou­ching 4 the visibilitie of the Church must be vnfolded, that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question. Which may be done thus; It hath these two parts.

• 1. The Church is visible.
• 2. This visibilitie consisteth in the inioying of the
  • Word and Sacraments.
  • Priesthood & ordination.
    • abilitie to heare complaints.

That the Church is visible in the injoying of the Word and Sacraments, Priesthood and ordination (so farre as they are required of necessity vnto the admini­stration of the Word and Sacraments) is not in questi­on, so much is granted on all sides. The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19. Article, in these words:

The visible Church of Christ, is a Congregation of faithfull men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministred, according to Christs ordinance, in all those things that of necessitie are requi­site to the same.

All the question is about the last branch, viz. Whe­ther the Church doe inioy all her officers with that freedome, that it may be able and fit to determine eve­ry doubt that ariseth, touching either faith or man­ners, as appeares num. 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition, set downe by himselfe. gagg. p. 49.

There ever was, and will be a Church, vnto whom com­plaints may be made.

Now the question is truly put, the next labour must 5 be to inquire of it, those 3. wayes which are set downe.

That it doth consent with the Church of Rome, him­selfe confesseth, when he saith, gaggp. p. 50. This Contro­versie (to wit, of the visibilitie of the Church, taught by the Church of Rome, and denied by others) may cease. If he did not agree with them, he would haue held it on foote, there being so good reason for it: they maintaine it as a ground of an Article of their faith: and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it.

And Bellarmines doctrine doth shew it, de Ecclesia lib. 6 3. where he writeth thus; The true Church is visible. cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subiected vnto law­full Pastors, in the profession of the Christian faith, and the vse of Sacraments, cap. 2. Nostra autem, &c. The Church is therefore visible, because of this subiection, cap. 12. Sep­tim [...], &c. This visible Church cannot fayle. cap. 13. Which sentence hath these three branches. 1. The Church is visible. 2. This visible Church cannot fayle. 3. The Church is visible by subiection to Pastors in matters of faith. In the two first, M^r: Mountague and the Church of Rome agree expresly: In the third, they agree in the thing, because subiectiō to Pastors in matters of faith, supposeth, that there be Pastors to whom complaints may be made, and who are fit, and haue freedome & abilitie, to heare complaints in matters of faith.

He saith, there will ever be a Church, to whom complaints may be made. Bellarmine saith, there will ever be a Church wherein there is ruling and obeying in matters of faith. cap. 13. Which sentence he presumeth in the beginning of that 13. Chapter, is denied by Calvin, and others, a­gainst whom he doth proue it there, and defend it. cap. 16.

That it doth dissent from the Church of England, 7 he might as truly haue confessed. For, if the Church of England had judged, that the Church should be perpe­tually so open vnto the eye of the world, as to injoy the libertie to heare Complaints, and determine them, then it would haue confest it, and taught it, because it hath taught visibilitie in all other things that they do: and it would haue set downe the whole truth in the point; but this it hath not done, therefore it is most certaine, the Church of England doth deny that visi­bilitie of the Church, which they claime, & he yeelds vnto.

He is very desirous to perswade the world of his a­greement 8 with the Church of England, therefore he tel­leth vs, Appeale. p. 134.

In the 19. Article, Church, and visible, are convertible termes.

Therefore the 19. Article tendreth no invisibilitie.

The sence of this Conclusion is;

The 19. Article doth not teach that the Church is invisible.

But that is a private opinion of some, and so he doth interpret himselfe, Appeale. p. 133.

This Conclusion is nothing to his purpose, if he will 9 shew his agreement with the Church of England, he must shew vs a record for this proposition:

There ever will be a Church, vnto whom complaints may be made.

For so saith he, number 1. & 4.

Your antecedent is false. Church and visible in that de­finition, cannot be convertible termes. For they are not predicated one of another. Secondly, both of them [Page 29] make the subiect part of that definition. The terme Church, b [...]ing the thing defined, is restrained vnto a speciall notion by the word visible. 3. Termes conver­tible, are adequate in their essence, so are not these, Church and visible; for visibilitie is but an adiunct vnto the Church Your Consequence is also naught, for as your selfe confesse, Appeale. p. 134.

It is a position drawn out from the 19. Article, that there is a Church of Christ invisible.

And indeed so it is, for to say the Church is visible, is to grant the Church is also invisible, els how can there be a divided member vnto visible. He labours to shew wherein the Church is invisible. p. 135.

But I leaue that, because it is nothing to the point in hand, as I haue shewed.

The proposition in question is set downe num. 4. & 10 6 which is denied to be true, and that vpon good ground, for God hath never promised to his Church any such freedome, libertie, and outward estate in the world, that it should be able at all times to heare com­plaints, and determine of them. Neither doth this freedome and glorious outward estate, belong to the nature of a visible Church, in the sentence of the Church of England, which hath bounded the totall & adequate nature of the visible Church within shor­ter limits. And indeed, who would be so grossely mis­taken, as to thinke that the Catholike Church hath no being in the world, vnlesse it be in case to meet joyntly together in one court, to make lawes, that shall bind the whole Church in matters of faith and man­ners?

It stood him vpon, to proue that proposition, num. 5. 11 [Page 30] viz. There ever was &c. to be true; for if it be false, then the Church cannot be Iudge in Divinitie Controver­sies, because the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies ex­tendeth vnto, and is present at all times, to determine all controversies in faith and manners, that shall arise in any time. But this he hath not done. He hath not so much as one sentence, peece of a sentence, or word, that may tend to proue this proposition;

There ever will be a Church, vnto whom complaints may be made.

In his Appeale. p. 135. he bestoweth much labour to 12 proue, that

The Church is alwayes visible.

First, by reasons; then by authorities of Doctor Feild, Doctor Humfryes, Doctor Willet, Bishop Morton, Bishop Iewell, Doctor White, with many vaunts, & much con­fidence in their authoritie; concluding that they are ignorant, malicious, or factious, that thinke otherwise: But all in vaine, for that was never denied, nor never in question between the Church of Rome, and any others: If another did thus, he would call it a man of straw of his owne making, and tell him, he shot his boult at it, when he had done; and such like termes. But I pardon him the fault, I perceiue it is his Custome, to proue what all men grant, and to take for granted, what is denied, he cannot leaue it. Therefore I leaue this, and passe to the next.

But I make too much hast, I find an argument in 13 his Appeale. p. 139. which may not be passed over in silence. In these words, and in this forme he setteth it downe.

The Church of Rome hath beene ever visible.

The Church of Rome is, and ever was a true Church, since it was a Church.

Therefore the true Church hath beene visible.

He chargeth that this be remembred, & that his friends doe Chew the Cud vpon it. A good advice. A necessary Caution, I will as diligently obserue it, as he lovingly gaue it.

I answer, the Church of Rome is taken sometimes for 14 one particular Church, and other sometimes for all those also which joyne in faith with it.

In this place it is taken in the first sence: otherwise the argument would be ridiculous. That being so taken, it is manifest.

This Syllogisme is false for the forme. For

The Conclusion thereof is vniversall thus; The Church &c.

But it ought to be singular, or indefinite, thus:

Some true Church hath beene visible.

Perhaps he changed the Conclusion wittingly, be­cause if he had concluded thus, he saw his Conclusion is nothing to purpose; he ought to haue concluded;

The Catholike Church is perpetually visible, as appeares num. 12.

And his Readers, poore simple men, had not skill e­nough to find out that fault well; let vs chew this good stuffe a little more. Let it be as he will, take the conclu­sion as you find it: yet the conclusion is nothing to the purpose. For he ought to haue concluded, what the Church shall be in all times to come.

The Church shall be visible.

He doth conclude, what the Church hath beene in time past.

The Church hath beene visible.

particular Church, for he saith in the place now alled­ged, it is a part of the Catholike Church. And againe. Ap­peale. p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome, and doth range it with a Church in England, France, Spaine, all which doe denote particular Churches.

That he doth consent with the Church of Rome, it 3 cannot be doubted, for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith, that their particular Church▪ is the mother and mistris of all Churches. Concil. Trent. sess. 7. de Bab [...]is. can. 3. & sess. 13. de extrem. vnct. cap. 3. sess. 22. de sacrif. missae. cap 8.

That it doth dissent from the Church of England, 4 will easily be manifested, which hath reiected by Par­liament Law, the Popes authoritie in all cases of go­vernment, hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church, without any relation to the Church of Rome, hath set it downe in the booke of Articles, and the common Liturgie, and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome, by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent, and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie. All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie, in divers places; some whereof I will repeat.

• 1. Wee haue departed from that Church, saith he, whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world, which Church also already had departed from Gods Word, and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof. par. 4. cap. 11. divis. 1.
• 2. We haue renounced that Church, wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administred, and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man, or one that hath con­sideration [Page 35] of his owne safetie. par. 5. cap. 15. divis. 3.
• 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now, and haue so gone from it, as Daniell went out of the Lyons den. divis. 4.
• 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together, and they shall see, that themselues haue most shan [...] ­fully gone from the Apostles, and wee most iustly haue gone from them. cap. 16. divis. 1.
• 5. We haue departed from him, who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist, and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith. part. 6. cap. 22. divis. 2.

Lastly, we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation, and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome, who had no manner of thing like nei­ther to Christ, nor to an Apostle. And these are the reasons and causes, why we haue restored Religion, and forsaken these men. cap. the last.

The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be recei­ved, 5 not as a private opinion, but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church. For, 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so, otherwise he would not haue named his Booke; An Apologie in defence of the Church of England, which he doth. 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church, without the least blame. 3. After this long deliberation, it is reprinted, with speciall direction from authoritie, and to the end it might be had in e­very severall Parish in the Kingdome, which is execu­ted accordingly.

Whervnto I will adde the necessity, which the church 6 of England conceived to be of that seperation, which it [Page 36] hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Au­thor, as followeth:

• 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue. If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors, it should be a very dangerous matter, both to kindle Gods wrath against vs, and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever. part. 6. cap. 22. divis. 1.
• 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome, because the case stood so, that vnlesse we left him, wee could not come to Christ. par. 6. cap. 20. divis. 2.
• 3. The holy Ghost, Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome, for so it is written; Come away from her, O my people, that yee be not partakers of her sinnes, least you be also partakers of her plagues.

Answer to Hardings conclusion.

From whence I thus argue;

The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome, to avoyd damnation.

Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church.

And M^r: Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England. Thus he writeth. Ap­peale. p. 112.

I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes, whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome, the neerer vnto God and truth. That we ought to haue no cōmerce, societie, or accordance with Pa­pists in things divine, vpon paine of eternall damnation.

Much joy may he haue, in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome, I will harken [Page 37] to the warning given by the Church of England, and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imi­tation of his good temper.

That this proposition, 7

The Church of Rome is a true Church.

Is false and vntrue, will appeare by my answer to his Arguments.

Before I come vnto that, I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church, which I find written. Ap­peale. p. 140. in these words;

It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church, not a sound Church every way in their doc­trine.

Although this distinction be liable to many just ex­ceptions, yet I passe by it, and come to the proposition in question, which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes.

The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church.

His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale▪ p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words;

I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church, &c.

I answer, his perswasion (though never so absolute) is no compotent rule for any divinitie question, much lesse for this, which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith, as the Church of Rome would haue it. It may be the other two reasons, which he hath for this mat­ter, is the ground for this his absolute perswasion, therefore I passe from this, and come to the second, in these words;

In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree.

I answer, this is a very riddle, and no proofe. What 8 he meanes by essentials, what by fundamentalls, with whom, or what they agree, he sheweth not; nor are the things evident of themselues. When he speaketh to humane intelligence, he shall haue answer. If the Trum­pet giue an vncertaine sound, none can prepare himselfe to battell. Let vs ayme at his meaning, it will open the whole Cause the better. It may be, by fundamentalls, he meanes such Articles of faith, as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation. If this be his meaning, I deny that they agree in fundamentals; for in such Articles they haue no divine faith, because the immediate and formall reason of that their beliefe, is the authoritie of the Pope and his Councell, whose sentence is humane and not divine, for want of a Commission from God for that office, as hath beene shewed, Chap. 3.

His third proofe is comprehended in these words, 9 Appeale. p. 113.

They hold one faith, in one Lord, into whom they are inserted, through one Baptisme.

I answer, this wanteth not obscuritie; he seemeth to esteeme himselfe safest, when he is least vnderstood. I suppose he would say thus;

The Church of Rome teacheth the same faith which God reveald, and hath the same Sacraments which Christ instituted.

I answer, if he were as able to proue, as he is readie with confidence to affirme, I would grant him the question vpon this onely reason.

But the spight is, he hath no proofe at all, and his owne word is not sufficient, therefore we are where we were, see how handsomely he disputes.

In the last argument, he gaue them agreement in fun­damentall points of faith (that is to say) in some, not in all points, for all points of faith, be not fundamentall, him­selfe avoucheth, Appeale. p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith; a sodaine change; there some, not all; here all, not some. The matter it selfe of this argument, shall be further handled anon, num. 13. &c.

He will supply this want, by the authoritie of Ianius, 10 who is neither Papist, nor Arminian; his words are these.

The Papall Church, is a Church according to that it hath, which belongeth vnto the definition of a Church.

I answer, it is very doubtfull, whether this sentence be truly alledged or not, because it neither affirmeth nor denieth any thing of certaintie; but let it passe as it is, it maketh nothing for you. He must say,

The Church of Rome, hath the essence and being of a true Church.

For so say you. But of this he hath not a word. If you say, he supposeth

The Church of Rome hath something belonging to the definition of a Church.

I rejoynd, he may so suppose, and yet not agree with you; for that supposall may be a concession in curtesie, and not an affirmation of a truth; which two things doe really differ in your owne judgement, Appeale. p. 14. when it was your owne case. Of this judgement I hope you are still, now the case doth not concerne your selfe.

And there is great diff [...]rence between something per­taining to the definition of a Church, and the essence whereof you speake; for that must signifie part of the [Page 40] essence, and may signifie the generall thing, wherein the Church doth agree with other societies; this must be taken for the specificall and adequate being of the Church.

Lastly, I will willingly grant him, the Church of 11 Rome hath something pertaining to the definition of a Church, and that it is a Church according to it; and this is all he alledgeth out of Iunius, yea, I will assigne him, what that something is, viz. It is a company of men on earth, which pertaineth to the definitiō of a Church, by the confession of them and our Church. The 19. Article sayth, the Church is a Congregation of men; and so saith Bellarmine, de eccle. lib. 3. cap. 2. And more then so, I will grant him, viz. that the Church of Rome is so farre forth a Church (that is to say) a company of men joyned together in one societie, by one cōmon bond; but this will profit him nothing, as is manifest by the thing it selfe.

Thus farre all the allegations which he maketh to 12 perswade, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, haue beene examined, and found too weake, for his abso­lute perswasion that it is a true Church to be grounded vpon. Wherefore I haue good reason to conclude this point in his owne words. Appeal. p. 161.

If you haue any speciall illumination or assurance by di­vine revelation, or rather strong perswasion, through affection, much good may it doe you, keepe it to your selfe, presse it not vpon others.

To which I adde. If you will not be advised, but in­sist vpon so vaine a conceit, you do amongst wise men but beate the arre, for as much as there is the descripti­on of the Church in the Scriptures, and the authoritie [Page 41] of the Church of England against you, neither doth there want proofe for the same thing amongst the Di­vines of the Church of England. But in stead of many, I will name onely two, that is, your selfe, and Doctor Carleton, Bishop of Chichester, no Papists, Arminians, nor Puritans, no shallow heads, that Jcumme off the surface, no novellers vnacquainted with old Learning, none of the bre­thren frantick for the holy Cause, but iust to an hayre, as your selfe will desire. Thus you write:

The Pope is interessed in that Apostacie, which is a depar­ting 13 away from Christ, & his Kingdome, his doctrine, and his Scepter. Appeal. p. 149. & 150.

It may seeme probable, that the Turkish state may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Pa­pacie, in making vp that Antichrist, and Antichristi­an Kingdome, or state opposite vnto the state & King­dome of Christ. Turcisme opposeth Christ openly by fiery force, and Popery is opposite by fraud and guile. Appeale. p. 158.

The Scripture is our absolute rule of faith and man­ners, we consent and agree, it is Antichristian to dis­sent from, to reiect that rule, and him an Antichrist that doth so, or proposeth any thing, as to be beleeved against that rule. The Pope doth this, let him then be an Antichrist in St. Iohns acceptance. There are many Antichrists. Appeal. p. 160. & 161.

From hence, thus I argue;

1. That Church which is Antichristian, and an A­postata, that hath departed from Christ, his king­dome, doctrine, & Scepter, that is no true Church: But according to you, the Church of Rome is An­tichristian, and an Apostata, &c.

For according to you, the Pope of Rome is an Anti­christ, and an Apostata, &c. And such as the Pope is, such is that Church, for as much as they receiue their faith from the Decree and determination of the Pope. Thus writeth Suarez, defide, &c. tracta. 1. disp. 5. sect. 7. num. 6. & 9.

A generall Councell, in which the Pope is present, either in his owne person, or by his Legates, and confirmed by the Pope, is an infallible rule of faith.

And this he also there saith, is a matter of faith.

Therefore according to you, the Church of Rome is not a true Church▪

2. That Church which opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ, is not a true Church.

But according to you, the Church of Rome op­poseth the Kingdome and state of Christ.

For according to you, the Pope, Papacie, Popery, op­poseth the Kingdome and state of Christ.

Therefore according to you, the Church of Rome is not a true Church.

How this sore shall be healed, it passeth the skill of all such, whose learning exceedeth not the age of Plato. It may be, he hath some that is of an elder stamp; and by it can shew, how a church may be a runn away from Christ, and a houshold▪ servant vnto Christ. How that church which reiecteth Christs law, kingdom, & Scep­ter, and in that respect is a rebell, doth also at the same instant, reteine, obey, and yeeld subiection vnto Christ, his kingdome, and Scepter. And this he must doe, or els confesse, what he built in one place, he destroyeth in another. This he cannot doe, because Christ, his kingdome, nor his Scepter, cannot be devided into [Page 43] parts, nor the Church extended therevnto, as vnto parts, neither can the doctrine of Christ, be so obiected vnto the faith and obedience of the Church, as that it may reiect some part thereof, and beleeue other some: but it must obey and beleeue every part thereof actu­ally, and intentionally, or non [...] at all. There is one God, one faith, one hope, one Baptisme, not deviding, but compo­sing Christ in his members and profession, are his owne words. Appeale. p. 43. Therefore by his owne authori­ty, I may safely conclude against his owne proposition now in question;

The Church of Rome is not a true Church.

Bishop Carleton writeth thus in his Booke, called Di­rections 14 to know the true Church▪

The Church of Rome which now is, is not the true Church of Christ. p. 78. & 92.

The Church of Rome as now it stands, hath no communi­on with the Catholike Church. p. 88. & 100.

The present Church of Rome, is no Church of Christ, but an assemblie, I say not of heretikes, but of farre worse and more dangerous, then any heretikes heretofore haue beene. p. 65.

Touching the danger that they are in, which haue communion with the Church of Rome, in the Popish doctrine, and the receivers thereof, he writeth thus;

These traps are layd with great subtiltie, to inthrall their soules, let them, at least, that are seduced, lift vp their eyes, and see the snares that are provided to catch them, and behold the danger that is before them, if they will wilfully fall into these snares, then may they blame themselues for their owne destruction. p. 63. & 64.

The damage redoundeth to the destruction of their soules.

This thing the simple people ought more carefully to looke to, more exactly to prevent, then any damage that can grow in their worldly state. p. 43.

The meanes to be saved, are now taken away by these that are now in the Church of Rome. p. 84.

Which testimony, as it is free from all exception that might any wayes disable it, so also it caries with it ma­ny circumstances of credit, especially, to M^r: Mounta­gue, for he saith, Appeal. p. 69.

Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance, since is his reverend and much reverenced Diocesan, his superior in learning and authoritie. A thing much vrged by himselfe. Appeal. p. 28.

Vnto all men, I find these circumstances, yeelding credit vnto him.

Our Church and state doth take knowledge of him for lear­ning and vertue; for it imployed him for our Church in the Synode of Dort, and that as the principall of our Di­vines that were sent thither, are M^r: Mountague his owne words. Appeal. p. 69. Since that, our Church hath advanced him vnto Diocesan authoritie. Last­ly, his testimony agreeth fully with the testimony of Bishop Iewell, set downe before, whose doctrine is indeed the doctrine of our Church; the booke it selfe is dedicated vnto his Maiestie that now is, and thereby hath a Royall Confirmation and Protecti­on.

But which is most of all, this testimony is commen­ded by cleare and evident demonstration, which out of the sayd booke is thus to be framed;

Every particular assemblie that holdeth not vnitie 15 with the Catholike Church, is no true Church of [Page 45] Christ, but an assembly of heretickes. p. 5.

For the Church is but one, not two, nor many. p. 4.

But the Church of Rome hath broken off this vnitie with the Catholike Church. p. 5.

Therefore the present Church of Rome, is no church of Christ, but an assemblie of heretickes. p. 65.

The assumption of this argument, he proveth thus;

The Church is one, 1. by the vnitie of the body; 2. by the vnitie of the head; 3. by the vnitie of the spirit; 4. by the vnitie of faith. p. 6.

But the church of Rome doth not hold the vnitie by the body. p. 8. nor the vnitie of the head. p. 13. nor the vnitie of the spirit. p. 19. nor the vnitie of faith. p. 22.

Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church.

Although all those are necessarily required to proue a Church, to hold vnitie with the Catholike Church, as he saith, p. 6. & he bringeth proofes, that the church of Rome holdeth not vnitie in any one of them, in the severall places which I haue quoted, yet I will content my selfe to bring his proofe for the last, because (as he truely also saith) where one of them is found, all of them are found. p. 7. And contrariwise.

His proofe for the last, standeth thus;

They that hold the vnitie of faith with the Catho­like Church, they haue the same rule of faith with the Catholike Church. p. 34. & 39. For

The faith of the Church is said to be one, because the rule of faith is one, and the same, from the beginning of the Church to the end. p. [...]4.

But the Church of Rome holdeth not, but hath [Page 46] changed that rule of faith. p. 32. & 49. For

Whereas the rule of faith was ever confessed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures: now in▪ the Councell of Trent, vnwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith, and so they teach, that the whole rule is in the Scriptures, and traditions. p. 33. 49. & 50.

Therefore the Church of Rome, holdeth not the v­nitie of faith with the Catholike Church.

I might adde the severall proofes, which this reverend Author bringeth, to proue the severall parts of this argument, but I forbeare it, because the principall doubt lyeth in this, that he saith

The Scripture is the rule of faith. And

The Church of Rome hath changd that rule.

Which needeth no proofe, because M^r: Mountague avoucheth the same. Appeale. p. 16. On this wise:

There is a rule of faith, we acknowledge it &c.

The Scripture is an exact and absolute rule of faith and manners.

The Pope doth dissent from, and reiect that rule; pro­poseth some things as to be beleeved against that rule.

Which is no lesse, then as if he had said expresly,

The Scripture is the rule of faith, and the Church of Rome hath changed it, & made a word of God of their owne invention.

Which are the Bishops words in the place alledged.

In that booke is set downe a second argument for the 16 same purpose, thus to be framed:

They that haue changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith, haue changed that whereby the Church is knowne to be a Church.

But the Church of Rome hath changed the Iudge of Con­troversies [Page 47] of faith. p. 64. & 73. For,

The written Word of God doth suffice to end all controver­sies of faith, and is the Catholike determination of the Iudge of Controversies in faith. p. 54.

They teach, that men must beleeue nothing, but that which the Church teacheth; by the Church they meane themselues, who are their teachers. p. 39.

They tell vs, that the rule of faith is that which the Church teacheth. p. 47. & 48.

Therefore the Church of Rome hath changed that wher­by the Church is knowne to be a Church.

Vnto these two, he bringeth a third, to this effect. 17

That Church wherein the foundation of the Church is changed, ceaseth to be a true Church of Christ.

But in the Church of Rome, the foundation of the church is changed.

For in it the rule of faith is changed, which is the foundation of the Church. And the Church is built vpon this foundation, that is, vpon the faith contai­ned in the Scriptures.

Therfore the Church of Rome ceaseth to be a true church.

Vnto this testimony, I may adde these three more. 18 viz. Doctor Reynolds in his Verses vpon the third con­clusion, handled in the Schooles, Novemb. 3. 1579. Doctor Whitaker, in his disputations of the Church. quest. 6. cap. 1. and M^r: Perkins, in his Prologue to the Reformed Catholike; all which doe avouch our depar­ture from the Church of Rome, vpon paine of damna­tion.

It may be, M^r: Mountague will except against these three, as incompetent to testifie against him; for of the two first, thus he saith;

Doctor Reynolds, all his excellencie was in his reading. Appeal. p. 123. And of Doctor Whitaker, he saith, that he was a thorow man, and an earnest promoter of novell o­pinions, against other learned Divines. Appeal. p. 71. And of them all three, that they were Puritans, delighting in contention.

To which, I answer; These exceptions may truely be sentenced by Bishop Iewell, in his reply vnto Master Hardings answer, the 8. Article, and the 1. division, set downe in these words;

He as a man overmuch obedient vnto his affections, brea­keth vp his way with vnsavory and bitter talke; and as a Cocke that is well pampered with Garlick before the fight, he seeketh to overmatch his fellow, rather with ranknesse of breath, then with might of body.

But these Bookes will keepe that credit, which was 19 first given them by the principall Doctors of the seve­rall Vniversities, who allowed them for Printing, and which since they haue gotten by the vse, which the Church hath had of them, which is sufficient against M^r: Mountague, whose Bookes were no sooner seene, but they had an hundred to detest them, for one of our Church which did like them; but most of all, in as much, as they proue this their sentence, on this man­ner, by an Argument vsed by the Homilie aforesaid. p. 428.

That Church whose faith is erronious, that must be avoyded.

But the Church of Rome is a Church whose faith is erronious.

Therefore the Church of Rome must be avoyded. Which argument doth convince so evidently, that I [Page 49] presume, he will not except against any part thereof; but if he doe, there is sufficient in M^r: Mountague him­selfe, besides other where, to fortifie it against the same. Thus he writeth, Appeal. p. 160. & 161.

The Scripture is our exact and absolute rule of faith and manners.

The Pope doth dissent from an reiect that rule, propo­seth some things as to be beleeved against that rule.

From whence I thus argue;

They that reiect the exact and absolute rule of faith and manners, their faith is erronious. For

Their faith is an aberration from the Scriptures, the rule of faith. And that aberration is error in points of faith. Ap­peal. p. 7.

But the Pope, that is, the Church of Rome, doth reiect that rule of faith.

Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious.

Secondly thus;

They whose faith dissenteth from the rule of faith, their faith is erronius. For

Error in points of faith, is against the rule of faith. Appeal. p. 7.

But the faith of the Pope (that is, of the Church of Rome) dissenteth from the rule of faith. For

It proposeth things as to be beleeved against that rule.

Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious.

If he reply, that all this is to be vnderstood of some points of faith, not of all, of some part of the rule, not of the whole.

I rejoynd, his words are without limitation▪ or distinc­tion; thus,

The Pope doth dissent from, and reiect the rule of faith.

And giue this for proofe, namely, in that it

Proposeth any thing as against that rule.

Againe, faith is one, as himselfe truely affirmes, Appeal▪ p. 43. and the rule of faith is one, as faith it selfe is one. These things are evident, I need not bring further proofe for them. All which being duely considered, I doubt not, but even M^r: Mountague himselfe will giue sentence; That,

The Church of Rome hath not the essence and be­ing of a true Church.

One thing more in this question must be remembred; 20 Thus he writeth, Appeal. p. 83. This proposition

We must for ever vpon paine of damnation dissent from the Church of Rome in all things, and haue no peace at all with them.

Is a strange Bugbeare.

I answer, the sence hereof must be first had, before the truth can be judged of. By Bugbeare, is meant a fiction, or pretence, vsed vnto Infants to keepe them in awe, and they are so vsed by the way of dalliance, because Infants haue not the vse of reason, and thereby are vn­capable of government by meanes that are of a higher nature, they that cannot judge of truth, nor taste of substance, must be led with shews, and fed with fancies.

It may be doubted whether this was his meaning or not, perhaps his words are extended beyond his in­tent (may some man say) vnto whom I answer, he meant to say no lesse then thus, and I find it by him­selfe. In his Preface to the Reader before his Gagg, a little af­ter the beginning, he bringeth his adversary saying; There is no salvation to Protestants, which he doth call ter­rible shawe-fowle, to skare poore soules that haue not the fa­cultie [Page 51] of discerning cheese from chalke, horrible affrights t [...] put yong children out of their wits, that cannot distinguish a visnomie indeed from a visor. Where he giues the same sence to shawe-fowle, that I giue here to Bugbeare, which two words signifie the same thing, according to himselfe in the place last alledged.

And thus stands the case with the Church of England, and these graue and learned men, whose words and proofes I haue alledged, and all other of our Church to whom they haue written in this sentence of Maister Mountague. But this is an imputation more odious then humane eares can beare with Patience. What? Is our Church a dallier with her children, and that in a matter in nature so high? Of consequence so great? Doth shee sport her selfe, & befoole her children with Gods Word and their salvation? Are all her children such silly Infants, that for want of true reason must be governed by shadows? No marvaile though his Dio­cesan fares no better, where his Mother speeds so ill. He complaines of false, iniurious, vnhonest, fiery, fran­tick, &c. Informers and Promoters. But vnder what coul­lours, in what ranck shall this Champion be marshal­led, if you set him in the Vantgard, he will be in the enemies front before the rest of the battell approach, if you place him in the Reare, you restraine 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 stroake toge­ther, shee a dallier, all them fooles, or Infants,▪ What shall I say to it? If this be your obedience to your Mo­ther, reverence to your Diocesan, and kindnes to your friends, then—Of this point enough, I proceed to the next.

CHAP. VII

CHAP. VIII. The point of Free-will, set downe in the former Chapter, is debated.

IN this point, as in the former, three things are to 1 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 dissent from the Church of England, or not.

Of the second and third, we haue his sentence in his gagg. p. 107. & Appeal. p. 83. where he saith;

The particulars in this point of Free-will, controverted betweene the Church of Rome and ours, are of no great moment.

And in his Appeal. from p. 84. to 95. he indevours to proue; That

The Church of Rome and our Church, doe agree in the particulars delivered by Mr: Mountague, & set downe 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 downe in the last Chapter.

Because he will not deny to consent to those things, which in his judgement the Church of England con­senteth vnto. [Page 55] And that indeed he consenteth fully with the Church of Rome, will appeare by the sight of the doctrine on both sides, set downe in the Chapter going before. What it saith of the nature, vse, remaining, causes, man­ner of working, effects, adjuncts, objects of free-will, the same saith he: he comes not short one word; so that it seemeth little better, then a transcription out of the Romish faith, and opinion, taught amongst them.

That he dissenteth from the Church of England, a lit­tle 2 labour of mine is required to shew it; It is his taske to shew his agreement therewith, for he vndertooke to defend the doctrine of the Church of England, there­fore he must shew, that the doctrine which he defen­deth, is the doctrine thereof.

But that he cannot doe, except he proue the Church of England doth consent with the Church of Rome; and (it seemes) that he himselfe perceived so much, therefore he laboureth, Appeal. p. 84. &c. to proue their consent by this argument:

Whitaker, Chemnitius, Mollerus, Perkins, S [...]ecanus, He­mingius, Willet, the Helvetian Confession, the Confes­sion of Saxonie, 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 alledged; but accom­panied with all due Circumstances. First (for the cre­dit thereof, that it might not come barely without au­thoritie, he telleth vs. p. 95.

• 1. He examined this question between them and vs of free­will, with as great diligence as he could. p. 95.
• 2. He thought thus before, and so he thinkes [...]ow. p. 84.
• 3. He confirmes the antecedent, by laying downe cer­taine [Page 56] points of free-will, maintained by some one that side▪ which he calleth the most moderate amongst them. p. 90. and confest by those of ours. p. 87.
• 4. He interprets the conclusion, and sayth, he meanes by that Church and ours, moderate and temperate men on either side. p. 83.

I answer; If his intent be not to proue the agreement between the Church of Rome, and the Church of Eng­land, but between some professors of Divinitie on ei­ther side, then all his labour is in vaine: for the questi­on he ought to proue, is touching the agreement, not of private opinions in the Churches, but of the Chur­ches themselues, which two differ much, as himselfe affirmeth. Appeal. p. 134. This being publike and au­thorised, that not so: and he professeth in his Epistle before his Appeale, his resolution is to leaue private opini­ons, as Irchius to shift for themselues, and defend the doc­trine of our Church, publikely and vniversally resolved on; but according to his words alledged, that is not his in­tent, therefore all this argument is one of his Ireehius, necessary to be disbanded, and sent away to shift for it selfe, that our Mother the Church be no more troubled with it, yea, to be sent as a vagabond to the parish where it last dwelt, not suffered to passe without due correction; and is his owne advice in his said Epistle before his Appeal.

But I will suppose that he speakes of the agreement of the Churches themselues, 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 vnto them; no Law directeth vs; our Church doth not compell vs to be bound vnto them, which is his owne plea, Appeal. p. 70.

Those of our Church whose agreement he alledgeth, are much iniured by him. It is notoriously false that he saith; They are as farre from agreeing with the Church of Rome in the point of free-will, as Maister Mountague is from—As I can and will most evidently declare, if need be, but there is no place for that now; for it is besides the present question.

The consequence is also false; these men you name of our church, are not the church of England, no more then one handfull is the whole harvest; a few trees the whole Forrest: 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 appeares by your owne descrip­tion, Appeal. p. 111.

If that be so I yeeld: If that be not so, why doe you inferre our Churches agreement from their agree­ment?

These sores will not be healed with your owne pro­testations, 3 see your disputation:

I examined the question with diligence.

That they agree is my confirmed thoughts.

Therefore they doe agree, and that agreement is the a­greement of the Church of England.

Thus haue we done with the Vanguard, & the maine battell of this disputation, the Rere approacheth next in this order.

They that doe not acknowledge this agreement, 1. Doe not reade so much as their owne Protestant Writers. 2. In their Pulpits they brawle at the shaddow of their owne fancies. 3. Abuse the simple Credulitie of the vnlearned. 4. Make themselues ridiculous to the Papists. 5. Harden the Papists [Page 58] in their superstition. 6. Mistake ignorantly that which they doe not vnderstand. 7. Traduce confidently and virulently. Appeal. p. 88.

I answer, I come to dispute, therefore I will speake herevnto so farre as it concernes 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 heavie and bitter accusations, are not given absolutely, but with reference vnto, and inference vp­on the agreement, of the Church of England, with the Church of Rome, in the point of Free-will, if he hath proved that he thinkes, he may affirme these. Whether he hath done that or no, I will leaue to the judgement (I will not say) of him that is of the meanest capacitie, but of M^r: Mountague himselfe, who must giue sentence against his owne proofe, or els vndergoe the heavie sentence of all men that shall read my answer. What I might answer to the rest, I am not farre to seeke, but be­cause it doth tend to strife, and not to edification, ther­fore I hold my peace, God is the reprover of such evill language, and revenger of such wrongs, to whom I leaue it, and proceed to that which remaines appertai­ning to this argument, which I find thus written:

If you with your new learning (for old you haue little or 4 none) can teach me more than yet I know, I will yeeld and thanke you for such instructions. Appeal. p. 90.

I answer; What is become of M^r: Mountague his dis­puting? What is become of his Logick, or where was his Caution? Why man? Oh, he had to doe with poore Divines, silly men, of no performance. He might say what he would, they must take it for good, therefore he put this sentence vpon them, of purpose to gull them, and [Page 59] it seems so in very deed, for it doth neither affirme, no [...] deny, proue, nor disproue, but because every drop of old learning is honorable, as age it selfe 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) doe one of these three wayes.

1. But I will not yeeld, nor thanke you for such instruc­tions.

Therefore you cannot teach me more then yet [...] know

Or after this sort:

2. But you cannot teach me more then yet I know. For Your learning is new, old you haue little or none. And mine is old, for the course of my studies was never addressed to mo­derne Epitomizers, I went to inquire of the dayes of old, and hitherto I haue not repented me of it. Appeal. p. 11.

Therefore I will not yeeld &c.

I may dispute also from hence, a third way: Thus

3. But you can teach me more than yet I know.

Therefore I will yeeld and thanke you for such instruc­tions.

If he will dispute the first way, the Syllogisme is true: but every boy in the Schools will laugh at him, for the assumption is folly, and the consequence of the pro­position is madnesse, no man (well in his wits) would say, I will not yeeld, therefore you cannot teach.

If he disputeth in the second manner, his Syllogisme is false, and concludes nothing; every poore Sophister knows that. But in this manner he must be vnderstood, for his proofes doe lie directly for the confirmation of this assumption, and cannot otherwise be applyed.

But let it be as he will (for the forme) the assumption is a blast of vaine-glory, the answer is readie; Let him [Page 60] that putteth off his armour boast, and not he that putteth it on. If you had lead Causabon in triumph, I would haue advised you to brag of glory, and stay at home: but because you haue not, I come not so farre.

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 doe you know all their learning is new, haue they no bookes of the old? Haue they no guts in their braines, to make vse of such bookes? no tongues in their heads to impart their lear­ning to others? Or doe you know, they haue none by any speciall testimony from their own mouths, or your owne illumination? Is it true indeed, is your learning all old? Haue you ingrost all the books thereof? Does wit keepe her Common-wealth in your breast? Then happie man are you; but thrice vnhappie the world, from whom the old learning is sequestred, and that in­to a corner, yea into a close corner, out of which it can­not get (I am sure yet it hath not gotten.) I might goe on, to shew the insufficiency (if not folly) of this Con­firmation, of your Assumption; but I proceed to the next.

If you will dispute in the third sort, you make a true Syllogisme, but then behold your staydnes (a man of confirmed resolution I will warrant you.) He change? no such matter, even now you found him triumphing in the victory: now you find him Capitulating vpon conditions of peace. Even now you found him insul­ting over his captivated adversary: now you see him creeping and fawning vnto him over whom he insul­ted; and doe you know what manner of one he is, to whom he speaketh? If you doe not, he will tell you, [Page 61] and you must beleeue him, for old learning cannot de­ceiue you: this he is, A poore Divine, short sighted, slen­derly travelled. He knowes Fenners divinitie, if you put him out of that, he is as blind as a Beetle &c.

But howsoever the game goeth, this he saith (and tie him to his word, you shall find him either better or worse then you make of him)

If you will teach me, I will yeeld and thanke you too.

And because you shall see he is not in jest, he repeats 5 his promise againe, with an addition, Appeal. p. 95. in these words;

If you can make it appeare, that there is any such materiall difference between the Church of Rome (in the point of free-will) and the Church of England, then I will turne over a new leafe, euen in this Article opposing the church of Rome as farre as any &c.

I answer; it must be here observed, that he confesseth his agreement with the Church of Rome, els vnto what can he yeeld? What leafe can he turne over? How can he oppose the Church of Rome in this Article of Free­will, more then he does now? So that he cannot here­after deny that he agrees with it in this point of Free­will.

I accept of your offer, I looke for your performance, when you haue received the condition which I now tender vnto you.

In the first place, I will set downe what the Church of Rome meaneth by the word Grace, so often vsed in this and the other questions following, which the Reader must obserue; because the knowledge thereof doth serue abundantly to the vnderstanding of the present question of Free-will, set downe and disputed in the 7▪ [Page 62] and 8. Chapters: so doth it also serue no lesse for the vnderstanding of the question of Iustification in the 9. and 10. Chapters: and of the question of Falling from grace, in the 11. and 12. Chapters; so as he that doth not vnderstand and obserue what they say touching Grace, shall hardly know what is true or false in these qu [...]stions.

The sence 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 supernaturall thing. 2. It is the gift of God. 3. It is in man. 4. It draweth man aboue the condition of his nature, vnto the participation of the divine good.

Now that this Grace might be the more distinctly knowne, he doth divide it 1. 2. q. 111. ar: 2. C. Into actuall and habituall: he calleth it actuall, because it mo­ueth mans mind vnto good: he calleth it habituall, because it remaineth in man, by the way of a forme, and is the begin­ning of all supernaturall actions.

I say, this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, be­cause it is received by all their learned, and rejected by none of them: yea, the Councell of Trent hath it, sess. 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. where it speaketh of Iustification it selfe, and the preparations therevnto.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome in the point of the concurring of Gods grace and mans will in the conversion of a sinner vnto God, is comprehended in these 15. propositions.

• 1. Grace signifies a helpe, comming from God, a created be­ing, supernaturall to man, remaining in him, leading him vnto eternall life.
• 2. Grace is either actuall or habituall; this doth finish [Page 63] mans sanctitie, that begins and continues it by degree [...] vnto the finishing of sanctitie, and is called a preparati­on thereto.
• 3. Actuall grace is preventing, exciting, operating, all of them expressing the first motiō of grace. And subsequent, adiuvating, cooperating all these, expressing a second motion of grace.
• 4. The preparation to sanctitie, consisteth in certaine acti­ons, viz. 1. faith. 2. feare. 3. hope. 4. loue begun. 5. ha­tred of sinne. 6. contrition. 7. purpose of a new life.
• 5. Vnto these prepratory actions, grace and mans will doth concurre.
• 6. Grace preventing &c. doth worke therevnto without mans will, it being onely passiue, moved and not a mo­ver.
• 7. By grace preventing &c. mans will is made able to be willing vnto the doing of those prepratory acts, if it will.
• 8. Vnto the actuall doing of those prepratory acts, there is required an assent, purpose, censent, resolution, or deter­mination of the will, before it be applyed vnto the work­ing of them actually, and in the thing.
• 9. Grace cooperating &c. worketh not without the concur­rence of mans will.
• 10. Grace cooperating &c. standeth ready to ioyne with the will of him that is prevented by grace. Suarez. opusc. 7. num. 43. & opusc. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. num. 10.
• 11. Grace cooperating &c. doth concurre with mans will in case it consenteth, resolveth, and determineth, that it will beleeue, feare, hope, &c. before it be applyed vnto actuall working of them. In case where it doth not so consent, &c. grace doth doth not cooperate.
• 12. The actions of faith, feare, hope, &c. are produced by the [Page 64] ioynt concurrence of mans will and grace cooperating.
• 13. Vpon the producing of faith, feare, hope, &c. the habit of grace is immediately infused.
• 14. The infusion of the habit doth follow the said actions in­fallibly in the event.
• 15. That infallibilitie floweth from the ordinance of God, and the disposition that man hath therevnto by the doing of the said actions.

It may be, some will require me to proue these pro­positions 6 to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I answer, I am not to seeke for that, I am readie to doe it, vpon the least call; but here I forbeare it, because it is familiarly knowne to be theirs, so as the proofes would be needlesse and tedious, therefore I proceed in my Course.

The point of Free-will in question, concerneth the 8. 7 proposition, the reason of the doubt ariseth thus;

If mans will must assent, resolue, determine to beleeue &c. before it be applyed to actuall beleeving &c. And grace preventing &c. worketh it not: then it is doubtfull from what roote or principium that consent &c. first ariseth, and from whence it floweth.

But mans will must resolue, &c. the 8. and 11. proposi­tion saith it.

And it flowes not from grace preventing &c. so saith the 7. proposition.

Therefore it is doubtfull of what, and from whence that de­termination of the will first floweth.

This doubt, both the Church of Rome, and M^r: Moun­tague with it doe resolue, by the doctrine delivered by them both, set downe in the precedent Chapter, on this manner;

The will doth assent, consent, and determine &c. of it selfe, out of that inbred libertie, which is in the will it selfe: and this libertie consisteth 1. in an in­differency, and indeterminatenes vnto doing or not doing, to the doing of this, or the contrary there­vnto. And 2. in a dominion over his owne actions, to doe as he pleaseth.

That their doctrine set downe (as is before said) doth yeeld this answer, they that are acquainted with the writings of the learned in the Popish Church will wit­nesse with me: and [...] doe make demonstration thereof on this wise;

If man assenteth freely vnto the grace of God exciting, and can reiect the inspiration which he receiveth, then that assent &c. proceeds out of the will it selfe, and the in­differency and dominion over his owne actions, to doe or not to doe, to doe this, or the contrary, as he pleaseth.

But man assenteth freely to the grace of God that exciteth, and can reiect the inspiration which he receiveth.

Therefore the assent and determination to beleeue &c. ari­seth first of, and floweth from the will it selfe, and that indifferency and dominion that it hath &c. So Suarez disputeth. opusc. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. num. 7. &c. & lib. 3. cap. 12. num. 11. & 12. see Alvares. disp. 89. num. 1. & 2.

The consequence of the proposition supposeth; That

• 1. Mans will hath naturally freedome and libertie.
• 2. The freedome of mans will consisteth in an indif­ferency and dominion &c.
• 3. The freedome of mans will, & the free vse of that facultie remaineth in that man that hath grace.
• 4. Man hath free-will in such actions as belong to his salvation.
• [Page 66]5. Mans free-will remaineth after preventing grace, &c.

All which propositions, wee find set downe in the six first propositions of Maister Mountague, in the former Chapter: and some of them expresly in the three first propositions of the Church of Rome, and the rest in the two last propositions of the Councell of Trent, set downe also in the former Chapter.

The assumption containeth M^r: Mountague his 7. and 8. propositions, and the two last propositions of the Councell of Trent, set downe also in that last Chapter. By which discourse the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this point, and the dependance that one part thereof hath of another, is layd out clearly, and to the full, so also is the agreement of M^r: Mountague with them declared to be, without question. The necessitie of the consequence will appeare. num. 8. Lastly, &c.

It may be, some will desire to know the reason why 8 the Councel of Trent, did satisfie this doubt by decreeing the nature or qualitie of the assent; and not the root or fountaine from whence that assent did flow and arise.

I answer; this question is not demanded without rea­son, for the Decree of the Councell doth resolue the doubt by consequence, and not immediately, and ther­by goeth (as it may seeme) a way which is farther a­bout, and more obscure. To satisfie the demand is ea­sie. 1. The nature of the thing it selfe required that course, for the faculties themselues of mans soule, are so farre removed from our knowledge, that in them­selues they cannot be judged of: But all the knowledge we haue of them, is by the effects which doe flow from them,

Againe, the course of the divine Revelation required it, for it is silent & saith nothing of the facultie it selfe: 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 sixt session, it sayth these words; Turne vnto me, doe admonish vs of our liber­tie. Where it doth argue, the nature of the facultie, by the nature and qualitie of the act of the will.

Lastly, the Councell doth not indeed and in the thing, take that way which is more obscure, but rather that which is more cleare and more certain. For the nature and qualitie of the act doth argue, & set out the nature and qualitie of the facultie, from whence it floweth by necessary inference and absolute certaintie. A necessa­ry effect, cannot flow but from a necessary facultie. E­very man will grant, the necessitie that is in the sight of the eye (when all circumstances doe concurre) can arise from no other facultie, but such as is determined and necessitated vnto seing. The eye seeth the visible object (and cannot choose but see it) where all other circumstances doe concurre, because the eye it selfe, or facultie of sight by creation is apted, fitted, and dispo­sed vnto seing, and hath not in its libertie to see or not see, when a visible thing is obiected thereunto, and all other circumstances doe concurre. 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 freedome and li­bertie, that at the very moment when I begun to do it, and alwayes before, it was in my power not to haue done it, or to haue done the contrary therunto. Ther­fore the facultie from whence this act floweth by crea­tion, [Page 68] is not apted, fitted, or necessitated vnto the doing of actions of this kind, and restrained from actions of all other kinds. But in it selfe is indetermined vnto ac­tions of any kind, remaineth indifferent vnto doing or not doing, to the doing of this, or the contrary. Hath dominion over actions of every kind, to doe or not doe; to the doing of this or the contrary, as it plea­seth without the restraint or guidance of any superior, extrinsecall, or previall worker, leading and limiting the same vnto this, rather then vnto that. In so much, as if mans action of consenting &c. had beene so free, as the Councell hath decreed it to be, then it is most true that it had first proceeded from a facultie no lesse free. Thus much shall suffice, to set downe the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching this point.

And that M^r: Mountague maketh mans will it selfe, the 9 first roote or foundation of this supernaturall consent, it doth manifestly appeare by other testimonies, proper to himselfe, which doth argue it on this manner; If man receiveth grace, preventing and cooperating vnto the worke of his salvation, and no other then the first roote or foundation of that supernaturall consent, must needs be the will it selfe. 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 joyne in the worke with it. But M^r: Mountague sayth, vnto the worke of our salvation, we haue received grace, preventing, cooperating, Appeal. p. 94. 104. And doth no where acknowledge any other. Yea, more then so, the next worker vnto preventing grace (ac­cording to him) is man himselfe. gagg. p. 110.

From whence doth follow, that in his judgement mans will it selfe is the first roote or foundation of our supernaturall consent.

If he answer, he giveth to grace the power of sustaining and vpholding. Appeal. p. 94. I reply, this helpeth not the matter, for to sustaine, is onely to preserue man in his being, and also it belongeth to Gods generall provi­dence, he doth so to all creatures; but we speake of his speciall providence, ordering man vnto eternall life. If he say, he ioyneth the assistance of preventing grace vnto mans will. I reply; this is to as little purpose as the former, for the assistance of that grace, is inspiring, en­lightning, exciting, as himselfe yeeldeth. Appeal p. 94. and no more, as all men doe confesse, which belongeth to the vnderstanding onely, it extendeth not to the will. Besides, although it did extend to the will, it can be first no roote to send forth that supernaturall consent, vnlesse it doth determine the will vnto one object, and make it not onely 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 libertie to divert the vse of his facultie therefrom; but this he will deny, and doth seeme to doe so. Appeal. p. 94.

I say, this is proper to him, because the Councell of Trent addeth adiuvating grace vnto these, and saith, Man doth prepare himselfe by exciting and adiuvating grace, which is much lesse then M^r: Mountague sayth, and beareth a construction farre more favourable, then his doth, in the vnderstanding of the Dominicans (as they that read them doe know) see Alvares. de Aux. disp. 95. num. 3. & disp. 99. 2^•. conclusio. [Page 70] In the next place, the doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, 10 set downe also in the last Chapter, must be compa­red with the same doctrine of the Church of Rome, and M^r. Mountague; 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 downe in this Chapter, num. 5. So farre as it concerneth the concurrence of grace and mans will in our sancti­fication, and the markes 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 con­sequution and supposition. The onely difference lyeth in the doubt propounded, num. 7. and in the libertie of mans 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 Gods spirit. They through grace obey that calling. Arti: 17. vnto which it doth dispose them. Homilie, pag. 456.

Which is all one, as if it had said;

They through grace, and the disposing thereof, doe con­sent, resolue, determine, &c. to beleeue, feare, hope, &c.

For thereunto by grace, or Gods spirit, is man called and disposed.

In which is also implyed; that,

The eliciated act of Consenting &c. is not free: man can­not at the instant of eliciating that act, reiect grace, and dissent from the Calling thereof.

Which sentence, is inferred on this wise;

Every act so wrought by Gods spirit, as mans will [Page 71] is obedient thereto and disposed thereby, is not free. For

The operation of grace, or Gods spirit, is determined to one.

But mans consenting, which is obedience to the call of grace, &c. is an Act so wrought by Gods grace. So sayth the Article and Homilie.

Therefore the act of consenting is not free.

What it doth giue to mans will; our Church giueth to grace: that act which it maketh free; our Church maketh necessary.

In this doctrine and inference therefrom, the Church 11 of Englād doth directly oppose the faith of the church of Rome, in such expresse and manifest sort, as hereafter there can no doubt be made, whether it doth dissent therefrom or no, or wherein that dissent should lie; so that now nothing remaineth, but that M^r: Mountague should oppose the Church of Rome, according to his promise, set downe num. 5. But (me-thinkes) I heare him say, this difference is not materiall, it importeth not any thing worthy of difference and dissent, but pro­ceedeth from minds transported with faction, therefore I am not yet tyed vnto that promise.

I answer; he seemeth indeed to attribute the diffe­rence and opposition to the Church of Rome in this point of free-will, to arise from no other ground, but faction, Appeal p. 84. &c. But altogether vntruly, for the Church of England holdeth not a faction against the Church of Rome, but hath made a separation for the a­voyding of damnation, as hath beene declared, Chap­ter 6. num. 6. Neither was shee so ignorant, as to take a shadow in stead of a substance, nor of such an idle head [Page 72] 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 thinke so of her; yet in this point he could not doe so; for this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous, therefore for it alone (let the matter it selfe be what it will be) must shee be opposed to the vttermost; because such a faith is an addition vnto the Word of God, threatned to be punished by eternall damnation.

The matter it selfe is also of great moment in it selfe. Our Church doth giue all the honour of our salvation (in the event & in the manner of working) vnto God; theirs doth devide it between God and man, and giues onely this honour to God, that he maketh man 1. able to begin to tread in the way vnto salvation; and 2. sup­plyes mans defects, and joynes with him in the pro­gresse it selfe: but he leaveth vnto man and the inbred libertie, that is in the created facultie of his will, to be­gin and produce the first act, or to make voyd the be­ginning and possibilitie alreadie wrought by grace, and to prevent, reiect, and forestall the offer and ope­ration of the second supply and power of grace, regu­lating both the first and second worke of grace. If man will consent vnto, & obey the first worke of grace, then the second does joyne with him, and therupon he go­eth on indeed in the way to heaven. If man refuseth to consent vnto, and obey the first worke of grace, then the whole worke thereof ceaseth & comes to nothing, and the work of the second grace never commeth on; beginneth not at all.

The worke of mans salvation ceaseth, he is where he was, as if grace had never wrought vpon him. Now [Page 73] that this is iniurious vnto God, is so manifest that it needs not be proved, seeing the greatest share of mans abilitie, to doe those things that shall lead him to hea­ven, is given to man himselfe: the lesser vnto God. That man may be saved, it is of God, who beginneth and joyneth with man, vnto the doing of that which he could not doe of himselfe. But that this power is brought vnto act, is attributed to man himselfe, and the onely libertie of his own will. Grace doth nothing by any effectuall efficiency vpon the will, determining the same to God, or restraining it from the contrary.

To conclude; seeing that I haue performed the con­dition 12 of your promise at num. 5. If you can make it ap­peare &c. I doe now expect the performance of your promise, which you made in these words;

I will 1. yeeld; 2. Thanke you for your instructions; 3. Turne over a new leafe. 4. Oppose the Church of Rome in this Article as farre 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 M^r: 13 Mountague, and set downe in Chapter 7. must be exa­mined, whether they be true or no.

The first of them, begins thus;

Free-will is in vs subsisting, not in Title onely.

This proposition in the termes wherein it lyeth is true, for by the facultie of the will, and the electiue and free power thereof, man is really distinguished from all other creatures. What shall be said to it in his sence, shall be declared, num. 16.

The second, beginneth thus; 14

Free-will is a power &c.

The first branch of this descriptiō of free-will is true, and cannot be denyed. The second branch that pla­ceth it in a facultie of doing freely, and in an absolute dominion over his own actions &c. is vtterly denyed, by reason he is not able to proue it. He bestirres him­selfe to proue the first branch of his description, or the first proposition (according as he will be vnderstood) by experience, and the authoritie 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 then that. Secondly, if man hath this freedome and dominiō, then God hath lesse charge, providence, and government over the actions of men, then over a­ny other created effects; for in them God is the onely principall efficient of the worke: they are instruments to worke in subordination vnto, and by the force of him. But man is hereby made a principall efficient of his workes; superior, or (at least) equall vnto God by giving vnto him freedome, and absolute dominion o­ver himselfe, to doe as he will.

God made man, and gaue him his being, he yeeldeth him his concourse, whereby he doth sustaine him in his being. All this while God is no efficient of mans actions, except very remotely. Man by his being hath a dominion over himselfe, and freedome to doe as he will, hereby he is an efficient next and principall vnto his owne actions, if not the onely efficient; for mans actions haue relation to the force of man in the doing of them, but they haue no relation vnto God at all. The effect may say, by mans power I had my being, and by Gods power man had his being. But it may not be granted, that God hath no providence over mans [Page 75] actions, or lesse providence then over the actions of o­ther creatures; for the Scripture is plaine, and full to the contrary. Thirdly, there is no necessitie why this freedome 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 facultie. Which I say not of my selfe: I learne it from Suarez. opusc. 1. cap. 1. num. 2. And he sayth, that many graue and ancient Divines, yea, Thomas, and some of the Fathers are of that Iudgement. At least M^r: Mountague ought to cōtent himselfe with that libertie of the will, and not to striue for this dominiō, because the church of Rome doth forbeare to call that by the name of free­will, least it should agree in manner of speaking with the hereticks of this time; as Suarez avoucheth in the place last alledged.

The third proposition, hath these words; 15

That libertie was &c.

I answer; If by libertie you meane the vse of the fa­cultie in supernaturall actions, then the proposition is false; for, man by sinne lost grace, as you truely teach, gagg. p. 108. And without grace, mans will is not capa­ble of doing supernaturall actions, which for their es­sence, first, and specificall nature, are beyond the abilitie of the force of the Created facultie, 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 sence, we must vnderstand those Divines which teach the losse of free-will by Adams sinne. Therefore the Councell of Trent (and M^r: Mountague with it) pur­sue their owne shadow, when they decreed as against an adversary, when indeed they had none. Which is [Page 76] further confirmed thus; If libertie be taken to signifie the facultie it selfe, then that third proposition is gran­ted, and that vpon the same reason himselfe alledgeth out of the Councell of Trent, gagg. p. 108. Adam by sinne lost not his nature.

The fourth, fift, and sixt propositions, containe thus 16 much;

Mans free facultie, and the free vse thereof, is in him that hath grace.

I answer; the free facultie and grace are both toge­ther in one man, and so farre this proposition is true. 2. If the vse of that free facultie be committed, vnto the dominion and dispose of the will it selfe: then the pro­position is false. It can never be proved, that the vse of the free facultie of the will is left vnto the dispose and dominiō of the will it selfe, but the dominion and dis­pose thereof, is reserved vnto the Lord God: and he sayth no lesse, when he promised to take away the stony heart, and giue a heart of flesh, and to imprint his lawes ther­in. Let M^r: Mountague shew, where God saith to a man prevented by grace, I haue made thee able to doe holy workes if thou wilt. I commit thy selfe vnto thy selfe, goe forward or backward as thou wilt; there I will rest, I will take no further care of thee, nor haue no further command over thee; but this cannot be done, there­fore I may conclude, the proposition thus vnderstood (and so he doth vnderstand it) is false.

But if the vse of the free facultie, be committed vnto the Lord God, to dispose of as he please, so as mans o­bedience vnto grace that calleth, be given to grace (as the Church of England speaketh, Arti: 17.) and the en­titie of mans nature be vsed by grace onely, as an in­strument [Page 77] thereunto, then I grant this proposition is true. The vse of the free facultie is in him which hath grace. But in this sence he cannot vnderstand it; for then mans actions cannot be so free, as he pretendeth in the seventh and eighth propositions following.

In this sence, free-will is meerly titular, having a name without the thing, as we vse to speake when a man in­ioyeth a thing, but hath no vse of it; and in this sence, our Divines haue sayd true, who affirme mans freewill is in title onely; so also is it most truly affirmed of them that say, mans will is a serving, not a free-will.

The seventh and eight proposition, containeth thus 17 much;

He that assenteth &c. assenteth freely, and can deny his assent if he will &c.

The word can, in this proposition, doth signifie a pow­er of vsing the free facultie with indifferency, in the very instant in which a man doth worke; and so Suarez doth vnderstand it, opusc. 1. lib. 1. cap. 1. num. 8. And so must the Councell of Trent be vnderstood, sess. 6. cap. 5. For all other senses thereof, are violent and extorted, not a­greeing with the phrase vsed by the Councell of Trent, nor their intent in decreeing.

If M^r: Mountague can proue this, let him take all for me. I will not oppose the Councell of Trent, and himselfe (a Disciple thereof) in this question of free-will. If he cannot proue it, why doth he put himselfe into Gods seat, by intruding and vrging Articles of faith. I am out of doubt, he cannot proue it; for Suarez hath attemp­ted many things, and heau'd at it with both his shoul­ders, but all in vaine, it may be, Suarez hath no old lear­ning, nor Logick so good as Ramus taught in Cambridge, [Page 78] no Metaphysicks at all, but is ignorant in this questiō. He could Preach, Lecture, brawle, and prattle a little in a Pulpit, but dispute he could not; set him to an argu­ment, and you breake his braines; but be it knowne vnto you, all these things are otherwise with Maister Mountague, therefore what Suarez could not, he can doe, and that you shall see in his gagg. p. 112. Thus he disputeth.

In Mathew 23. and 37. there is an opposition of mans wil­fulnesse vnto Gods will, God would, Iudah would not.

Therefore freely men renounce the Calling of grace, and freely runne.

I answer; the last branch of the conclusion, which speaketh of running with Gods grace, cannot follow vpon the Antecedent, because mans will in sinfull acts is an efficient after a different sort, and in another man­ner, then it is in supernaturall actions. In them it is a principall efficient (that is, sinneth of it selfe) in these it is a subordinate efficient, as your selfe teach, Appeal. p. 94. therefore sinne doth flow from the will one wayes, and supernaturall actions another.

The first branch in the conclusion doth not follow 18 vpon the Antecedent, which hath not a word of free­dome, libertie, or dominion in resisting, but barely char­geth them with the eliciated act of resisting. If it be re­plyed, that resisting is an act of the will, and every act of the will hath that freedome and dominion. I re­joynd; this reply is refuted already, num. 14.

Therefore it comes too late to take away my answer.

The Antecedent by the word Call, doth vnderstand the Calling of God, and the inward calling by grace, otherwise there can be no shew of goodnesse in the [Page 79] consequence. If you would haue vs beleeue, that our Saviour did speake of that kind of calling, you ought to haue proved it, because it may be vnderstood of the outward calling by the Ministery of our Saviour; but because you haue not proved it, your argument (at the vpshot) is resolved into your owne authoritie, and so is of no worth.

He saith in his gagg. p. 112. that many other places of 19 Scripture doe serue this purpose, but he does not name nor vrge any in particular, therefore they can receiue no answer.

He hath two other Arguments by collection, and a third from Acts the 7. & 51. the words wherof be these Appeal. pag. 89. &c.

You resist the holy Ghost.

In this argument he raiseth his confidence, because the very word resist is vsed there. I answer; a poore foundation for confidence. It hath the same fault the former had: it affirmeth of resisting simply; our questi­on is of freedome in resisting, so it is nothing to the purpose. You vnderstand it of the work of grace in the soule, but you proue it not: it may be vnderstood of their resisting of the outward Preaching of the Gos­pell, therefore we haue your owne authoritie, and no more; we haue no reason to thinke that God inward­ly enlightned &c. all these persons that are sayd to resist the holy Ghost.

The next, concludeth thus; 20

In whom there is concupiscence, he may resist and rebell a­gainst the law of the spirit.

But in a man regenerate, there is concupiscence.

Therefore a regenerate man may resist the spirit of God.

I answer; This conclusion is nothing to the purpose; for our question is of the preparation vnto the habit and freedome in resisting; but this conclusion is of a man habituated, and of resisting simply.

If it be vnderstood of resisting freely, then the propo­sition is false. For Concupiscence hath nothing to doe with freedome of will: this is a perfection given by Creation; that is a defection procured by sinne.

His last Argument, is in these words; 21

If a man iustified, may fall away from grace, then he may resist the grace of God offered.

But the first is the doctrine of the Church of England.

Therefore a iustified man may resist the grace of God offe­red.

I answer; this conclusion hath the very same fault which the former had. Besides, it sayth grace is offered to a justified man, how that can be true, himselfe must declare; for a justified man hath grace already, vnto such a man grace cannot be offered.

The consequence of the proposition is naught, losing of grace, hath no affinitie with resisting of grace, that sig­nifies the absence of a thing inioyed, this the repelling & thrusting backe of a thing offered, but not received. The assumption is also false, as shall be proved. cap. 12.

His ninth proposition, sayth; 22

Man being drawne &c.

By mans running, he seems to vnderstand a running by the force of the created faculty; for the words wil beare that sence: and he sayth further in the same propositi­on, man doth run as his owne agillitie is; he sayth further, gagg. p. 108. the whole question in the point of free-will is concerning the force of the created facultie. In this sence that ninth proposition is false, and to be detested.

It seemes he perceived thus much: therfore in his Ap­peal. p. 91. & 94. he labours to cure that vlcer, by saying

Supernaturall actions, are true and reall operations of mans soule, but the soule is elevated & actuated to that height by grace, of which it is, that mans will is a subor­dinate agent vnto grace.

Which declaration comes very short, therefore I will adde a passage in Suarez, which doth expresse the same thing more fully, in his opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 15. num. 20. he writeth thus;

Mans will cannot haue any connaturall power, which by its nature is a worker of a supernaturall act, either as a totall or partiall cause, but when the creature doth so worke, it worketh as an instrument of God, & although it worketh by his owne entitie, yet notwithstanding, not out of a force naturall, but obedientall.

This addition I make by his owne authoritie, for he doth professe in his Appeal. p. 90. that he takes the fore­said explication from Pontificians. I answer; All this la­bour might haue beene spared, because it helpeth the matter nothing at all. It makes it more obscure then before. Every man can vnderstand what you meane, when you say, the will doth worke by the naturall force, but when you say, the entitie of the will doth worke by a supernaturall force, elevation, and actuation, he will be to seeke of your meaning. Moreover, this explicatiō doth take away the free vse of the free facultie, which you contend for, or leaue mans will to worke, by the naturall force of the created facultie, which is the thing you would thrust off; and I shew it thus: This e­levation and actuation, if by grace, is either a morall or a physicall worke; if physicall, then the will is de­termined vnto one: the free vse of the facultie is abrid­ged [Page 82] and restrained; for this worke of grace is previall in nature and causalitie, and truely efficient vpon the will, before it be applyed vnto operation in the second act. If it be morall, then the will doth worke of the na­turall force therof, because the morall worke of grace, is no more but a perswasion offered to the vnderstan­ding, and resteth there. It hath no influence vnto, nor reflection vpon the will, which is vncapable of Iud­ging of truth and falshood: onely it cannot will any ob­iect, but that which the vnderstanding sayth is good, which connexion between the vnderstanding and the will, is naturall, no worke of grace. To conclude, two propositions may be inferred from this explication.

• 1. Man doth not produce supernaturall acts by the force of his created facultie.
• 2. Man hath no free-will in supernaturall acts.

You are at your choice; if you haue the first, you haue the second, if you take the second, you grant the thing in question. If you deny the second, you must deny the first, and thereby you defend a sentence which Molina doth accurse vnto hell. de Concor. in q. 14. art: 13. disp. 40. Nostra itaque &c.

The tenth, and last sayth; 23

Man being prevented by grace, he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of grace.

I answer; to procure, may signifie the act of an efficient, either morall by the way of merit, or physicall, by the way of reall influence into the effect. In both these sen­ses, this tenth proposition is false: and the Church of Rome hath decreed, sess. 6. cap. 8. the grace of Iustification cannot be merited; much lesse will any be so voyd of pie­tie, as to say, man can compell God to giue him grace; but what ever his meaning be, here it must be observed, [Page 83] mans hand is the next cause of a supernaturall act, vn­to preventing grace, and the putting thereof forth is attributed vnto man himself, which is a large doctrine of free-will, as I haue shewed in the former part of this Chapter, num. 4. Far exceeding the limits of the Coun­cell of Tren [...], sess. 6. cap. 5. 6. Which joyneth grace and mans will alwayes together in his preparation, and as­signeth adiuvating grace between preventing and coope­rating, which sheweth his consent with Arminius, in those grosse points which the Church of Rome durst not Patronize.

CHAP. IX. The point of Iustification.

M^r: Mountague.

• Man hath a double estate
  • of sinne
    • wherein he was borne.
    • produced in life and action.
  • acquisite, renewed according to the spi­rit. gagg. p. 141.
• In the first state he is not Iust. p. 141.
• To Iustifie hath a 3. fold extent,
  • To make Iust.
  • To make more Iust.
  • To declare or pronoūce Iust. p. 140

Iustification properly is in the first sence. gagg. p. 142. & 144.

A sinner is then Iustified, when he is made Iust. That is, translated from state of nature to state of grace; as Colos. 1. 13. Who hath de­livered vs from the power of darknesse, and hath translated vs, &c. Which is motion, as they say, betwixt two termes. And

Consisteth in forgiuenes of sins primarily, and grace infused seconda­rily. Both the act of Gods spirit in man. p. 142. & 143.

In the state of Grace, a man is Iust, when he is changed, which must haue concurrence of ow [...] things:

Privation of being to that which was the body of sinne. Wherein

A new constitution vnto God in another state. Of grace whereto. In which he that is altered in state, changed in condition, transformed in mind, renued in soule regenerate and borne a new to God by grace, is Iust in the state of Iustification. p. 141.

To speake properly, God onely Iustifieth, who alone imputeth not sinne, and createth a new heart within vs.

The soule of man is the subiect of this act.

In which, vnto which, are necessarily required certaine preparations, and previous dispositions to the purpose; As knowledge of God, &c. feare, hope, contrition, loue, desire of, purpose for a new life, and such like. But these are all with and from faith. The principall indowment of grace, may worthily be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian pi [...]tie, Faith. gagg. p. 143. 144.

The Church of Rome.

The Iustification of a sinner, is a translation from that state in which man was borne a sonne of the first Adam, into the state of grace. Concil. Trent. sess. 6. cap. 4.

Iustification it selfe, is not onely remission of sinnes, but also the sanc­tification and renovation of the inward man, by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts, from whence a man is made Iust of vniust. cap. 7. There is required on mans part, that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his owne will, vnto the obtaining the grace of Iustifica­tion. can. 9.

Man is disposed vnto the iustice of Iustification. By faith, feare, hope, loue begun, some hatred and detestation of sinne, a purpose to be bap­tized; to begin a new life; and to keepe Gods cōmandements. cap. 6. We are sayd therefore to be Iustified by faith, because faith is the be­ginning, foundation, and roote of every Iustification. cap. 8.

Cap. 10. It decreeth that Iustification receiud, is increased.

The Church of England.

That we are Iustified by faith onely, is a most wholsome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homilie of Iustification. Arti: 11.

To be washed from sinnes in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin, is that Iustificatiō or righteousnes, which S. Paul speaketh of, when he sayth, No man is justified by the workes of the Law. The forgiuenesse of sinnes and trespasses, is that righteousnesse which is taken, accepted, and allowed of God for our profit, and full Iusti­fication. 1. Sermon of salvation, a little after the beginning.

There is nothing vpon the behalfe of man concerning his Iustification, but onely a true and liuely faith. 1. Sermon of Salvation, a little be­fore the end.

CHAP. X. The Doctrine deliuered in the former Chapter is argued.

THere be three things in it inquirable.

• 1 Whether this proposition, A sinners Iu­stification 1 consisteth also in grace infused, be true or not?
• 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not?
• 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of Eng­land or not?

I haue set downe M^r. Mountagu his doctrine tou­ching this point, which containeth many propositi­ons, and because it might appeare how farre he agre­eth with the Church of Rome, I bring but one of them to be disputed: because if this be foūd false & against the doctrine of the Church of England, then all the rest will be found false likewise: and I desire to con­tract the disputation vnto the narrowest scantling.

That that first proposition is false, doth manifestly 2 appeare by the answers made vnto the disputations of Thomas, Vega, Soto, Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasques, and others that doe maintaine the same. To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needlesse, because there is nothing brought to proue it.

That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in e­uery 3 one of his propositions is manifest to the full. The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set downe also in the former Chapter will shew it. [Page 2] And that not onely in the Iustice that doth concurre vnto Iustification, and all other things which depend thereupon, but also in the nature and being of the re­mission of sinnes, as shal be declared n^o. 23 &c. Which must be obserued, because it is a matter of great im­portance: it is little obserued, and maketh vp his agree­ment with them, and his disagreement with the Church of England in euery part and parcell of this point, teaching in all things as they doe; in nothing as the Courch of England doth. That he doth disagree from the Church of England, the very reading of the doctrine of them both, set downe in the last Chapter will declare. Our Church placeth our whole Iustice, and adequate nature of Iustification in remission of sinnes, he placeth it also in grace infused. It maketh remission of sinnes one thing, he another; as shall bee shewed hereafter n^o. 26. &c.

Notwithstanding all which euidence, he laboureth 4 in his Appeale, pag. 168. and 188. to perswade the world; that,

He consenteth not with the Church of Rome, nor dissenteth from the Church of England.

But all his labour is in vaine, the contradictory will proue true, as this discourse will declare.

He pleadeth for himselfe two things.

First, by grace infused hee meant and intended onely concommitanter, that is, grace concurreth with remis­sion of sins in a iustified man, pag. 168. 169. & 170.

Secondly, in that description hee went not punctually to worke, but described Iustification at large, for that act of God of remission of sins, and the necessary and immediate concomitance vnto, and consequence vp­on [Page 3] that. Appeale, pag. 172. 178.

He chargeth such as do not vnderstand that propo­sition in this sense, with ignorant or wilfull mistaking his meaning, or obstinate refusall of satisfaction. Ap­peale, pag. 168. 172.

I answer; All this is a faire shew put vpon a foule cause, a meere pretence without shew of truth. I will make it appeare, first by my answers to the argumēts he brings to proue hee meant thus. And then by proofes from the things themselues. This was not his intent, but his words must be vnderstood as they lie without interpretation.

His first argument, p. 168. is to this effect. 5

I did attribute grace infused to Iustification secon­darily,

Therfore I intēded grace infused is in a iustified man.

I answer; This reason is reasonlesse: There is no shew in the Consequence, the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to thinke you meant so, neither doe you shew how it should.

Againe, your owne words doe proue you meant not that, by the word secondarily: but that grace in­fused doth constitute Iustification in a second notion: For if Iustification be a motion between two termes, the one of sinne wherein a man was; the other of grace whereto a man is brought, and that is the first, this the second, then grace doth constitute Iustificati­on in a second notion; but you teach the first, Gagge, pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be vnderstood to meane the last.

In the next place he telleth vs; that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught, that a man iustified is sanctified also.

I answer; This proueth not that hee meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is iustified, but sup­poseth that he did meane so, and sheweth why hee did meane so, therefore it is nothing to the purpose. Besides, it is vtterly false, he had no purpose to say any such thing; for the question then in hand, was whether faith only doth iustifie: w^ch could not yeeld him any occasion to say Grace was in a iustified man, they be­ing two things euery way distinct and without the shew of affinity. Againe, neuer any Papist liuing did write or say that we denie a iustified man to be sancti­fied also, therefore you had no occasion thus to say.

In the last place, pag. 171. he hath these words, 6

If a iustified man bee also sanctified, then might I allow one common word to containe & expresse both the parts.

I answer; 1. This supposeth he meant as hee preten­deth, & sheweth the reason why hee comprehended two things distinct in nature vnder one name; but proues not that hee meant to say as hee pretendeth. 2. He bestoweth much labour, and spares for no cost to proue the first part of this reason, but to no pur­pose; for that was neuer denyed by any man in the Church of England, nor in any other Church that ioyneth in faith with it. But the consequence is vtter­ly false, for these two parts are not essentiall vnto that whole which you call Iustification. Therefore when you make one word to containe thē both, the sentēce is vntrue, disagreeable to art, and a monster in nature. He is vnskilfull that puts a childs-shooe vpon the foot of Hercules, that addeth to the statue of a man the limmes of a beast, and iust so doe you in this place, if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification [Page 5] vnder the name of Iustification. And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse, (and this too much too) for of three things two of them are who­ly besides the matter, and voyd of truth in themselues, the third disproued by his owne plaine testimony.

In the behalfe of the second part of his excuse, hee 7 saith, page 172.

Iustification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sinnes, and largely for that act of God, and the necessary, & immediate concomi­tance vnto, and consequence vpon that, &c, and the like doth Caluine, Perkins, Beza.

I answer; This supposeth that he did describe Iusti­fication largely, when hee said, Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes, and grace infused, but proues it not: therefore it is nothing to the purpose. But let it be supposed, he can proue it at some other time, and goe on with him to examine what he bringeth: I say it is vtterly false, the Scripture doth neuer take the Iu­stification of a sinner any other wayes but one; you bring no proofe that it doth, & your word is not suffi­cient: when your proofs come, you shal haue answer: for the authority of Caluin, &c. I need not much weigh in this question, because I know your selfe ac­counts it worth nothing. Caluin saith no such thing. 8 The last thing he pretendeth is, that

His intent was to confute the Gagger.

I answer; This hath no force to proue, that

Therefore I described Iustification, as comprehending Sanctification, when I said it consisteth in remission of sinnes, and grace infused.

For so to describe it, is not the way the confute, but [Page 6] to be confuted: first, because that description is false: secondly, in it you agree with the Gagger in an Arti­cle of his Faith, decreed by the Councell of Trent.

Moreouer, your antecedent is false: you had no such intent: For the thing to be refuted, was Faith onely doth not iustifie, so saith your aduersary, which you might haue refuted without relation to the na­ture of Iustification; for he must proue (at least) that somthing else besides Faith doth concur to Iustificati­on, or confesse he sayd not truely. It was not required on your part to proue all other things were excluded; therefore there was no need or occasion of making a description of Iustification. But suppose there had beene good reason why you should haue made a de­scription of Iustification, yet the making of this de­scription, doth argue your intent was not to refute the Gagger, but to establish and confirme the Gag­gers position; for if Iustification bee as you haue de­scribed it, then without all doubt, more things are re­quired to Iustification besides Faith: and Bellarmine doth dispute iust after the same manner, de Iusti. lib. 1. cap. 18. Lastly, vpon this description of Iustificati­on, you proceed, and say, man is the subiect thereof, and that thereunto there are required certaine prepa­rations to the purpose; the first wherof you say is know­ledge of God and his Law, &c. that is indeed assent vnto the Law of God, which is Faith, according to the Councell of Trent: for you doe not speake of such a knowledge of the Law, which is without an as­sent to the truth thereof. You proceed, and teach that Faith is the roote and originall of the rest of the pre­parations: iust as the Councell of Trent doth, which [Page 7] proues your intent was to iustifie, and not to refute your aduersaries position.

If notwithstanding all this, you will still affirme 9 your meaning to be such, as is set downe no. 4. and plead your owne authority for the proofe thereof (as best able to declare what you meant) then first your meaning is not exprest by your words: secondly, the whole course of your Doctrine saith one thing, and your intent is another: thirdly, your meaning was without reason to guide it: fourthly, the Doctrine that caryeth your meaning, doth destroy what you meant to build: but you will deny all these foure, therefore you must confesse you had no such intent.

After he hath thus declared what his intent was in 10 this description, he goeth on, pag. 174. to shew what his intent is touching the nature and adequate being of Iustification, which hee proclaimeth in these words;

I answere; If this proclamation had been published by an authority sufficient to compell vs to haue assen­ted thereunto, then had it beene possible, that you had giuen satisfaction: but for want of that, you must [Page 8] giue vs leaue to touch, to handle, to search, before we take. Thus therefore I proceed:

This great adoe is about nothing: you tell vs now what you doe beleeue when you writ your second Booke. Wee inquire what beleefe you did expresse by your writing in your first Booke. Let this fault be re­mitted, we will rest satisfied with this, if there be suf­ficient cause why, but alacke there is no such matter. And thus I shew it:

You did not beleeue that Iustification is as now you pretend, for if you had so beleeued, you would haue expressed that beleefe, because your intent was to re­fute the Gagger, as you professe. Appeale page 173. Now this beleefe had been an easie and ready way to haue refuted him, seeing that the question there dis­puted was, whether,

A man is Iustified by Faith onely:

As is euident by the 18. Chapter of your first 11 Booke; and it would necessarily follow: That a man is iustified by faith onely, if Iustification bee as you now describe it: which I take as granted without fur­ther proofe: and Bellarmine by implicaiton, confes­seth no lesse, de Iusti. lib. 1. cap. 18. Adde quod.

Againe, if you had then beleeued Iustification is as you describe it now, then your thoughts in all likeli­hood would haue now beene orderly digested: but here is nothing but confusednesse, and thus I shew it:

1 First, you describe by a negatiue, which Art for­bids.

2 Secondly, you place the Genus in two things, viz.

• action.
• respect, or relation.

If you would expresse one thing by those distinct [Page 9] termes, then you intend a thing impossible: for an a­ction is an em [...]nation from a worker, Respect and Re­lation (as it is here vsed) importeth an adiunct vnto a subiect. If your meaning bee, to expresse two things distinct in nature, by these distinct termes, then you [...] description is ridiculous: I need not shew how.

3 You say it is an action in God, which signifieth an action immanent, which is false; Iustification is an [...]cti­on transient, and your selfe confesse it, when you say, Iustification is by Faith, and made in an instant, G [...]gge page 146. which doe import actions wrought vpon the creatures in time. You also tell vs, this action i [...] applyed vnto vs, which signifies an action transient, which is contrary to the former; and so you say, and vnsay, with one breath.

4 You say, pardon of sinnes is by a respect or relation in God. Which sentence is wholly without sense, For respect, or relation, hath not any force, by which an ef­fect should be produced; neither can it bee conceiued what you meane by Respect, or Relation, or how pardon of sinnes, should flow from, or depend vpon, that Respect or Relation. And so much for the Genus.

5 You place the speciall nature of Iustification in three things, viz. First, Remission of sinnes: secondly, Esteeming righteous: thirdly, Accepting to eter­nall life, as vntruly, and vnreasonably, as the former: for these three are really distinct; and, therefore cannot concurre ioyntly together vnto the prima­ry and formall being of Iustification. Indeede esteeming righteous is an act of GODS vnder­standing, and called Intuitiue knowledge, which sup­poseth the thing already in being. Iustification is the [Page 10] act of Gods will, from whence it receiueth being. Ac­ceptation to life, signifies an act of God willing eternall life vnto man, (as Vasquez hath truely obserued:) which belongs to Predestination, and not to Iusti­fication? Lastly, Iustification is a motion from one positiue to another. But Esteeming righteous, and Accepting to life, is not such: therefore not essentiall to Iustification.

He doth father this confusednesse vpon other men, and expresly nameth M^r. Perkins for one, Appeale, page 174. but it will not excuse him: for M^r. Perkins writ a comment (as himselfe there alledgeth) where­in it was meet for him to vse amplifications for cleere­nesse, and vnmeet to be tyed vnto the exact vse of Art: because that is obscure: but Mountagu is a Disputer, and therefore must auoid stragling. Besides, M^r. Mountagu despiseth M^r. Perkins with no small degree of scorne, as is manifest by what he writeth of him in his Appeale page 270. therefore it is plaine, in this description he was not guided by M^r. Perkins his au­thority. Wee may conclude this Description is his owne, it hath not M^r. Perkins for shelter.

6 Those superfluities being pared off, your sen­tence is this;

Iustification is remission of sinnes.

You doe not beleeue, that, Iustification is remission of sinnes; for if you doe, then doe you not beleeue, that there is an increase and augmentation of Iustification by the increase and accesse of Gods grace: for remission of sinnes admits no increase, and augmentation, much lesse by a new accesse of Gods grace, which appertai­neth to Sanctification, and not to Iustification. But [Page 11] you doe beleeue the consequent, and doe professe it in your Appeale, page 168. 169.

If it be answered, remission of sinnes is increased by daily receiuing remission of new sinnes, and by increase of grace, and good deedes, viz. by declaring him to bee iust, that is already made iust. In which sort hee wri­teth, Appeale, page 162. 169. 197. I reply, this answer doth not take away the force of my argument; for it is auowed onely vpon his owne word, hee doth not proue it to bee so, nor shew how it can bee thus, al­though there be very great need of both; for remissi­on of sinnes doth take away the very being of sinne that is past, as the Scripture speaketh, saying; Thou art the Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world; which cannot admit any increase: because, sin being remitted, there remaineth nothing, and that which is nothing, cannot receiue any increase: neither can Gods act of remitting, receiue increase, himselfe doth confesse it, Appeale, page 195. where hee saith, Iustification as it is the worke of God, is without Magis or Minus. The remission of new sinnes, doth not in­crease remission of sinnes, nor can possibly; because, the sinnes already remitted, are wholy taken away: the act of God remitting them, was extended vnto the totall abolishing of sinne; so is it with the act of remitting new sinnes, 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 saluation, a little after the beginning; where it saith, wee are washed from sinne in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sinne. The same [Page 12] thing we finde, page 377. and 382. of that Booke fol­lowing.

Neither can the declaring, that sinne is remitted, increase the remission of sinne, which is no more, but as if you should say, the tree is knowne by the fruit: as your selfe teach, Appeale, page 197. but to increase, is as much as when warm water is made hotter, by continu­ing on the fire, with an augmentation and accesse of that heat; as your selfe say, Gagge, p. 142. which two things doe much differ. Would M^r Mountagu say his riches were increased, if it were declared truely and fully what riches he hath? I hope he would not. In the like case he must say, the declaring, that sinne is remitted, doth not increase remission. If hee will goe on to maintaine that answer, then I conclude in his owne words, Appeale, page 185. Goe and befoole your selfe for opposing common sense and reason.

When I had come thus farre, I supposed here had 12 beene an end of his pretended excuses; but when I went on to peruse the rest, I found he had spent many pages to proue against, or for, iust no body, Appeale, page 183. that

Such is the changed estate of men iustified, that they are also regenerate, that are iustified.

I say neither against, nor for: because it was neuer a question on foote by any parties in this world: for answer, I may returne him his owne words, Appeale, page 196.

In what place doe they speake; God saue your honest credit, and name mee the place, quote the very words of the Authors, which are parties to that disputation.

But this is impossible for him euer to doe. If it bee answered, he would neuer haue put himselfe thus far into the eye of the world, to barke at the moone-shine in the water: hee alleadgeth Becanus, Appeale, page 169. whose words seeme to incline somewhat that wayes. I answer, something is the matter indeed, but he hath not exprest it. The reason why I will not determine, nor inquire after. I will proceed to shew what it is, and by that it will appeare, it serueth not his turne any thing at all.

The Church of England teacheth thus touching o­riginall 13 sinne.

1 Originall sinne, deserueth damnation.

2 Originall sinne remaineth in them that are rege­nerated.

3 Originall sinne (although there is no condemna­tion for them that beleeue, yet it) hath of it selfe the nature of sinne, Artic. 9.

Againe, in the first Homilie of Saluation, it saith thus:

4 They which sinne in act, are washed from their sinnes in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their dam­nation.

The Councell of Trent decreeth, sess. 5. can. 5. in these words:

The grace bestowed in Baptisme, doth take away whatsoeuer hath the true, and proper nature of sin, and sin is not onely rased, and not imputed.

Out of this Doctrine on both sides, they inferre a­gainst vs, as if wee said,

After remission of sinnes and iustification, a man [Page 14] remaineth a sinner truely, and that hee is alwaies foule and vncleane.

As we may find in Bellarmine de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and de Iusti. lib. 2. cap. 9. and cap. 7. Secundo, Tertio, &c. and cap. 11.

Vnto which, some of the learned in the Church of England do answer as he alledgeth, Appeal, p. 169. &c.

We are farre from that opinion; for wee teach toge­ther with remission of sinnes wee doe receiue diuine grace, inabling man to forsake sinne.

What is to be said to the point it selfe, will come af­terwards, when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed; n^o. 31. §. But how.

Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome, and the Church of England in this point, which hee harpeth so much vpon; which doth also euidently shew, that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification, neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome, and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point. Wherefore I leaue it, and proceed.

So confident is he in this fancied victory, that from 14 thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputati­on in these words;

If they meant no otherwise then thus, as I conceiue they did not, I see no reason to dissent from them.

There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereun­to, then to returne you your owne words, Appeale, [...]ag. 184.

You cite no words, name no place, send me to no text, [Page 15] page, nor particulars, by any direction, that I may know where to finde, what you intend; a meere tricke of iugling companions. Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent, which I dare say will not downe, nor digest with you, a [...] opposing your conceit, or rather dreame, or wil­full peruerting the meaning of the Councell; the which, because I haue a fit time. I will not let it alone till another.

Where you say [If they meant] your meaning is, to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent: where

It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse, and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ. Sess. 6. cap. 3.

And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner, that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne, into the state of grace, cap. 4.

That you referre vs hither, or vnto no other place in the Councell, I take for granted.

Where you say if they meant no more but thus, your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before: viz.

He that is iustified is also regenerate.

Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part; I let passe the consequence of your proposition, and come to your assumption, which must bee set downe in these words.

But the Councell of Trent in these places, Sess. 6. c. 3. and 4., &c. meaneth no more but that, a iustified man is also sanctified.

Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof [Page 16] you bring vs the proofe of it in these words:

As I conceiue they did not.

Now all parts of the argument are set right, I an­swer to it:

The assumption is false, yea so odiously false, as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese, or that had conscience to declare the truth, when hee vnderstood it. This might be made to appeare by di­uers passages in the Councell of Trent: but I will content my selfe onely with these three.

1 Sanctification is by grace infused.

Iustification it selfe is sanctification.

Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused.

The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent, cap. 7. In which, 1. it speak­eth of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters. 2. By Iustification it selfe, it meaneth the quidditie, essence and being of Iustifica­tion: both which are manifest of themselues, they need no proofe. And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused, is likewise as cer­taine.

2 The onely formall cause of Iustification, is the ve­ry being thereof.

Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iusti­fication.

Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iu­stification.

The proposition is a principle in nature, and agreed vpon for truth, therefore may not be questioned.

The assumption is the expresse words of the [Page 17] Councell of Trent, in the 7. Chapter.

3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification, then it is by remission of sins onely, excluding grace infused.

But the being of Iustification, is not by remission of sinnes onely, excluding grace infused.

Therfore the being of Iustification, is by grace infused.

The consequence of the proposition is so necessary, that it cannot be questioned.

The assumption is the words of the coūcel, c. 7. cā. 11.

What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption, he will supply by the proofe thereof; which forsooth is his owne conceit: he conceiued, they meant not otherwise than thus, therfore you must cōceiue so to.

Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words, Appeale, pag. 178.

Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white? Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so: nay, because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded, he said, it did not so much as seeme white vnto him. Your opinions are your owne, you will opine what formerly you haue thought, so doe for me, and there an end.

But I cannot so let it passe, because you keepe not 16 these conceits at home; but so much are you filled with them, that you must needs vent them, or burst. And you cannot bee contented with that: but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you; and (more then so) wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome, in the point of Iustification, that haue dissented for many ages, till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world.

Therefore, vnto his conceit, I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen, that haue liued in the Church of Rome, till the Councell of Trent, all agreeing in this one sentence,

Grace infused, is essentiall vnto Iustification.

And shall we thinke, the Councell of Trent, would determine against thē? Surely no: Besides, the Coun­cell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas, who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order: Peter Lombard, Richard, Altisi­odore, Albert, and Alexander, (the Predecessors of Thomas) not attaining thereunto, yet consented with him, in this thing.

Since the Councell of Trent, all on that side with­out exception, doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustificati­on, in grace infused.

I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his (daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares, deliuering their iudgments singly, and afterwards decreeing the same in a Coun­cell ioyntly; and last of all, the same decree so inter­preted and defended vniuersally) but I leaue it, and conclude in his owne words, Appeale, p. 248.

You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the questi­on; but scumme vpon the surface, and gibberish you cannot tell for what.

And thus much is enough (and too much) to haue 17 said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there: but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustifi­cation: In which also I wil content my selfe with some [Page 19] arguments, and let the rest passe: The first whereof I frame thus,

• 1 That wherein Iustification consisteth, is essentiall thereunto; not an accident to a iustified man.
• But in grace infused (according to him) Iustifica­tion consisteth.
• Therefore grace infused) according to him) is es­sentiall to Iustification. &c.
• 2 Euery terme of that motion which is called Iustifi­cation, is essentiall vnto Iustification.
• But grace infused (according to him) is one terme in this motion, which is called Iustification.
• Therefore grace infused (according to him) is essen­tiall to Iustification.
• 3 If a man bee iust when he is changed from sinne to grace, then grace is essentiall to Iustification.
• But (according to him) a man is iust when hee is changed from sinne to grace.
• Therefore (according to him) grace is essentiall to Iustification.

If any except against the consequence of the propo­sition, 18 because the terme changed, may bee referred vnto the terme Iust; as a thing that doth follow a Iust man, and so doth declare that a man is iust already, before he is changed.

And indeed I doe find this argument for substance in his Appeale, pag, 174. and this exception in his Ap­peale, pag. 185. where he saith,

I doe not make this change the same with Iustification in the act; but an incident, instant, necessary conse­quent, thereupon.

From which answer hee inferreth against him that [Page 20] vnderstandeth his words, in any other sense; that he is

• 1 No Scholler, or Divine; but one at oddes with his owne little, or franticke wits, Appeale, p. 176.
• 2 An opposer of common sense, reason, well knowne and confessed diuinity on all hands: therefore a foole.
• 3 A man that doth not vnderstand himselfe, nor him, pag. 185.

Vnto his foule, and vgly imputations, inferred vp­on his answer; I say nothing: the Prophet Dauid in the 52. Ps. v. 2. 3. 4. 5. will giue him his lesson for that.

To the exception it selfe, I answer; It is very mani­fest, that he did make this change from sinne to grace, essentiall vnto the act of iustification. The phrase and manner of his speaking in this point; and the thing it selfe, doth euidently declare it.

For 1. The like phrase he vseth when he saith, a sinner is then iustified, when he is made iust: which can be vn­derstood no otherwise then as if he had said, he is iusti­fied at the instāt when he is made Iust, and by vertue of his being made Iust. 2. To iustifie (according to him) is to make Iust; and to make iust, is to be translated; and the word translated is the same w^th the word changed; therfore (according to him) to be changed is to be iust, or iustified. 3. If to be changed doth set out a man alrea­dy iust, and doth not signifie his being iust, then his purpose was to proue that some men are iust, and not to describe Iust [...]fication. But he doth describe it (as himselfe professeth) Appeale, pag. 173. and indeed so he must, or else he saith nothing to the purpose. 4. If the word changed do signifie sanctifying grace, which alway goeth with Iustification; then hee must say a [Page 21] man is not iustified, till he be so changed. For hee re­ferreth being iust, to the time when hee is changed: but hee will confesse that a man is iust, or iustified, be­fore he is so changed, & doth declare so much, Appeale page 172. where he maketh sanctification a consequent vpon iustification, and page 174. he saith, Iustification is not sanctification.

My last argument in this point I frame thus:

4 If God onely iustifieth, because he onely createth a 19 new heart, then to create a new heart, is to iustifie.

But (according to M. Mountagu) God onely iusti­fieth, because he onely createth a new heart: For,

Hee saith, God onely iustifieth, who alone createth a new heart within vs: In which sentence hee bringeth the latter act of creating, to proue the former of iusti­fying.

Therefore (according to M^r. Mountagu,) to create a new heart, is to iustifie, and consequently, grace infused, is essentiall to iustification.

He bringeth the substance of this argument, in his Appeale, page 188. and 192. as an obiection made a­gainst him, but torne in pieces, that the strength ther­of, and the weakenesse of his answer thereto, might be concealed.

He answereth vnto it, three things.

• 1 God onely doth iustifie, pag. 188.
• 2 God only doth create a new heart within vs, p. 192.
• 3 Faith iustifieth instrumentally, p. 193.

Hee annexeth proofe for them all:

And concludeth, if this bee Popery, I confesse I am a Papist, p. 191. And am content to passe for a Papist, p. 194. & complaineth against the obiectors, with his [Page 22] wonted bitternesse, page 189. 190. and 191.

I answer, this plea is idle: no liuing man did euer deny any of his three propositions; nor did charge thē to be Popery; (at least,) The argument which he an­swers vnto, hath no such thing (as the Reader may see.) A worthy disputer, that either knowes not, or cares not what he speakes vnto. The fire cannot but burne, nor he forbeare his rayling, therefore he must not be blamed for it.

I argue against both his Expositions, set downe, 20 no. 4, thus:

When he said Iustification consisteth also in grace infused, hee meant to say, grace infused was al­waies in a iustified man, and by iustification, he vnderstandeth 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, deserues not to be trusted in any other.

But he did not take that sentence in both these senses. I proue it: First, for he saith, Appeale p. 169. I professed at first to take Iustification onely in this acceptation, viz. For the declaration of the act of Iustification vpon man by the liuely fruits of a true faith, and for absolution. Which is but one of the senses, (at most) and seemes to be the first: now if he meant onely the first, or but one of them, his owne pen must giue the verdict, hee meant neither of them in deed and in truth. Second­ly, if he make grace infused, accidentall to a iustified man, or in him that is iustified, declaring him that-hee is iust, then he did not describe Iustification, as compre­ [...]ending Sanctification; for vnto this Iustification, [Page 23] grace infused is essentiall and constitutiue; and there­fore if you meant the first, you meant not the second. Thirdly, if in that sentence hee intended to describe Iustification, as comprehending Sanctification also; then he intended not to say, grace infused, is acciden­tall to Iustification, or a iustified man: for vnto this iu­stification, and man iustified, grace infused is essenti­all, making full and compleat the worke of sanctifica­tion, so as if hee meant the second, he did not meane the first.

I proue against either of them singly. 21

If when you said, Iustification consisteth in grace infused; you meant to say a iustified man hath grace infused, then both those sentences doe ex­presse the same thing.

But that they doe not. As the very sight and rea­ding of them will manifest.

In the first sentence, iustification considered in it selfe, and without any person receiuing the same, is said to consist in grace. In the second sentence, not Iustification in it selfe, nor with the partie receiuing it; but the partie iustified, conceiued otherwise then as he is iustified, is said to possesse or inioy grace infu­sed, together with his iustification.

Therefore by the first sentence, you did not meane the second.

2 If by this sentence, Iustification consisteth in grace infused, he meant to describe Iustification, as it comprehendeth the whole state and conditi­on of a man regenerate & reconciled to God, then he agreeth fully with the Church of Rome, which taketh it so. For,

It describeth Iustification to be A translation from that state, in which man was borne a Sonne of the first A­dam, into the state of grace, and adoption of the sonnes of God, Councell of Trent, sess. 6. cap. 4. And more fully it saith, Iustification it selfe, is not onely remission of sinnes, but also sanctification and renouation of the in­ward man, by a voluntary receit of grace, and gifts, from whence a man is iust of vniust, a friend of an enemie, and heire according to the hope of euerlasting life, cap. 7.

But by that sentence, he meant so to describe, &c. (as is before set downe, no. 7, Wherein also he placeth his confidence, Appeale page 172. to giue satisfaction if any will be taken.

Therefore when hee saith, Iustification consisteth in grace infused, he agreeth with the Church of Rome.

Now at the last we are come to a finall conclusion, 22 touching the consisting of Iustification in grace infu­sed; wherein after many turnings, windings, and shif­tings; now this waies, then that waies; some vnto the matter, some besides the matter: we are come by his owne direction, and the euidence of the thing it selfe, vnto this conclusion, that hee agreeth with the Church of Rome.

In the next place we must inquire 23

Whether hee 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 forgiuenesse of sinnes, and grace infused, are the act of Gods spirit in man.

To the same effect the Councell of Trent decreeth in these words.

Grace bestowed in Baptisme, doth take away whatso­euer hath the true and proper nature of sin, sess. 5.

These sentences of the Councell, and M^r. Mounta­gu, doe fully agree. He saith, the spirit, It saith, grace; He saith, the spirit in man, It saith, grace receiued; Hee saith, remission of sinne, is the act of the spirit; It saith, grace taketh away the true and proper nature of sinne: all which words are of the same value and signification.

All the Interpreters of the Councell, doe extend this decree, vnto all sinnes: (as well personall as ori­ginall) and that vpon good reason, as I suppose. Like­wise what the Councell saith of grace bestowed in Baptisme, They apply also to the habit of grace recei­ued out of Baptisme: because it is the same habit which is receiued by Baptisme, & without Baptisme: which doth make their agreement cleare to the full.

Moreouer; the most common opinion of the Ex­positors 24 of the Councell, doe further say, as Bellar­mine doth, de Iustific. lib. 2. cap. 16:

Habituall grace, hath foure formall effects, the first whereof is to purge sinne.

And thereby they make remission of sinne a physi­call worke of grace: as when one pinne is driuen 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 Coun­cell of Trent, which in that decree cannot bee vnder­stood of taking away sinne by the way of merit: because habituall grace bestowed vpon children, cannot bring forth workes; and no workes, no merits: besides, if grace did merit remission of sinnes, then a man might haue grace for sometime, and yet not haue [Page 26] his sinnes remitted: For there may fall out sometime after a man hath receiued grace wherein hee hath no opportunity vnto the doing of a meritorious worke.

Vnto which opinion, M^r. Mountagu his words doe greatly incline: for he saith,

Iustification by grace, and remission of sinnes, is the act of Gods spirit. Which is as much as if he had sayd, in what sort grace doth make iust, in that sort, grace doth remit sinne; else he could not comprehend them both vnder one act: but must haue referred them vn­to two acts. Now, it is agreed vpon by al, & Bellarmine hath it, in the place last alleadged; That, to make iust, is a formall effect of habituall grace. And accordingly to remit sinne, is a formall effect of habituall grace.

Againe, he saith;

The soule of man is the subiect of Iustification.

In these words he speaketh of the soule, not simply, as being the obiect of an outward worke: but as the subiect receiuing remission of sinnes into it; and how man should receiue remission of sinne (by grace) into his soule, and that remission not be a formall effect of grace, cannot possibly be shewed.

Lastly, if in his opinion, sinne doth expell grace formally, then he must be of opinion, that grace doth expell (which is to remit) sinne formally.

But he hath the first: Appeale, p. 173. where he saith,

The propertie of those sinnes, that are more eminent, notorious, enormious, is to wast the conscience.

Where, wasting the conscience, must signifie the putting away of grace; for what is there in the con­science that can be wasted by sinne, but grace? and the act of wasting, must be a formall act; because, sinne is conceiued in such a case to rest and remaine in stead of grace.

Therefore hee must be conceiued, to be of opini­on, that, remission of sinne, is a formall effect of grace.

By this (I hope) it doth appeare, that hee agreeth 25 fully with the Church of Rome. But to auoyd all scru­ple, it is requisite that I remoue one obiection, which may be made after this manner:

Hee placeth remission of sinnes in the pardon, and not-imputation of sinnes, Gagge page 143. and in absolution therefrom, Appeale pag 169.

Therefore he maketh not remission of sinnes a for­mall effect of grace.

I answer; hee may say both, and yet agree with them: for, although the Councell of Trent, sess. 6. can. 11. and cap. 7. hath but implyed (not expresly de­creed) this manner of remitting sinnes: yet all the In­terpreters by one consent doe teach both expresly; except onely Gabriel Vasquez, in 1^m. 2^ae. disp. 204. per tot: yea, he must hold the latter: though he doth hold the former; for pardon, &c. is required also vnto the perfect doing away of sinne, as Thomas teacheth, 3. part, q. 22. art. 3. C. And Suarez proueth at large, de grat. lib. 7. cap. 13. and 14.

And thus much (I hope) is sufficient, to shew his 26 consent with the Church of Rome. I come now in the next place, to shew his dissent from the Church of England in this point of remission of sinnes.

What the Church of England hath decreed in the point, I will set downe, and then apply it. It saith,

Good workes cannot put away our sinnes, Artic. 12.

In which sentence, there is a direct contradiction put, vnto the Doctrine last recited out of Church of [Page 28] Rome, and M. Mountagu. The terme put away must signifie that putting away which is called remission, and not satisfaction; for this doth make recompence for sinne, but doth not put away sin; which impor­teth, the destroying of the being, & remaining of sin it selfe. By denying the puting away of sinne to good workes, the meriting of remission of sinne by grace, and the effects therof is denyed: for otherwise then so, good workes are not fit nor able to put away sin: and himselfe speaks thus of it, Gagg. p. 156.

Now forasmuch as good workes are the fruits of a liuely faith (as the Article speaketh) that is of the ha­bit of grace; the remission of sinnes that it denyeth to good workes, it denyeth to the habit of grace, and therein it denyeth that remission of sinne is a formall effect, or physicall worke of grace; forasmuch as the remission of sin can be no other effect or operation of the habit of grace but formall, and Physicall. The Homilie of Almes, pag. 329. teaches the same thing expresly, which is a proofe sufficient: that M. Moun­tagu doth dissent from the Church of England, and no dissent in a matter of this kind, can be greater then a contradiction.

Our Church doth teach positiuely, what remission 27 of sinnes is; wherein it doth assigne a nature, contrary to that, which the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu doe giue vnto it. If I make that appeare. I doubt not then to say: M. Mountagu dissenteth from the Church of England. I doe it thus,

The true knowledge of the remission of sinne con­sisteth in the true vnderstanding of these two things, viz. 1. what is meant by sinne, which is said to be for­giuen. [Page 29] Secondly, what act of God it is by which it is forgiuen.

Sinne, of which a man may be denominated a sin­ner, may be conceiued two waies: first, for the act of sin past: secondly, for the will of sinning: as Thomas hath truely obserued, 3. part. q. 61. art. 4. C.

The will of sinning, is not the obiect of that act, which the Scripture calleth remitting: because the will of sinning, importeth an indisposition vnto good, and an aptnesse to sinne, remaining in the will, from whence the Scripture doth not denominate a man a sinner: but from the act of sinne.

The act of sinne past, is the obiect of remission, as is confessed on all sides. The Councell of Trent hath decreed it Sess. 6. cap. 5. where it maketh such as are turned from God by sinne, the men that are iustified. So doth all the expositors of the Councell, with one consent, make the act of sin the thing remitted; and from which a man is iustified. Bellarmine hath it, de Iusti. lib. 2. cap. 16. with whose testimony I will rest contented, others may say the same thing; but not more, nor more cleerly then he hath done.

The Church of England teacheth it, in the first Homilie of saluation; where it nameth (a little after the beginning) sinnes forgiuen, by the name of trespasses: and againe, sins from which man is washed, and which are not imputed, it calleth sinne in act or deed.

The act of God, whereby the sinnes of man are 28 remitted, is set out by the Church of England, by di­uers 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 [Page 30] not-imputing of sinne: which it vseth in the first Homi­lie of saluation, a little after the beginning, the words lie thus,

Man is washed from his sinnes, in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sinne, that shall be impu­ted to their damnation.

In which sentence, washing away the spots of sinne, (which is the act remitting sinnes) is resolued into the act of not-imputing; where it saith, so washed as not imputed. Hee must not deny this Homilie to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: for, hee doth auouch it to bee such in his Appeale, pag. 190. and 194.

If it be said, the Church of England doth assigne other acts of remitting sinne, besides this, in vsi [...]g other titles: I answer; though it do vse other titles; yet not assigne any other act but this; for this doth extend as largely as them all, and they doe but [...]x­plicate this: therefore wee may conclude, in the doctrine of the Church of England,

The not-imputation of sinne, is the sole and onely act, whereby sinnes are remitted.

Touching this act, arise [...]h all the difference be­tweene 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 vnto this.

The Church of Rome teacheth, 1. that sinne is re­mitted 29 by a created being, (namely) the habit of grace. 2. That remission of sinne is wrought in the soule of man. 3. That the manner how sinne is re­mitted by grace, is formall and physicall, as a painter [Page 31] that couereth 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 meerly efficient, viz. God (out of his preroga­tiue Royall) discharging our account; Not putting our sinnes to our reckoning.

And thus much is sufficient, to proue his totall a­greement with the Church of Rome, and disagree­ment with the Church of England in the nature of Iustification: and therewith I might put an end vn­to this whole point.

But I will goe a little further to the satisfying of 30 the point propounded. n^o 12. &c. Wherein my labour will not be lost, for that which I shall say, will serue aboundantly to shew, 1. how diuinely the Church of England hath determined in this point. 2. How lit­tle reason he had to depart from the doctrine of our Church in this point. 3. The great reason that euerie man hath to striue for the doctrine of the Church of England in this point, as for the faith once deliuered to the Saints.

Against this doctrine of the Church of England, the Church of Rome (as may well be conceiued) doth thus dispute,

If no other act doth concurre vnto the remitting of sinne, but the act of not-imputing of sinne, then a man, after remission of sinne remaineth a sinner; truely, and alwaies foule, and vncleane.

But a man, after remission of sinne, remaineth not [Page 32] a sinner; truely, foule, and vncleane.

Therefore besides the act of not-imputing of sinne, there is required some other act, vnto the remissi­on of sinne, viz. The infusion of grace, whereby the true, and proper nature of sinne, 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 alleadged no. 13. the an­tecedent part of the proposition is found de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. where he alledgeth a passage out of Chemni­tius, containing the same doctrine which I haue ci­ted out of the 9 Article, and the Homilie, at no. 13. out of which he inferreth, that we say, that sinne is re­mitted, because it is not imputed, and wee acknowledge not, that it is taken away.

And in his disputation de Iusti. lib. 2. c. 9. Praeterea, and cap. 11. Illud autem &c. the same thing is repea­ted: The consequent part of the proposition, and the inference thereof from that antecedent, is in de Iusti. lib. 2 cap. 7. Secundo, &c. Tertio, &c. I haue assu­med negatiuely 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 Councell of Trent Sess. 5. can. 5 decreed against it. The assumption it selfe, is their own doctrine; as will be confessed on all sides. The proofe of the consequence seemeth to be these two things;

1 The act of not-imputing, doth not take away sinne. Confessed by our doctrine, no. 13. that saith, originall sinne is in the iustified, and in it selfe is sin properly, and the spots of actuall sin doe likewise remaine.

2 By the remaining of sinne (that in it selfe is dam­nable) a man is foule, vncleane, and a sinner truly.

Now that I haue set their disputation in true form, 31 and order: I might say, If M. Mountagu will maintain his doctrine of remission of sinnes no 23, &c. 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 reuoke that as false in it selfe, and a stranger to the Church of England.

Vnto this argument many Diuines doe answer as he alleadgeth, Appeale p. 169. In these words,

We are far from this absurd opinion; for wee teach, with the action of God, remitting sinne, concurreth another action of diuine grace, enabling man to forsake, and mortifie euery greater sinne, which God hath pardoned.

But, how fit this answer is, to giue satisfaction to any part of that argument; I leaue vnto others to iudge: because, 1. Bellarmine doth confesse no lesse then is in that answer, de Iusti. lib. 2. cap. 6. at the be­ginning. 2. It seemeth not fit to bee applyed to the consequence of the proposition; for that speaketh of doing away of sinne already committed: but this answer speaketh of preuenting sinne not yet committed, nei­ther doth it appertain to the assumption, which doth not charge vs with the holding of any opinion what­soeuer.

Other Diuines doe answer otherwise; I will name 32 one in stead of all: namely Doctor Abbot in defence of M. Perkins, of inherent Iustice, 2. part. p. 421. his answer is long, but I will contract it into (so short) a roome as I may, vsing his owne words.

Wee say (saith hee) a man may bee formally iust in

• qualitie.
• law.

In course of law and iudgement, the forme of iustice is, not to bee subiect to crime, or accusation; and he is formally iust, against whom, no action, or accusation is lyable by law, in this sort a man becommeth iust, by pardon and forgiuenesse; because pardon being obtained, the law procee­deth no further, and all imputation of the offence in law, is taken away, as if it had neuer beene committed: and this is the state of our iustice in the sight of God, our sinnes are forgiuen vs, and thereby no accusation is liable against vs.

Before I apply this to the argument, It must be ob­serued, that, the word pardon in this testimony, is of the same value, and signification, with the word not­imputing, vsed in the argument: for, by pardon, hee vnderstandeth 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 answere lyeth against the conse­quence, and the proofe thereof: affirming, that the act of not-imputing sinne, doth take away sin, and proueth that affirmation, which proofe I may dispose thus,

Whereby we are made formally iust before God, that takes away all sinne.

This proposition is a manifest truth, agreed vpon by all parties.

But, not-imputation of sinne is that, whereby wee are made formally iust, before God: For,

By it, all crime, action, or accusation and offence in [Page 35] law, is taken away, as if it had neuer beene committed, the law proceedeth no further; which is formall iustice in law, and our formall iustice before God.

Therefore the not-imputation of sinne doth take a­way sinne.

I might proceed further to shew the insufficiency of the argument; but I forbeare so to doe, this that I haue said is sufficient to iustifie, and explicate the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the na­ture of remission of sinnes, and iustification, which is as much as I intended, and this place requires.

If Mr. Mountagu (notwithstanding all this) will in­sist and say, his words alleadged, no 23. &c. are forced beyond his intent, and that (in his iudgement) there is no other act in remission of sinne, but pardon, or not-imputation, he must looke vnto it; for as Bellar­mine affirmeth, de Iusti. lib. 2. cap. 1. & 6, That opini­on is proper to Caluine. If that bee true, (as it is most true,) how can hee thinke it is the Doctrine of the Church of England? For as himselfe saith, Appeale, page 72.

The Doctrine of the Church of England, is not like­ly to be vpon the party of a faction, that hath so long had a schisme on foote against it, to bring in Geneuanisme into Church and State, &c.

If it bee not the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, what doth it in Mr. Mountagu his Booke, that voweth to thrust out all priuate 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 [Page 36] of England. Therefore I may conclude, let him turne himselfe which wayes he will, he shall finde himselfe to agree, either with the Church of Rome, or with Caluine; if with them, then is hee a Papist; if with him, then doth hee take the course to bring in Popes into euery Parish, as himselfe inferreth, and which thing himselfe curseth with a heauy and bitter curse, Appeale, page 44. I hope hee will be rather a Papist, then a Caluinist, cursed to hell with his owne mouth,

I should now shew that this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous, but hee hath brought nothing to proue it true, therefore I haue nothing to answer. The Councell of Trent in the decree already repor­ted, no 23. saith, three things, viz. first, not­impu­tation, doth not take away sinne; secondly, sinne is abo­lished, and taken away; thirdly, the habit of grace doth take away sinne. Bellarmine bestoweth great paines to proue the second, which was neuer denyed, de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. for the first he doth onely say it; for the third he hath not so much as one place of Scripture to pretend for it: onely de Iusti. lib. 2. cap. 16. he offe­reth a proofe from the nature of sinne that is remitted, which can proue nothing; because it is as doubtfull 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 proofe of it, and he shall haue answer, till then it must goe for such.

CHAP. XI. The point of falling from Grace

Sometime the El [...]ct, Called, the Iustified, such as Peter was, doe fall totally from Gods grace. Appeale, page 16.

By a wicked life, men doe fall away from grace, Appeale p. 36. By all which places alledged we haue his mind in this point to the full: I will set it downe in seuerall propositions, for the more ease of memory and vnderstanding, 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 Iustified, doe sometime fall away totally.
• 4 By sinne a man doth fall from grace.

CHAP. XII. The point set downe in the former Chapter is ar­gued.

THat wee may proceed in this question, in the same order that wee haue 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 haue propounded the first of his propositions to be discussed, and not any of the rest: because they doe but explicate, and set out the meaning of this. The second, and third, sheweth who they be that doe lose grace, and how farre they doe lose grace. The fourth sets out the next cause that procureth the losse of grace. The handling of these three will come in (each one) in his seuerall place.

By the terme fall away, is signified the losse of grace, and is as much as if it were said, hee that hath receiued grace, may lose that grace, and be destitute thereof. By grace is meant the habit of holinesse, or that inward forme, disposition, or qualitie, out of which the workes of piety, in the outward actions of mans life, doe flow, and whereby hee is ordered and set into the way of eternall happinesse. The word may, signifieth the possibility in the euent of the separation [Page 39] of man and grace, as we vse to say, a man may lose his life.

That he doth consent with the Church of Rome, (so 2 farre as the Councell hath decreed) it is plaine and e­uident: now the Councell must bee conceiued to speake of euery man that is iustified, whether prede­stinate, or not predestinate: for it speaketh of man iustified without limitation. Secondly, it must bee vn­derstood of the losse of all grace receiued. For it spea­keth of the losse of the habit. If a man loseth the habit, he loseth all. Thirdly, it must bee conceiued that the Councell speakes of a losse finall in some: because it speaketh not of the recouery againe of any, and that is as much as M^r. Mountagu saith: but because wee haue not these things expresly in the Councell; there­fore we must haue recourse vnto the Interpreters, for the vndoubted minde of the Councell: Bellarmine de Iusti. lib. 3. cap. 14. saith:

We haue example in three which lost their Iustice, and did recouer it againe: and of fiue that did so lose their Iustice, as that they became reprobates.

Where we haue M^r. Mountagu his sentence fully and plainely. For he saith, the Elect doe lose and reco­uer: others doe lose and not recouer. Other Authors of theirs doe speake so as Bellarmine doth; but I need not name them, because it is common vnto them all to speake thus.

M^r Mountagu supposeth that the reprobate also doe sometimes receiue the habit of holinesse, and so saith Bellarmine too, de Iusti. lib. 3. cap. 14 where hee hath the same thing for his title, and concludeth it in the Chapter,

Habemus igitur, &c. in these words:

The Iustice of Iustification is not proper to the elect, but sometime common with the reprobate.

Lastly, M. Mountagu saith simply, Sinne procures 3 this losse, where he must be vnderstood, of those sins which (he telleth vs, Appeale p. 173.) doe wast the conscience: and not of those which he calleth sinnes of ordinary incursion; that is, to speake in plaine En­glish, as himselfe there sayes, of mortall; but not of veniall sinnes: and so saith the Councell too.

Vpon which I may conclude, M. Mountagu a­greeth with the Councell of Trent in this point to a word: and (vpon the reckoning) wee find that this his agreemēt in these foure former propositions doth yeeld vs his consent with them in two more, viz.

• 1 Sinne is mortall and veniall.
• 2 Grace habituall is common to the elect and reprobate.

Touching the opinion of Arminius in this point, 4 thus he writeth Appeale p. 16.

I haue beene assured, that, Arminius did hold, not onely Intercision for a time; but also abscision, and abiection too for euer. That a man called, and iustified through the grace of God, might fal away againe from grace totally, and finally, and become a cast away, as Iudas was, for euer.

He must bee vnderstood to speake this of the pre­destinate, otherwise he putteth no diffence betweene Arminius and his owne professed opinion; whether he consenteth therewith, or dissenteth therefrom, he saith nothing expresly. That he doth dissent from Arminius it is not probable; for hee had sufficient reason to haue protested his dissent, if hee could haue [Page 41] done it with truth. It is very probable hee doth con­sent: because being charged with it hee holds his peace. The old prouerbe is, the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltinesse. Which seldome times proues vntrue, what hee is of certainty is knowne to God, and himselfe; hee standeth or falleth to his owne master: it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofes: wherefore I leaue this and proceed.

We haue no reason to suppose, that, the Church of 5 England was euer of opinion, that the habit of grace can be lost: for if it were, then must it also beleeue, that, 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified. 2 Some sins are mortall, other some veniall. 3. The habit of Iu­stice, and the works thereof be perfect Iustice, and ad­equate vnto the diuine Law▪ 4. Purgatory, Pardons, Masses, Trentals, Dirges, &c. be profitable vnto some that be dead; but we know by perpetuall experience, that our Church abhorreth, and the professors of her faith publikely, and priuately, protest their detestati­on, of all these Articles of the popish faith, therefore we haue a cloud of witnesses, that, do all testifie, that, the Church of England maketh the losing of the ha­bit of grace no part of her faith. Moreouer, in the 22. Article it doth expresly disclaime the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons. Lastly, This point of falling from grace hath beene common­ly, and vniuersally reiected: as well by Ministers, as priuate men, and no man questioned (in the least sort) for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church: which is a most evident proofe, that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued. [Page 42] If it be answered, some in our Church haue taught falling from grace; I reply, It is true, some haue so done, but they haue beene but a few, and cryed down too, by the most, and thrust off with no small signe of dislike from authoritie. I haue his owne te­stimonie, three times yeelded, Gag. p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming, that, our Church hath left this question vndecided: which against him is a proofe without question, that, his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England. And yet be­hold: Hee would perswade, that, his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England; del [...]uered, not in ordinary tracts, and lectures, but pub­likely, positiuely, and declatorily; and for proofe here­of, he saith, he will bring vs record thereof, Appeale, pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles, &c. Appeale, p. 37. Appeale, p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promise;

In the 16. Article we read: After wee haue receiued 6 the holy Ghost, wee may depart away from grace, and fall into sinne.

That the full force of this argument may appeare, and my answer may bee directly, and fitly, applyed thereunto, it is needfull that I put it into due forme, and thus it will stand.

Whatsoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church.

But that a man may depart from grace is comprehen­ded in the 16. Article.

Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England.

I answer; if he will stand to his proposition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient, and a Champi­on most valiant, vnto his mother the Church of Eng­land. Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, are but faint-hearted cowards in compari­son of him.

The greatest part of the acts in Councels doe not ap­pertaine vnto faith: The disputations that goe before, the reasons that be added, nor the expli­cations that are brought, doe not appertaine to faith, but, onely the naked decrees, and of them, not all, but onely such as are propounded as mat­ter of faith.

So saith Bellarmine de Concil. auct. lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est, &c. and no Papist euer durst giue more then thus; yet M^r. Mountagu dares giue to the Church of England more then this. Euery sentence in the Articles (with him) is matter of faith: and so he doth equall them vnto the scriptures, to whom it belongeth that euery sentence be a matter of faith, as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place last alleadged.

If he will disclaime that proposition, his argument falleth of it selfe.

To answer more specially, that Article compre­hendeth two conclusions, viz.

• 1 The baptised may sinne.
• 2 The baptised sinner may receiue forgiuenesse.

These two haue their seuerall proofes, to wit:

• 1 He may depart from grace. Therefore, sinne.
• 2 He may repent. Therefore haue forgiuenesse,

Euery one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England. Your proposi­tion so vnderstood is true; but your assumption is [Page 44] false. Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article.

But suppose that euery sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England: yet this Ar­ticle will not profit you: for,

A man may depart from grace

• by neglecting to obey it.
• by losing it.

In the first sense (I grant) the Article doth teach departing from grace, but in this sense the Article hath nothing in fauour of you, much lesse hath it your falling from grace, in expresse words: for yours is of losing the habit of grace.

If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that sense. I reioyne, it may bee so taken in this place: because he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies first neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace, before hee commits sinne, and this I take as granted; Therefore you must proue that the Article doth vnderstand it otherwise then so, else it can haue no stroke in your businesse.

Let it be admitted (in courtesie) that, the Article speaketh of the losse of grace: yet it will come farre short of your purpose: for it cannot speake of the losse of the habit of grace. I proue it, from the Ar­ticle it selfe, and your owne doctrine, thus;

The habit of grace is lost by sin. So say you.

Grace in the Article is not lost by sinne. But con­trary.

Grace is lost, therefore sinne committed. So saith the Article.

Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace.

By this it is most euident, and past doubt, that, there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the losse of the habit of grace. But pardon him this mistake, I will giue my word for him, hee neuer studied the Ar­ticle to find the true sense of it. Doe you thinke his studie so meane, as that he would condiscend so low, as to English Articles? I assure you no. I tell you, and he tells it me, Appeale, pag. 11. Hee neuer studied Bastingius Chatichisme, Fenners diuinitie, Bucanus, Trelcatius, Polanus, and such like. His learning is all old: The Apostles Canons, Polycarpus, Denis, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Annacletus, Amphilochius, and others of their time, are his puefellowes, and hourly companions. And he hath good reason for it too; The neerer the fountaine the clearer the streame; the further off the fou­ler, pag. 12.

His second argument beginneth, Appeale, p. 32. 8 and is thus to be framed,

Whatsoeuer is taught in the Homilies, is the au­thorised, and subscribed doctrine of the Church of England, For

The Booke of Homilies was first composed and publi­shed in King Edwards time, approued, and iustified, in Parliament in Queene Elizabeths daies, and authorised againe of late to be read in Churches.

But that a man may fall away from grace, is taught in the Homilies.

Therefore falling from grace is the doctrine of the Church of England.

I answer; a man would verily thinke hee would haue vs beleeue his proposition to be a certaine, and vndeniable, truth: he bestows so much sweat in the [Page 46] proofe of it: but (good man) hee meant nothing lesse; or else at the turning ouer of a new leafe, he be­comes a new man; for he professeth himselfe of ano­ther mind in the 260 pag. following, in these words:

I willingly admit the Homilies, as containing certain godly and wholsome exhortations: but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions, confirmed of the Church of England. They haue not dog­maticall positions, or doctrine to bee propugned, and subscribed in all and euery point. They may seeme to speake somewhat too hardly, and stretch some saying beyond the vse, and practice of the Church of England. The ancientest Fathers sometimes doe hyperbolize in their popular Ser­mons, which in dogmaticall decisions they would not doe, nor auow the doctrine by them so deliuered. Now after this inforcing sort may our Homilie speake, and be so interpreted, which are all popular Sermons, fitted vnto the capaci­tie of common people.

Well, there is good reason why we should take his second thoughts, for the better, and so leaue him trāpling his own proposition into the dirt, by which meanes, his assumption doth not deserue answer.

But it may be, he will put new life into his propo­sition, by a speciall priuiledge that this homilily hath aboue the rest, namely that it is for explication of the doctrine contained in the Article.

I answer; he seemeth so to pretend, Appeale, pa. 32. but it is false, we find not any direction from the Ar­ticle to the Homilie, nor any reflection in the homi­lie vpon the Article: neither can the one explicate [Page 47] the other: but are really distinct conclusions, and proofes.

The Article saith,

He departeth from grace, therefore he sinneth.

The Homilie saith,

He falleth from God by a wicked life, therefore is depriued of grace.

Hee that can make new Articles, can create new expositors.

Although this bee sufficient to satisfie the argu­ment: 9 yet I will goe on to examine that which fol­lowes. In proofe of his assumption, he saith, p. 32.

The title of the Homilie is of falling away from God, which very title is sufficient warrant for the Do­ctrine in this point.

I answer; this title hath nothing to doe with the losse of grace: falling from God signifies turning a­way from Gods law, and so the Homilie it selfe (a little after the beginning) doth expound the title, and saith,

They that may not abide the Word of God, but fol­lowing the stubbornnesse of his owne heart, they goe, and turne away from God.

If by falling from God, should bee meant losing of grace, then the Homilie must bee conceiued thus to reason;

If you lose your grace, then God will take his grace from you.

For in that sort the Homilie doth reason from fal­ling from God, as the reading thereof will shew: but it were most absurd to thinke that the Homilie would so reason.

His second reason for the same purpose, is taken out of the Homilie it selfe, and standeth in this forme;

They that are depriued of grace and heauenly life, which they had in Christ, and become as without God in the world, giuen into the power of the De­uill, as was Saul and Iudas, they lose grace totally, and finally. But according to the Homilie, the true­ly iustified are thus depriued. For:

It is said, they were in Christ, they continued some­time in Christ.

Therefore, according to the Homilie, the truely iu­stified may lose their grace totally and finally.

By this argument, hee thinkes the cause is his at common law: yee must now yeeld, or turne heretike against the Doctrine of the Church of England; but he is much mistaken. The homilie doth affirme thus much by the way of rhetoricall enforcement, to per­swade men to take heed they turne not away from Gods Law. It being so vnderstood, I grant the whole reason, but it profits him not. He promised, n^o 5. the positiue, and declaratory Doctrine of the Church of England; but rhetoricall enforcements are not such.

It may be, some will say, there is a truth in this en­forcement. I answer; what truth soeuer there is in it, this is certaine, the faith of the Church of England is not contained in it. No man (well aduised) will send vs to seeke for the faith of our Church vnto an argu­ment, vrging the practice of a duty, in a popular Ser­mon. But what that truth is, we may best learne from the Author of this Homilie himselfe, whose meaning we finde to be comprehended in these two things.

By such threatnings of Gods taking away of grace.

First, the great danger of sinne: Secondly, the necessity of repentance is declared.

Both which are set downe in the first Sermon of Repentance, a little from the beginning, in these two sentences;

• 1 Wee doe daily by our disobedience, fall away from God, thereby purchasing vnto our selues (if hee should deale with vs according to his Iustice) eter­nall damnation.
• 2 Whereas the Prophet had afore set forth the ven­geance of God: it is as if he should say, although you doe by your sinne deserue to bee vtterly de­stroyed, and now you are in a manner on the very edge of the sword: yet if you will speedily returne vnto him, he will most mercifully receiue you in­to fauour againe.

By which it is euident, the opinion of the Author of the Homily was not, that, man that had grace, should by sinning be brought to that condition indeed and in the thing, that, his habit of grace should be taken from him, but, that the vrging of such seuerity did fitly serue to restraine man from sinning: & to reduce him vnto repentance. Which being so, all the confidence which he put in this argument, doth vanish, and come to nothing; and himselfe may bee ashamed, that put­teth so great confidence therein, p. 32. 33. and 34. I might also returne him the like amplifications vnto the seuerall parts of my answer, as might fit to the se­uerall amplifications of his argument, but I let such things passe.

His third argument, I finde, Appeale, page 33. &c. 10 in these words,

3 He that saith a man may fall away, and may reco­uer, implyeth withall, that some men may fall a­way, and may not recouer.

But the Article saith the first.

Therefore it implieth the second.

I answer; this argument requires little to bee said to it: because it presumeth, that, the Article speaketh of losing the habit of grace; which hee hath not pro­ued, nor can; yea, I haue shewed the Article may bee vnderstood otherwise, & cānot be vnderstood so, no 7.

Lastly, the assumption is false; that 16. Article doth not say,

A man may recouer the grace he hath lost. But,

The expresse words of the Article are,

By the grace of God, wee that fall into sinne may a­mend our liues.

Which two sentences doe (most really) differ. This man is very willing to abuse the vnderstanding, that dareth thus boldly falsify words vpon record, against the sight of the eye.

His fourth argument is set downe, Appeale, page 36. 11 and thus he beginneth;

4 In the publike seruice of our Church, you shall finde also as much as falling from grace commeth too.

I answer; he promised positiue, and declaratory Do­ctrine, and expresse words, affirming his falling from grace, and now he paies vs with consequences; a fault you reproued very often, and many a faire title you gaue your aduersary the Gagger for it. Turne backe a­gaine, and take a view how many of them belong to your selfe: Was there euer any man so senslesse, as to send vs to seeke the faith of our Church in consequen­ces? [Page 51] Or does hee thinke to finde any so voyd of rea­son, as to beleeue him? Surely no, for that were a worke endlesse. If the faith of our Church be in this consequence, why not in second vpon the first, and a third vpon the second, &c? And this is enough to satisfie the whole: but lest he should haue an ill con­ceit of himselfe, if I should cut him off thus shortly: therefore I will set downe what that is, which he tel­leth vs, is as much as falling from grace commeth too, and this it is;

Euery Childe duely Baptised, is put into the state of grace and saluation, by that lauer of regeneration.

Which must be acknowledged, and may not be de­nied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: being taught, first, in the forme of priuate Baptisme: secondly, in the Catechisme: thirdly, in the rubricke before the Catechisme.

I answer; first, this is Bellarmines second reason for this point, de Iusti. lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly, these are not records of the faith of our Church: no publike act of our Church hath made them such. Besides, the Bookes themselues be incompetent for that vse; the one being a forme of administration of Prayers, and Sacraments: the other, short precepts for the instru­ction of Infants. Hee was neere driuen, when hee cat­ched at this shadow. Moreouer, hee affirmeth (most falsly) where he saith; this sentence,

Euery one duely Baptised, is by Baptisme put into the state of grace and saluation, is taught in the pla­ces quoted.

The words of the places themselues will shew it: neither is there any such thing meant, or intended in [Page 52] them. It may be, he will reiect this answer; because I make it. I reply in his owne words, Appeale, p. 277.

If you will not admit the answer, I can name you one who will say and approne as much; whom you dare not deny to be of credit, or stile, as you doc some others: Appeale, page 294. A poore man that doubtlesse was out of his element, and med­led beyond his latchet.

I meane Bishop Iewell, whose words are these;

In the Sacrament of Baptisme (by the sensible signe of water) the inuisible grace of God is giuen vn­to vs, Artic. 5. diuis. 8. folio 250.

Little ones being Baptised, and so the members of Christ, Artic. 8. diuis. 16. folio 291.

Thus farre Bishop Iewell is for M^r. Mountagu, but let him interpret himselfe, and make vp his iudgement full, touching the vse of the Sacrament, and then wee shall finde him directly against him, and for that end he saith thus;

We confesse, that Christ by the Sacrament of rege­neration, hath made vs flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, that we are the members, and hee is the head. This merueilous coniunction and incor­poration, is first begun and wrought by faith, af­terward the same incorporation is assured vnto vs, and increased in our Baptisme: wherein must be considered, that the holy mysteries doe not be­gin, but rather continue, and confirme this incor­poration, Artic. 1. diuis. 13. folio 27.

It may be here demanded; how this iudgement of Bishop Iewell doth proue against M^r. Mountagu. I an­swer, thus, If in his iudgement, the Doctrine of the [Page 53] Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptisme no more but the renewing, and confirmati­on of our incorporation into Christ, and grace by Christ; then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptisme, and the Cate­chisme, doe not meane to say

Euery Child baptised is (thereby) put into the state of grace and saluation.

For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England, set downe in those places, or in any other, neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then hee did con­ceiue it to be.

But that hee did so conceiue of it, his words doe shew, and he addeth, that, our incorporation is begun first, and afterwards assured, and increased in our Bap­tisme, which doth not begin it: which is so plaine, full, and direct a contradiction vnto M^r. Mountagu; as the mind can deuise, or words expresse.

If (yet) this testimony will not serue, let the Church of England (in the 25. and 27. Articles) tell vs, what effects it doth giue vnto the Sacraments: where it assigneth

To the Sacraments in generall, that they are:

1 Tokens of Christian profession. 2. Signes of Gods good will. 3. He doth by them quicken and con­firme our faith.

Of Baptisme in speciall our Church saith,

1 It is a signe of regeneration. 2 An instrument wher­by we are grafted into the Church. 3 By it, the promises of forgiuenesse of sinne, and adoption are sealed. 4. Faith is confirmed, and grace in­creased.

These, & no more but these, are the effects of the Sa­crament of Baptisme assigned by our Church, it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptisme. If it be answered: the Li­turgie, and Catechisme is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles. I reply; so to say, is wholly without authority, & fondly without shew of reason. The Articles were made vpon great deliberation, and of purpose to settle an vnitie in matter of Religi­on; therefore it would not omit principall points, and set downe others, that are subordinate, and not cal­led into question.

If the professors of the faith of our Church (pub­likely, and priuately, in writing, and by word of mouth) haue taught and beleeued of the Sacraments, no otherwise then is laid downe in the Articles: and is maintained by Bishop Iewell; and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme, and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome, then may we well say that the Church neuer meant to set downe any other faith but that: for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith, nor the mo­ther so carelesse of her faith, as to suffer it to be cor­rupted, and her intent to be changed.

Forasmuch as, she could not be ignorant, what was done, nor wanted power to redresse things done amisse.

If it be said some haue taught as M. Mountagu doth: I answer; it hath beene in a corner then; He that did so Crept in at the window: neither shepheard, nor sheepe knew it. If Mr. Mountagu will be one of them he may be for me. I enuy not his happinesse, 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 erronious faith.

The Councell of Trent hath decreed thus;

The grace of Iustification is bestowed by the Sacra­ments, and that vnto all, &c. sess. 7. can. 4. 7. & 8.

The Sacrament of baptisme is the instrument all cause of Iustification, without which no man is iustified, 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 generall, lib. 2. cap. 3. 2 Of Baptisme in speciall. lib. 1. cap. 11. Quarto propos [...] ­tio, &c. and cap. 12. Veri effectus, &c.

Mr. Mountagu saith,

Euery child baptised is put thereby into the state of grace and saluation. Iust as they doe.

And thus much for this argument, and all the rest which hee pretendeth to take from the authenticall records of the doctrine of the Church of England. He bringeth others from the testimonies of singular 12 men, liuing in our Church, which indeed doe not de­serue answer: but because hee hopeth by them to helpe a lame dog ouer the stile, and to vphold a cause ready to fall: I will propound and examine them.

The first whereof is set downe, Appeale, pag. 28. in this forme;

They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew, composed, agreed, ratified, iustified, and subscribed the Articles, and penned the Homilies.

But all these haue and do assent, to falling from grace.

Therefore the learnedst in the Church of England as­sent therein.

I answer; this Sylogisme is false, the middle terme is predicated in the proposition, and subiected in the assumption: it ought to be thus framed:

They that composed &c. Did assent &c.

They that composed &c. Were the learnedst, &c.

Therefore some that were the learnedst &c. Did assent.

I answer; the assumption is a vaunt of his bragging veine, and more then the parties themselues would as­sume, or he can proue: he knoweth not who com­posed them, &c. they were dead long before he was borne, and there is no record of their names.

The proposition is false: neither the Articles nor Homilie doe teach falling from grace; as my answers thereunto doe plentifully witnesse.

His second argument of this kind is in Appeale, pag. 13 31. set downe in these words.

• 1 It was the Tenet of Doctor Ouerall, That, a Iusti­fied man might fall away from grace, and there­by incurre Gods wrath, and was in state of dam­nation, vntill he did recouer againe, and was re­newed after his fall.
• 2 Which opinion was resolued of, and auowed for true, Catholike, ancient, and Oxthodoxe by the Royall, reuerend, honourable, and learned Synode, at the Conference at Hampton Court.
• 3 The booke of the proceedings is extant, which will auerre all that I say for truth against you, here, See the

I answer; I thinke he would inferre from hence, [Page 57] (I am sure hee should inferre.)

Therefore some of the learnedst in the Church of Eng­land do maintaine falling from grace.

The antecedent hath three branches, the third is a proofe of the two first.

The first branch is false, I haue read the booke which reporteth Doctor Overalls opinion, in pag. 41. and 42, in these words:

The called, and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election, might, and did sometime fall into grieuous sinnes, and thereby into the present state of wrath: yet

They did neuer fall either totally,

From all the graces of God, to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seed thereof,

Nor finally,

From Iustification: But were renewed.

You report him to say, they fell into the state of damnation, which importeth a falling totally.

The booke 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 happe was hard, that a­mongst so many words, he could not light vpon one true one, and his face very audatious that durst affirme a falshood for truth, against the light of the noone­day. He talketh of conscience, and honesty, and Che­uerell, and I know not what: Hee must tell vs vnder which of those heads this allegation shall be ranged: for he hath best skill in such language; the allegation it selfe standeth vnder the censure of the reader, and the allegator at the barre of the Almighty; therefore [Page 58] I leaue this and passe to the next.

Hitherto I haue spoken to the matter vrged in the 14 two arguments, now must I say a word, or two, tou­ching the conclusion of them both, which saith,

Some of the learnedst, &c.

Vnto which I haue these two things to say, first, he getteth nothing though it were granted him. He ought to proue

The Church of England teacheth his falling from grace.

Which will not follow vpon 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 doe maintain falling from grace: for he saith, Ap. p. 28. Many in the Church of England, reputed learned, are of opinion Grace cannot bee lost: which is as much as if hee said, they haue the name of learning, but haue none indeed, all the learned say as I say. Which sentence is a most vaine, idle, and insul­ting brag.

If all were vnlearned that deny falling from grace, then (I hope) M^r Mountagu is learned, that affirmes the losse of grace, and that dareth sentence them all for want of learning, that deny falling from grace: but how learned hee is, let this whole disputation shew, wherein you shall finde great plenty of noto­rious faults against learning, as false Sylogismes, loose consequences, notorious false premisses, impertinent conclusions, false allegations, propositions contrary in their parts, headlesse diuisions, manifest contradi­ctions; a nosegay of some of them I doe here present you. Thus he writeth.

The Church of England leaueth the question [tou­ching falling from grace] at liberty vnto vs, Gagge, page 158.

The question touching [falling from grace] is vnde­cided in the Church of England, Gagge, p. 171.

The consented, resolued, and subscribed Articles of the Church of England, nor yet the Booke of com­mon Prayer, and other diuine offices, doe not put any tye vpon me to resolue in this question [tou­ching falling from grace] Appeale, page 26.

Contrary whereunto he writeth as followeth.

That man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England, Appeale, page 31.

That a man may fall from grace, is the Doctrine of the Church of England, deliuered publikely, po­sitiuely, and declaratorily, in authenticall re­cords, Appeale, page 36.

The Church of England it selfe hath directly and in expresse words taught, that, a iustified man may fall away from God, and become not the childe of God, Appeale, page 59.

The Church of England holdeth, and teacheth pun­ctually, that, a man may fall from grace, Ap­peale, page 73.

It is the Doctrine of the Church of England, that a man iustified, may fall away from grace, Ap. p. 89.

And when he had belaboured himselfe almost out of breath, to proue, that, falling from grace is the Do­ctrine of the Church of England, the Ancients and the Scriptures, he concludeth in these words;

I doe not say more then I am vrged to doe, by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles, and [Page 60] Doctrine publikely professed, and established in our Church, Appeale, page 37.

Other faire flowers that argue him one of the lear­nedst in the Church of England, might bee collected hither: but I content my selfe with these, because the Reader may finde them in their owne places.

His last argument in this matter is set downe, Ap­peale, 15 page 36. in these words;

Your prime leaders haue vnderstood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I haue reported it, and accordingly they haue complained against it.

I answer; it is very likely hee would conclude from hence,

Therefore you must so vnderstand it also.

I let passe his bitternesse, for that hurteth none that thinke not of it. The Doctrine of the Church of England is vnderstood according to the primary sense and meaning thereof, and sometimes also in a forced interpretation: some haue complained of, and obie­cted against this latter: and so farre I grant this whole reason: and good reason they had too for so doing. It becommeth the Pastors & people of the Church of England to discouer, & detect the corruptors of their faith. But against the first, neuer any excepted, neither is there any reasō why: Take the words of our Church as they lie, force them not to serue a turne, and they are familiar to vnderstanding, and of a manifest truth. And thus haue I dispatched all his arguments where­by he thinkes to proue falling from grace, to be the Do­ctrine of the Church of England.

In the next place commeth his proofes to bee exa­mined, 16 which he produceth to proue, that a man may fall from grace.

Of which he hath no small store in his Gagge, from page 159. to page 165. wherein hee hath followed Bellarmine, de Iusti. lib. 3. cap. 14. step by step: omit­ting nothing that is of any force, nor adding any thing that can supply any defect in Bellarmine. Hee borroweth of him (so much as) his confidence in the plentie, and perspecuity of diuine testimony: Bellar­mine saith, Quod attinet, &c.

The testimonies of Scripture are so many, and so cleere, that, it is to be admired how it could come into the minde of a man to say, Grace could not be lost.

Mr. Mountagu saith.

The Scripture speaketh plaine, that, a man may fall from grace. Gagge, page 161.

Falling from grace is fully cleared, and resolued in Scripture, Gagge, page 165.

The Scripture is expresse for falling from grace, Ap­peale, page 36.

I will giue answer to all the allegations produced: let them be Bellarmines, or Mr. Mountagues, or who­soeuer else: Truth may be defended against any op­poser.

The whole multitude of their allegations, may be reduced vnto two Sylogismes: the former (whereof) standeth thus;

If euery righteous man may, and some doe, leaue his righteousnesse, and commit iniquity, then he that hath grace, may lose that grace. For,

The most righteous man liuing, cōtinually doth, or may, mortally transgresse. Where mortall sin is committed, God is disobeyed. Where God is disobeyed, he will not abide. [Page 62] Where he wil not abide, grace cannot consist. Where grace cannot consist, it must needs be lost. Gagge, page 161.

But euery righteous man may, and some doe, leaue his righteousnesse, and commit iniquity.

Therefore he that hath grace, may lose that grace.

I answer; the words righteous, and righteousnesse, in this argument, must be taken for the act, not the ha­bit: and he doth so vnderstand it, I take as granted.

This being so, the assumption is true, and needs no proofe: yet notwithstanding, hee alleadgeth many places of Scripture, as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. Iohn cap. 15. 2. Matth. cap. 24. 12. Rom. cap. 11. 20. 21. 1 Tim. cap. 6. 20. cap. 1. 18. 19. cap. 4. Gal. cap. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. Heb. cap. 6. 4. and he concludeth, that infinite are the testimonies of Scripture to the purpose that these speake vnto.

All which may be applyed vnto the assumption of this reason, and cannot bee applyed to any other sen­tence: neither doe they affirm any more but this: viz. euery righteous man may, and some doe, omit holy acti­ons, and commit sinne in the actuall disobedience to Gods law.

Then, hee addeth diuers examples of righteous men, that neglected their obedience to Gods law, and committed actuall sinne. Which must be referred vnto the proofe of the latter part of the assumption, and can belong to no other: by which it is manifest, that all this goodly shew, and bumbasted brag, of infinite pla­ces of Scripture, all teaching falling from grace: at the last, commeth to no more but what euery man will grant, and being granted, will profit him no­thing, [Page 63] hee is not thereby one hayre the neerer to this conclusion;

A man may lose the habit of grace. For,

The consequence of the proposition is naught, and the proofe thereof false, in many branches thereof, a­uowed onely vpon his owne word, without the least shew or pretence of proofe. Surely this man meant not sincerely, when hee vndertooke to proue, that, which no man did euer deny, but takes as granted, and leaues vnproued that which all men doe deny, that ioyne not in faith with the Church of Rome. That it may appeare I say true: I will giue you an ac­count of some faults in the consequence of the propo­sition, and proofe thereof.

The consequence of the proposition dependeth vpon this sentence;

The habit of grace departeth from him that actually disobeyeth Gods law.

If this sentence be true, his consequence is good: if it be false, the consequence is naught: the latter part doth not follow vpon the former; but this sentence, the habit of grace, &c. is most false, as will appeare.

To make it seeme true, in the proofe of his conse­quence, 17 he doth first distinguish of sinne, and then tel­leth vs what kinde of sinne it is that maketh grace de­part. Lastly, hee giueth a reason why that departeth through this: but how truely this is affirmed, and sub­stantially proued, we shall see in the next passage.

The first branch of his proofe saith,

Euery righteous man may, or doth sinne mortally.

In which sentence he taketh two things as granted.

• 1 Some sinnes are mortall; some veniall, and not mortall.
• [Page 64]2 A man habituated by sanctitie, may commit mor­tall sinne.

I answer, if by mortall, hee meant no more, but sinne tending, and conducing vnto damnation, it would not be denyed him, that sinne is mortall: but thus he vnderstands it not: for then he could not di­stinguish sinne into mortall and veniall: for all sinne in this sense is mortall. If by veniall, he vnderstood no more, but sin not deseruing damnation by Gods not­imputing it, I will grant, that sinne is veniall: but hee must not vnderstand it thus: for so, all the sinnes of the iustified are veniall or (to speake in the words of the Church of England, first Homilie of saluation, a lit­tle after the beginning:)

Their sinnes are washed in such sort, that there re­maineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee impu­ted to their damnation.

It remaineth therefore, that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth. Which being true, that distinction is denyed: and so he begs the question, and proues it not. It is al­so denyed, that, a man habitually sanctified, can com­mit any such sinne as the Church of Rome calleth mor­tall; and yet he proues this as he did the former, euen by his owne word. If you will not beleeue him, you must goe look proofe other where, but you must not looke it in Bellarmine, for if he had brought any, M^r. Mountagu would haue giuen it you in English.

His next branch is this;

Where mortall sinne is committed, God is disobeyed.

I answer; in this sentence, he attributeth disobedi­ence vnto mortall sinne adequately, denying veniall [Page 65] sinne to be any disobedience vnto Gods law: for if he did not so, he must say, that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sinnes as hee calls veniall: for he saith, (as we shall see anon) where God is diso­beyed, grace cannot consist, but must needs be lost. But he will not say grace is lost by veniall sinne; therefore he conceiueth onely mortall sinne disobeyeth Gods law. Iust as Bellarmine doth: who teacheth,

Veniall sinne is sinne, by analogy, or certaine proporti­on, and imperfectly, after a certaine sort; but not perfectly, and simply: neither is it perfectly vo­luntary, nor perfectly against the Law: but besides the Law. De amiss. gra. lib. 1. cap. 11. Quin­tum, &c.

If you aske me, how M^r Mountagu proues this? I answer, with no worse proofe then he hath done the former branches: and that is his owne very word, which you need not sticke at, for he is one of the lear­nedst in the Church of England.

His third branch is in these words: 18

Where God is disobeyed he will not abide.

I answer, in what sense soeuer the word disobeyed be taken, this sentence is false, and must goe for such, till he hath proued it; which yet he hath not done, nor attempted to doe, let him shew vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things:

• 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon the committing of this or that sinne.
• 2 This actuall sinne, is of that nature, that of it selfe, it doth expell grace.

If he proue one of these, the question is at an end, the Diuine Oracle must haue credit. If you bring not [Page 66] that, you hunt a flea, and pursue a shadow. It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne, till you proue, that grace must giue place to sinne, by the ordinance and decree of God, or the nature of the things themselues.

There be some other things in this proofe to be examined: but I passe them ouer, because they de­pend vpon these branches which I haue answered vn­to, and doe stand or fall with them. To conclude this argument, I say, It is worthy to be obserued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised vnto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that posi­tion: but at the vpshot, their proofes are for the thing denyed by none, and they take for granted the things denyed by all; which kind of disputing, in it selfe is most vnsound; for it is no more, but as if they should say, it is so, because we say it is so, and it is most dan­gerous to the Reader that is not very wary: for it is most deceitfull, bearing a shew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture, which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in question.

It may be, some will vrge these places of Scripture 19 on this sort.

If he that is habitually sanctified, alwayes may, and sometimes doth commit such sinnes, as for which (in in the euent) he is cast into hell, then a man may lose, and some doe lose the habit of sanctity.

But he that is habitually sanctified, alwayes may, and sometime doth, commit such sinnes, as for which, in the euent, he is cast into hell.

Therefore, &c.

I answer: In this reason, I grant the first part, or consequence of the proposition: because no man [Page 67] hath the habit of sanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell; for that leades to another end, and is al­wayes to be crowned with glory.

But the assumption, or second part, which hath two branches, is wholly false: no one place of Scrip­ture doth affirme, or inferre either of these two sen­tences.

The habitually sanctified may commit such sinnes as for which (in the euent) he shall goe to hell.

Some habitually sanctified haue committed such sins, as for which he is now in hell.

If any require me to shew, that, the places alled­ged doe not proue thus much. I answer, That is not my office: for, 1. the question is not (at this pre­sent) purposely disputed. 2, It is their place to dis­pute, and mine to answer: let them apply the Scrip­tures to the purpose in an orderly forme, and I will make my answer good. It is enough for mee to giue them an Issue. They must proue the Issue, or leaue the cause behind them.

I will put some of their allegations into forme, and 20 answer to them, which I doe thus,

He that may leaue his actuall righteousnesse, and com­mit such actuall sinne, as for which hee is threatned by God, in the euent, to be cast into hell, he may com­mit such sinnes, as for which, in the euent, he shall be cast into hell.

But the man habitually sanctified may leaue his actu­all righteousnesse, and commit such sinne, as for which he is threatned by God, in the euent, to be cast into hell.

So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne [Page 68] from his righteousnesse, and commit iniquity, hee shall dye therein.

Therefore the man habitually sanctified, may commit such sinne, as for which, in the euent, he shall goe to hell.

I answer: although the proposition seemes not to be euidently true: because, God may so threaten sin, to shew vnto man what the desert of sinne is, and not what in the euent shall become of such a sinner: yet I will not at this present insist thereupon: but come to the assumption, which is not true: neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be so: for these three words, viz. Righteous, Righteousnesse, Iniquity, may import the act, and none of them can signifie the habit: as the text it selfe doth euidently shew, which doth interpret the word Righteous, by the word Righ­teousnesse, and Righteousnesse it calleth an Act, saying, all his righteousnesse that he hath done, &c.

If it be replyed, actuall righteousnesse, doth sup­pose the habituall, as the fountaine, from whence it proceedeth, & without which actuall righteousnesse cannot be. I answer: Actuall righteousnesse may proceed from actuall grace, because actuall grace doth make mans will a sufficient root or beginning, and an able-next-cause of supernaturall actions, as Suarez tea­cheth, Opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no 1. and the Councell of Trent hath decreed, Sess. 6. cap. 6. where it saith, a man doth beleeue, feare, hope, trust, loue, detest sinne, de­sire a new life, &c. (all which are supernaturall acti­ons, or actuall righteousnesse) by grace exciting and adjuvating, which is actuall, not habituall grace.

If M^r Mountagu will deny this, the Scripture it selfe [Page 69] will avow it, which speaketh of some that fall away: which argueth they did righteously before time, but now commit sinne. 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 signifie actuall grace. They cannot signifie habituall grace, because the beginning of, and preparation vnto our sanctity, may well be resembled vnto, and set out by tasting: which is the beginning and preparation, vn­to 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 lesse then meat receiued into, and re­maining in the body of man, sustaining his being, and giuing him power to doe the actions of life, chearful­ly and readily.

If it be demanded further: what holy actions doe proceed from the habit of sanctity? I answer, They are such as are done, 1. out of the loue of God, and his Law: 2. out of an intention of, and a delight in obedience to God. 3. They be such holy actions wher­in a man doth continue, either alwayes without in­termission, or returne from actuall sinning by repen­tance. And the reason hereof is good: for (in the confessiō of all men) the habit doth dispose a manvnto doing with willingnesse, readinesse, and delight: and the habit of sanctity doth determine the soule of man vnto doing the workes of righteousnesse, as may be proued against such as deny it, with Suarez Opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no 1. So as although a man doe the works of righteousness neuer so faire in outward appearance, [Page 70] neuer so many, for number, and continuance: yet, they proceed not from any habit or setled inward quality of holinesse, if they be done for priuate ends, and be wholly discontinued at last.

And thus I haue (as I hope) plainly, and truly ope­ned, and resolued, the whole difficulty in this argu­ment: and thereby shewed it insufficient to vphold their falling from grace. Which being well obserued, will giue satisfaction vnto all other places of Scrip­ture, which are alledged in this question.

In fauour of the second branch of their assump­tion 21 at no 19. They dispute thus, Gagg p. 164.

Iudas had the habit of grace.

Iudas committed sinne for which he is in hell.

Therefore some that had the habit of grace commit­ted sin for which he is in hell.

I answer: Hee hath proofes for his proposition, and assumption. This I grant as a thing euident. That I deny as a thing manifestly false. His proofe for his proposition is in these words.

Iudas was numbred with the twelue Apostles, had all the prerogatiues which they enioyed, God gaue him to Christ, as well as Peter, or Iohn.

I answer; this proofe is childish, the reading of it refuteth him: all these things alledged were outward priuiledges, no inward habit of grace. If he conceiue them otherwise, he must proue it: his word will not make articles of faith: a goodly disputation, that in conclusion (alwaies) resteth vpon the disputers word: you must beleeue that, or rest where you began.

Other toyes of this kind you may haue enow, in the place where I had this, but it is loath some to name them.

One more I will propound and examine, that there 22 be no doubt remaining. This it is,

Peter had the habit of grace.

Peter committed such a sinne as for which he was in the present state of damnation.

Therefore some that haue the habit of grace did commit such sinne as for which he was in the pre­sent state of damnation.

I answer: The whole doubt of this argument, lyeth in the words state of damnation. The sense of that be­ing truly knowne, the argument will bee found good or bad. A man is then in the state of damnation,

1 When hee wanteth that inward quality that must order, or set him in the way vnto holinesse in this life, and happinesse in the life to come.

And secondly, when hee standeth actually bound ouer (by God as he is a Iudge) vnto hell fire, for the sinne 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 vpon his bare authority, a principall thing in question. But if by state of damnation, he meant; the desert of sin on­ly, then I grant the whole: but the conclusion is no­thing to purpose; we speake not of the desert of sinne in it selfe, but of damnation it selfe actually in the e­uent. To conclude my answer to all the arguments of this kinde: Now we see he beateth the bush, and maketh offer to take the game: but hee wanteth all meanes for the purpose, the fowle must come into his fist, or he must goe without her.

His other argument for the maine question I finde 23 [Page 72] written, Gagge, page 161. which is to this effect,

If Adam and Lucifer did lose their originall state, then man may lose his habit of grace: for the one was in the state of innocency in Paradise: the o­ther in heauen in glory: to whom man in grace (at most) is but equall, not superiour.

But Adam and Lucifer did lose their originall state.

Therefore man may lose his habit of grace.

I answer; this argument is as shallow and shuttle, as any of the former; the weakenesse of the conse­quence is seene by a peece of an eye: All men will grant, the prouidence of GOD in this or that act, is not regulated by the former act of his prouidence. What if he did so to Adam and Lucifer, could he not doe otherwise with other men? what is there in the nature of the things themselues, or of GOD, that should tye him to doe in this as he did in that? surely nothing. His actions towards the creatures were all free, and hee at liberty to doe, or not doe, this waies, or that waies, as he pleased; vntill hee had de­creed what, and how he would doe. He doth all things according to the counsell of his owne will; that is, accor­ding as Suarez doth truely interpret it, opusc. 4. disp. 1. sect. 1. no 9. God worketh all things according to that counsell which is accepted by the good pleasure of his will: this is sure, God did so by them, and wee beleeue it, because he hath said it; that he doth so by other men, we beleeue not, because God hath not said it. Wee know some men are in the possession of the habit of grace; if you will haue vs beleeue this possession to be casuall, shew vs where God hath said, hee will take it [Page 73] away, else wee dare not beleeue you: for it is plaine, none can take it away but God: and he will not take it away, vnlesse hee hath reuealed so much vnto vs, which he hath not done: and so much for all his ar­guments taken from Scripture.

He vrgeth Fathers, with no lesse confidence of plen­ty, 24 and plainnesse, for him: pretending also, the au­thority of our Church commanding all men to receiue their testimony, Appeale, page 36. and 37. He bringeth some by name, Gagge, page 165. &c. But this is a very bubble, and comes from that foysting fountaine, that the rest of his brags haue done. Bellarmine hath no such confidence in the Fathers: hee nameth but two, and out of each of them, one sentence, and so sitteth him downe; which Bellarmine would neuer haue done, if he could haue found more. If M^r. Mounta­gu will say, Bellarmine is a poore Ignaro, and hath no old learning, himselfe hath read more Fathers then Bel­larmine euer heard of, which is his owne language in another case; all the world would laugh at him: but not beleeue him. The conclusion is, Bellarmine nei­ther brags nor brings, therefore M^r. Mountagu doth both in vaine.

I will finish my answer to his Fathers by his owne direction, Gagge, page 165.

There needs no proofe by Fathers, where holy Scrip­ture is silent: Fathers may be pretended by false play, but none (indeed and in truth according to their words and meaning) can be produced. Let him try when he will, in a Logicall forme, and he shall finde it. Thus haue I concluded my answers to all his arguments brought to proue his falling from grace, taken from the Scrip­tures, [Page 74] and Fathers.

His last argument for the same purpose, I finde, 25 Appeale, page 17. which he beginneth thus,

If you deny falling from grace, you are a Papist.

I answer; this sentence beginneth an argument, which is continued by diuers other parts which fol­low. It is called a delemma, in plaine English, a Net, a Snare, a Toyle, to catch the old one; the bat­tell is before and behinde, turne you which waies you will, it will catch you. But soft and faire, old Birds will not be caught with chaffe, if the stuffe of your Net be vnsound, your game will escape.

This sentence doth neither affirme nor deny, put it into a lawfull forme; and it speaketh thus;

He that denyeth falling from grace, is a Papist.

This sentence is false: for falling from grace is an Article of the Popish faith, as himselfe confesseth, Gagge, page 158. and I haue proued by the Coun­cell of Trent: cap. 11. The denyall of the Popish faith cannot argue a man to be a Papist, in the iudge­ment of any man liuing. Hee is a strange Papist, that treads the faith of Papists vnder his feete; but more strange that a man should be a Papist for denying the Popish faith. Well, but he will proue it by the words which follow, viz.

For I demand, did Peter fall, or did he not fall, when he denyed Christ?

I answer; euery interrogation hath the force of an affirmation; now this is referred as a proofe vnto the precedent sentence, by the word for: which doth im­mediately follow the same; thus then hee doth dis­pute;

Peter did either fall, or not fall.

Therefore hee that denieth falling from grace, is a Papist.

I know you laugh at this naughtie consequence: but you must not doe so. Homer may take a [...]p▪ well, let that passe, Peter did fall or not fall; what of that? wee sta [...]d now betweene two, you must tell vs which wee shall chuse, for that end, these words follow;

If abnegation, and abiuration, and execration will inforce a fall, he did.

I answer; this leaueth the matter no lesse doubt­full, then it was: this giueth vs leaue to say,

But it did not inforce a fall.

Therefore Peter did not fall.

Or thus.

But it did inforce a fall.

Therefore he did fall.

When you haue said all, you haue said nothing. It may be the next will dispatch the matter. You say,

If he fall, he needes must fall totally, or finally: for shew me a third?

I answer; this is faire, but farre off; whither this ten­deth, none but your selfe knowes, if your selfe doe know, you shall be crowned for a choyce one. You di­uide a totall fall from a finall: and that is absurd. Eue­ry finall is a totall, and some totall is also finall, your selfe being Iudge. There may be a fall, neither totall nor finall; as when Gods concurse or actuall grace is with-held: but the habit remaineth. And this is pos­sible, seeing there is actuall grace, and habituall, as Sua­res does proue plenteously, de grat. pro [...]egom, 3. cap. 6. and 3 parte, lib. 1. no 4. &c. yea, actuall and habituall [Page 76] grace also, doe differ in their vse. This, seruing to make mans will fit to eliciate supernaturall actions after a connaturall and perfect manner, by an inrrinsicall and connaturall faculty (as Suarez teacheth, opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no. 1.) That, tending to dispose vnto this, (as the Councell of Trent, sess. 6. cap. 5. and 6. de­creeth, and Suarez consenteth in the place alleadged) and to moue the habit vnto working being obtained, as Aluarez proueth, de Auxilijs disp. 88. and the thing it selfe by perpetuall experience doth shew; see Alua. disp. 24. no 37. and Bellar. de grat. lib. 1. cap. 4. Quatuor dona: haue patience, it may be, it will come anone, in the meane time he proceeds thus;

Now then in such denyall, St. Peter, did he fall, or did he not fall?

I answer; the word Then, importeth an inference, so that this sentence is inferred vpon another; but what that other is, wee shall not finde in any part of this argument: for they are all either disiunctiue, or connext propositions. Before we had heads without a tayle, now we haue a tayle without a head: this de­mand came once before, it seemeth it will abide a se­cond seething: well, let that be, what will become of it, wee shall see anone: and that is well (no doubt) for the second seething hath made it wholsome food; thus you goe on;

You must answer he did not fall.

I answer; and so must you too; or be a rebell against your Mother the Church of England, which in the first Sermon of Repentance, a little before the end: where (after it had reckoned vp Peters denyall of his Master, and dissimulation at Antioch) it concludeth:

After this grieuous offence, hee was not vtterly exclu­ded, and shut out from the grace of God.

With whom I also say: Peter did not lose the habit of grace by the denyall of Christ: but what of all this; he will now tell you, in these words;

So that you ioyne with the Gagger, and subscribe to Bellarmine, who maintaine, that Peters faith did not faile: auoid it if you can.

I answer; and so must your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too; auoide (you) it if you can: for I say no more then what I haue learned of her, and so must you also (auoid it if you can,) for you professe to beleeue what it beleeueth, and teach what it teacheth, in whose faith and confession you hope to liue, and dye▪ Appeale, p. 48. You haue spun a faire threed, you haue hunted all this while, and couered your nets close, to catch your mother, and your selfe in the pit­fall.

I will doe you that fauour, as to let you and the Church of England loose, I will stand by it my selfe, and will professe,

Peter lost not his faith when he denyed Christ.

But you must giue mee leaue to expresse my selfe, which I doe thus;

The act of faith is

• either eliciate,
• or imperate.

The first is the act of the soule onely, remaining in it selfe not knowne to man, which wee call beleeuing. The second is wrought by the body also, and com­meth to the knowledge of men, as when a man doth professe by his tongue, to giue credit, and trust vnto [Page 78] 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, beleeue that hee was indeed the Christ; and trusted vnto, and relyed vpon him, as such: euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him. Peters deniall being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distresse hee feared. If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus, I sub­scribe to them, and that vpon good reason: for Pe­ter had long beleeued on Christ, and had now no cause to change that beleefe, therefore wee may not say he did change it; vnlesse the diuine reuelation had said it, which hath not a word of any such thing, but looke better on your bookes, and you shall find Bellar­mine saith; Peter lost his charity, but not his faith, be­cause he was Pastor ouer the whole Church, and was to teach it the true faith, de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more then I say: by which it appear­eth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perseuerance I maintaine: nor my sentence so good Popery, as M. Moun­tagu hath deliuered, contrary to his vniust challenge, Appeale pag. 18.

It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith; to establish his owne implyed, Gagg. pag. 163. which is on this wise.

Faith is

• either in the end,
• or the act.

But this distinction I feare not; because end and act are not parts of faith; neither as specialls, to the ge­nerall, nor as constitutiue parts, making a constituted whole: besides, what he saith, of the end of faith, is a [Page 79] riddle which (I doubt) himselfe vnderstandeth not: Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent, or po­sition as it lyeth; I will now put the disputation in­to 26 due forme, and answer thereunto.

Thus then it lyeth;

If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace, then you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger: who say, that, Peter lost not his faith.

But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine, &c. 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 meere caption, and no proofe: it supposeth, that, the losse of the ha­bit of grace, is denyed to Peter onely; which is false: and the conclusion nothing to the purpose. And so he must be vnderstood, for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely.

But I will take it as it lyeth, and answer to it. The weaknesse of his cause will the better appeare by my answer, which is this;

I grant the assumption, I promise you, I am, and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popish faith, as M. Mountagu, and further too. For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the of­fice to determine all controuersies 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 speciall prouidence, and peculiar dispensation: [Page 80] vpon the reason, and for the end, as is aforesaid, n^o 25. but, I say, hee lost it not, neither in habit, nor act, by that prouidence and dispensation, which is common to him with all other men that haue receiued the ha­bit of grace; who must needs keepe their faith so long as they keepe the habit of grace; because the habit of grace consisteth in faith, hope and charitie. Vnto 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, (onely Peter is excepted, by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue shewed, 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. Hee tells vs of some that haue whirlegiggs in their heads, Appeale, pag. 81. Which is true of himselfe, if it be true of any, but he may bee pardoned that fault, his heart was so full of anger, and his pen of railing, that he had no lea­sure to attend vpon Art and Diuinitie.

CHAP. XIII. The point of reall presence.

CHAP. XIV. The point of Reall presence is debated.

THe order obserued hitherto, must be obserued 1 here also: Three things are sought after,

• 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not.
• 2 Whether he consenteth, in the reall presence, with the Church of Rome, or not.
• 3 Whether he dissenteth, in the point of Reall presence, with the Church of England, or not.

His consent with the Church of Rome is plenti­fully 2 witnessed by himselfe. Thus he writeth,

There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome, and ours, in the point of Reall presence. Gagg. p. 253.

The Protestant in the Sacrament, is as reall and substantiall as any Papist. Gagg. p. 251.

If the Priests and Iesuits, were not common Bar­retters of Christendome for priuate ends, this controuersie on foot, touching the reall presence, might cease. Gagg. p. 251.

They that in the point of reall presence, doe make a difference betweene vs, and the Papists, were bred vp by the deuill in a faction, and by him brought vp in a faction, and by him sent abroad to doe him seruice, in maintaining a faction. Gagg. p. 253. and Appeale p. 291.

The onely difference, betweene the Church of Rome, and ours, is about the manner. Appeale [Page 83] p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ. Gagg. p. 256. 255. Namely, whether by tran­substantiation or not. 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation, which wee condemne. Gagg. 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 reprouing their proofes▪ be­cause they proue not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation. Gagg. p. 252. and 254. Out of which, wee may conclude: M^r Mountagu beleeueth, as the Councell of Trent hath decreed, touching the reall presence: and the doctrine of it is his doctrine; so as, what the Councell saith of reser­uing, carying about, and worshipping of the Sacrament, must be accounted the faith of M^r Mountagu; be­cause the first doth necessarily inferre the second. If Christ be really present, then the sacrament, must bee so reserued, caryed, worshipped. And so much for the second branch.

If this be true, then M^r Mountagu doth not dis­sent 3 from the Church of England in the point of reall presence. To the end hee might perswade vs that hee doth not dissent from the Church of England, he tel­leth vs, Appeale p. 289. The point of reall presence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England▪ That is, the Church of England, agreeth with the Church of Rome, in the point of reall presence: as he doth explicate himselfe a few lines after. If that be so, then I grant he doth not dissent from the Church of England.

But all the doubt will be, how he will proue, that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith, with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence. His proofe (such as it is) I find set downe, Appeale p. 289. &c. and may be concluded in this forme;

Whatsoeuer is taught by the Bishops; Bilson, Andrewes, 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 reall presence, is taught by these, &c.

Therefore, the faith of the Church of Rome, in the point of reall presence, is the doctrine of the Church of England.

This forme of disputing may not bee excepted a­gainst, because all his allegations in the place quoted, will be to no purpose, if he doth not thus dispute; for the allegations doe serue to proue this assumption, or can be of no vse at this time.

To the proposition I answer two things. First, The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes, authorised publikely for that end, and sub­scribed vnto as such. But these mens writings are not such: For no statute, law, or ordinance, haue ratified them: and commanded subscription vnto them as such. Therefore your proposition is false. Secondly, your owne words are these, Appeale. p. 58. and 59.

Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat, as if hee were the father and founder of our faith, as if our be­leefe were to be pinned vnto his sleeue, and abso­lutely to bee taught after his institutions: shew [Page 85] me good warrant for it, and I yeeld.

This is impossible, therefore your proposition is false, euen by your owne sentence: his owne pen gi­ueth Iudgement against his proposition as false: that being false, this reason cannot be good, although his assumption were neuer so true.

The assumption is vtterly false; and I doe admire, that shame did not with-hold him, from alleadging Caluin and Beza as consenters vnto the Romish faith in the point of reall presence; seeing that Bellarmine in his fi [...]st Booke and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin, and Beza princi­pall opposers thereunto: and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in speciall sort a­gainst Caluin, and forgetteth him not, in no one pas­sage of his disputations in this point.

The words of the Bishops, (euen as he hath allead­ged them) are not so much as like vnto the Romish faith, as hee that readeth them will presently iudge. I doe not attempt to apply them to his assumption. Two of them are yet liuing, who will (I doubt not) by liuely voyce, disclaime the decree of the Coun­cell of Trent, and their consent thereto, touching the reall presence, and so fully refute his assumption as false.

He inferreth further from hence, on this wise; 4

If this be the Doctrine that the Church of Eng­land teacheth and professeth, (as it is indeed) I leaue you to those that must looke vnto you.

I answer; this inference presumes too farre, and comes too late, I may rather inferre contrariwise.

If the Romish faith of reall presence bee not the [Page 86] Doctrine of the Church of England, (as in­deed it is not) my answer hath shewed it in part, (and I will shew it to the full hereafter,) then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith, to be punished as such, according to law in that case prouided.

I finde in his Gagge, page 250. he writeth thus, 5

Our Catechisme in the Communion Booke saith ex­presly, the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper.

And a few lines after he concludeth in these words,

The Protestant is as reall and substantiall, as any Papist.

He seemeth to inferre the latter sentence vpon the former: the meaning whereof is this: Protestants ac­knowledge the reall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, no lesse then Papists.

What his intent was, is best knowne to himselfe. It was needfull for mee to propound it, and let it bee knowne by my answer thereto, that no reall presence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged: which answer I will take from Bishop Iewell, who hath already made it for mee, in his reply vnto Hardings answere, Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these;

Christs body and blood, indeed, and verily, is giuen vnto vs, that we verily eate it, that wee verily drinke it.

In these words there is as much contained, as M^r. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechisme. But marke now what he denieth, and answereth further for the explication thereof.

Yet we say not, that Christs body is let downe from heauen, or made really, or fleshly present in the Sacrament: wee lift vp our hearts to heauen, and there feed vpon the Lambe of God: thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith, wee eate the body of Christ, and drinke his blood, euen as verily as his body was verily broken, and his blood verily shed vpon the Crosse.

This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose, and of no lesse authority, then the Catechisme allead­ged: which being taken in this sense, we may safely conclude, that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme.

A third thing also is in his Appeale, pag. 291. thus 6 set downe;

Both wee, and the Papists confesse, This is my Body; and that is enough; and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body, (that is) how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ, Gagge, page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed tran­substantiation, and wee deny the same, Gagge, page 252.

Which sentence, by the course of the place where it is, must be applyed to the present purpose, in this forme;

They that agree in this sentence, This is my Body, there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence.

But we and the Papists agree in this sentence: This is my Body, and contend meerely about the man­ner how it is made the flesh of Christ, &c.

Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee [Page 88] distracted about the point of reall presence.

That it was his purpose thus to dispute, the place it selfe where that sentence standeth, will shew: where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place, and then the words alleadged, as a proofe ther­of: and referred thereunto, by this word, seeing, &c.

I will take my answer vnto this, from the same Au­thor and place, page 236. from whence I had my for­mer, viz. the reuerend Bishop, whose words bee these;

Indeed the question betweene vs this day, is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words: (for they are knowne and confessed of either partie:) But onely of the sense and [...]eaning of his words, which is the v [...]ry pith, and substance of the Scriptures: and he committeth fraud against the lawes, that (s [...]ing the words of the law,) ouerthroweth the m [...]ning: If it be true, that the onely sense of Christs words is, that his Body is really and flesh­ [...] the Sacrament, it is great wonder, that [...] of the ancient Doctors of the Church could eu [...]r see it.

This answer is full to euery point of M^r. Mountagu his argument.

First, he saith, they agree in words, touching this sentence, This is my Body: and so farre hee grants the assumption.

Secondly, the question is, of the sense of those words: and thereby denies the assumption, and pro­position too: as if he should say, although they agree in words: yet differing in the sense, there is sufficient cause of distraction, and dissent betweene them. For [Page 89] the sense is the pith of the Scriptures; and hee that ouer­throweth the meaning, corrupteth the Law. 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly pre­sence of Christs body. Which the Bishop denyeth, whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this; viz. that They affirme a reall presence, We deny it. And this doth directly oppose the latter part of M^r. Moun­tagu his reason, that placeth the difference betweene them, and vs, meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ, which they say is by tran­substantiation. The Bishop saith, we dissent about the reall presence. M. Mountagu saith no: for (saith he) our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation.

By which it appeareth, M. Mountagu his arguments (in the behalfe of the Church of Rome) were answe­red long before he was borne.

It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop, that it is not sufficient, and giue the reason for it, which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz.

The Devill bred him vp in a faction, and sent him abroad, to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction.

And thus hee must reply, or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence, which was written against all such, as make any difference betweene the Romish Church, and ours, in the point of reall pre­sence. I reioyne to it in the Bishops words, p. 237.

If he be of God, he knoweth well, he should not thus be­stow his tongue and hand.

Moreouer, if he hath the vnderstanding of a man, he knoweth it is euidence of truth, not bitternesse of [Page 90] rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question: let him first take away the Bishops proofes, and shew wherein hee is a lyar, or an ignorant man, and then there may be some excuse for this railing: till then, it will be held a ruled case, his will was good, but his cause nought. He must raile because hee had nothing else to say. And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England.

I will now deliuer some reasons to proue, that the 9 Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence, as followeth.

1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it. 2 It hath beene proclaimed a­gainst, by our Ministers, without any blame from au­thoritie, or knowne opposition from any of ours. 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held, touching the nature, and effects of this Sacrament, and hath not a word of the reall presence. Our Church hath determined, that the Sacrament is to be eaten, taken, and giuen, only after a spirituall manner, and by faith: and denyeth worship to it. Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe, but are not partakers of Christ. Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds, Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had gran­ted the Popish reall presence. Lastly, Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England, de­nyeth it; and maintaineth that that Article of the Po­pish faith is erroneous, first in his Apologie begin­ning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward, and a­gaine in his Reply to Harding, Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue, that the Church of England re­iecteth [Page 91] the popish reall presence.

It remaineth in the third place, that wee examine 10 whether the popish reall presence be true or not: but of that I find nothing in him: it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the oppo­sers thereof were bred by the Deuill, as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged. That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile: for there he goes hand in hand, with his Aduersary. That he did it not in his Ap­peale, was, because, hee could not: for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength: Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words:

Hee gaue substance, and really subsisting essence, who said, This is my body, this is my blood.

These words are little other then a riddle: yet I will make the best of them. My answer thereunto will explicate the matter, and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence: thus it may be framed,

If Christ gaue substance, and an essence really subsisting, when he did administer the sacrament to his Di­sciples, and said, This is my body, &c. then the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament.

But Christ gaue substance, and an essence really subsisting, &c.

Therefore the body of Christ is really present.

I answer; The word substance &c. in this place may be taken for the substance of Bread and wine: or for the substance of Christs body: That Christ gaue the substance of bread and wine I grant, and so the assump­tion is true, and hee must grant it likewise, or else say [Page 92] with the Councell of Trent, Sess. 13. can. 2. That, it doth not remaine: but is changed, &c. which I pre­sume he will not doe: But the word substance being thus vnderstood, he must thus argue, Hee gaue the substance of bread, therefore the substance of his body was present. These two doe hang together like harpe and Harrow, so the consequence of the proposition is naught.

If by the word substance hee meant Christs body, then the substance of his body is affirmed to be giuen, but not explicated how hee gaue it, nor proued yet that he gaue it. This is his old vaine, you must go seeke his meaning for the sense, and take his word for the truth, or else his is no man of this world.

I will bestow some paines to finde out both: To 11 giue may be after an humane sort (that is) when I de­liuer a thing in my possession, into the possession of another: I had it then, another hath it now: hee is seized, I am dispossessed of it. If Christ gaue the sub­stance of his body thus, then the▪ substance of his body was present. But Christ did not giue the substance of his body on this manner. If hee will say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sort, hee must proue it by the word of God; for it is impossible vnto naturall vnderstanding, that Christ should deliuer the substance of his owne body, out of his owne possessi­on into the possession of his Disciples.

Furthermore, Giuing may be after an heauenly and spirituall manner, that is to say, vnto faith. If he say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sense; Then he saith true, and thus he must say, or disclaime the faith of the Church of England: for so saith our [Page 93] Church, in the 28 Article. But then Christ might so giue, and yet not be really and substantially present in the Sacrament. For we lift vp our hearts to heauen, and there feed vpon the Lambe of God. Thus spiritually, with the mouth of our faith, we eate the body of Christ, and drinke his blood, &c. as I haue alledged out of Bishop Iewel in his reply to Harding, p. 238. see De­fen. Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this answer.

I hope no man will require mee to proue, that, 12 Christ is not really present in the Sacrament: that belongs not to me: but because they affirme that hee is present, and tels vs we must beleeue, that God hath reuealed it; therefore it is enough for vs to call for a sight of that diuine reuelation, and in the meane time to with-hold our beleefe thereof, euen vpon that ground which Bishop Iewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology, part 2. cap. 12. diuis. 1. p. 220. namely,

Christ nor his Apostles neuer taught, nor the Pri­mitiue Church neuer beleeued that reall presence.

Thus haue I ended this argument, and the whole point of reall presence, and (I hope) haue made it ap­peare, that it is, neither the doctrine of the Church of England, nor a true doctrine.

CHAP. XV. The point of Images.

CHAP. XVI. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed.

HEre we enquire of three things. 1

• 1 Whether his doctrine of Images, bee true or not.
• 2 Whether he consenteth therein, with the Church of Rome or not.
• 3 Whether he dissenteth therein from the Church of England or not.

His consent with the Church of Rome, is suffici­ently testified by their words and his. He saith, Ima­ges may be had in Churches: and, Honour is due; and to be giuen vnto them. So saith the Councell. He saith, Honour is due, and giuen relatiuely. The Councell saith, The honour exhibited to Images is referred to the proto­type: which is the same with his. He saith, They may be vsed for the instruction of the ignorant, recalling the memory of the history, and stirring vp of deuotion. The Councell saith: The articles of faith may be learned by them, men put in mind of the benefits by Christ, and stir­red vp to giue thankes, for the miracles, and to imitate the vertuous actions wrought by the Saints. Which differeth nothing from him.

He concludeth the point of Images thus; 2

Let practice and doctrine goe together, we agree. So that the question is not; what may bee giuen them. Gagg. p. 319.

These words (as they lye) be voyd of sense: they [Page 97] containe neither affirmation nor negation: they bring nothing that is affirmed of, or denied vnto: (to speak formally) they haue neither subiect, predicate, nor vinculum.

If this word your be added vnto the words practice, and doctrine, and the word then bee put before the words we agree, then that sentence may bee vnder­stood: but he will not abide him that shall doe so, for he rageth against him that shall doe so, Appeale. p. 256. &c. Whether those words be added or no, his agree­ment with the Church of Rome, doth sufficiently shew it selfe in them: for, 1. these words are spoken vnto the Church of Rome, with whom he hath this present disputation: for in the former part of this discourse he saith vnto them, Whatsoeuer you say, &c. In your practice, &c. So that it is all one, as if he had said, Let your practice and doctrine goe together, &c. 2. By doctrine hee meaneth all the doctrine of their Church; for he speaketh of doctrine without limita­tion, and thereby extendeth his agreement with them in their whole doctrine touching Images: which is further confirmed by saying, the question betweene him and them is not what may be giuen them. Which is as much as if he said, I consent vnto their whole doc­trine. 3. By the doctrine of their Church, he must vn­derstand the decree of the Councell of Trent: for their Church hath no other doctrine but that: the rest is opinions of singular men: so that his sentence now set downe, is as if he had said,

I agree with the Councell of Trent in the point of Images.

Now the Councell of Trent hath decreed in the [Page 98] place alledged; that,

The honour to bee giuen to Images, is kissing of them, vncouering the head, and bowing downe before them.

Which must be vnderstood to be M^r Mountagu his sentence also.

Notwithstanding all this plaine euidence, yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome: because,

The ignorant amongst them giue them honour due vnto God, and the learned amongst them (as Thomas by name, and others with him) per­swade, that as much honour is to bee giuen to a woodden Crucifix, as to Christ himselfe in heauen.

For thus he writeth, and in this hee putteth the dif­ference betweene himselfe and them, Gagge, page 299. and 319.

I answer; this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome: for the one in­stance alleadged is matter of fact: and hath not to doe in this businesse, which concernes onely the faith of their Church; the other which is the sentence of Tho­mas, is matter of opinion, which the Councell hath not decreed: and Bellarmine saith, de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20. there be three opinions in their Church touching this thing: whereof this of Thomas is but one; so that we may conclude, hee differeth from them in one opini­on held by some amongst them: and this is all hee saith; and therefore for all this hee consenteth with them in matter of faith, which is the thing wee seeke for.

I answer further; It doth not appeare, that hee doth 3 dissent from them in this opinion neither. For he yeel­deth honour vnto Images, Gagge, page 318. but, doth not shew vs what is the nature thereof, whereby wee might bee able to discerne the difference of that ho­nour which he giues, from that which they giue.

If it be replyed, the Councell giueth little honour to Images, and that which Thomas giueth is the main and chiefe thing to be blamed. I answer; that honour which the Councell giueth, is falsely giuen, and is a matter of faith, which we may not receiue: for euery false faith is an addition to the diuine reuelation.

If you aske, whether hee agreeth with the Church 4 of England, or not: Hee will answer, he doth agree with it, and doth affirme so much in effect, Gagge, page 318. 319. but it is a meere pretence without shew of truth: hee can alleadge no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England, which appoin­teth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set vp in Churches, or that any kinde of honour should be done vnto them, being set vp there: or, which assigneth vnto them any vse in religion: much lesse, that they should be helpes of piety, &c. The case being such, it was a face without a face, that said, wee and Protestants doe them all, Gagge, page 318.

The very truth is, he doth contradict the Doctrine 5 of the Church of England, in some of these positions directly, and in other some by necessary consequence, and I proue it thus;

The Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homi­lies, is the Doctrine of the Church of England. For,

The Booke it selfe, and the vse thereof, is establi­shed by publike authority, and the subscription of all Ministers, Artic. 35.

But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies.

Therefore he doth contradict, &c.

The assumption or second part, will bee apparent to him, that readeth the words on both sides, set downe in the former Chapter. It saith, Idoll and I­mage is the same thing: and alleadgeth the vse of Scrip­ture for it. He saith, Image and Idoll may be two things, that is, are not one; It saith, Images may not be brought into Churches, and that being there, they bee vnlawfull, and intollerable: He saith, they may bee brought into Churches, they are not vnlawfull, and are sometimes profitable: all which are direct contradictions: affir­ming, what it denieth, and denying what it affirmeth. Lastly, if Images may not be brought into Churches, then may they not be imployed in religion, for helpes of piety, the instruction of the ignorant, and the stirring vp of deuotion, &c. for these are more then that, be­cause Images in Churches may bee for ornament, or for no vse. The Homilie doth deny the placing of I­mages in Churches, therefore it must also deny them to be helpes vnto piety, &c. now he teacheth contra­dictory to this, in making Images helpes vnto piety: therefore hee doth contradict that which followeth vpon the words of the Homilie, by necessary conse­quence. Let vs see how he will auoid this obiection, and for that end, thus he saith, Appeale, page 260.

I admit the Homilies to containe godly exhortati­ons: 6 but not as the publike dogmaticall resoluti­ons [Page 101] of our Church, or Doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point.

I answer; in the 12. Chapter, no 8. hee extold the Doctrine of the Homilie, as an authenticall record of the Doctrine of the Church of England. In this place he denies them to containe the dogmaticall resolutions of our Church, (so constant is hee, and so settled in his iudgement.) Let vs take what he will admit; which we finde to be three things: first, they are exhortations; secondly, godly; thirdly, To bee propugned and subscri­bed in some things. I require no more: Exhortations they are, (that is) matters of manners, all of them are not matters of faith, and therefore they doe not all containe resolutions of faith: but some of them bee matters of manners. He grants them to be godly, ther­fore true, for falshood cannot tend to godlinesse. They are subscribed, in some things, therefore in this that I haue alleadged; because it is not a rhetoricall en­forcement, nor a Tropicall kinde of speech, but the conclu­sion enforced; which is set downe in words that haue no other sense but as they lie, without interpretation. This is enough to proue my proposition, and thus I dispute from it.

Euery exhortation propounded, inforced, esteemed godly, commanded to be subscribed vnto by our Church, is the Doctrine of our Church.

But the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged, cap. 15, is an exhortation propounded, inforced, &c. by our Church.

Therefore the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged, cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land.

Thus hee confirmeth the obiection which hee is desirous to thrust off: The sight of truth may bee hinde­red, but the being of truth cannot be defeated: hee that attempteth to conceale it, in the euent makes it more ap­parent.

Now we come to see what truth there is in his Do­ctrine 7 touching Images: but I finde no proofe for that. It may be hee expecteth arguments to proue, that Images in Churches are vnlawfull: and that no honor is to be giuen vnto them, but that should be vn­orderly: for hee that will haue vs beleeue that wee are bound to giue honour to Images by the diuine re­uelation, ought to shew vs record for it: and mee thinkes it had beene comely for him to haue borrow­ed proofes from Bellarmine, de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9. 10. and 11. 12. As well as hee fetched positions from the Councell of Trent. To answer Bellarmine, is but labour lost: for I know not how farre hee will ioyne with him in his proofes, and it would be too tedious; for he brings much more then will sort with this occasion, and present businesse. Let M^r Mountagu vrge what he liketh best, and hee shall haue answer: till then, I rest satisfied with the Homilie, that disputeth thus against Images in Chur­ches;

1 If the worshipping of Images doe alwaies befall Ima­ges set vp in Churches, then it is vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches.

But the first is true, perpetuall experience doth shew it: and the affinity that is betweene mans corruption, and the worshipping of Images doth procure it, pag. 128.

Therefore the last is true also.

2 That thing which is vsed in order vnto superna­turall actions, and is not warrantd in the diuine reuelation for that end, is vnlawfull.

But Images in Churches are so vsed, and are not warranted &c. pag. 88.

Therefore Images in Churches be vnlawfull.

Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetoricall enforcements, and no Doctrine of the Church of England; I will saue him that labour. I doe alleage those arguments for the truth that is in them; not for the au­thoritie that doth commend them. Let him shew wherein they be vntrue, or confesse they are true, and it sufficeth.

But he is not able to shew this, and therefore wee may safely conclude; this man was strangely transpor­ted, when he wrote on this manner, & in these words;

If the Church of Rome had giuen no more to Images but an historicall vse, our Church would not haue departed from them about that point (as I suppose) for so our doctrine is, Appeale, p. 251. Our strictest writers doe not condemne it, p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed, but they are singular illuminates, let them gang a­lone.

I answer; what the doctine of our Church is, in this point of Images, I haue declared in the foregoing Chapter. If you can bring any record, for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England, that putteth vpon Images this historicall vse, namely of suggesting vnto, mouing, or affecting the mind, euen in pious, and religious affections, which you father vpon [Page 104] it, p. 253. you may doe well to bring it forth, that, the world may see it. But because you cannot, I must intreat you to take the words of Bishop Iewell vnto Harding in the defence of his Apology, p. 350 without offence; which are as followeth,

Leaue, leaue this hypocrisie, dissemble no more, it is not manly: your credit faileth ouermuch, your word is no sufficient warrant.

If you will fall into your wonted fury, it is the Bi­shop that must beare it; They are his words not mine and vttered vpon the like occasion that you offer here. I could adde a farther refutation, and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of Eng­land, by the testimony of Bishop Iewell; but I defer it vnto the next passage, where the reader shall find it.

He wanted proofes for his doctrine of Images: but 9 hee will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof, and negation of the contrary: For thus hee writeth:

There is no Popery in the historicall vse of Images,

Appeale, pag. 252.

I answer; There is Popery in it: for it is the faith of the Church of Rome, as I haue shewed in the chap­ter going before: and it is contrary to the word of God, as I will shew anon; both which are sufficient to make it Popery, euen in your owne iudgement: for thus you write,

Popery is contrary to the word of God, Appeal. p. 310.

But he doth deny that this vse of Images is contra­rie the word of God: for thus he writeth,

1 The historicall vse of Images, is true doctrine in it selfe, Appeale, p. 251.

2 That Images may be made, for ornament, memory, history, no law of God forbiddeth, Appeale, p. 265.

I answer; Bishop Iewell is a witnesse so competent, to shew vs what is true, or not true; what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case, that I shall need to pro­duce none but him. Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article, p. 378. &c.

1 The first end of Images is, the attaining of knowledge, although perhaps somewhat may bee learned by them; yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attaine knowledge. Saint Paul saith, faith commeth by hearing, not by gazing. This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people, for where greatest store of such Schoolema­sters be, there the people are most ignorant, super­stious, and subiect to Idolatry.

2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently moue the mind, but euery thing that may moue the mind, is not meet for the Church of God. Gods house is a house of prayer, not of gazing. Whoeuer ado­reth, or maketh his prayer beholding an Image, is so moued in his mind, that hee thinketh the I­mage heareth him, and hopeth it will performe his prayer. Alleadged out of S. Augustin, p. 318.

3 Touching remembrance it is like the first, and therefore is already answered. Thus farre the reuerend Bishop.

If old learning can satisfie this illumination, the Bi­shop must gang alone. If it cannot, old learning shall haue a writ of dotage. The Bishop shall haue the Church of England that furious one, and all her chil­dren to beare him company.

The Homilie concludeth p. 132. That Images ought to be abolished: so doth the Bishop p. 383. But Master Mountagu will none of that, Appeale, p. 255. The rea­son which our Church and the Bishop doth alleadge is this, viz. because they are the cause of much euill, M. Mountagu saith no; they are sometimes profitable, Gagg. 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, 10 and defended against his exceptions, it doth euidently appeare, that Images in Churches, and imployed (as he appointed) are vnlawfull; and from thence may necessarily be inferred against the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu; that,

Honour is not due to Images.

If hee doth not rest content with this proofe, it stands him vpon to shew vs the diuine law, which in­ioyneth man, to giue honour to Images: forasmuch as, without such a law, the honouring of them, is an humane inuention, & a seruice done vnto God, which he reiecteth as odious and abhominable: and conse­quently the faith decreed by the Church of Rome, and receiued by M. Mountagu, touching the hauing, im­ploying, and honouring of Images, is erronious.

CHAP. XVII. Of workes of supererogation.

CHAP. XVIII. The former point of workes of supererogation, is disputed.

ACcording to our former course, three questions are to bee handled.

• 1 Whether there be any such workes or no.
• 2 Whether in affirming of them, hee consent with [Page 108] the Church of Rome, or not.
• 3 Whether he dissent from the Church of England therein or no.

In this Chapter, I haue brought no Doctrine, vn­der the name of the Church of Rome, because hither­to I haue followed the Councell of Trent, which hath decreed nothing in this point. Therefore the faith of that Church in this point, is to bee taken out of the Doctrine commonly receiued amongst them touching it, and because there is no Author amongst them fitter to report what that is, then Bellarmine: I will set downe what he saith of it, it is this;

Holy men may doe such things for Gods sake, which they are not bound to doe; and these are workes of supererogation, de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 4. Respon­deo non, &c. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. 9. 13.

The G [...]gger hath the same thing reported by M^r. Mountagu in his Gagge, page 104. in the margin, in these words,

Man by assistance of Gods grace, may doe some things counselled: and these we call worke of supereroga­tion.

That hee doth consent vnto this Doctrine of the 2 Church of Rome, hee professeth plainely, and fully. Thus he writeth: I willingly subscribe vnto the point of councels Euangelicall, Gagge, page 103. and further he saith, of the definition of workes of supererogati­on, which I haue reported out of him, no 1. giuen by his aduersary the Gagger. If these were your workes of supererogation and no otherwise, I would not contend with you, page 104.

Hee doth agree with them likewise in explicating [Page 109] and setting downe the nature of a Councell euangelicall, (as he cals it.) Bellarmine saith thus of it:

It is a good worke shewed; not commanded: it diffe­reth from a Precept in this, a Precept bindeth of its owne force, a Councell is committed to mans free choyce; when a precept is obserued, it hath the reward; being not obserued, it hath punishment: but if a Councell bee not obserued, it hath no pu­nishment; if it bee obserued, it hath the greater reward, de Monachis, lib. 2. cap. 7.

Iust on this manner writeth he; Imperious lawes, re­quire exact obedience vpon paine of punishment, Ap­peale, page 219. A Councell is a mandat, not properly▪ but with condition, left vnto a mans choyce to doe it, or not to doe it, page 221. lastly, he saith, the obedience to Councels, procureth reward to him that obeyeth them, Gagge, page 105. and hee that keepeth them not, is without danger of punishment therefore, Gagge, page 103.

A man would thinke by this, that hee would not sticke to confesse that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of workes of supererogation: but indeed he doth deny it: for thus he writeth,

You call workes of supererogation, such as be laid vp in store for imployments, the treasure and stocke of the Church, to satisfie for other mens offences, not the things done as counselled, onely: these are only titular, those are indeed workes of superero­gation which you mean, but these I deny, Gagge, page 103. &c.

I answer; this excuse is headlesse, what hand ruled his pen when hee wrote thus, passeth my skill to [Page 110] iudge: he doth heare the Church of Rome with one consent to affirme, voluntary workes are workes of su­pererogation: and the Church of England saith the same expresly, and in so many words: and yet (for­sooth) he will needs beare them both downe, they giue voluntary workes the name onely of workes 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 speciall illu­mination, and therefore hee might know their mea­ning without them, and you must beleeue him, for such knowledge is certaine, and cannot deceiue you. Be it so: he doth disagree in the name: but that will not inferre his disagreement in the thing. Hee hath confessed his subscription to Euangelicall Councels, (that is) to voluntary workes, as I haue shewed in the former Chapter, and that is all which is sought after: now we find his agreement with them in the thing: let him giue what name he will vnto voluntary workes.

But he saith, 4

It is an errour in Diuinitie, not to put a difference betwixt such workes as a man may doe, or not doe without guilt of sinne, or breach of law; and the Papists workes 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 fancie, or mis­understanding, or misapplying; Appeale, page 215.

I answer; in stead of proofes, wee haue euill lan­guage: I will scumme off the froth, and examine what hee saith in good sober sadnesse. This is the [Page 111] summe of his sentence.

He that saith voluntary workes (in the iudgement of the Church of Rome) be workes of supereroga­tion, is ignorant or fantasticall.

Vnto which proposition I may adde this assumpti­on and conclusion.

But the Church of England saith, the Church of Rome cals voluntary workes, workes of supererogation, Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome, as I haue shewed out of Bellarmine, n^o 1.

Therefore the Church of England, and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantasticall.

2 O M^r Mountagu, who doe you make your selfe to be? doe you know the faith of Rome better then your Mother? nay, better then your selfe? you sub­scribed that Article, and thereby professed those words of her to bee true; is the other end of your tongue turned outwards, that you now vnsay what you said then? did you then know, and now are ig­norant? But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and your selfe; doe you thinke to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fooles, that vnderstand not their owne faith? but you would bee thought farre from this: therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts.

3 The proposition doth suppose, that,

Workes laid vp in store, to satisfie for other mens offences, called the treasure of the Church, are the Papists workes of supererogation.

And so hee speaketh expresly, Gagge, page 103. 105. 106. [...] this is a meere presumption without truth; [Page 112] auouched barely vpon his owne word without ten­dring any proofe. You must proue what you say, or else you bring words of the wind.

Against you I proue thus; 5

1 That which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others, is not workes, but the value and price of workes, viz. satisfaction, Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Pro­pos. 4 Propos. cap. 3. 1 Propos.

Therefore that which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others, cannot be their works of supererogation.

But let vs suppose that the voluntary workes them­selues be so laid vp, yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation, and thus I shew it:

If voluntary workes, laid vp in the treasury of the Church, be therefore their works of supererogation, then works done according to Moses Law, are also their works of supererogation; for the satisfaction arising frō them is also laid vp in the treasury of the Church, to satisfie for other, as Bellarmine teacheth de Indulg. lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo, non est.

But that works done according to the Morall Law are not their works of supererogation, I take as granted.

Of his agreement, or disagreement, with the church 6 of England in the point of voluntary works, you need not make a question; for (if you will beleeue him) The Church of England

Hath no doctrine against Euangelicall counsels, Gag. page 103. For now voluntary works and euangeli­call counsells are the same, as wee haue heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis. lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad &c. and as himselfe doth expound it, out of Philastrius, and Nazianzen, Gag. p. 10. But this imputation is an [Page 113] vntruth so [...]oule, that it deserueth no other answer, but his owne words:

Blush for shame, Gagg. p. 250.

For the Church of England saith expresly,

Voluntarie workes, besides, ouer and aboue Gods com­mandements, cannot be taught. Arti. 14. And fur­ther it saith,

Man cannot, for Gods sake, doe more then of bounden duty is required, which is as much as if it had said, There be no voluntary workes at all.

But it may be, he will say, yee doe him wrong, hee 7 speaketh not absolutely: but so farre as he knoweth; I answer, Those are his words indeed: but marke the sense, those words seeme to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his deniall: for is it credible that he could not read this Article? Or that hee did not know, 1. That the Church of England had made this Article. 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those workes indeed which it doth deny in words? Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England? Surely none of these may bee conceiued. Therefore we may conclude (as a thing very probable) that his intent was to auouch that denyall, vpon his owne knowledge.

Now the Iudgement of our Church, and of Master 8 Mountagu, in the point of voluntary workes, is fully known; & that they are contradictory; it may be con­cluded, he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary workes. But before I passe from it, one thing is worthy observation. viz.

M^r. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories. He subscribed the Article that saith, there is no vo­luntary [Page 114] workes, and he subscribed that there is volun­tary works, Gagg. p. 103. &c.

Can any man tell what this man would doe to bee Chiefe muftie? I doubt himself cannot. But pardō him: his ends were contrary; He must subscribe the Article, or misse aduancement. He must subscribe the other, or be no reconciler. He meant to attaine both; Hee hath gottē the first, & he professeth himself for the second, Appeale pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his bookes: therefore it was reason he should subscribe on both sides. In the first, he subscribed to what pro­testants are, in the second to what they ought to be.

I should now come to dispute the question, whe­ther, 9

A man may doe voluntary workes.

Wherein I might first proue the negatiue: but it seemeth better; to resolue with M. Mountagu, Appeale, pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seeeke, or goe a­bout to beetle it into his braines, because he saith, Appeale pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion, there are Euan­gelicall counsels. And hee resolueth Appeale, pag. 224. to ioyne in opinion with them. And he giues this reason for it, Appeale, p. 240. I am tyed not to preach or publish otherwise (according to the Cannons prescribed vnto Mi­nisters in such cases, Anno 1571.) Knowing it to be the resolued doctrine of antiquitie as I doe. I am not excu­sable if I transgresse the Cannons.

But notwithstanding; because hee may change his mind, therefore I will proceed and proue,

There be no voluntary workes.

My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleadged n^o 6. &c. Whose authoritie onely [Page 115] ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu; because hee hath subscribed those words of the Article as true, and hath vowed to forsake all others, and follow his mo­ther the Church of England, Appeale, pag. 183. And the rather, because those words doe so plainely and fully deny voluntary workes.

My second argument shall bee the same which I 10 find in the Article on this sort to be framed;

Whosoeuer teacheth voluntary workes, they be proud, arrogant, and impious. For saith the Article,

Voluntary workes cannot be taught, without pride, ar­rogancy, and impietie.

But no man may be proud, arrogant, and impious.

Therefore voluntary workes may not be taught.

It may be obiected, that the first part of this reason is extended too far; because it reacheth vnto antiqui­tie. And also it doth passe too hard a sentence vpon such as teach voluntarie workes.

I answer, both parts of this obiection be false: and the respect we owe, vnto the first composers, and con­firmers of that Article, doth bind vs to thinke so: for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu, and gouerne their passions, better then hee can gouerne his.

Besides, the thing it selfe doth say no lesse. Neuer any Father taught the popish voluntary workes. If M. Mountagu will say the contrary. He must shew those fathers, that teach of voluntary workes, as Bellarmine doth, de Monachis. lib. 2. cap. 7. and 8. which he is ne­uer able to doe. Against the second part of the obiecti­on, the Article disputeth thus,

They that teach, that, men render vnto God, so much [Page 116] as they are bound, and more also, they are arrogant and impious: For,

They take vpon them more then is true, against the word of God, which saith, when you haue done all that are commanded to you, say, wee be vnprofitable seruants, Luke 17. 10.

But they that teach voluntary workes, teach that men doe render vnto God, so much as they are bound, and more also.

And so doth Bellarmine expresly teach, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6, Secundo Comparando, and cap. 12. at the very end thereof, and in many other places.

Therefore they that teach voluntary workes, are ar­rogant and impious.

If Mr. Mountagu can satisfie the premisses of this argument, he may auoid the conclusion: but I despaire of that: for hee must ioyne with Bellarmine in the assumption, because he that keepes not the law, can­not doe voluntary workes, which is more then a man is bound too: seeing those proceed from a common, inioyned, and limited perfection of loue: As we learne from Bellarmine, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 6. Tertio Comparando: and Mr Mountagu himselfe teacheth no lesse, when he saith, obedience to Councels proceeds from grace, therefore of loue. He saith, they are left to a mans choyce, therefore his loue is voluntary, and vn­limited. He saith also, these works are worthy of more praise: therefore they proceed out of a higher degree and perfection of loue, Gagge, page 103. And that the doer of these workes, doth keepe the law, the thing it selfe doth testifie: for he that is able to doe workes of greater perfection, must needs be able to doe workes [Page 117] of lesse: seeing the lesse is comprehended in the grea­ter: besides, hee that commeth short of keeping the Law, how can hee goe beyond the Law, in louing God, by doing workes left vnto his choyce? If any man will say, he may doe these voluntary workes, and yet come short of doing the workes of the Law, as Mr. Mountagu doth, Gagge, page 104. hee must shew me the man that did so, and the actions wherein they did so, and proue it sufficiently, else I must beleeue our Church, Artic. 14. and the things themselues that say the contrary.

He cannot auoyd the proposition: for Bellarmine 11 cannot, though he hath done his best for that purpose, de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. Respondeo Petrum, &c. as he that readeth it may see: and I will shew. Bellar­mine answereth to this argument, thus,

The Lord doth not say, Luke 17. and 10. you are vn­profitable. But willeth them to say, wee are vn­profitable seruants. For,

It is his will that we should be humble, and not boast of our merits.

Himselfe saith afterwards, Thou good seruant and faithfull. But he cals him onely, vnprofitable, that disobeyeth the Law, and is cast into vtter darke­nesse, Mat. 25. 26. & 30. verses.

I reply; this answer, (as it lyeth) is nothing to the purpose, it doth not gainesay any part of the argu­ment: yet I will bring the particulars, and see how they may be applied to the purpose, He saith,

Our Lord bid them say they were vnprofitable: him­selfe did not say so.

I grant this; neither does the argument say other­wise. [Page 118] It may be he would inferre from hence;

Therefore they say, they are vnprofitable seruants; but are not.

If this conclusion were true, the answer would bee sufficient, and the argument of no force: but this part of his answer cannot inferre this conclusion: for then, our Lord should teach him to lye, which Bellarmine dareth not affirme: yea from thence it may bee truely inferred, that they were indeed vnprofitable seruants: but Christ is the teacher of truth, and in bidding them say they were vnprofitable, it is as much as if hee had said himselfe, they were indeed vnprofitable: for hee would not put any sentence into mans mouth, which himselfe would not affirme: these things I take as granted, and offer no proofe for them. He saith;

2 It is his will we should be humble, and not boasters.

I grant this also, neither doth the argument say the contrary. It may be he brings this to proue, That,

The foresaid confession was not according to truth.

But it doth not proue it: for humility and false speaking doe not goe together. It doth rather inferre the contrary; he would haue vs humble, therefore he would haue vs speake the truth; for both of them are vertues proceeding from the spirit of truth; and there is no greater signe of humility, then when men con­fesse their failings truely: He saith further;

3 They that so confesse, are called good seruants and faithfull.

Let this be granted also, and it will agree well with euery part of the argument. I suppose his intent is to say,

Therefore they that did thus confesse, were indeed [Page 119] profitable seruants.

But this doth not follow from that; for our Saui­our might call them good, though they failed in some things, wherein they were vnprofitable seruants; and yet speake according to truth: for his seruants are ac­cepted of him, to all purposes of loue, no lesse effectu­ally, then if they were absolutely good and vnprofita­ble in nothing. Againe, he blotteth out their failings, (whereby they are vnprofitable) out of his Booke, whereof it is, that they are not imputed vnto them, and they stand before God, as if they had neuer failed: Lastly, such doe inioy the habit of grace, and bring forth the fruits thereof: by which they are truely good, and from whence they may truely haue the name of good, and faithfull seruants.

He saith fourthly,

They onely that disobey the Law, and are cast into vtter darkenesse, are called vnprofitable seruants.

This sentence, hath not to doe with the argument any more then the former; and it is false in it selfe. O­thers also that doe not so disobey the law, as that they are therefore cast into hell, may bee called vnprofitable ser­uants, which I proue by this argument,

The Saints are truely called vnprofitable seruants, because euery breaker of the Law, may truely be cal­led an vnprofitable seruant.

But the Saints doe so breake the Law, that they are not therefore cast into condemnation.

Therefore some that doe so breake the Law, that they are not therefore cast into condemnation, are called vnprofitable seruants.

That the Saints doe breake the Law, is cleare, by [Page 120] 1 Ioh. 1. 8. 10. and that therefore they are not cast in­to condemnation, it is as certaine by Rom. 8. 1. But these two, i. e. the sanctified and vnsanctified, are cal­led vnprofitable seruants in a different sense. They that goe to hell, haue that name totally, vniuersally, and finally; they neuer haue the name of good seruants: for they are totally and finally vnprofitable seruants, as the place now alleadged, Mat. 25. 26. & 30. verses sheweth, which saith, that the vnprofitable seruant gained nothing by his talent; and that by his owne choyce and resolution. The other that goe not to hell, hath both: they are vnprofitable for a time: they are profitable finally, or for euer. They are called vnprofitable in some respect, viz. In respect of their faylings, and as they are in themselues; but they are called good and faithfull, totally, finally, and vniuersal­ly, by meanes of their grace, of the not-imputing of their faylings, and of Gods fauour, wherein they are made good, by the receiuing of all supernaturall good things.

By this, (I hope) it doth appeare, the argument which our Church vseth against voluntary workes, is strong and sufficient against the pretences of Bellar­mine.

I come now to defend this Doctrine of the Church 12 of England, by answering such arguments as I finde brought by M^r. Mountagu, against it. Bellarmine de Monachis, lib. 2. cap. 8. at the end saith; Euangelicall Councels be chiefly of continency, obedience, and pouer­ty. M^r. Mountagu in his Gagge, page 103. doth in­stance them in virginity and wilfull pouerty; Bellar­mine alleadgeth Mat. 29. and 21. 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. [Page 121] to proue that these be Euangelicall Councels, de Mo­nachis lib. 2. cap. 9. arg. 5. and 7. M^r. Mountagu re­porteth the same places, Gagge, page 105. and gran­teth, that they speake of Euangelicall Councels; by which he disputeth in this sort;

Wilfull pouerty, Mar. 19. and 21. single life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. may bee done.

Wilfull pouerty, Mat. 19. and 21. single life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. be voluntary workes.

Therefore some voluntary workes may be done.

I answer; the first part of this argument is false; the places alle [...]dged doe not shew, or commend wil­full pouerty, and virginity vnto all men. Those places belong onely to particular persons and times. In Matth. our Sauiour speaketh vnto the yong man, that would know what hee should doe to come to heauen: The Apostle in his Epistle to the Corinths, directeth his answer to such as doubted, what to doe in case of mariage; and we doe not finde in the word of God, that these answers are extended any further, and many things in the places themselues doe restrain them onely to those persons and times.

The second part of the Argument is also false. A voluntary worke; first, is good; secondly, more then the Law requires; thirdly, gratefull or acceptable to God; fourthly, a meanes leading to eternall life; fiftly, left vnto a mans choyce, not strictly commanded to bee done or not done; as wee learne by Bellarmine in the place alleadged, and M^r. Mountagu, Gagge, page 104. 105. and 106. But this selling, Mat. 19. and abstaining, 1 Cor. 7. haue not these properties. Therefore they are not voluntary workes. That they are not meanes [Page 122] leading vnto heauen, will easilie bee granted, by euery man, that hath any experience in the word of God, or the worke of grace: for there is no promise of heauen made to a man, vpon condition of hispouerty, or virginity, rather then to him that is rich and mari­ed. If any man thinkes otherwise, let him shew that promise in some other place of Scripture; I say in some other place of Scripture, because it is vsuall with the holy Ghost, to repeat, illustrate, & vrge the means of saluation, and the connexion of heauen thereunto, in more places then one. If that cannot be found (as without doubt it cannot) then it must be shewed, that, these places alleadged doe containe it expresly, and without doubtfulnesse: for the holy Ghost would not content himselfe to shew vs a meanes of saluation, by obscure and doubtfull termes.

Bellarmine affirmeth, that wilfull pouerty, and virgi­nity 13 in the places alleadged be meanes of euerlasting life, and M^r Mountagu ioynes with him in it. Gagg. p. 105. and 106. Bellarmine proues the first is to be a meanes of life, because our Sauiour saith to the yong man, thou shalt haue treasure in heauen. And M. Mountagu con­firmes it with the same words. Gagg. p. 105. I answer vnto them both, our Sauiour made not this promise, vnto his selling; but to his comming vnto, and fol­lowing of Christ. I proue it, because, this promise is an­nexed immediately vnto his comming, and his com­ming importeth a deniall of himselfe, and taking vp his crosse: which is, an obedience due vnto God necessarily, as Bellarmine confesseth in that 9. chapter alleadged, Septimum &c. respondeo haec, &c. and also because that denyal, &c. is assigned as a means of saluation, & vrged [Page 123] as a necessary duty in many places of Scripture. But the Scripture hath not any such word of wilfull pouer­ty. Againe, when the Disciples in the chapter alleadg­ed; verse 27. pleaded that they had forsaken all, and fol­lowed him, & demanded what they should haue, he pro­mised them euerlasting life; and assigneth only their fol­lowing of him, as the meanes thereof, but hath not a word of their leauing of all, ver. 28. Bellarmine bring­eth proofe in that 9. chapter, alleadged, I am vero, &c. that virginity is a meanes of salvation: and that both the places of Scripture alleadged in the argument, doe speake vnto all the faithfull. At contra, &c. But I passe them ouer with silence, because M. Mountagu hath not a word of them, and the proofes themselues are so slight & childish, that to set them in forme, and to an­swer them, would be losse of my labor, & a burthen to the reader. Thus I conclude my answer to the argu­ment: because M. Mountagu hath brought nothing in confirmation thereof more, then I haue satisfied.

Bellarmine hath other arguments to proue volun­tary 14 workes; but they are not worthy answer: because M. Mountagu doth omit them, and these two places of Scripture, are the chiefe and principall.

And with this I might end this whole point, but, that, he is importunate, Appeale, p. 22 1. with one argu­ment, whereby he is sure to make you confesse, that, a man may doe voluntary workes, these are his words,

If you will needs deny Euangelicall councels, you will be foundworse by farre then Papists.

I answer; Shew vs wherein we should be worse then Papists, & then you say some thing that may perhaps bring vs to your bow. If that wil serue turn, he wil not [Page 124] stick with you. Herein, he saith you are worse, in that,

You are conuicted in your consciences willingly to breake those words of our Sauiour; Goe sell all that thou hast and giue it to the poore, which you are perswaded is a precept.

I answer; I let passe by▪ quarrells, and come to the matter. By precept you meane a precept to vs, else you cannot charge vs to breake it, that doe not so sell. That being obserued, you charge vs falsely. Shew vs the man that hath said, that those words of our Saui­our are a commandement vnto vs. Bellarmine de Mo­nachis. lib. 2. cap. 9. will shew you two men, that denies it, viz. Caluin and Martyr, hee bringeth them both saying, these words were spoken onely to the young man. And he that readeth his Confirmation of his 5 argu­ment shall find it so. If you will proue the doing of voluntary workes by our owne conf [...]ssion, you must bring vs things true, and not falshood against the light of the Sunne.

Yet so ioyous, confident, and iocund is hee in this argument, as if all were his owne, as if hee had spoken nothing but what was as true as Gospell; therefore he proceedeth on this wise:

If you doe not sell all that you haue and giue it to the 15 poore, you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble.

If you demand of him wherein that dissimulation should lye, he is not to seeke for answer; thus he doth shew it you;

You would perswade men of a case of necessity, that your selues may feed fat vpon their folly.

I answer, when I read this passage, I could not but stand amazed, and my heart within mee became cold, [Page 125] to see the libertie that an angry minde, and an euill tongue will take; but staying my s [...]lfe a while, at last I remembred him that said, I will lay my hand vpon my mouth, and him that was a lambe dumbe before the shea­rer, that opened not his mouth. That indured such speak­ing against of sinners. This gaue me satisfaction for the iniurie of this euill sentence: touching the Author whereof, I say no more but this, Lord forgiue him for hee knoweth not what he doth, and so I might put an end to this whole point:

But, stay: he must talke a few cold words with you, 16 before you part, and these be they;

He that said a man may doe more than he is comman­ded, was no Papist, they that say it is Popery, are men of poore capacitie, not apprehending what is popery, what is not; they misdeeme, mistake, misname popery, Appeale, p. 217. & 218.

I answer; this suteth well with the last passage: both of th [...]m together doe witnesse (without exception) that M^r Mountagu is a carefull obseruer of Councels, for these sentences be vnmeasurable railings: and I am sure they were neuer cōmanded, and I presume neuer co [...]ncelled by God. He must shew vs then, who gaue him a law for them, or whose Councells they are. By Popery he must meane the erroneous faith of Rome. That being so▪ his bitternesse is ioyned with falshood, (a sweet Garden that yeeldeth such flowers.) That it is▪ he faith of Rome is already agreed on. That it is erroneous, hath beene hitherto inquired of in this question. It was your duty to haue shewed vs your voluntary works in the Scripture: but you haue not▪ therefore we must resolue, you cannot; If they be not [Page 126] there, you must confesse, they be erroneous. There­fore the vnderstanding and capacitie of them that de­ny them, was rich enough to finde out your Popery: and giue the right name to it. I could giue him that vrgeth Popish voluntary works, such titles as he doth iustly deserue, and which might equall those which he (vniustly) giues, to such as refuse them: but I leaue them as fittest for his eloquence: and such Reuilers to the dispose of him, that hath pronounced a woe vnto such as are strong to doe euill.

CHAP. XIX. Of Predestination.

CHAP. XX. The point of Predestination is debated.

THis Chapter examineth two questions onely. 1

• 1 Whether his doctrine of Predestination bee true or not?
• 2 Whether he consenteth in it, with the Church of England, &c.

We omit to enquire, whether he consenteth with the Church of Rome or not: because the Counsell of Trent hath decreed nothing (that I can finde) tou­ching the nature of Predestination; and the most com­mon opinion of their Schooles dissenteth not from the Church of England: Some doe dissent, as Oc­cham, 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 vnto 2 the second onely: for of this point, he saith, Appeale, page 61.

Take it as I conceiue it, and so shall professe it, vntill I am informed and ascertained, that the Church of England teacheth all otherwise then I conceiue of it.

This sheweth you lose but labour, when you at­tempt to draw him from his opinion by any argu­ments taken from Scripture, or mans 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; hee needeth not dig de [...]pe to finde it, there is none worse then hee that will not vnderstand.

Before I can shew what the Church of England 3 teacheth, and how hee dissenteth there-from; I must take a view, and haue a cl [...]ere vnderstanding of the things deliuered by him. In which there is seuen distinct branches, as the reader may see, in the former Chapter: The seuenth branch, hath these words:

He drew them out which tooke hold of mercy.

This branch doth appertaine to Pred [...]stination, for it concerneth mans ordering vnto his last end, and perfection. The other sixe, belong not thereto; for they speake of mans being, and the causes thereof, and things pertaining thereto. They haue not a word of ordering man, to any end. If this seuenth branch bee framed according to Art, it will stand thus;

Predestination to life, is an act or decree of Gods will, whereby he purposed to draw them out of the state of perdition, which tooke hold of mercy.

In this frame, wee haue the thing defined, and that 4 whereby it is defined; I restraine the question vnto Predestination to life, because our Church doth so: [Page 129] Artic. 17. and the Scriptures are more frequent in that; and no meruaile why, because the Scriptures were written for the direction, and consolation of them that shall goe to heauen, I haue framed it alto­gether by his owne direction: the question of Prede­stination is put so by himselfe, as I will now shew.

Appeale, page 38. hee calleth it an act or decree of God, which must needes be an act of his will: and so hee termeth it, Appeale, page 61. This act is immanent, not transient; for he saith in the same place, hee con­ceiues it, setting by, all execution of purpose: and againe he saith in the same place, he that is actually Saued, is so saued, according to the purpose of his decree. So saued, are So ordained by God, Gagge, page 177. He saith further, Gods will is the cause of things, either positiuely by dispo­sing them, or by permission, &c, Gagge, page 177. Hee doth take this act of Gods will, to bee a positiue, not a permissiue disposing: for he saith, whatsoeuer was done in time, was So disposed of, and ordered before all time, Gagge, page 178.

The word Them, imports, that man is the subiect of Predestination; a certaine number of men, not ge­nerally all; and so he speaketh, Appeale, page 51.

The words out of, &c. imply, that the predestinate to life, (in our apprehension, or (as they say) in signo rationis,) were in the state of perdition, before they were predestinate: and so the steps which in his opi­nion, are obserued by God, toward the Predestinate, and related in the former Chapter, doe expresly shew; which also he hath, Appeale, page 52. fully and plainely.

These words which tooke hold of mercy, doe signifie, [Page 130] that in Gods foreknowledge, the Predestinate doe fi­nally beleeue and repent, &c. before they are prede­stinated, or before the will of Predestination is termi­ned vnto them: and that this faith & repentance, &c. is the obiectiue reason, mouing, and regulating the di­uine will of Predestination, vnto the party predesti­nated; so as if you aske the reason why God did pre­destinate some, it is answered, because he would. If you demand further why he did predestinate this sin­gular man; it is answered, because hee tooke hold of Gods mercy in the meanes of saluation offered, by beleeuing and repenting; and this I take from him­self: where he saith, He that is actually saued, is So saued, according to the purpose of Gods decree consequent, not antecedent, Gagge, p. 177. And again, he saith; men are not saued without relation to their repentance, Appeale, page 74. which thing is most fully declared, Appeale, page 58. where he blameth this sentence: Gods decree to glorifie Peter, was without any consideration had of, or regard vnto his faith, obedience, repentance: which sentence for substance he setteth down, and reiecteth, Gagge, page 179. And Appeale, page 74. he saith, with­out finall perseuering, they are none of Gods elect.

Where he saith, he drew them out, &c. hee placeth the whole terme or end of predestination in giuing eter­nall life. This thing he implyeth also, Appeale, page 78. where he saith, It is your owne, God appointed to giue grace and glory; as if he should say, this sentence is pro­per to you; I disclaime it. If man hath grace before he be predestinate, then grace is not the terme or end of Predestination: he affirmes the first, so must he doe the last.

Thus we haue his sentence of Predestination, and the sense thereof: now wee must compare the Do­ctrine of the Church of England with it; that, there­by wee may see, whether our Church hath opposed the contrary thereto or not, which hee affirmeth it doth, Gagge, page 179.

I will set downe againe the Doctrine of the 5 Church of England in an orderly forme, for the bet­ter vnderstanding thereof: It is this,

• 1 Predestination is Gods decree,
  • Eternall.
  • Constant.
  • By his Councell secret to vs.
• 2 To
  • Bring to saluation by Christ.
  • Deliuer from damnation.
• 3 Some elected out of mankind in Christ.
• 4 Before the foundations of the world were laid.
• 5 As vessels made to honour.

And thus standeth the Doctrine of the 17. Article, each part being placed according to art: the sense whereof I will now also declare.

PREDESTINATION, is the thing de­fined, 6 whose nature our Church doth declare, by that which followeth.

IS, hath the place of a band, to tye the following part of the sentence, vnto that which went before.

GODS DECREE; These words signifie that thing which Predestination hath in common with oher actions of Gods will, called the generall nature: it doth expresse also, the principall efficient; namely, GOD, and an act of his will.

ETERNALL; This doth set out, what kinde [Page 132] of act Predestination is, (to wit) such an act as is essen­tiall vnto God: yea, it is of his essence, for nothing is eternall, but the being of God. This act of his will doth remaine in God, & is vsually called an immanent act, for it passeth not out of God, working a reall change in the creature, which is the property of a transient act.

We conceiue that this act of Predestination, is an eliciated act of Gods will; and an eliciated act is that which floweth from a power, that is the beginning thereof; as beleeuing is an act which proceedeth from the faculty which the soule hath to beleeue. But Pre­destination is an eliciated act (in our apprehension one­ly:) by reason we are not able to apprehend the being of God as it is. Whereas the essence of God is a pure act, altogether without mixture of the first and se­cond act, considered apart, and separated in the thing. Lastly, the relation that this act hath, vnto the crea­ture, is rationall, not reall: God is a being of himselfe, without respect vnto any created effect.

CONSTANT, This importeth the certaine euent and infallible performance of the thing decreed by Predestination; so as he to whom God hath appoin­ted grace and glory, shall not faile of either of them, but inioy them both without missing: And that this is the true intent of our Church, it is very plaine: be­cause it doth not call the decree it selfe, or God in de­creeing, Constant. For that it hath already declared in the word Eternall, which signifies a duration with­out beginning or ending; which doth so fully and plainely expresse, the constancy of God in decree­ing, that the word Constant cannot adde any thing thereunto.

BY HIS COVNSELL. By these words, our Church sheweth; 1. that Gods vnderstanding is ioy­ned with his will, in this act of Predestination; for counsell is an act proper to the vnderstanding: 2. This act of the vnderstanding (to speake according to hu­mane capacitie) is to iudge the act of Predestination to be good, and to perswade thereunto, by the allega­tion of reason: for so we conceiue the vnderstanding to direct the will; and, this is the nature, or condition of Councell; he that counselleth doth thus.

SECRET TO VS, By secret is meant vnre­uealed; the iudgement then of our Church, set down in this sentence, may be expressed in these words.

The reason, that moued God to predestinate this, or that person, is vnknowne to vs.

TO BRING TO SALVATION; These words, doe set forth the speciall, and proper nature, and formall being of Predestination: by which it is distinguished from all other actions of God; and they import the terme or end of Predestination, or the thing appointed to bee giuen by this decree of God; which consisteth in happinesse or glory after this life; signified by the word saluation: and grace in this life, by the words, bring vnto, by Christ. For God doth not bring man to saluation, but by means, and that means can be nothing but grace: for can it bee conceiued, how our comming to saluation can bee attributed to God as his worke, but by reason that hee doth giue grace?

Lastly, it cannot bee conceiued, how God should bring to saluation by Christ, but, by giuing of grace: seeing none come to saluation by Christ, but such, as [Page 134] are members of Christ; and none are members of Christ, but by the meanes of grace.

And that it was the meaning of our Church, to make finall grace one thing appointed by Predestina­tion to be giuen vnto man; it is apparent by that do­ctrine of the Article which followeth; where it ma­keth Predestination to be the cause, or reason where­fore God bestoweth grace, and glory vpon man in the euent, for thus it saith,

Wherefore they which bee indued with this excellent benefit, viz. of Predestination, be called, according to Gods purpose, by his Spirit, they through grace, obey the calling, and at length by Gods mercy, they attaine to saluation.

BY CHRIST; Hereby our Church, doth set forth the means (appointed by Predestination,) wherby in course of time man shal enioy the thing appointed by Predestination, and that is Iesus Christ, vnder whose name, all other subordinate meanes are fitly compre­hended: and that our Church meant so, need not be doubted; because it addeth other meanes of grace, and saluation, (besides Christ,) in the doctrine of the Article following.

TO DELIVER FROM DAMNATIOM. By this the nature of Predestination formerly deliuered, is set out or made more plaine vnto vs; for this being contrary vnto that, doth make it the more manifest vnto our vnderstandings; and the Scripture taketh the same course also, as in many other places, so in these: He that beleeueth is passed from death vnto life: There is no condemnation to him that is in Christ: Rom. 8. 1. By damnation is not meant the state of damnation ac­tually: [Page 135] for that sense cannot stand with the doctrine of our Church which followeth; but by damnation is vnderstood the possibilitie of being in the state of damnation, preuented by the decree of Predestinati­on; for that sense doth agree very well with the do­ctrine of the Article: which saith, This decree is con­stant; as is declared before.

SOME ELECTED OVT OF MAN­KINDE. The subiect, or parties predestinated, are here sayd to bee man, but not all men vniuersally; it restraineth the same vnto some of mankinde, by saying that they are elected ones: and elected out of mankind. 2. The subiect that receiueth Predestinatiō, is described by two things. The one by the name, and vnder the title of man meerly, without any addition; whereby is signified that man conceiued in himselfe onely, as an intellectuall creature without grace or works of grace, is obiected vnto, and set be­fore the diuine will of Predestination, and in that no­tion onely he receiueth the same. Our Church doth not say, that God waited till man had grace, and then, and vpon the intuition thereof, he was moued to, and did predestinate him. That this may be the sense of our Church is cleere: because it is a course agreeable and decent vnto the diuine prouidence, and man himselfe: and that this must be meant by our Church, is certaine also, for no other sense can be made therof agreeable to these words, and those words that went before, which say, the reason mouing God to predestinate, is se­cret to vs: And grace is bestowed by predestination. The other thing describing it, is the word elect, which signifieth an act of Gods will, whereby our Church [Page 136] doth giue vs to vnderstand, that the reason why this or that man is predestinate, ariseth from Gods will and pleasure, of which it is, that the predestinate are singled out, and seuered from the rest of mankind.

IN CHRIST. Our Church referreth these words vnto the word elect, thus;

Those whom hee elected in Christ.

In this sentence, the word elect, doth signifie, 1. an act of Gods will. 2 An act going before predestinati­on. 3 A collection of a certaine number of men, (from others) to be predestinated, vnto this, or that mea­sure of grace, and glory; for so it speaketh in the 17. arti. saying,

Those whom he chose, he decreed to bring to saluation.

The words in Christ tell vs, that Gods eye was ex­tended to the chosen ones in or through Christ. Now this act of election, may bee done vpon man in the intuition of Christ, either as the end intended and aimed at in the act of election; or as the meritorious cause thereof. In the first sense wee may not take our Church, seeing it saith, the reason that moued God to predestinate is secret to vs: wee must therefore vnder­stand our Church to speake in the first sense; for that is most agreeable to the course of Scripture, to the dignity of Christ, and to the operation of grace in man. What heart is it that will not rather make it selfe subordinate vnto Christ, then Christ subordi­nate vnto him: And that our Church meant thus, we haue yet better reason to thinke, viz. because this whole description of predestination is takē out of the first chapter to the Ephesians, where the Apostle ha­uing said in the fourth verse, He hath chosen vs in him; [Page 137] He concludeth in the 12 verse, That we should be to the praise of his glory: which sheweth that Christs glory was the end intended & aimed at, in the act of electiō.

BEFORE THE FOVNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAYD. (That is,) before the Creation. The world is created, either in the reall being thereof, or in the decree to create. Our Church speaketh not of reall creating; for, then it should say the decree of Predestination is before actuall Creation. This it could not meane, or that is as much as if it had said, the decree of Predesti­nation is eternall: for before that creation, there is no duration but eternitie: But our Church meant not by these words to say, Gods decree was eternall: for it had said so, in expresse words a little before, and this phrase of speech doth not make that more plaine: but, doth rather more obscure it. Our Church then speaketh of Gods decree to create, and so it setteth forth the moment wherein (in our apprehension) man is predestinate by God, and is, as if it had said,

Gods decree of Predestination (in our apprehension) goes before his decree of creation.

And the rather all men should vnderstand our Church thus: because this order is agreeable to the nature of the things themselues: Predesti­nation being more worthy of loue then Creation: That being supernatural, perpetuall, and mans last per­fection; This being naturall, temporary, and at most but a way vnto that: therefore it is more or­derly, to conceiue the decree of Creation, to be sub­ordinate vnto the decree of Predestination, then Pre­destination vnto Creation.

If any thinke that man cannot be predestinate, be­fore he be actually made: I answer; in Gods will of execution it is true, man cannot inioy the being of the thing appointed by Predestination before hee hath actuall being himselfe: now, the will of execution is not now in question, but the will of intenti­on onely: man may be predestinated in the will of in­tention, before he hath an actuall being; for God may so decree, when man is but in possibility to be: as Sua­rez well obserueth:

AS VESSELS MADE TO HONOR; 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 vnto honour; by honor is signified, both the glory & honor giuen vnto God, by declaring his attributes; as prouidence, and loue vnto the reasonable creature; as also the ho­nour which the creature receiueth from God, in be­holding him face to face, wherein the true and proper nature of blessednesse consisteth. That being the su­preame, this the next end of Predestination: And that our Church doth meane thus, there is no cause of doubt, because it agrees well with the present words, and the thing it selfe. It openeth the manner how the one floweth from the other, by saying, as vessels made to honour; wherein the Predestinate are likened vnto vessels, that receiue honour vnto themselues, and are instruments in honourable offices vnto God. In say­ing, as vessels, our Church sheweth, that this end issu­eth from the act of Predestination, immediately, and of the thing it selfe. There is nothing in man, added vnto the diuine will of Predestination, to make it fit [Page 139] and apt for these effects: for such is the condition of a vessell, it cannot say to the Potter, thou hadst sufficient reason out of my selfe, why thou shouldest make mee a vessel vnto honor, neither can it challenge the Potter for iniury vnto it, if he doth make it a vessell not vnto honour. Lastly, our Church saith, the Predestinate are made vnto honour, (to wit) by Predestination: wher­by efficiency of euery kinde is attributed vnto Gods will: no part of this honour is yeelded vnto the Prede­stinate himselfe: for then it must haue diuided the act of making to honour, betweene God and the Pre­destinate: but this it doth not, but giueth that act, onely to Gods will of Predestination.

And thus haue I gone ouer the Doctrine of the Church of England, whereby it doth appeare, that our Church opposeth M^r. Mountagu his Predestinati­on so fully, as nothing more can be required.

M^r. Mountagu saith,

• 1 Glory onely is decreed by Predestination. 7
• 2 Man was in perdition, before he was Predestinate.
• 3 Man had finall grace before he was predestinate.
• 4 Mans finall grace moued God to predestinate him.

Our Church saith,

• 1 Finall grace and glory is appointed to man by Pre­destination.
• 2 Man was Predestinate, before his actuall being was decreed.
• 3 Predestination is of Gods will, the reason thereof is not from man, nor knowne to vs.

Notwithstanding this proofe, hee will make you 8 beleeue that our Church opposeth this Doctrine of Predestination. Hee bringeth his first reason for that [Page 140] purpose Appeale, 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, &c. is opposed, &c.

Therefore this sentence, &c. is opposed by the Church of England.

I answer; I will speake to the point in question, and let the rest passe.

The proposition, or first sentence of this reason, is false, by his owne rule, Appeale, page 48. and 49. where he saith;

The presumptions of seruants, are not the Lords di­rections, euery one that Prateth, Readeth, Lectu­reth, Preacheth, or Professeth, must not looke to haue his discourses taken as the dictates, or Do­ctrines of our Church: yes (saith M^r. Mountagu, page 59.) If they be of the learned and most con­formable in our Church; nay (saith M^r. Moun­tagu, pag. 49. Our Mother hath sufficiently made knowne her minde in Bookes that are publike, promulgated, authorised, and subscribed, these are those passages, at which the lisping Ephra­mites are to be tryed.

Some that be learned in our Church, doth oppose that sentence, and so farre I grant the assumption: but their number exceeds not. If M^r. Mountagu concei­ueth otherwise, hee is one of the Duke of Burgundies 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 doe oppose indeed: but priuate­ly [Page 141] and in a corner. Let him shew, where euer that sen­tence was opposed in Print, or in publike place, with­out controle: therefore their opposing is not our Churches opposing.

His next reason is thus, Appeale, page 59. & 73. 9

If our Church it selfe doth teach, that a man may fall away from God, and become not the childe of God, then it opposeth that Doctrine of Predestina­tion. But our Church doth so teach, directly, and in expresse words.

I answer; He makes this matter like a Pedlers Horse, that is acquainted with euery doore, a Knight of the Post, to depose in euery cause: In this cause his wit­nesse is false, his Pedlers ware will not sell. Our Church doth not so teach. M^r. Mountagu (the Gag­ger being witnesse) saith expresly,

Our Church hath left it vndecided, and at liberty, p. 158. and 171. and I haue proued our Church doth not teach it, Chap. 11. 12.

It is bold importunity, to vrge that for true, which himselfe denieth to be true, but better that then no­thing. It may perhaps be beleeued by some, where si­lence is a sentence of guiltinesse.

He telleth vs further, page 59. 10

Our Church hath gone on in these high points, in great wisedome, not concluding vpon Gods se­crets.

I answer; I grant thus much: Let him goe on in the words of our Church, and sticke to them, and it sufficeth: but what he would inferre from hence, I know not, I am sure he may inferre, thus,

Therefore himselfe in dissenting from our Church, [Page 142] hath not done wisely.

His third argument I finde, Appeale, page 72. which 11 is to this effect.

That which was stiled against the Articles of Lam­beth, a desperate Doctrine, at the Conference at Hampton Court, before his Maiesty without re­proofe, or taxation of any, is not the Doctrine of the Church of England.

But this Doctrine of Predestination, was so stiled, viz. by Doctor Bancroft, &c. without reproofe of any.

I answer; the proposition is as probably false, as true, such a fault might be let passe for diuers reasons of state, and obseruance. The assumption is a mani­fest vntruth. The Booke that reporteth that Confe­rence will shew it: for it reporteth that speech of Bishop Baneroft, page 29. in these words,

Many in these dayes, neglecting holinesse of life, presuming too much of persisting of grace; laying all their religion vpon Predestination. If I shall be saued, I shall be saued; 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 mans faith.

Is a desperate Doctrine.

According to the Booke, the Doctor saith, this sentence,

The Predestinate may neglect holinesse of life, be­cause if he shall be saued, he shall be saued,

Is a desperate Doctrine.

These two sentences, are not so like, as the Hares head, and the Goose giblets, the one reproues the na­ture assigned to Predestination, and telleth them, that Predestination is not such as they say it is. The other reproueth men that abuse the Doctrine of Predestina­tion: but medleth not with the nature thereof, what difference then there is betweene the nature of Prede­stination, and mans abuse of Predestination, in the course of his life: such difference there is, betweene M^r Mountagu and the Booke; he speakes of the first, that of the second.

But now let vs suppose the Doctor had said these 12 words.

Predestination, without relation to faith, is a despe­rate Doctrine.

Then the second branch of his Assumption is like­wise false, because it saith, that speech was not repro­ued: but I finde otherwise in the Booke, which repor­teth, page 43. a speech of his Maiestie, that maketh Predestination, to be without relation to faith, his words be these;

Predestination depends not vpon any qualities, acti­ons, or worke of man: but vpon Gods decree and purpose.

Which sentence is contradictory vnto that sen­tence which M^r. Mountagu saith, was condemned as a desperate Doctrine, by the Doctor: and therefore it is a suffi [...]ient reproofe of his speech.

His fourth reason I finde, Appeale, page 72. &c. it 13 is on this wise;

If Predestination without relation to faith bee the Doctrine of the Church of England, then should [Page 144] it make a partie with Caluin. But it would not make a party with Caluin; for that were the next way to bring in his discipline.

Therefore Predestination without relation to faith, is not the Doctrine of the Church of England.

I answer; this pelting stuffe is not worth the view­ing; all the world knowes that the Church of Eng­land doth agree with Caluin, in very many things, and it must doe so, or else it must agree with the Church of Rome, in all the points which Caluin reiecteth, which are all the decrees of the Councell of Trent, a very few excepted. If I should say all the Articles, and the Homilies agree with Caluin, for the maine matters of faith, I should say no more then what might be proued. Other exceptions might be taken to this argument, but I passe by them: Thus haue I put an end to this poore stuffe, loathsome to the answerer, and disgracefull to the disputer; Ducklings, not Eagles, catch Flyes.

Hitherto we haue hunted a shadow, and laboured 14 to catch the winde, now he will lay hold on the bo­dy, and thus he bringeth it.

The positiue Doctrine of the Church of England, is no other, but this, [touching Predestination.]

• 1 Sinne came into the world, by the Deuill, not God.
• 2 Death came by sinne:
• 3 God prepared a Mediator, Christ.
• 4 Willed life to euery beleeuer.
• 5 His good pleasure was, all men to be saued, Gagge. page 180.

I answer; he would conclude from hence, thus:

Therefore, our Church doth not teach Predestination to be without relation to faith.

For the place requires this conclusion, as hee that readeth these places may see, viz. pag, 178. that God, &c. page 180. the positiue &c. page 179. the Church, &c. p. 181. I nor teach &c. Now, we haue his reason, I will examine the truth of it. I answer, in his owne words, Appeale, pag. 57. (used in another case.)

The Church of England doth not teach thus, touching Predestination, and why may I not say so, except you shew the contrary, or bring me forth a Creed, a Can­non, a conclusion in being for it, in the Church of England?

But let it bee as you will, If this bee all that our 15 Church hath taught, of Predestination, then it hath said nothing of it; for Predestination is, a decree, or dispositiue act of God; will, as we haue learned by your selfe No 4. Now, these words shew vs from whence sinne came, and whither it will, what bee the meanes to escape it, and it speakes of Gods velleitie, or wil­lingnesse vnto mans freedome therefrom; but of any positiue act, ordering man to the supreame end, Mr. Mountagu brings not a word, as the doctrine of our Church. Besides this, I haue the witnesse of one M. Mountagu that bringeth more positiue doctrine from the Church of England then this, viz. out of the 17. Article, in his Appeale, p. 51. and these are his words, In the 17. Article the Church speaketh of Election onely.

• 1 That there is a Predestination by God vnto life.
• 2 That it was an act of his from euerlasting.
• 3 That he founded it, and resolued for it, i [...] the man, [Page 146] and Mediator Christ, both for the purpose and per­formance.
• 4 That it is, and was, of some speciall ones, alone elect, called forth, and reserued in Christ, and not gene­rally extended vnto all mankind.
• 5 This purpose of his, is like vnto himselfe, vnchange­able, done according to the Councell of his will.

Which must needes bee more, then the former fiue propositions, no 14. for there is neuer a one of these (except the third) so much as mentio­ned in those former: seeing this Master Mountagu al­leadgeth authority, and the former M. Mountagu bringeth none; this testimonie must bee receiued, the former reiected: whereby this reason is as poore, miserable, and lame as the former. Therefore I will leaue it in the Spittle-house with them, and proceed.

From this passage alleadged out of the 17. Article, 16 he discourseth thus;

• 1 What our Church resolueth touching this, is resol­ued in the 17. Article, the very words of that Ar­ticle, being expressed in termes as farre as concer­ned that decree, Appeale p. 58.
• 2 This is all that I can find touching that purpose, and decree of God, Appeale, p. 52.
• 3 In all which passage containing Gods decree, is not one word, touching your absolute decree of God, to glorifie man, without any regard vnto his faith, &c. Appeale, p. 58.

I answer; I will not striue about the first, and third branches.

The whole question is about the second, wherein he presumeth that,

His fiue propositions related n^o 15. doe containe the whole doctrine of the 17. Article, touching the de­cree of Predestination.

If it were true, I would grant him, that, our Church doth not teach, That Predestination is without relati­on to finall grace: but he presumeth an vntruth. The 17 Article hath not all his fiue propositions: It pre­sumes the first, because it doth shew what Predesti­nation is: but affirmes it not: it hath not the third, nor fift any wayes. It hath more by much then you report, all which is made euident no 5. and 6. so that I shall not need to spend time to shew it.

Touching the second branch it selfe, I answer, it is 17 hardly credible, that you did not see more then you report: yea, what you did see, seemes very vncertain: for out of your Gag. p. 180. you report no 14. the do­ctrine of the Church of England, touching this point in fi [...]e propositions, foure of them (at least) being wholly different, and altogether vnlike these, and yet you say, The positiue doctrine of the Church of England is no other but them. So as what you said there, and what you say here ouerthroweth each other. If it be them, it is not these; If it be these, it is not them.

If our 17 Article (in your sight) hath no more but these, then you see our Church, doth define Prede­stination onely by the generall nature, efficient cause, and subiect matter, for your fi [...]e propositions, no 15. containe them onely; but you dare not say, you did see our Church so defining Predestination: for, then you professe to see a fault in our doctrine, not to bee excused; seeing, that, the nature of euery thing, is set out by the speciall and formall being, and end thereof: [Page 148] not by the efficient, & materiall cause, without them: But you may not so professe: for you say;

Our Church hath gone on, in this point of Predesti­nation, warily and in great wisedome, and prudence, Appeale, pag. 59.

Besides, it is most iniurious, and an imputation most false: Our Church hath defined Predestination, in that 17 article, by all the causes whereby it existeth, as I haue shewed no 5. 6. which course is most agree­able to art, if wee may beleeue, Thomas 2 dist. 27. q. 1. ar. 2. ad 9.

And it also hath explicated each cause, to make the difinition familiar, and easie vnto vnderstanding: therefore we must conclude, you did see more in the 17 Article, then you will acknowledge.

If you could not see more in the 17 Article then you professe, to see, then you can scumme vpon the surface: but not diue into the depth: then haue you no cause to despise the capacitie of other men, as poore, nor to vaunt of your owne, as able to worke wonders: seeing there is more in the Article then you can see; as hath beene shewed you.

Thus farre of your reasons to excuse your selfe, of disagreeing and dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England, in the point of Predestination, and for my answers thereunto: by which (I hope) all doubts are so remoued, that we may conclude,

The Church of England teacheth all otherwise, in the point of Predestination, then you doe.

Now, wee should examine, whether hee, or our 18 Church doe teach vs the truth, in the point, that wee may know which of them to follow: but Master [Page 149] Mountagu seemeth to decline all search after that.

For, he thus writeth,

You cannot relish any thing, but Gods secrets, you are neuer at quiet with the secrets of Gods Kingdome, you can neuer let his Predestination alone: that com­fortable doctrine of election, and reprobation is your continuall Theame. It is good to be wise vnto sobri­ety, Appeale, p. 59.

The sum of which words must needs be these;

Predestination is neither comfortable, nor reuealed.

Therefore not to be disputed, nor our common talke. For that is wisdome vnto sobriety.

I answer; The Church of England saith, article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet, pleasant, and vnspeak­able comfort. And lest it should be doubted, whether this be true, or no, our Church addeth a reason to con­firme it, in these words; Because it doth establish their faith of saluation; and feruently kindle their loue to­ward God.

Whether of them shall we beleeue? Our Church, or M. Mountagu? S [...]rely our Church is worthy of more credit: For she passed her sentence with delibe­ration; and vnpartially. He with ill affection. It con­firmes the position with an experimented truth. He with his bare word. Such a dutifull child is worthy his mothers blessing, that giues her the lie vpon his owne au­thoritie. Predestination is reuealed to M. Mountagu, else he would not speake of it, so wise is he vnto sobri­etie: but it is not reuealed vnto vs, for wee neuer came so neere vnto the spring head, as hee hath done▪ and indeed wee need not pretend reuelation, to op­pose vnto him; we onely say, shew vs diuine reuelati­on [Page 150] for your Predestination; and wee beleeue it: till then, we reiect it as your own fantasie. It is your bold­nesse to meddle with Gods secrets, or to deuise a pre­destination opposite to his reuelation.

He proceedeth with these words. 19

I professe, I doe loue to meddle, in nothing lesse, then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination, Appeale, p. 60.

I answer; he must conclude from hence, that,

Predestination must not be disputed.

Or else it is meere Gaggling. If he doe thus dispute then haue wee a worthy disputation: for wee haue nothing to guide vs but his owne president.

We must grant the consequent: because the autho­ritie of the antecedent doth inforce it, and good rea­son too: for who would not loue and hate, what hee loueth and hateth? He saith our predestination is despe­rate. I commend him for it. By the last words he spake, he gaue his mother the lye expresly: She said, is was comfortable. He denyes it, with a scoffe. Now he saith it is desperate, wherein he checks her also, for our Pre­destination is deliuered, in her words, and conceiued, according to her sense, and true meaning: as may ap­peare no 5. and 6.

Hee scoffes at them that say, the doctrine of Pre­destination is comfortable: belike then to him it is not so. But whether of these bee in better case? whose iudgement may we follow, our Churches, or his?

To appeale to himselfe is a thing not equall: Popular positions doe often erre: priuate spirits are of weake as­surance, Appeale, p. 8. Well then, whither shall wee [Page 151] goe to be resolued in this point? Vnto the publike Doctrine of the Church of England, contained in the Booke of Articles, &c. he doth appeale, for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England, page 9. Agreed; no better match, no fitter Iudge. Let the 17. Article speake. It saith, vnto such as feele the workes of their flesh mortified, and their mindes drawne to heauen­ly things, the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable. But vnto persons that be curious, carnall, without the spirit of Christ, Predestination is most dangerous: for by it, the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation, or vncleane liuing. By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end, and the inference is plaine and necessary.

Vnto the holy, Predestination is comfortable.

If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine vnto thee, then art thou carnall, and without grace.

M^r. Mountagu is able to apply specially, what our Church hath decreed vniuersally: therefore I leaue that to himselfe, and all other whom it may concerne; contenting my selfe with a bare relation of our Chur­ches iudgement.

He writeth further, thus; 20

Our Church in the point of Predestination, hath not determined specially, Appeale, page 59. of when, how, wherefore, or whom, Gagge, page 179.

I answer; this sentence tends to the same purpose, (or nothing) that the former did, viz. to disswade from all search after the nature of Predestination. If a man did not care what he said, he might sort well with M^r. Mountagu: there is no vntruth so apparent, but some man dares aduenture to auouch it: there is hard­ly [Page 152] a falshood to bee found more apparent, then this sentence of his, and thus I shew it.

Our Church hath determined

• whom,
• when,
• wherefore,
• how,

viz.

• some out of mankinde.
• before the Creation.
• of his will.
• by his secret Councell.

As the Reader may see in the 17. Article, and I haue shewed, no. 5. & 6. If our Church hath not de­termined thus (and all hers ought to follow her ex­ample) then Master Mountagu is much to blame; For,

He hath deter­mined

• whom,
• when,
• wherefore,
• how.

viz.

• some of mankinde.
• being in perdition.
• finall grace.
  • 1 willing them saluation.
  • 2 prouiding a Mediator.
  • 3 taking them out which layd hold of him.

As the reader may finde plainely laid downe in the former part of this Chap. no 3. 4. 14. 15. His choyce was ill, that bringeth falshood for truth, against him­selfe, and such is his condition in this place.

Now for as much as hee cannot discourage you 21 by the force of these arguments: therefore hee doth summon vnto the disputation, in these words:

I must confesse my dissent thorough and sincere, in no one point, more then in this their Doctrine of Predestination, Appeale, page 60.

I answer; the Dice are now cast, Caesar must be all or nothing: the combat is offered to all commers; the Gantlet is cast downe, take it vp who dares. But let him know, he must proue his owne Predestination, [Page 153] or leaue the field. The first weapon he appeares with­all, is made of this fashion:

God is not the Author of sinne, or death, Appeale, page 64.

This weapon is strengthened with some authori­ties of Scriptures and Fathers: from that place to page 69.

But this weapon serueth not for this battell. The question is, whether, first, God found the Predesti­nate in perdition: secondly, whether Predestination be with relation vnto finall grace: thirdly, whether Predestination doth not appoint to giue grace, for so you teach, and these we deny. But whether God be the Author of sinne and death, is not thought vpon at this time. Those three you must proue, or say nothing: for them you haue offered no proofe. It is a safe war, where there is no enemy: and a cowardly attempter, that refuseth the field where the enemie abideth.

It may be, he will say, the refutation of this sen­tence, doth refute the latter branch of Caluins opini­on of Predestination, propounded, page 50. and reie­cted, page 60. because this sentence followes thereup­on, p. 54. I answer; this helpes not the matter, for the question now on foot,▪ is whether Gods decree to saue Peter, be absolute, and doth proceed from Gods will one­ly, page 53. which is denied by your selfe, the Church of England, (as you pretend) the Lutherans, and Ar­minians. Against Caluin, and the Synode of Dort, p. 38. 53. & 56. There is not a word of that second branch, (which concerneth reprobation) obiected a­gainst you, but it is foysted in by your selfe onely, and that vpon good reason too; for you knew full well, [Page 154] that no man would defend this: but euery man could defend that, against you. It was good policy to vnder­take to proue a confessed truth: for so you went with the streame, and to bee silent in the prouing of a manifest falshood, for then you had beene found guilty. You tell vs your resolution this way, in these words;

I neuer held it wisedome, to tire my selfe with ha­ling and tugging vp against the streame, when with ease enough I might, and with better discre­tion should, sayle with the flood, Appeale, p. 12.

Now, although the case had beene as you pretend, yet you had beene abundantly faulty; for disputing a­gainst one branch, when there was two in the questi­on: and for opposing a consequent, letting passe the antecedent and consequence: which is (indeed) to deny the conclusion, when you durst not meddle with the premisses.

Hee keepes the field still, and presenteth himselfe 22 in this manner;

The Church of Geneua dissenteth from the priuate opinions of Caluin and Beza, Appeale, p. 71.

I answer; by priuate opinion of Caluin, hee must meane this of Predestination, and from it hee must conclude;

Therefore his Doctrine of Predestination is not true.

Otherwise he misses the present businesse. That be­ing supposed, he commeth on the backe, where hee ought to come vnto the face of his enemie: hee ought to proue, that, his Doctrine is true, not disproue ours; but be it as he will, if you aske him how hee doth know that the Church of Geneua doth so dissent, hee doth answer; Deodate did tell him so. If you doubt of [Page 155] his testimony, he tels you, he is a Minister, and a Pro­fessor in that Church, and sent to the Synode, from his Country: well, let him goe for a witnesse without ex­ception; the chiefest doubt is how it may appeare, Deodate did say so: Hee putteth that out of doubt also by auouching, he told him so, euen M^r. Mountagu, being the man, that Deodate was withall at Eaton; which proofe cannot be auoided: for hee should ne­uer haue had the company of Deodate in Eaton, vn­lesse he had beene such a man, whose word is as true as steele: yet neuerthelesse his word is of small autho­rity, for I haue found it deceitfull, no 11. 12. therefore I dare not trust it; but let vs yeeld him, that Deodate did tell him so: and that therefore our Predestination is not true. Then hee must be conceiued thus to dis­pute;

Your Doctrine of Predestination is not true, there­fore mine is true.

A substantiall dispute, and well worthy a rich Di­uine, and old learning; mine is, because yours is not; he telleth vs of some that haue whirligigs in their heads, Appeale, page 81. I am sure he is one of them in this argument.

He ends not with this, but goes on still with these 23 words,

This sentence: God did decree to glorifie Peter, with­out any consideration had of his faith, &c. is a priuate fancy of some particular men; Appeale, page 58. neuer heard of, till of late, page 31.

From hence he must inferre;

Therefore this sentence, God did decree to glorifie Peter, &c. is not true.

I answer; The Inference is naught, truth in Diui­nity standeth in a conformity vnto the diuine reuela­tion, not vnto the sooner, or later apprehension, and report of men. If you meane, it is not reuealed, then your termes of Priuate fancy, and yesterdayes heare-say are but toyes for Children.

How dare you say our doctrine of Predestination is a priuate fancie, and a Nouell opinion, seeing King Iames of famous memory for learning and know­ledge, hath expresly auowed it, in these words;

Predestination depends not vpon any qualities or worke of man: but vpon Gods decree and purpose.

As I haue shewed no 12. This testimonie doth giue vs sufficient odds aboue you; for Our sentence hath royall confirmation, and yours hath none: herewith also, I would content my selfe, were it not, that he vr­geth, with great vehemency; That,

This sentence aboue said, is the doctrine of Nouellizing 24 Puritans, Appeale, p. 60.

For the remouing hereof, and to giue full satisfa­ction in the point; I will adde somewhat more there­unto, and shew, that the doctrine of Predestination which we defend, is neither new, nor the inuention of Nouellizing Puritanes. And because I will auoyde all his suspition and imputation of faction and dissen­tion, I will alleadge the words and iudgment of other men, not any of mine owne.

Bellarmine saith, de grat. lib. 2. cap. 9. after this sort: No reason can be assigned on our part, of Gods Prede­stination: not onely merits properly so called, but also the good vse of freewill, or grace, or both toge­ther foreseene of God: yea also merit of congruity, [Page 157] and condition without which, he that is predestina­ted should not be predestinated.

For explication he saith further,

I adde, On our part, because on Gods part, Cause may be assigned, viz. In generall, the declaration of his mercie, and Iustice; In particular, God doth not want his reason, why hee would predestinate vnto life, this man, rather then that, although the same be hidden vnto vs. Thus farre Bellarmine.

This sentence he vndertaketh to proue, in the tenth chapter following, 1. by Scriptures. 2. by the testimo­ny of the Church. 3. by reason founded vpon Scrip­tures, and Fathers, which hee beginneth thus. Some out of mankinde are chosen vnto the Kingdome of Hea­uen. 1. Effectually, so as they come thereunto infallibly. 2. Freely, and before all foresight of works. This proofe 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 generall he saith,

All the Fathers esteemed of by the Church, euen all of them without exception, did manifestly teach this sentence, after the heresie of Pelagius was begunne. And also, it was approued by the publike 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 Chatholike Church.

He proues also the same doctrine of predestination by seuen reasons, in the twelfth chapter, euery one of them being no other; but the application, and accom­modation [Page 158] of Scripture, vnto the point: and doth de­fend this sentence, against opposition in the 13. 14. and 15 chapters following.

These testimonies of Bellarmine must bee allowed of by M. Mountagu for many reasons. 1. Because hee is a Iesuit; and Iesuites haue the preeminence for the present in the Church of Rome; as himselfe informeth Appeale, pag. 203. and Bellarmine was a man of better spirit then some of that society, as himselfe auoucheth, Appeale, pag. 239. whom he doth there also professe to be ingenious, and biddeth him, well to fare. He doth commend him, and preferre him too, before others, saying:

Bellarmine is a man of as strong a braine, and piercing apprehension, as any new vpstart master in Israel of the packe, Appeale, p. 77.

But, it may be he will say, Bellarmine is factious in this point.

I answer, I will therefore fortifie Bellarmines testi­mony; but not with the testimony of any other Ie­suites, though I might alleadge Suarez, who is not only so full in this point as Bellarmine is, but also doth exceed him in the explication and vrging thereof: and that most frequently, but I will forbeare that, and only adde the Dominicans; and because I will auoyd needlesse allegations I will content my selfe with Al­uarez, who in his booke de Auxiliis disp. 37. n^o 6. & 9. &c. Disp. 120 n^o 4. saith,

There can be no cause, reason, or condition on mans part assigned of Predestination: but it is to be referred vnto the meere, and vndeserued will of God.

Which, he saith further, is according to the Iudge­ment [Page 159] of Augustine: approued of by many Popes, and taken out of most euident testimonies of holy Scripture.

The testimonie of these two, must needs be of great force vnto euery man that doth duely consider them, because, 1. They are our aduersaries, whose testimony is of more waight then if they were friends. 2. They are such aduersaries, as purposely doe refuse to speake as we doe. If then they concurre with vs in words, and the thing it selfe, then it is manifest, the truth com­pels them: for there is nothing else to induce them; they want not euasions (if any were to bee found) for they are men of learning, they haue parts of nature, they are industrious themselues, and are abundantly assisted by others; neither are they ignorant that this their doctrin of predestinatiō is the opinion of Caluin. To conclude, this is a sentence not peculiar to them­selues, that is, to the society of the Iesuits, and the fa­mily of the Dominicans whereof they are, but it is a doctrine vniuersally receiued, by their learned; as may appeare by Aluarez in the 37. disputation alleadged, and Suaerez opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 16. n^o 7. and that which goes before: onely some of them doe differ in the manner of handling it, namely, whether, both grace and glory, or grace onely, bee thus freely predestinated. Lastly, it may bee truely esteemed the faith of the Councell of Trent also: because that Councell knew it to bee the iudgement of Caluine, whose sen­tence they meant to reproue 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 yeares in that Councell, which is a plaine argu­ment, [Page 160] they throughly considered all the differences betwixt them and Caluin. Besides, in the sixt Session and twelfth Chapter, it decreeth against such as re­solue with themselues, that they are certainely in the number of the Predestinate; iudging this to be the opi­nion of Caluin, which is a plaine proofe, that they forgot not Caluins opinion in the rest of his Doctrine touching Predestination.

I hope, this proofe is sufficient to cleere this point from nouelty, faction, &c. termes which it pleaseth M^r. Mountagu to giue it: for what can bee more? Writers (ancient and latter) Churches (of Rome and ours) agree in it, confirm & vrge it. If this be nouelty, faction, puritanisme, desperate, detestable, and horrible, to the eares of pious men, Mr. Mountagu is happy, and his Dutchmen with him, that haue chosen the contrary sentence: but no reasonable man will beleeue it, there­fore I proceed.

His next flourish is in this sort, 25

The Lutherans detest and abhorre it, Gagge, p. 179.

Strange (though too true) imputations are raised against it. Odious things are inferred from it, Appeale, page 54. pressed to purpose, and you cannot auoid (to my poore vnderstanding) their conclusions, Appeale, page 52.

This discourse may serue to disgrace; but not to dis­proue: for hee assigneth no imputations, nor conse­quents, nor consequences, nor antecedents in particu­lar. but speaks onely, of such, and onely auowes them vpon his owne affirmation, and vnderstanding, which are of little worth, for his word is found false, n^o 11. 12. and himselfe saith, his vnderstanding is poore.

Let him bring those particular imputations, those consequents, which (hee saies) are so odious, and consequences which (hee saith) are so necessary, and antecedents, from which they flow; let him shew what is imputed, and vnto what, and the world shall see, he speakes neuer a true word.

Hee telleth vs of Rouing, Rowling, Rambling, I 26 might adde, Ruffling, Scuffling, Schambling, Muf­fling, Buffling, Brangling, Shifting, Tricking, Shambling, and many more then these, if I had Mr. Mountagu his eloquence, and I might put them all, as titles to the disputations (foregoing) in this point; and yet should I come farre short of the excellency and worthinesse of his Disputation, therefore I hope the Reader will iudge as he find s, and supply what I want.

He will speake but once more, and that shall driue 27 the nayle to the head: thus he saith,

Without finall perseuering in obedience, they are none of Gods elect, these being the appointed in­strumentall causes of all their saluation, Ap­peale, page 74.

This reason must be thus framed,

If finall perseuering in obedience, be the appointed instrumentall cause of mans saluation, then finall perseuering in obedience, &c. is the thing, with­out which no man is of Gods elect.

But finall perseuering, &c. is the appointed instru­ment all cause of mans saluation.

I answer; by instrumentall cause of saluation, M^r. Mountagu must meane (at least) the meritorious cause of heauen, which being so, his sentence in plaine En­glish [Page 162] is thus much;

Finall obedience is the meritorious cause of saluation.

In which sentence he agrees with the Church of Rome; for the Councell of Trent hath decreed, that

Eternall life is propounded as wages vnto such as doe well to the end. Ses. 6. cap. 16.

Good workes doe merit eternall life.

This Doctrine of the Councell is vrged and defen­ded by Bellarmine in his Booke, de lusti. lib. 5. as the Reader may see to the full.

Hereupon wee may conclude against Mr. Mounta­gu, in his owne words, written in another case. Which follow;

The Ape discouers himselfe by cracking of nuts, Appeale, p. 308.

So doth this man, who, what, and what side hee is of, A Tridentine in faction, and engrayned in affection that way: howsoeuer pretending confor­mity by subscription, ibid.

But it may be, M^r. Mountagu will say, hee did not know that the Church of Rome taught thus much: I answer; his owne words will then refute him, for thus he writeth;

If a man continue constant in the course of good workes, he is sure of heauen causally, in Bellar­mines iudgement, as procured by them, Ap­peale, page 210.

To the parts of the Argument, I answer, first,

The assumption is denied by our Church, which saith,

By our deeds wee cannot merit heauen, nor bring vs to the fauour of God, nor winne heauen; Homilie [Page 163] of Almes-deedes, second part, page 326. 327. & 329.

Vpon this reason: because, then,

A man is a Merchant with God, and so defaceth, and obscureth the price of Christs blood.

Now, our Church hath ouerthrowne his assump­tion: there is no need that I speake further thereunto: but yet, that the efficacy of truth taught by our Church, may fully appeare; you shall heare himselfe deny this his owne assumption: for thus he writeth;

Bellarmine saith, Heauen is of workes causally, wher­in I differ from him, Appeale, page 210.

There is a reward for the righteous, not for workes, or of workes, Appeale, page 208.

Some man perhaps will say, hee doth then contra­dict himselfe.

I answer; that salueth not the wound he giueth vn­to his assumption, the voyce of truth in his owne mouth against himselfe, is of more worth then many witnesses. This part of his reason being naught, the rest hath no force to inferre the conclusion; yet I proceed to the rest.

The foresaid argument (at the best) (and amongst 28 his best friends) is not worthy answering. It is no bet­ter then the dry bones of a Hackney ridden to death, many yeares past. I finde it propounded and answe­red, by Bellarmine, de grat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Quintum &c. by Suarez, opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n^o 22. &c. by Aluarez de Auxilijs disp. 37. n^o 3. Tertio Deus, &c. n^o 21. Ad tertium, &c.

To the consequence of the proposition, I an­swer, that it is most feeble and false.

A man may haue euerlasting life in the euent, by [Page 164] reason of his finall perseuering: and yet not be decreed thereunto, by reason of his finall perseuerance foreseene.

I shew it out of the said Authors, thus:

In Predestination, there is Gods will of

• Intention.
• Execution.

This distinction I finde in Bellarmine, de gratia, lib. 2. cap. 14. Respondeo illud. In Suarez, opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 18. n^o 4. De deo part 2. lib. 1. cap. 14. n^o 7. And in Al­uarez, de Auxilijs disput. 37. n^o 19.

If any doubt of the truth of this distinction, the Au­thors alleadged doe bring proofe enough for it; and chiefly Suarez in the places alleadged, & in his opusc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n^o 4. &c. to whom I referre the Reader.

Supposing then that the distinction is without que­stion, I answer; Gods action of execution, wrought in time, doth indeed represent Gods eternall will of execution: for the will of execution, is no more, but a disposition of execution, or the execution it selfe preconceiued in the minde of God, as the Authors al­leadged doe truely speake.

In this sense Mr. Mountagu saith truely,

So saued, are So ordained by God. Whatsoeuer com­meth to passe, commeth So to passe, because God hath sayd, So, and no otherwise it shall come to passe, Gagge, page 177.

The one is originall of the other, and the one is eui­dence of the other, Appeale, page. 61.

But this is not to our purpose, for we speake not of Predestination, as it containes Gods will of executi­on; but of intention.

The acts of God done in time, doe not represent [Page 165] Gods eternall will of intension; which is no more, but a decree appointing, that the thing shall bee. The will of intention medleth not with the manner how the meanes shall produce the effect, and how the effect shall flow from the meanes, it assigneth not which is the meanes, which the end, as the said authors haue abundantly proued.

It is the first act of Gods will, touching mans salua­tion, and is not regulated by any former. God was wholly free to will it, or not to will it, to will it vnto this man, or vnto another, there being nothing in the creature to restraine this liberty, and determine the di­uine will vnto one: so that you must shew vs diuine reuelation, that affirmeth the finall perseuerance of Pe­ter, was the reason to moue God, to appoint him vnto glo­ry. It is not an inferēce made from an act of temporall execution, that can be a sufficient ground to inioine vs to beleeue it: but such reuelation there is none, there­fore we may conclude, there was no such reason, leading God to predestinate this or that man vnto glory. Here, I may enquire of M. Mountagu whether he hath read this answer, & others like vnto it or not: (one of thē is certainly true.) If he hath not read it, where is his tran­scendent reading he so much doth vant of? where is that diuine that so often calleth others ignorant, poore, and scummers vpon the surface; and such like termes Now these poore diuines, these simple ignaroes, must giberish to him, he knowes not what. If hee hath read them, where was his conscience, when he vrged an ar­gument so often answered, and so much opposed? and (which is more) when he tendered it barely as a thing granted, without (so much as) one word out of [Page 166] the diuine reuelation to confirme it, or to take away those answers which are made to it? What will he plead? Is Suarez, Aluarez, and Bellarmine some of his poore Diuines, meere Gaglers, Blunderers, Ram­blers, &c. not worth the answering, not worth the regarding, the naming? If his will bee, to shew him­selfe ridiculous, he may thus answer: and (to say the very truth) his deeds doe thus answer, though wee haue not his words for it. I might goe on with this inquirie; but I content my selfe with this, leauing it to the iudgement of the vnderstanding reader.

Thus haue I applyed the answers of these authors vn­to the argument, which doth abundantly, shew the weaknesse thereof: and I might content my selfe with that: but I will adde somewhat more which the argument it selfe doth lead vnto.

This argument set downe no 27. speaketh of Prede­stination, 29 and if it were a decree to giue glory onely, and thereby it doth beg the question; because, that is denyed him, by the Church of Rome, and ours. If he say, he takes Predestination to be a decree to giue grace also, then this argument must be framed thus;

Finall perseuering in obedience is the instumentall cause, that Peter receiued grace in the euent.

Therefore without finall perseuering in obedience, God did not appoint by Predestination to giue Peter grace.

The antecedent or first part is denyed by all which liue in the Church of Rome: yea, euen by them, that would haue Predestination to glory to bee vpon the foresight of workes; and they must so deny, because the Councell of Trent hath decreed, sess. 6.

Preuenting grace is giuen by God, man hauing no merits, cap. 5. Wee are iustified freely, because none of those things which precede Iustification (whether faith, or workes) doe merit iustifying grace it selfe, cap. 8.

The same thing touching the free giuing of the first Grace, wee learne from our owne Church, which taketh it from S. Augustine, and tendreth it vnto vs, in the Sermon of Fasting, p. 172. In these words.

No man doth good workes, to receiue grace by his good workes.

Good workes doe not bring forth grace.

Grace belongeth to God, who doth call vs, and then hath he good workes, whosoeuer receiueth grace.

Which sentence is so full and plaine, and of such authority, that I shall not need to say any more, to shew the insufficiency of the Argument: therefore here, I will end my answer therunto, which also must put an end to our Disputation, touching this point of Predestination, because he doth not offer any further occasion.

By that which is past, it doth appeare, that he dis­senteth 30 from the Church of England, in this point of Predestination; and that hee hath nothing (of any worth) to say for himselfe, or against our Church.

Now wee should discouer, with whom hee doth consent in the point: for with some he doth consent; else it is a priuate fancy, peculiar to himselfe. With the Church of Rome he doth not consent. I take that as certaine: therefore he must consent with the Lu­therans, and Arminians. I name them both, because both haue shares in the businesse. The Lutherans doe [Page 168] vrge this doctrine of Predestination, but not very strictly; nor as a matter vndoubtedly revealed: nor doe they presse it in all the particulars brought by M. Mountagu: and therefore it must bee ascribed to Arminius (by vs) because hee is the man, whose voyce was nearest vnto vs; hee vrged it with more particulars, and vpon greater necessitie, then the Lu­therans doe: he chose rather to see the Country that bred him, brought him vp, and aduanced him, come to vtter ruine, rather then hee would hold his peace, or retract this sentence of Predestination. I forbeare to confirme this by the particular passages written by Arminius, Vorstius, and other of that side; because it would be tedious, and without all benefit. What hath passed, is sufficient to shew, hee teacheth fals­hood, and vntruth. Therefore here I will end the whole Disputation.

There be also other points of Faith, in his two Bookes, which oppose the doctrine of the Church of England, and which deserue a reproofe: but be­cause these are propounded and handled by him in the first place, and their opposition is most dange­rous, therefore haue I contented my selfe with the re­futation of these onely, reseruing the rest till some other opportunity.

CHAP. XXI. The Conclusion of the whole Disputation, claiming M. Mountagues promise.

ALthough it hath beene his fashion to spend many lines, with much bitternesse, and ill language; very ill beseeming a man of gravity, and a Minister: yet in the issue hee promiseth fayre, (if you will beleeue him) writing in these words;

Let him, or any other, goe honestly, sincerely, soberly, Scholler-like to worke: Let him come home to the points controuerted, without Rowling, Rambling, Rauing, ioyne issue, instantly with the question where it lyeth: I am for him: no man more ready, more willing, more submisse, more desirous to goe calmly to work, for Gods glory, the Churches tran­quilitie, the good and benefit of my selfe and o­thers.

Thus farre hee, in his Epistle to the Read [...]r, set be­fore his Answer to the Gagger, neer to the end therof.

I answer, I haue accomplished your desire; you inuite to the discussion of the things you haue writ­ten. I hope you will accept it in good part: I haue obserued the course of disputation you haue appoin­ted. And, because, I would not trust mine owne Art (altogether,) therefore haue I followed B. Iewel, in his answer to Master Harding.

To shew your selfe a plaine man, you professe fur­ther, in your answer to the Gaggers Preface, toward the end.

• 1 Our faith is to be regulated by the Scriptures.
• 2 Bring mee in any one point, or all points, to this [Page 170] rule. Tye me to it, try me there. I fall downe and adore it. I would not, I will not, swerue from it.
• 3 The present doubts hang in the Church of England: I doe appeale to the publike doctrine thereof, let that which is against them, on Gods name, be branded with error: and as error be ignominiously spunged out. Let the author be censured (as he well deserueth) by autho­rity. If I be so taken with the fact, or euidence be cleare against me, or I be conuicted by sufficient witnesse, to haue erred thus, I will recall, and recant, whatsoeuer is so exorbitant: and further, will deale so with my owne writing, as they did with their curious bookes, Acts 19. & 19. Appeale p. & 9.

I answer; I haue performed the condition, in the iudgement (I hope) of euery Reader, able to iudge of a disputation. I looke for the performance of this your promise: if you faile, the fault must rest vpon your selfe; and so I leaue you to your owne choice.

But you thinke to escape that; and yet be without blame: by obiecting against the persons, and plea of them that stand against you.

• Puritanes, Self-conceited, Presumptuous, Maligners at States, Irregular, Louing paritie, Factious, Turbulent. (page [...] 3. Ouer precise professors. p. 4.
• Malicious. p. 5.
• Hornets ill affected, Purer Brethren, Great Rabines in Israel, whose pens, and pulpits be infallible in iudgement. page 6.
• Popular-spirits, Singular illuminates, Simple ignoran­ [...]ees, Classicall dictators, Groners for Parochiall Popes. p. 7.
• [Page 171]Partiaries, p. 14.
• Peremptory, resolued, conclusiue, false slanderers, p. 15.
• Calumniators, indirect dealers, p. 22.
• Men of cheuerellised consciences, Calumniators, neither honest nor plaine, hauing presbyterian tricks of Legerde­maine, p. 23.
• Traducers, Saint-seeming, bible-bearing, Hypocriticall Puritans, glosers, time-seruers, Colluders with the State, page 43.
• Closers (in shew) with our Church, but teachers of things contrary to what they haue subscribed, crafty pretenders to bring in Popes to euery parish, and Anarchies in the State, separatists from others, singular, a part, afa­ction, a diuision, brethren of Amsterdam, p. 44.
• A faction of nouellizing Puritanes, men intractable, in­sociable, incompliable with those that will not maintaine dissentions. p. 60.
• Men that haue whirlegiggs in their braines, And be far at variance with their owne wits, p. 81.
• Clamorous Promoters, That read not ordinary protestāt writers, that braule at the shadow of their owne fancies: fight with shaw-fowles of their owne setting vp. Talke confidently, Traduce virulently, mistake ignorantly, page 88.
• Men of new learning, that haue little, or none old, facti­ous, furious, p. 90.
• Of the preciser cut, zealous Disciples, p. 95.
• Such whose wits be not their owne, p. 96.
• Such as professe themselues senselesse, p. 99.
• Ignorant of others, wedded to their owne conceits, p. 101.
• Feruent ones, violently precise, p. 108.
• Of vncharitable, vnchristian, fiery, Puritanicall zeale, Malice, Indiscretion, Such as run a madding, of transpor­ted [Page 172] spirits, p. 110.
• Schismaticks conforming for preferment, p. 111.
• Men that hold with the Hare and run with the hound, of mouing, violent, Quicksiluer, Gunpowder spirits, That run into extreames,▪ Furious ones, p. 112.
• Promoters, without Christian charitie, common wit, sense, vnderstanding, honestie; Such whose passions are malignant and possessed with deepe malice. Shamelesse slanderes, p. 129.
• Ignorant, malicious, factious, poore diuines, p. 138.
• Franticke, good fellowes that are and euer will be I know what, p. 139.
• Halfers in opinions for priuate ends, rotten at the core, professing conformitie, but are opposites, p. 142.
• Men partially addicted, maliciously bent to calumniate, Honest informers, detractors, p. 145.
• Puritanicall opposites, p. 146.
• Men that haue set themselues to calumniate, Ignorant of the point they vndertake against. That cannot or will not vnderstand, p. 168.
• Fooles opposing common reason, confessed diuinity, p. 185
• Great Masters in Israel, Lyars against their owne know­ledge, p. 191.
• Ignorant, peeuish, prophane, p. 207.
• Misdeeming informers, wanting sincere and honest dealing, p. 209.
• Malicious, peeuish, Puritanicall, p. 213.
• Men of poore capacitie, without apprehension, p. 218.
• Dissemblers, p. 222.
• Such as vnderstand not the depth of the question, scum vpon the surface, gibberish they cannot tell for what, page 248.
• Pigmies of this time, p. 273.
• [Page 173]Younglings, p. 274.
• Of vncircumcised lippes, p. 275.
• Of your shorter cut, singular in their owne conceits, Such as ramble, and are ready to grind the teeth, p. 279.
• Furious Puritans, p. 281.
• Ignorant, insolent, arrogant, presumptuous. 283.
• Good brethren, seeming holy, and precise, Tormentors of words, malicious detractors, 285.
• Bred, and sent abroad by the diuell, to maintaine a facti­on, p. 291.
• Neither discreet, nor moderate, nor, vnderstanding Diuines, 293.
• Foore men, that medled beyond their lachet. And were out of their element, p. 295.
• Ignaroes, intollerable, insolent, malicious traducers, Of Puritanicall, quicksiluer spirits, p. 304.
• Such as loue faction, and diuision, p. 305.
• Counterfeiting hypocrites, p. 308.
• Of a brasen forehead, p. 319.
• Zealous ones, charitable informers, franticke fellowes, frighted with Pannicke feares, of vncharitable con­ceits, p. 320.
• Of Predominant frensies, Ignorant stupiditie, p. 321.

• PRiuate opinions of the Informers. Classicall resoluti­ons of the Brethren, p. 6.
• Dismembred passages, p. 15.
• Of pure malice, indiscreet zeale, Lost-wits, p. 17.
• Mistakings for aduantage, p. 20.
• Shreds cut out from seuerall parts, laid together and pat­ched [Page 174] vp for aduantage, p. 22.
• Things broken and dismembred, which doe not cohere nor insue, nor follow instantly vpon each other, laid toge­ther out of charitable pure intent, p. 24.
• Passages dismembred, mishapen, and abused, p. 26.
• Scholasticall points, meere speculations, of themselues not apt to breed danger. That haue beene pursued without all danger but of tongue-tryall, p. 42.
• Priuate imaginations of opiniatiue men, ignorant of o­thers, wedded to their owne conceits, p. 101.
• Idle dreames, fancies, and furies, p. 114.
• The fruits of angry and idle braines, p. 115.
• Confusednesse, p. 116.
• Sottish malice and ignorance, p. 128.
• Mishapen calumnies, false suggestions, p. 129.
• The grunting of swine, p. 288.

I answer; first, in the very words of that learned, holy, and reuerend Bishop Iewell. If I should quit him with courtesie of speech, I should bee like vnto him, but I thought it good to vse such temperance of words, not as may best answer your eloquence, but as may be most come­ly for the cause. Thus he writeth in his Preface before his Defence against Harding, no 1.

Although I should grant these imputations, wher­of I shall speake, no 2. yet should you gaine nothing. And I shew it in Bishop Iewels words also.

I beseech you, if you haue leisure, hearken a little, and heare your selfe talke, behold your owne words, so many, so vaine, so bitter, so fiery, so furious, altogether in one place. These be the figures and flowers of your speech: yet must we thinke that you can neither stampe nor rage, howbeit I trust, no wise man will iudge our cause the w [...]rse, for that your tongue can so readily serue to speake [Page 175] ill, Defenc. part 2. cap. 1. diuis. 1. p. 83.

By such discourses, he is able to proue whatsoeuer thing shall come to hand: when Scriptures faile, then discourse of wit must come in place: and when wit and discourse will not serue, then good plaine round railing must serue the turne, then he flingeth now at his Informers, now at his Promoters, now at the Puritans.

Thus he iumpeth, and courseth this way and that way, as a man rouing without a marke; thus hee sheweth a mountaine of words without substance; and a house full of smoake without fire; when all is done, we may say of him, as the poore man said that shore his Sow. Here is great cry, and little wooll.

But truth is plaine, and homely, and hath no need of these hablements, but who so will take vpon him to main­taine vntruth, must be forced to leade his Reader from the purpose, to feed him with words, for want of matter, and briefly, to doe euen as here you doe. In the Preface to the Reader, neere to the end.

To the particular imputations, I answer likewise in 2 Bishop Iewels words. So terrible are you in your dealing, be not afraid good Reader of all this smoake; for thou shalt see it suddenly blowne all to vanity, from whence it came. Thus hee writeth in his Preface before his Defence, no 6.

Touching some of the particulars I haue my answer 3 out of the same Bishop too, in these words, You say we read neither the old writers, nor the new; but are vtterly ignorant and void of all learning; it were a very ambiti­ous and childish vanitie to make vaunts of learning. For asmuch as you seeme desirous of the [...]ame of great reading; ye shall haue the praise and glory of it (M^r. Mountagu) without contention: we will rather say with St. Paul, wee [Page 176] know nothing but onely Iesus Christ crucified vpon his crosse: yet notwithstanding wee are neither so ignorant, but that we are able and haue leasure to read as well the old Doctors, and the Fathers of the Church: as also your light, vnciuill pamflets, and blotted papers, which (God wot) in all respects are very new, and we are much ashamed of your papers, and nouelties, to see them with vntruth, & other vncourteous speech, so fully fraughted.

I answer further, you say we haue no learning, capa­citie 4 or vnderstanding: but these are your owne words, you haue brought nothing that hath shewed it, or, that is fit to try, whether you say true or not: you haue brought some arguments; but they are so silly, that a child may answer them: you please your selfe with some Latine, Greeke, Poets, History, Fa­thers, Councells: but they serue to no purpose, for they neither proue, nor disproue any thing in questi­on. If you will bring arguments that sauour of vnder­standing, or dispute from Latine, or, Greeke words, Poets, Historie, Fathers, Councels, in a Logical forme of true Sylogisme, then shall you readily find, where reading, learning, capacitie resteth: Till then, you may vse 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 esteeme a re­proachfull 5 name: but you tell vs not what you meane by it; therefore you would faine speake ill, but no man can vnderstand you. I thinke that name be­longs to your selfe rather, for, a Puritan is hee that is pure in his owne conceit, and is not washed from his filthi­nesse; according to the sentence of the holy Ghost. Prouerb. 30. & 12. Now this seemeth to agree to your selfe, for, you say, you haue receiued the earnest of your [Page 177] saluation, App. p. 48. Therefore you are pure in your own conceit. Now you are not washed frō your filthiness, except your vnmeasurable railings formerly related, be no filthinesse. If you will say they be not filthinesse, then must you resolue vs, what Salomon meant, when hee said, There is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their iaw teeth as kniues, Prou. 30. & 14. And Dauid, when he said, Their throat is an open Sepulcher, &c. Did Salomon and Dauid commend or discommend those of whom they spake? You tel vs, that Puritans do refuse, some of the doctrine, or discipline of the Church of England, or both, Appeale, p. 118. and this doth fitly agree to your selfe, for in all the points now disputed, you reiect the faith of the Church of England, and bring vs the Popish faith in stead of it, as hath beene euidently declared.

You tell vs the things obiected against you are col­lected 6 out of diuers places, and layed together for aduan­tage: In both parts you intend to blame the pleadings against you; but the first part is against your selfe, for, Art and plaine dealing, required you to set your opi­nions together. An obiection is well made, when it is truly made, though it be gathered out of many seue­red places. You meane they are layed together vniustly: but the seuerall places out of which they are brought will say, that is false: diuers sentences brought into one place, doe make each other the cleerer vnto vn­derstanding, to that end are they now layed together, and for no other, as the reader may find. To scatter them into diuers places with the intermission of o­ther things, was a good meanes to conceale the snake, till a fitter time was offred: he that giueth poison, must conceale it. To gather them together, was the la­bour, [Page 178] diligence, and faithfulnesse of him that did it. He that discouers a hidden euill, is more worthy then he that suggesteth that which is overt, and lyeth aloft. You wold fain Tridentize it, & so go on, hanging hoof, against hoofe: (that I may vse your owne words) Ap­peale, p. 270. As the fearfull Hare, doth double, and redouble, her course, and intricate her passage, to con­ceale her selfe, euen so doe you: hee therefore that would find you out, must take you where you are to be had, seeing you are not wher, and how you ought to be.

You tell vs of the points in question, 7

• [...] are not [...]gerous.
  • Of themselues. In the event vnto vs.
  • Because
    • They are scholasticall speculations meerly.
    • The author is
      • No fomenter of
        • Faction.
        • Schisme.
      • A
        • Patri [...]t.
        • Reconciler. Appeale, p. 42. 43.

• They that thinke not so
  • Make clamors of they know not
    • What.
    • Wherefore.
  • Are
    • Franticke fellowes.
    • Frighted with Pannicke feares.
  • Haue without cause
    • fired the Beacons.
    • disturbed the Countrey.
  • Esteeme a field of Thistles, to be a battell of Pikes.

Appeale, pag. 320.

I answer; It is no meruaile, though you set your whole strength, to remoue the suspicion of danger, from the points you haue deliuered; yea it would be [Page 179] much meruaile, to see you doe otherwise▪ for hee that layeth a snare, must conceale it, least his purpose be frustrated; but your labour is spent in vaine, a weake sight may see them full of danger.

That they are dangerous to our eternall estate, and of themselues, fitted to bring sad euents, is manifest; for all of them are articles of erronious faith. Now an erronious faith is an addition vnto the diuine reue­lation, threatned by God, to bee punished eternally, Reuel. 22. & 18. verse, Some of them bee articles of the erronious faith of Rome, and that they bee dange­rous vnto our saluation, wee haue the testimony of Bishop Iewell, who saith expresly, That, they are dan­gerous to kindle Gods wrath, and condemne our soules for euer, Apol. part. 6. c. 22. diuid. 1. And c. 20. diuid. 2. he saith, vnlesse we leaue them, we cannot come to Christ: With whom agreeth our reuerend 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 mans destruction. Your selfe doe no lesse, when you say, Popery is origi­nall of superstition, enemie vnto pietie, Appeale, p. 321.

The particular points, whereof wee haue disputed, doe say no lesse.

For, if wee must take our faith in all matters 8 of doubt, from the sentence of a Councell, then can we haue therein no diuine faith; and consequent­ly no saluation.

If a man beleeue, that a sinner is iustified (from the 9 actuall sinne which he hath committed) by a created being, that remaineth setled, and seated in him, then he beleeueth, that, thereby those sinnes are so done a­way, that no being thereof remaineth, and that all the [Page 178] powers, and faculties of man, are disposed, and fitted, vnto 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 owne Iustice, to keepe him from hell, and to or­der him to heauen; and thereby trusteth vnto a sliding foot, and a broken tooth, for asmuch as God hath laid out the way vnto them in another line.

Hee that beleeueth that the continuance of grace 10 (whereby man is fitted vnto holinesse in this life, and happinesse in the life to come, by Gods appointment) is so contingent, and vncertaine, that euery man that hath it, may be, and some men are, depriued thereof, and left in the state wherein hee was first borne, and wholly destitute of all inward fitnesse to holinesse and happinesse; he is in danger of damnation: for, such a one beleeueth, that some men at this instant, are in the way to heauen, and holinesse, beautifull, and glori­ous, in the eyes of God: but in a moment, ignomini­ous, and hatefull vnto God, and in themselues tending vnto nothing, but wickednesse, and damnation: and consequently is or may bee in this condition, of, in, and out, euery moment, and instant of his life: so al­so, he beleeueth that all men may, and some men doe, retaine their sanctitie, in their inward disposition, and outward actions for many yeares, but in the last mo­ment of their life, are depriued thereof, and are cast into hell. Which faith can in no sort agree vnto the ioy and consolation of heart, which the sanctified doe enioy: Nor vnto that loue of God, and the righteousnesse of his Kingdome, which euery such a man doth find by experience: Nor vnto that great loue, and delight, which God beareth vnto, and taketh [Page 181] in his Saints; so largely expressed in the Scriptures: Nor vnto the diuine prouidence which gouerneth the world with infinite wisdome.

He that beleeueth Images are profitable to the stir­ring 11 vp of deuotion, and may bee had in Churches, and imployed for that vse, is in danger of damnation: for such a man will not cease till he hath them, and so imploy them, and thereby is in danger of worship­ing of them, through their fitnesse, and mans corrup­tion; and hee that doth worship them, doth commit idolatry, and idolatry is punishable with damnation. He that beleeueth honour is due to Images, belee­ueth that in giuing honour vnto them, hee doth an action supernaturall, acceptable to God, and that lea­deth to heauen; seeing that, no honour can be due vn­to them, but by Gods reuealed appointment: and consequently he is in danger of damnation: because such a man indeuoureth to serue God, and to come to heauen, by an obedience deuised by himselfe: foras­much as God hath not appointed any honour to bee giuen to Images.

Hee that beleeueth, that Christ is really, and sub­stantially 12 present in the Sacrament, will honour the Sacrament, with honour due to God: which (that I may speake in the words of Bishop Iewell in his Reply, the 8. Article, p. 283.) cannot bee attempted without great danger: for it is Idolatry: seeing Christ is not there really and substantially: and all Idolaters shall haue their portion in the second death, Reuel. 21. verse 8.

Hee that beleeueth, hee assenteth vnto God that 13 calleth, and exciteth, freely: so as, hee can reiect and dissent from that calling and excitation (if hee will) is in danger of damnation: for such a one beleeueth, [Page 182] that he so consenteth out of the liberty and dominion, that his will hath to doe, or not to doe, to consent, or dissent, and not yeeld that consent in obedience vn­to any preuiall worke, and true efficiency of grace, dis­posing him thereunto: and consequently, that him­selfe doth first and originally make the difference be­tweene himselfe and another, that dissenteth from that grace of God that calleth: and that he hath of him­selfe, something which he hath not receiued, 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 diddest not receiue? Now if thou diddest receiue it, why dost thou glo­ry, as if thou hadst not receiued it? 1 Cor. 4. and 7. verse.

By the like deduction, the danger of your Doctrine 14 of Predestination will appeare, which is no lesse a­gainst the place of the Apostle now alleadged, then the point of Free-will: for the Apostle speaketh in termes, that comprehend Gods purpose, or decree e­ternall, as well as actions wrought in time.

I might shew the like danger, to arise from the rest of the points deliuered by you, and vrge the danger of these other waies: but I thinke this sufficient, to make it apparent, that they are dangerous vnto a mans soule.

Touching the danger which (of themselues) they 15 are apt to breed, vnto our outward estate, I shall need to say little; because what you say of your selfe, Ap­peale, page 42. I say for my selfe.

I am loath to touch here, or to meddle beyond my slipper, the State is not the subiect of my professi­on: [Page 183] I pray for the prosperity of Prince, and Poli­cie: but let their courses alone to whom they con­cerne.

Yet notwithstanding, I hope I may with license, and good leaue, alleadge what is manifest to all men, and deliuered by your selfe. Thus you write;

Popery is for tyranny, Appeale, p. 321.

And so say I, with the generall consent of all those that know Popery, and are not subiect thereunto. By tyranny, you meane, tyranny ouer Kingdomes: for you oppose it (in the place alleadged) vnto Anarchie, now (I hope) euery man will say, Tyranny is a no­torious euill to any State or Kingdome. If you had not said thus, the thing it selfe would haue said it for you: for Tyranny is, where one man doth rule the whole, by an vnbrideled and vnlimited will and pleasure. Now this the Pope claimeth ouer all Kingdomes, 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 haue not taught this, therefore your 16 Popery is not for tyranny. I answer; this must follow vpon the Popery which you haue taught: for you giue to Councel [...] an authoritie to determine matters of faith, and require all men to receiue their sentence as the dictates of the holy Ghost. You allow the Church of Rome a share in such Councels, by granting that it hath the essence of a true Church; you also allow the Pope himselfe a place in those Councels. Vpon which it will follow; that the Pope must call, direct, and confirme all such Councels: and consequently, that the Pope hath such authoritie ouer temporall States and King­domes, as is aforesaid; for that authority of the Pope [Page 184] ouer Councels, hath bred, and confirmed this autho­ritie of his, ouer temporall States, and Kingdomes; as he that readeth Bellarmine, de Rom. Ponti. lib. 5. cap. 1. Tertia sententia, &c. and cap. 6. to the end of that Booke, will finde.

If wee receiue these points of Popery hitherto dis­cussed, 17 then must we receiue all the rest of the Popish faith, for these are no truer then they; nor are these re­ceiued by any, which doth not receiue them. If wee receiue all Popery, then wee giue place to the rabble of their Monkes, and Friers, &c. where they are enter­tained, great possessions, much goods, many people, are seuered from the vse of the State, and appropria­ted vnto the vse, and benefit of the Pope, and State of Rome; by which meanes our owne State is much dis­abled to maintaine it selfe against forraigne opposers; and a forraigne State inioyeth a great addition to de­fend it selfe, and to offend; yea, to subiect ours vnto 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 shew the dangers that doe per­petually attend vpon this faith of Rome, which you perswade vs to receiue.

You tell vs, you are a Patriot, equall to the best: you 18 shew vs wherein, by saying thus,

I imbrace the totall doctrine and discipline of the Church of England; and will maintaine it, to bee ancient, Catholike, Orthodoxe, and Apostoli­call, Appeale, page 111.

I trust to make good, against any and all whosoeuer, that the Church of England is so conformable vnto purest antiquity, in the best times: that [Page 185] none can be named in all points, more conforma­ble, Appeale, page 48.

You must giue me leaue to answer hereunto in your owne words: which I finde, you haue written con­cerning some, viz.

You doe conforme onely for preferment, hold with the Hare, and runne with the Hound, Appeale, page 111. and 112. you are rotten at the core, page 142. your goodly glozings, and time-ser­uing colludings with the State, are but like Wa­termen, looking one way, rowing another, page 43. and 44.

Your selfe (at least) cannot be offended with mee, for applying those words of yours, vnto your selfe: for it is but Iustice to fill you, in the same cup you haue filled vnto others.

Neither may it bee ill taken of any other: for you may be of that number, notwithstanding this prote­station: because (that I may vse your owne words) you must remember All your words are not Gospell, Ap­peale, page 272. Therefore vntill I may perceiue that you manifest what you protest, by reall practice, you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble in the point; and would perswade men, that you are not to bee distrasted, that your selfe may feed fat vpon their folly, Appeale, page 222. I finde you also writing thus of some:

Your holy cause (you see) will not succeed by oppositi­on; therefore you come vp, and seeme to close with the Church of England in her Doctrine and dis­cipline: but indeed, you infuse secretly, and in­still cunningly, a forraigne Doctrine, pretended craftily to be our Churches▪ so that a [...] length, [Page 186] you may winde in forraigne discipline, and the rest of forraigne Doctrine, Appeale, page 43. and 44.

If you conceiue thus of others, it is like enough you saw it first in your selfe: for there is none so suspici­ous of another, as he that is guiltie. You know our English Prouerbe, The Mother would neuer haue sought her Daughter in the Ouen, but that her selfe had beene there first: you can apply, what I exemplifie, to speake in your owne language, Appeale, page 320. yea it is more then likely that this was your intent: For you waue the Doctrine of the Church of England: Teach contrary to that which you haue subscribed: as you challenge others, Appeale, page 44. which you would neuer haue done, but for some speciall end, and no o­ther end can be assigned but this; and vnto this end it serueth fitly.

If I should reason thus, 19

The learnedest, the most conformable, the renow­ned, rewarded, &c. yea the faith it selfe, of the Church of England, is for Popery. Therefore Popery is the true faith.

Then euery man will be ready to embrace the faith of Rome, and good reason too, seeing this testimony wanteth nothing to giue it authority; the party him­selfe, a friend, (nay more) a Brother that hath beene borne, bred, and brought vp in the confession of the Church of England, that hath learned, loued, admired, and proposed to himselfe to follow indeclinable, the Do­ctrine and discipline of the Church of England, Appeale, page 111. No new vp-start Master in Israel. But one that adhereth and consenteth vnto, the Apostles, and [Page 187] their true successors, immediate and mediate, Appeale, 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, Appeale, page 111.

As the qualitie of your person, & pretence, so your 20 outward condition in our State and Church, doe serue very fitly, to bring in Popery; for you are knowne vn­to, and approued by his sacred Maiesty, King Iames; as you doe solemnly informe vs in the Preface to your Appeale, and in the Booke it selfe. page 43. You are be­holding vnto, and fauoured by, men of principall ranke, in the gouernement of our Church and common-wealth: as wee learne from your Epistle, set before your Treatise of the Inuocation of Saints, neere to the end thereof. You are indeed rewarded with preferments, many for number, great for value. Who would deny his consent vnto Popery, when it is brought by a mes­senger thus accomplished? You are a Minister and a Preacher, therefore when you bring in Popery, you goe compendiously to worke; for you are like enough to gaine, and draw your Parishioners with you, at least to make them more feasable then other waies they would be: as yourselfe writes in the third page of your Preface to the Reader, set before your Gagge. You are a Prea­cher vnto many congregations, therefore you must needes draw the more people after you; and they draw others; for we see by experience, things new and strange, stay not alwaies with them that receiue them first. Moreouer, by Preaching Popery, they may be ac­commodated according vnto the disposition of seue­rall men; hee that is inclinable thereunto, may bee [Page 188] followed seriously, plied at all times. He that is auerse may bee obserued, and delt withall as opportunity is offered.

Lastly, preaching is of greatest efficacie, for it com­meth vnder the name of Gods ordinance, it is more fit to enter into, and preuaile vpon, the thoughts of man, than any other course: like as the small raine res [...]eth vpon, entreth into, and softeneth the earth, more then the great and hastie 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 entred, taketh faster hold like vnto a screw, that is not heard when it entreth, nor can be pulled out when it hath taken hold.

This course, to bring in popery was now requisite: 21 for all violence was in vaine, no attempt that way could preuaile, it made vs more warie, and resolued against it: like the boisterous winde, that causeth a man to lay faster hold vpon his clothes, to keepe them about him. What disputations haue they had to pre­vaile against vs, for continuance, & multitude of years: for learning and subtlety? What deuices haue they vsed to keepe ours from them, to conuey theirs vnto vs? Cunning counsells to grace it, desperate Ianizaries to conuey it into euery Kingdome, Prouince, diuision, familie, houshold, singular person, if it were possible? What wars and trecherie haue they omitted, the Hi­stories of Wicklife, Hus, Ziska, Henry the second, King Iohn, and Queene Elizabeth, (besides many others) will shew. More of any of these are not needfull, nor can be expected; yet what haue they gotten, haue they won a party vnto their faith, or one man to beleeue as they doe? Surely this they haue gained, enen a gar­ment [Page 189] dyed red in the blood of the Saints, and a name, but not of the sonnes of Abraham, who neuer had the glory of heresie, and poison of false doctrine, cruelty, trechery, murder, vsurpation. Now, now therefore, is the time when you must change your copie, turne ouer a new leafe; bethinke your selfe of a new course; turne your threatnings into flatterings; your loud sound into still voices; your long disputations, into distilled drop­ping, your enmity into pretended friendship, your conioyned armies into seuered corner creepers; your armour into Gownes; your swords into sithes, your bills into mattocks: Finally, let no voice of warre be heard in your streets: Sound, and resound; lift vp like a trumpet the voice of Peace, tune your instruments, to make that harmony to bee more delightfull, then the sweet Singer of Israel; and then perhaps you may gaine him vnto your side, whom God hath giuen o­uer to beleeue lyes: but for the rest, they will, and al­waies shall, haue iust cause to say, as we now doe, The snare is broken we are escaped, thanks be vnto God.

I might giue satisfaction to euery one of his parti­cular railings, for there is sufficient for it: but I will not burthen the reader so much. This that I haue said, is sufficient: because these things being thus, none of his other bitter invectiues can bee true. Though they were true, yet doe they make either wholly against him, or nothing at all for him.

I conclude this whole discourse, in the words wherein Bishop Iewell concluded his, to Master Har­ding, pag. 652.

Deceiue 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 your selfe, as a Bird in the lyme. The more ye stirre, the saster ye cleaue; the longer ye striue, the weaker ye are: ye cannot bridle the flowing Seas, ye cannot blind the Sunne beames. Kicke not still against the spurre: Giue vnto the glory of God: (will ye will ye) the truth will con­quer. God giue vs both humble hearts, and the people eyes to see, that all flesh may be obedient to his will, Amen.