A Dangerous Plot Discovered, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
| Mr. Mountague. | Ch. of Rome. | Ch. of Eng: |
| There ever was, and will be ever vponupon earth, a viſible Church, ſome-where or other, with viſible cogniſances, markes, and ſignes to be diſcerned by. viz. Gods Word preached, Sacraments miniſtred, Prieſthood, and ordination. Appeale. p. 135. VntoUnto which, complaints may be made. Gagg. p. 49. |
I HaueHave nothing to ſet downe in this point vnderunder the 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 onelyonly 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.
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 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 vntounto 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, vntounto whom complaints may be made.
Now the queſtion is truly put, the next labour muſt 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 hauehave 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. 3. where he writeth thus; The true Church is viſible. cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation ſubiected vntounto 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, Mr: 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 hauehave 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, he might as truly hauehave confeſſed. For, if the Church of England had judged, that the Church ſhould be perpetually ſo open vntounto the eye of the world, as to injoy the libertie to heare Complaints, and determine them, then it would hauehave confeſt it, and taught it, becauſe it hath taught viſibilitie in all other things that they do: and it would hauehave 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 vntounto.
He is very deſirous to perſwade the world of his agreement with the Church of England, therefore he telleth vsus, 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 ſhew his agreement with the Church of England, he muſt ſhew vsus a record for this propoſition:
There ever will be a Church, vntounto 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 make the ſubiect part of that definition. The terme Church, b…ing the thing defined, is reſtrained vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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 hauehave ſhewed.
The propoſition in queſtion is ſet downe num. 4. & 6 which is denied to be true, and that vponupon 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 vponupon, to proue that propoſition, num. 5. 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 vntounto, 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, vntounto whom complaints may be made.
In his Appeale. p. 135. he beſtoweth much labour to 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 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 vponupon 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 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 hauehave 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 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, 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 vponupon the Popes authoritie. All which is alſo declared by Biſhop Iewell in his Apologie, in divers places; ſome whereof I will repeat.
1. Wee hauehave 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 hauehave wee not departed ſo much from it ſelfe as from the errors thereof. par. 4. cap. 11. diviſ. 1.
2. We hauehave renounced that Church, wherein we could neither hauehave the Word of God ſincerely taught, nor the Sacraments rightly adminiſtred, and wherein was nothing able to ſtay a wiſe man, or one that hath conſideration of his owne ſafetie. par. 5. cap. 15. diviſ. 3.
3. We hauehave forſaken the Church as it is now, and hauehave 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 hauehave moſt ſhan… fully gone from the Apoſtles, and wee moſt iuſtly hauehave gone from them. cap. 16. diviſ. 1.
5. We hauehave 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 hauehave reſtored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation, and hauehave 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 hauehave reſtored Religion, and forſaken theſe men. cap. the laſt.
The teſtimony of this reverend Biſhop muſt be received, not as a private opinion, but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church. For, 1. he himſelfe did conceiue it to be ſo, otherwiſe he would not hauehave named his Booke; An Apologie in defence of the Church of England, which he doth. 2. This worke of his hath paſſed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church, without the leaſt blame. 3. After this long deliberation, it is reprinted, with ſpeciall direction from authoritie, and to the end it might be had in every ſeverall Pariſh in the Kingdome, which is executed accordingly.
Whervnto I will adde the neceſſity, which the church of England conceived to be of that ſeperation, which it hath expreſſed by the mouth and pen of the ſame Author, as followeth:
1. They hauehave no cauſe to call vsus 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 vsus, and to clogg and condemne our ſoules for ever. part. 6. cap. 22. diviſ. 1.
2. We hauehave 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 vsus to depart from the Church of Rome, for ſo it is written; Come away from her, O my people, that yee be not partakers of her ſinnes, leaſt you be alſo partakers of her plagues.
Anſwer to Hardings concluſion.
From whence I thus argue;
The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome, to avoyd damnation.
Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church.
And Mr: Mountague doth profeſſe himſelfe to be no Child of the Church of England. Thus he writeth. Appeale. p. 112.
I profeſſe my ſelfe none of thoſe furious ones in point of difference now adayes, whoſe profeſsion and roſolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome, the neerer vntounto God and truth. That we ought to hauehave no cōmerce, ſocietie, or accordance with Papiſts in things divine, vponupon paine of eternall damnation.
Much joy may he hauehave, in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome, I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England, and be furious with it rather then hazard my ſalvation in imitation of his good temper.
That this propoſition,
The Church of Rome is a true Church.
Is falſe and vntrue, will appeare by my anſwer to his Arguments.
Before I come vntounto 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 hauehave it. It may be the other two reaſons, which he hath for this matter, is the ground for this his abſolute perſwaſion, therefore I paſſe from this, and come to the ſecond, in theſe words;
In eſſentialls and fundamentalls they agree.
I anſwer, this is a very riddle, and no proofe. What he meanes by eſſentials, what by fundamentalls, with whom, or what they agree, he ſheweth not; nor are the things evident of themſelues. When he ſpeaketh to humane intelligence, he ſhall hauehave anſwer. If the Trumpet giuegive an vncertaine ſound, none can prepare himſelfe to battell. Let vsus 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 vntounto ſalvation. If this be his meaning, I deny that they agree in fundamentals; for in ſuch Articles they hauehave no divine faith, becauſe the immediate and formall reaſon of that their beliefe, is the authoritie of the Pope and his Councell, whoſe ſentence is humane and not divine, for want of a Commiſſion from God for that office, as hath beene ſhewed, Chap. 3.
His third proofe is comprehended in theſe words, Appeale. p. 113.
They hold one faith, in one Lord, into whom they are inſerted, through one Baptiſme.
I anſwer, this wanteth not obſcuritie; he ſeemeth to eſteeme himſelfe ſafeſt, when he is leaſt vnderſtood. I ſuppoſe he would ſay thus;
The Church of Rome teacheth the ſame faith which God reveald, and hath the ſame Sacraments which Christ inſtituted.
I anſwer, if he were as able to proue, as he is readie with confidence to affirme, I would grant him the queſtion vponupon this onelyonly reaſon.
But the ſpight is, he hath no proofe at all, and his owne word is not ſufficient, therefore we are where we were, ſee how handſomely he diſputes.
In the laſt argument, he gaue them agreement in fundamentall points of faith (that is to ſay) in ſome, not in all points, for all points of faith, be not fundamentall, himſelfe avoucheth, Appeale. p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith; a ſodaine change; there ſome, not all; here all, not ſome. The matter it ſelfe of this argument, ſhall be further handled anon, num. 13. &c.
He will ſupply this want, by the authoritie of Ianius, who is neither Papiſt, nor Arminian; his words are theſe.
The Papall Church, is a Church according to that it hath, which belongeth vntounto 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 eſſence, and may ſignifie the generall thing, wherein the Church doth agree with other ſocieties; this muſt be taken for the ſpecificall and adequate being of the Church.
Laſtly, I will willingly grant him, the Church of Rome hath ſomething pertaining to the definition of a Church, and that it is a Church according to it; and this is all he alledgeth out of Iunius, yea, I will aſſigne him, what that ſomething is, viz. It is a company of men on earth, which pertaineth to the 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 perſwade, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, hauehave beene examined, and found too weake, for his abſolute perſwaſion that it is a true Church to be grounded vponupon. Wherefore I hauehave good reaſon to conclude this point in his owne words. Appeal. p. 161.
If you hauehave 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 vponupon others.
To which I adde. If you will not be adviſed, but inſiſt vponupon ſo vaine a conceit, you do amongſt wiſe men but beate the arre, for as much as there is the deſcription of the Church in the Scriptures, and the authoritie of the Church of England againſt you, neither doth there want proofe for the ſame thing amongſt the Divines of the Church of England. But in ſtead of many, I will name onelyonly two, that is, your ſelfe, and Doctor Carleton, Biſhop of Chicheſter, no Papiſts, Arminians, nor Puritans, no ſhallow heads, that Jcumme off the ſurface, no novellers vnacquainted with old Learning, none of the brethren frantick for the holy Cauſe, but iuſt to an hayre, as your ſelfe will deſire. Thus you write:
The Pope is intereſſed in that Apoſtacie, which is a departing away from Chriſt, & his Kingdome, his doctrine, and his Scepter. Appeal. p. 149. & 150.
It may ſeeme probable, that the Turkiſh ſtate may at leaſt be aſſumed into aſſociation with the Pope and Papacie, in making vp that Antichriſt, and Antichriſtian Kingdome, or ſtate oppoſite vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vntounto Chriſt, his kingdome, and Scepter. And this he muſt doe, or els confeſſe, what he built in one place, he deſtroyeth in another. This he cannot doe, becauſe Chriſt, his kingdome, nor his Scepter, cannot be devided into parts, nor the Church extended therevnto, as vntounto parts, neither can the doctrine of Chriſt, be ſo obiected vntounto 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 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 hauehave beene. p. 65.
Touching the danger that they are in, which hauehave communion with the Church of Rome, in the Popiſh doctrine, and the receivers thereof, he writeth thus;
Theſe traps are layd with great ſubtiltie, to inthrall their ſoules, let them, at leaſt, that are ſeduced, lift vp their eyes, and ſee the ſnares that are provided to catch them, and behold the danger that is before them, if they will wilfully fall into theſe ſnares, then may they blame themſelues for their owne deſtruction. p. 63. & 64.
The damage redoundeth to the deſtruction of their ſoules.
This thing the ſimple people ought more carefully to looke to, more exactly to prevent, then any damage that can grow in their worldly ſtate. p. 43.
The meanes to be ſaved, are now taken away by theſe that are now in the Church of Rome. p. 84.
Which teſtimony, as it is free from all exception that might any wayes diſable it, ſo alſo it caries with it many circumſtances of credit, eſpecially, to Mr: Mountague, for he ſaith, Appeal. p. 69.
Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance, ſince is his reverend and much reverenced Dioceſan, his ſuperior in learning and authoritie. A thing much vrged by himſelfe. Appeal. p. 28.
VntoUnto all men, I find theſe circumſtances, yeelding credit vntounto him.
Our Church and ſtate doth take knowledge of him for learning and vertue; for it imployed him for our Church in the Synode of Dort, and that as the principall of our Divines that were ſent thither, are Mr: Mountague his owne words. Appeal. p. 69. Since that, our Church hath advanced him vntounto 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 vntounto his Maieſtie that now is, and thereby hath a Royall Confirmation and Protection.
But which is moſt of all, this teſtimony is commended by cleare and evident demonſtration, which out of the ſayd booke is thus to be framed;
Every particular aſſemblie that holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church, is no true Church of Chriſt, but an aſſembly of heretickes. p. 5.
For the Church is but one, not two, nor many. p. 4.
But the Church of Rome hath broken off this vnitie with the Catholike Church. p. 5.
Therefore the preſent Church of Rome, is no church of Chriſt, but an aſſemblie of heretickes. p. 65.
The aſſumption of this argument, he proveth thus;
The Church is one, 1. by the vnitie of the body; 2. by the vnitie of the head; 3. by the vnitie of the ſpirit; 4. by the vnitie of faith. p. 6.
But the church of Rome doth not hold the vnitie by the body. p. 8. nor the vnitie of the head. p. 13. nor the vnitie of the ſpirit. p. 19. nor the vnitie of faith. p. 22.
Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church.
Although all thoſe are neceſſarily required to proue a Church, to hold vnitie with the Catholike Church, as he ſaith, p. 6. & he bringeth proofes, that the church of Rome holdeth not vnitie in any one of them, in the ſeverall places which I hauehave 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 hauehave 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 changed that rule of faith. p. 32. & 49. For
Whereas the rule of faith was ever confeſſed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures: now in▪ the Councell of Trent, vnwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith, and ſo they teach, that the whole rule is in the Scriptures, and traditions. p. 33. 49. & 50.
Therefore the Church of Rome, holdeth not the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church.
I might adde the ſeverall proofes, which this reverend Author bringeth, to proue the ſeverall parts of this argument, but I forbeare it, becauſe the principall doubt lyeth in this, that he ſaith
The Scripture is the rule of faith. And
The Church of Rome hath changd that rule.
Which needeth no proofe, becauſe Mr: Mountague avoucheth the ſame. Appeale. p. 16. On this wiſe:
There is a rule of faith, we acknowledge it &c.
The Scripture is an exact and abſolute rule of faith and manners.
The Pope doth diſſent from, and reiect that rule; propoſeth ſome things as to be beleeved againſt that rule.
Which is no leſſe, then as if he had ſaid expreſly,
The Scripture is the rule of faith, and the Church of Rome hath changed it, & made a word of God of their owne invention.
Which are the Biſhops words in the place alledged.
In that booke is ſet downe a ſecond argument for the ſame purpoſe, thus to be framed:
They that hauehave changed the Iudge of Controverſies of faith, hauehave changed that whereby the Church is knowne to be a Church.
But the Church of Rome hath changed the Iudge of Controverſies of faith. p. 64. & 73. For,
The written Word of God doth ſuffice to end all controverſies of faith, and is the Catholike 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 vsus, 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.
VntoUnto theſe two, he bringeth a third, to this effect.
That Church wherein the foundation of the Church is changed, ceaſeth to be a true Church of Chriſt.
But in the Church of Rome, the foundation of the church is changed.
For in it the rule of faith is changed, which is the foundation of the Church. And the Church is built vponupon this foundation, that is, vponupon the faith contained in the Scriptures.
Therfore the Church of Rome ceaſeth to be a true church.
VntoUnto this teſtimony, I may adde theſe three more. viz. Doctor Reynolds in his Verſes vponupon the third concluſion, handled in the Schooles, Novemb. 3. 1579. Doctor Whitaker, in his diſputations of the Church. queſt. 6. cap. 1. and Mr: Perkins, in his Prologue to the Reformed Catholike; all which doe avouch our departure from the Church of Rome, vponupon paine of damnation.
It may be, Mr: Mountague will except againſt theſe three, as incompetent to teſtifie againſt him; for of the two firſt, thus he ſaith;
Doctor Reynolds, all his excellencie was in his reading. Appeal. p. 123. And of Doctor Whitaker, he ſaith, that he was a thorow man, and an earneſt promoter of novell opinions, againſt other learned Divines. Appeal. p. 71. And of them all three, that they were Puritans, delighting in contention.
To which, I anſwer; Theſe exceptions may truely be ſentenced by Biſhop Iewell, in his reply vntounto Maſter Hardings anſwer, the 8. Article, and the 1. diviſion, ſet downe in theſe words;
He as a man overmuch obedient vntounto his affections, breaketh vp his way with vnſavory and bitter talke; and as a Cocke that is well pampered with Garlick before the fight, he ſeeketh to overmatch his fellow, rather with rankneſſe of breath, then with might of body.
But theſe Bookes will keepe that credit, which was firſt given them by the principall Doctors of the ſeverall Vniverſities, who allowed them for Printing, and which ſince they hauehave gotten by the vſe, which the Church hath had of them, which is ſufficient againſt Mr: Mountague, whoſe Bookes were no ſooner ſeene, but they had an hundred to deteſt them, for one of our Church which did like them; but moſt of all, in as much, as they proue this their ſentence, on this manner, by an Argument vſed by the Homilie aforeſaid. p. 428.
That Church whoſe faith is erronious, that muſt be avoyded.
But the Church of Rome is a Church whoſe faith is erronious.
Therefore the Church of Rome muſt be avoyded. Which argument doth convince ſo evidently, that I preſume, he will not except againſt any part thereof; but if he doe, there is ſufficient in Mr: Mountague himſelfe, beſides other where, to fortifie it againſt the ſame. Thus he writeth, Appeal. p. 160. & 161.
The Scripture is our exact and abſolute rule of faith and manners.
The Pope doth diſſent from an reiect that rule, propoſeth ſome things as to be beleeved againſt that rule.
From whence I thus argue;
They that reiect the exact and abſolute rule of faith and manners, their faith is erronious. For
Their faith is an aberration from the Scriptures, the rule of faith. And that aberration is error in points of faith. Appeal. p. 7.
But the Pope, that is, the Church of Rome, doth reiect that rule of faith.
Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious.
Secondly thus;
They whoſe faith diſſenteth from the rule of faith, their faith is erronius. For
Error in points of faith, is againſt the rule of faith. Appeal. p. 7.
But the faith of the Pope (that is, of the Church of Rome) diſſenteth from the rule of faith. For
It propoſeth things as to be beleeved againſt that rule.
Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious.
If he reply, that all this is to be vnderſtood of ſome points of faith, not of all, of ſome part of the rule, not of the whole.
I rejoynd, his words are without limitation▪ or diſtinction; thus,
The Pope doth diſſent from, and reiect the rule of faith.
And giuegive this for proofe, namely, in that it
Propoſeth any thing as againſt that rule.
Againe, faith is one, as himſelfe truely affirmes, Appeal▪ p. 43. and the rule of faith is one, as faith it ſelfe is one. Theſe things are evident, I need not bring further proofe for them. All which being duely conſidered, I doubt not, but even Mr: Mountague himſelfe will giuegive ſentence; That,
The Church of Rome hath not the eſſence and being of a true Church.
One thing more in this queſtion muſt be remembred; Thus he writeth, Appeal. p. 83. This propoſition
We muſt for ever vponupon paine of damnation diſſent from the Church of Rome in all things, and hauehave 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 vntounto Infants to keepe them in awe, and they are ſo vſed by the way of dalliance, becauſe Infants hauehave 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) vntounto 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 hauehave not the facultie 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 giuegive 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 hauehave alledged, and all other of our Church to whom they hauehave 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 vnderunder 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.