A Dangerous Plot Discovered, Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII.
| M | ▪ Mountague. The Church repreſentatiue cānot erre in points of faith. gagg. p. 48. | Ch. of England. Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vntounto God. arti: 21. |
IN this point and in the two other which follow, I hauehave not any thing to ſet downe vnderunder the name of the Church of Rome, becauſe I find not the Councell of Trent to hauehave decreed any thing in them: but notwithſtanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common conſent of their Divines, for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controverſies, as ſhall appeare in the particular paſſages following. This being premiſed, I proceed to examine;
1. Whether this propoſition (the Church repreſenſatiue cannot erre in points of faith) be true or not.
2. Whether this propoſition agree with the Church of Rome, or not.
3. Whether this propoſition diſſent from the Church of England, or not.
Firſt, the ſence of theſe termes, 1. Church repreſentatiue, 2. erre, 3. points of faith, muſt be ſet downe.
1. By Church repreſentatiue, he vnderſtands a Councell truely generall, Appeale. p. 121.
2. By error, he meanes an abberration from a rule. Appeale. p. 6. viz. the Scriptures. gagg. p. 13.
3. By points of faith, is meant every ſentence to be aſſented to as true, vponupon 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 vntounto which ſence the propoſition may be ſet downe in theſe words; A Councell truely generall, in giving ſentence touching a Divinity propoſition, cannot vary from the Scriptures.
That he conſenteth with the Church of Rome in this propoſition, himſelfe confeſſeth. gagg. p. 48. where (of it) he ſaith. So ſay they, ſo ſay we. And Bellarmines words doth ſhew it. Which writeth thus:
The Church repreſentatiue cannot erre. de. eccle. lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod &c. in thoſe things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done. Noſtra &c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word; For he maketh that, the firſt foundation of our faith, and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof. de verbi dei interpret. lib. 3. cap. 10. Reſpondeo ad hoc. &c.
Wherein is Mr Mountague his ſentence juſt.
Notwithſtanding he denieth, Appeale. p. 121. that he is in this point a Papiſt (that is as I conceiue) that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point, and giues this reaſon for it;
Points of faith be
fundamentall, or
acceſſory. gagg. p. 48.
Fundamentall are ſuch as the beliefe whereof, be ſo abſolutely neceſſary for the conſtitution of a true Church, as the reaſonable ſoule is for the eſſentiall being of a man. Appeale. p. 123.
In points acceſſory, there may be error; but none in points fundamentall, gagg. p. 48. Of points fundamentall, onelyonly doe I ſpeake, and in them onelyonly doe I conceiue infaliibilitie. Appeale. p. 123.
I anſwer, this explication ſerues well to puzzell the Reader, but hath no force to cleare Mr: Mountague from agreeing with the Ch: of Rome, for many reaſons.
The terme fundamentall is borrowed. We ſhall then know the true ſence of it, when we know what a foundation is in proper ſpeech. A foundation is that part, whervpon the reſt of the building is placed. Fundamentall points of faith muſt be like vntounto 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 vponupon 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 vntounto the being of a Church, in the Iudgement of the Church of England. Arti: 19.
He yeeldeth vsus another deſcription, Appeale. p. 116. in theſe words; Points fundamentall be ſuch as are immediate vntounto faith.
He proues this, as he did the former, (juſt never a whit.) We muſt beleeue it to be thus, becauſe he ſaith it. We muſt gueſſe at his meaning, for he doth not tell it vsus. I thinke by immediate vntounto faith, he meanes ſuch points as are obiected vntounto 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vntounto faith, for that there is a divine Revelation, is not obiected firſt vntounto faith, yet it is the foundation vntounto 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 vntounto 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 hauehave theſe properties I grant, and namely, thoſe three I hauehave alreadie ſpoken of: but that theſe properties are ſo peculiar vntounto fundamentalls, as that they belong vntounto them all, and vntounto 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.
He doth not conceiue the Church to be infallible in fundamentalls. For if he did, then alſo he doth giuegive the Church authoritie to Iudge in fundamentalls, becauſe that goeth with this. But he doth not giuegive the Church that authoritie, but denieth it vntounto 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 hauehave 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 giuegive 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 giuegive infallibilitie to the Church in all points of faith. But he doth giuegive 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, 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 hauehave erred. For
It avou cheth, that generall Councels hauehave erred.
But in fundamentalls they hauehave 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, 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 vntounto 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 hauehave erred.
Therefore Councels may erre.
If it be replyed, that this reaſon is not good, except erring in the conſequent be taken, in that ſence, wherein it is vſed in the Antecedent.
I rejoynd, the argument is good, although erring in the antecedent, be taken for erring in ſome things, and erring in the conſequent be taken for erring in all things, becauſe the Church that is not free from error in ſome points of faith, is not free at all.
The proofe added to the aſſumption ſtandeth thus▪
That which hath not erred hither to, cannot erre hereafter, &c.
But this propoſition is manifeſtly falſe, becauſe freedome from error, and infallibilitie in Iudgement, is not made by not erring in time paſt, but by a ſpeciall & peculiar providence of God, which they may want at ſome other time, who (in the thing) hauehave not erred in time foregoing.
His ſecond reaſon is in p. 124. after this ſort.
If the Article ſpeakes of things pertaining to God, and thoſe are not all fundamentalls, then it may be vnderſtood of things not fundamentall.
I anſwer, this reaſon hath the fault that the former had, it preſumes that points of faith, are ſome fundamentall, ſome not fundamentall, which is denied, and therefore it begs the queſtion. 2. I will grant the diſtinction for this time, and ſay further, the word (only) muſt be added to the latter part of this reaſon, otherwiſe it concludeth nothing to purpoſe; that being added, I deny the conſequence, becauſe the Article ſpeaketh of all things pertaining to God, as I hauehave proved in my anſwer. And I proue further by your own teſtimony, thus;
If the Article in ſaying Councels may erre in things, &c. doe not meane all but ſome things, then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct, without far-fetched obſcure interpretations, caſie even & perſpicuous of it ſelfe, fitted for the vſe, capacitie, & inſtruction of the ſimple and ignorant, who are not capable of obſcurities.
But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine, direct, &c as your ſelfe doth truly affirme. Appeal. p. 245.
Therefore the Article in ſaying Councels may erre in things, &c. doth meane vniverſally all things pertaining to God.
His third reaſon is in the ſame. p. 124 thus;
The Article ſpeaketh of debating and diſcuſſing,
I ſpeake of deciding and determining.
Therefore I diſſent not from the Article.
I anſwer, the 1. branch of the Antecedent is falſe. Ordeining is deciding and determining. The Article ſpeaketh of ordaining. Thus it argueth Councels may erre.
Therefore things ordained by them, not taken out of Scripture, hauehave no authoritie.
Therefore the Article ſpeaketh of deciding and determining.
His fourth reaſon is in p. 125. to this effect.
The Article ſpeaketh of things that are in Controverſie.
I ſpeake of things plainely delivered in Scripture.
Therefore I diſſent not from the Article.
I anſwer, the words plainly delivered in Scripture, muſt ſignifie things not in 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 hauehave I ended all the reaſons, which he bringeth to excuſe himſelfe, from diſſenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point, which are too weake to excuſe him, therefore I may ſafely conclude; He doth diſſent from the Church of England, touching the infallibilitie of the Church.
Now I proceed to examine whether this propoſition be true or not, and I will repeat the propoſition for helpe of memory, and this it is;
A Councell truely generall, in giving ſentence of a divinitie queſtion, cannot vary from the Scriptures.
His proofes for it, we find ſet downe in his Appeale. p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture; the former on this wiſe;
They to whom the ſpirit is promiſed, to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving ſentence of a divinitie queſtion, vary from the Scriptures.
But to a Councell truly generall, the ſpirit is promiſed to lead them into all truth. Ioh. 16. 13.
Therefore a Councell truly generall, in giving ſentence of a divinitte queſtion, cannot vary from the Scriptures.
I anſwer, There is no whole part in this argument; Not in the propoſition, which ſuppoſeth, that
Theſe words, Ioh. 16. 13. were ſpoken to ſome which hauehave 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 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 giuegive 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 hauehave 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 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 vntounto 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 vntounto this argument, ſeeing that no proofe can be more baſe and impotent, then that which depends vponupon 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 hauehave been anſwered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full, but they were poore Divines, Mr: Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them.