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

THE whole Disputation following 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 , 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 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 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 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 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 Mr. 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 .

Mr. Mountague . Ch. of Rome . Ch. of Eng : In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie , there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending , hath law & right vpon his side , which we say is the Church . gagg . p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures . Cancil . Trent . ses : 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures . arti : 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes . And in doubtfull points that require determination , we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule . gagg . p. 14. 15. Generall Councils may er in things partaining to God . arti : 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters , the Church must decide and setle that doubt , by applying and declaring the Scriptures . p. 14. Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation , The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit . gagg . p. 19. haue neither strength , nor authority , vnlesse it may be declared , that they may be taken out of holy Scripture . arti . 21. Where the Scripture is hard , ( in case there be a doubt ) we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit , and that in the Church . gagg . p. 6.

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

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

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

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

The parts to be debated be three .

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

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

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

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

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

A Nunci● must goe to his Commission .

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

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

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

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

I answer , the proposition is false . I shew it by many reasons . 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place , in which respect the proposition is false , because that office is not instituted in that place . And this I take as granted . 2. At least the proposition resumes , that that office was already instituted , when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken . Which is false also , and I could shew it by many reasons ; but this one shall suffice , viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office . 3. The word heare , may be vnderstood for the common 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 ) 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.

M ▪ Mountague . The Church representatiue cannot erre in points of faith . gagg . p. 48. Ch. of England . Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God . arti : 21.

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

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

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

1. By Church representatiue , he vnderstands a Councell truely generall , Appeale . p. 121. 2. By error , he meanes an abberration from a rule . Appeale . p. 6. viz. the Scriptures . gagg . p. 13. 3. By points of faith , is meant every sentence to be assented to as true , vpon the authoritie of God the 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 ( of it ) he saith . So say they , so say we . And Bellarmines words doth shew it . Which writeth thus :

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

Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just .

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

Points of faith be fundamentall , or accessory . gagg . p. 48.

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

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

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

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

Things accessory are such as are attendants , not things principall in being or causalitie : 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 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 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 .

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 , 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 , 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 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 ) haue 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 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 ;

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 .

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 controversie . 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 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 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 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 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 , Mr: Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them .