IN the argument of his fift Chapter, his words stand so as if he meant to ouer­throw the Apostles doctrine concerning predestination. But his text sheweth, that he meaneth to dispute against Gods pur­pose in choosing some, and reiecting o­thers; and to declare, that God saw some cause in man why he did both: holding part with Arminius, part with the Iesuites; who make either faith or works foreseene, or mans freewill to be cause of mans ele­ction, and saluation; and say, that man is not rejected, or not chosen, but for the de­fect of his will and workes. Which is mis­liked by all sound Diuines, not because such enter into Gods secrets, but because this is diuine doctrine reuealed in the Apo­stles writings.

[Page 18]He praetendeth to consent with the Lu­therans. But Zanchius declareth that they are a bastard brood of Lutherans that op­pugne that doctrine, which is the Apo­stles, and was lately taught, by Luther, Bu­cer, and other German Diuines.

As the Pagans did attribute the causes of their calamities to Christian Religion, so saith the Mountebanke some haue attributed the troubles of the Low Countries falsly, to the dissention wrought by the Arminians. But this he speaketh out of his ignorance, not knowing the danger wherein the Low Countries stood by the practises of Barne­uelt, and other of that sect. And absurdly compareth the false doctrine of Arminius with the Catholicke doctrine of the Apo­stles, and Christians, that mislike the haere­sies of Arminius, with Pagans blaspheming our Christian faith.

Blessed be the peace-maker among men, saith the Mountebanke. But he is not the peace-maker, that troubleth the peaceable state of the Church, with his intempestiue do­ctrines of Popery: nor is it a fit meanes to [Page 19] make peace, to betray the truth of Religi­on to the publike enemies thereof. Many fall away to the Pope, but their apostacy maketh the diuision the greater, and ma­keth vp no rents, but renteth the vnity of the faith.

There is neuer a Bible-bearing hypocriticall Puritan in the packe, saith he, a better Patriot then himselfe. As if Bible-bearing were a brand of an hypocrite. By which argu­ment, either you or your man will proue hypocrites, or Puritans when you appeare in the pulpit, which is very seldome. What doe, or can, professed Papists say more? Such particoloured iacket-wearers, albeit they seeme to make a faire lustre in the packe of cards, yet are they nothing but Canarian pedants, praising and pleasing themselues, and no man else. As for Ber­tius and Barneuelts followers, they are Apo­states, and haue forsaken the faith, and so would he haue once, if mariage, and hope of preferment had not staid him. His heart is with the enemy, and if any occasion be offred, it is iustly to be suspected, his body [Page 20] will not bee long from them.

John Caluin (saith he) came after in time. So worthy Master John Caluin that famous Diuine, with this biting Canarian is but plaine Iohn Caluin: and he in his lofty conceit will be called Master Mountebanke, and Rabbi, and that is forsooth, because he teacheth Pharisaicall iustice, and such like haeresies. But why noteth he as a defect in Caluin, that he came after Luther? Doth not he come after Arminius, and betrayeth truth, as Iudas betrayed Christ?

He professeth, he will not be more tied to Caluin, then to Luther, or to either of them, more then to Bellarmine: As if Bellarmine were ae­qually to bee prized with these two Do­ctors, that were great discouerers of the Popes Antichristian haeresie and policy. We see indeed he standeth rather with Bel­larmine, then with Caluin and Luther, or Causabon, if any way they follow his squint-eyed positions. But in wars and state, if any false traitour be found flying to the e­nemy, the Marshall, where lawes are exe­cuted, ties him vp as a fugitiue, & stops his [Page 21] flight. Pag. 40. he telleth vs he was brought vp a member of the Church of England. But why then did he once determine to aban­d [...]urch of England? And why doth he now in so many points follow ra­ther Bellarmine and Arminius, then the Do­ctors of our Church?

Explaining his aduersaries doctrine, he saith they hold, that God primarily, absolutely, and irrespectiuely, did from all aeternity decree to make some vessels of honour, and some of disho­nour; to bring them vnto life, or to cast them off vnto death; to crowne them with glory, or to plunge them into destruction and hell fire. But if he were not ashamed of his owne absurd opinion, he would first declare what him­selfe holdeth, and then more truly report his aduersaries doctrine. That God did not respect somewhat in himselfe, & some­what in his ends, we deny not; neither can any doubt that all the elect were praedesti­nated in Christ; only we say he respected not mans freewill, or faith, or workes, in chusing some, and reiecting others. Se­condly; we distinguish the decree of re­probation [Page 22] from the execution, and deny that God did condemne and destroy any but for their euill deeds and deseruings. Albeit, he loued Iacob, and hated [...] they had done either good or euill, as the Apo­stle declareth, Rom. 9.

Chap. 9. He insinuateth, that Caluin taught, that God is Author of sinne, that God made the most part of the world to perish euerla­stingly, that the reprobate are incited and prouo­ked to sinne by God, that God was the Author of Iuda's treason. Damnable calumniations a­gainst that faithfull seruant of God, and borrowed from Papists, in whose steps this man doth commonly and willingly tread. I need not refute them, for that the Moun­tebanke durst not affirme them. But he that will be resolued of Caluins sincere dealing, let him read the words as he setteth them downe in his owne bookes, and consider the malice of his aduersaries, distorting his words contrary to all sense and true mea­ning.

That Peter (being elected) could not pe­rish, or that Iudas (being a reprobate) could [Page 23] not but perish, is a Catholike doctrine; vn­lesse it be an errour to hold God to be vn­changeable in his decrees, and haeresie, to hold Gods decrees to bee mutable. If the Mountebanke doth maintaine the contrary, he will discouer himselfe to be who he is, and what the world supposeth him to be.

Gods absolute decree in election and reprobation without respect to workes in man, the Lutherans, saith the Mountebanke, doe abhorre. But Zanchius de Na [...]en. Dei lib. 5. cap. 2. and in his Tract. de Praedest. Sanct. in Miscellan. doth shew such to be Pseudolu­therans, prouing that Luther and Bucer taught as he did. And that no such infe­rence can be drawne out of it, as they ca­lumniously and blasphemously doe make.

That the Church of England teacheth, that election or reprobation was decreed without respect of mens works, or freewill well vsed, this gaggler denieth. But the declaration [...]de at Lambeth, doth manifestly [...] shamelesse deni­all. The A [...]e also which this [Page 24] Church defendeth▪ refelleth his boldnesse. For Rom. 9. he sheweth, that God loued Iacob and hated Esau, before they had done good or e­uill, and that he hath mercy me for works fore­seene, but because God hath mercy on whom▪ he will haue mercy, and hardeneth whom hee will.

He addeth, that God did not call, saue▪ and glorifie Peter, without consideration of his faith, obedience, and repentance▪ nor condemne Judas without respect to his sinne: but this is the gaggling of a Goose to no purpose. For the quaestio [...]s of election and reprobati­on, and not of saluation and damnation; of which, damnation is for euill workes, and saluation followeth worckes, although not the merit of works. That our will and works goe not before election, the Apostle declareth, Rom. 9. Jt is not in him that wil­leth, (saith the Apostle) nor in him that run­neth, but in God that sheweth mercy. Ephes. 1. He saith we are praedestinated in good workes; which is a plaine [...] ▪ that good works are the eff [...]e causes of election.

[Page 25]Boldly also the Mountebanke auoucheth, that our Church teacheth, that a man truly iusti­fied & praedestinated may fal from grace, & proue not to be the child of God. A most shamelesse slander against the whole Church of Eng­land, that in the sixteenth Article by him pointed at, doth neither speak of the falling away of the truly iustified, or of such as are praedestinated. Nay contrary, in the se­uenteenth Article our Church determi­neth, first, that the decree of praedestinati­on, was before the foundation of the world was laid: and secondly, that the same was con­stantly decreed.

We enter not into search of Gods secrets, as he doth charge vs, but only learne what God hath reuealed vnto vs in his word, & what the Apostle teacheth all of vs. And this we may doe without danger; but to contest with God, and to deny what the A­postle teacheth, as the Mountebanke doth, is not only dangerous, but also impious.

That the doctrine of Gods absolute de­cree concerning praedestination to life, without respect to mens works, is desperate; [Page 26] no man that is pious and learned will af­firme: for it is the doctrine of the Apostle, of the Church, and most learned Diuines: only such desperate Papists and Arminians, as this desperate Mountebanke declareth himselfe to be, desperatly auouch vntruth. But shall we heare the profundity of this Mountebankes learning concerning praede­stination? Listen then, first, he saith what­soeuer God willeth, commeth to passe. A pro­found piece of worke, which euery naturall man vnderstandeth: and yet this naturall by consequence denieth, that they are all saued, whom God willeth and decreeth shall be saued. He doth also contradict himselfe, promising before that he would not meddle with the execution of Gods purpose.

2. He pitcheth vpon creation, and saith it goeth necessarily before praedestination; a do­ctrine most false & impious. The Apostle Eph. 1. saith, God hath chosen vs in Christ, ante mundi constitutionem, that is, before the creation. The Church of England, likevvise, Art. 17. speaking of praedestination, saith, [Page 27] it is Gods euerlasting purpose before the founda­tions of the world were laid. He should there­fore, if he cast off all piety, yet remember his subscription to the Articles of our Reli­gion, of which he so oft talketh.

Thirdly, he saith, that all being in the masse of perdition, God stretched out deliuerance in a Mediatour, the man Iesus Christ; and drew ehem out that tooke hold of mercy, leauing them that would none of him. But first, the Mounte­banke forgetteth what he hath in hand, that is, Gods aeternall decree before the world, of sauing the elect: and speaketh of the exe­cution of the decree, of which formerly he made promise to say nothing. Next he ma­keth mans will to goe before election, and to be the cause of our saluation; and not Gods election, which is the prime cause of it. The foundation of God remaineth firme, and hath this seale saith the Apostle 2 Tim. 2. God knoweth who are his. Thirdly, he contradi­cteth the Apostle Romans 9. who maketh Gods will to be the cause of our election, and not our will apprehending Gods mer­cy. 4. He saith nothing of faith, obedience [Page 28] and works foreseene, which notwithstan­ding, his consorts make to be causes of e­lection.

This is enough, saith the Appellant, to free God from being the Author of sinne. As if God by the Apostle were not freed frō this wic­ked imputation, albeit he did chuse men be­fore the foūdation of the world, & did elect or reiect according to the purpose of his wil, or men did not sinne willingly: albeit, he did elect some and reiect others. Further, if God did draw out such as would lay hold of his mercy, and damned the rest; yet seeing he knew all things before, and decreed hovv all things should be, God by the inference of this Mountebanke should be the Authour of sin and damnation for it. And if this be fate, then is the Mountebanke a teacher not only of fate, but also of much fatuity; making man to be the cause of his ovvne saluation, and God the Author of mans damnation, vvhich he vvould im­pute to others.

Justine Martyr in his Apology, speaketh a­gainst fate, as he saith, and so doe vve. But [Page 29] if election and reprobation inferre fate, as he praetendeth, then is this fatall Mounte­banke a teacher of fate, not daring to deny Gods aeternal decree of election and repro­bation, according to his owne purpose and wil. Fulgentius ad Monimū saith, iustice cannot be iustice, if God be said not to find men vniust, but to make them vniust. As if any of vs held, that God made man vniust, or as if this did follow of Gods decree of reprobation. He addeth that God doth praedestinate none to sin. But the man hath lost both shame & wit, if he say, that Caluin taught that man is prae­destinated to sinne.

Going about to define fate, the Moun­tebanke saith it is this; that they that chuse the better part, should receiue worthy rewards, and that they that doe euill, should receiue contrary rewards. But fate is not only in receiuing rewards, but in the disposition of things by a concatenation of ineuitable causes. But if it be fate that men should receiue re­wardes according to workes, then is this talker of fate chained with the bonds of fate; teaching; as others doe, rewards to [Page 30] be giuen according to works. Tortullian de spectac. cap. 2, denieth that God created his works to their destruction, and saith, that the cause of damnation, is mens peruerse administra­tion: which we also confesse. And yet ele­ction and reprobation is not for workes foreseene, as the Popish Mountebanke would haue it. With Clement also of Alexandria we deny, that God is cause of euill: and reason taught heathen men so to say. And yet if this Mountebanke should praesume to say, that God set him on to make this blind Appeale, he should vndoubtedly hold, that God is cause of euill. Ecclesiastes chap. 7. saith, God made man right, but he busied him­selfe with many quastions, as this Mountebanke doth. Nazianzen orat. 42. saith, we were made to be well and happy: and Basil in a certaine Homily proueth, that God is not the Author of euill: As if it were euill, that God chuseth some, and not others. Against vs he praeuaileth no more then if he should cast feathers against the winde. For man originally was made right and to liue well and happily: But falling wilfully from [Page 31] God, he incurred Gods wrath. Saint Paul 2 Tim. 2 saith▪ if any man cleanse himselfe, hee shall bee made a vessell of honour: but if the Mountebanke say he can clense himselfe, and hath it in his power to be made a vessell of honour, he shall dishonour his Mountebank­ship, turning plaine Pelagian. Of any thing that we say it followeth not, that man is of necessity forced to be euill, as Basil saith, for he sinneth willingly. Chrysostome saith, Iudas ranne wilfully into his treason: so of­tentimes blind and ignorant men run wil­fully into Popery and other haeresies. To conclude, Prosper de vocat. Gent. cap. 2. saith God damneth no man vniustly. But what ma­keth all this long speaking against Caluin? Doth he say, or can the Mountebanke con­clude out of his words, that God damneth any man vniustly, or is cause of euill?

Thus he wrestleth against Caluin in vaine: But his owne wicked doctrine is quickly ouerthrowne without any great wrestling. For if election and reprobation of men be made for the good vse of free­will, or workes foreseene, vvhy doth the [Page 32] Apostle Rom. 9. say, that God did before they had done any workes loue Iacob and hate Esau? And vvhy did he deny he cal­leth them for their vvorkes? Why doth he assigne no cause of election, but Gods pur­pose? In the same place he saith, God will haue mercy, on whom he will haue mercy: and Ephes. 1. that God made choice of his chil­dren before the foundation of the vvorld. Saint Austine goeth a little further lib. 15. de ciuit. Dei c. 1. vvhen diuiding all mankind into tvvo societies, he saith, The one is praedestinated to reigne eternally with God, the other to sustaine eternall punishment with the de­uill. And epist. 105. ad Sixt. God made some vessels of wrath to destruction, that hee might therein shew his power. This is also the do­ctrine of Peter Lombard sent. lib. 1. dist. 41. a. of Thomas 1. q. 23 art. 2. and many Schoole­men.

Neither is this a forraine doctrine, as is his Foppery, Popery, and Arminianisme: but the true tenet of the domesticals of faith yea, of the Church of England, from vvhich this runnegate doth vvilfully dissent. [Page 33] Art. 17. The Church saith, predestination is Gods euerlasting decree before the foundation of the world was laid: The Mountebanke ma­keth praedestination to follovv the creati­on. The Church maintaineth that we are iustified freely: This Factor for Antichrist teacheth iustification by somewhat inhae­rent in vs. The Church alloweth the do­ctrine of praedestination to be sweet, pleasant, and comfortable: Desperate Dicke holdeth it to be a desperate doctrine.

He refuseth to be tied to the conclusions at Dort: So doth also Master Alder and other Papists. But what hath he to obiect against the conclusions of that reuerend Synode, wherein his Diocesan, and diuers learned Diuines of England did sit as iudges? Is not such a blinking bayard ashamed to controle such authority? And if he can say somewhat against it, he will proue a profounder Arminian, then his fellowes. He praetendeth to follow the determinations of the Synode at London: yet I haue proued that he directly opposeth them. Further, like as Iudas betraying Christ, kissed him, so [Page 34] this treacherous runnegate praetending to praise our English Diuines, that were actors in the Synode of Dort, doth secretly buffet them, as confirming desperate do­ctrine, and false conclusions.

Rayling against our brethren in the Low Countries, he saith, our Churches disci­pline in the Synode of Dort, and other Dutch Synodes is held vnlawfull: a shameles vntruth. For in the Synode of Dort, nothing was mentioned, that condemned our disci­pline, and other Synodes established their owne orders, and spoke nothing of ours. But to him all are Puritans and enemies, that are not of his Popish cut. This is cer­taine, that neither our Church, nor any Orthodox congregation doth hold, that the reprobate and vessels of dishonour, may be purged & made vessels of honor, as he doth p. 67. This is to rake hell, and make Gods hea­uenly decrees mutable.

That Deodatus a minister of Geneua dis­sented from the conclusions at Dort, as he affirmeth, is not probable For why then did he subscribe to them? That the Church [Page 35] of Geneua should dissent from Caluin and Beza her teachers, I shall then beleeue when the Mountebanke shall shew wherein. Let the Mountebanke shew, if he can, that the learned in Schooles, or the Church in Synods maintained his Arminianisme; or op­posed, or sharpely reproued the Articles e­stablished in a Synode at Lambeth, as he boldly, blindly, and impudently affirmeth, or else he hath for euer lost his credit. And as for Doctor Whitaker of pious memory, he was a man of that sincerity and lear­ning, that none of his Arminian consorts, if he were aliue, durst encounter him in dis­putation or otherwise. As for this Mounte­banke he dares not declare all his opinions, but spuing forth his poison here and there by fragments, hideth himselfe in the con­fusion of his other discourses. Returning backe to talke of iustification, he saith, a iustified man may become like Saul and Judas. But the Church of England teach­eth not so, nor doth it hold that Saul and Judas were truly iustified: nor if he were once iustified, should he be so like Saul and Judas.

[Page 36]He inueigheth against our brethren of France, and the Low Countries, as not con­formable to vs in their discipline: Bu [...] his hatred is more to their doctrine of faith, then of discipline. This is only to make a diuision, and to stirre vp mens hatred a­gainst them, that in the end they and we may haue our throats cut for our doctrine of faith.

Of sauing by absolute necessity, without re­lation of repentance, he talketh idlely. For al­beit God saue sinners, yet he saueth none, but such as are repentant. And albeit he conferreth grace vpon men, yet he doth not grace them, but he changeth their will, and maketh them conformable to his lawes. But this is not the cause, either of mans election, or iustification; but the effect rather. Of the destruction of the reprobate, he disputeth contrary to the doctrine of Saint Austine lib. 15 de civit. Dei, and Epist. 105. ad Sixtum. Yea, contra­ry to the doctrine of his owne Fulgentius; who saith, Gods aequity maketh some to perish in hell. Nay, he doth not only resist the [Page 37] doctrine of the Fathers, but of the Apo­stle also; who Rom 9 saith God made some ves­sels to honour, some to dishonour.

THe quaestion of freewill, saith the Moun­tebank is full of perplexed obscurity. And why so I pray you? Forsooth, because he findeth not that in praedestination and sal­uation God respecteth mans freewill, or that man hath povver to resist Gods grace effectually mouing him, and such like points of Popery and Pelagianisme. But Saint Austine thought it no such mat­ter of difficulty. Neither doth our Church so thinke, determining, that man after A­dams fall cannot by force of his will and workes prepare himselfe to faith, and to call vpon God, or to doe good works. But saith he, to my capa­city, [Page 38] that is obscure, that is so much entangled with contradictory disputations. Wherein he sheweth himselfe to be a man of shallow capacity. For Papists against Scriptures, and plaine points of faith, oppose and dis­pute: and yet will not say all points of faith, which we hold against them, are obscure & perplexed. He addeth, that Bellarmine saith that concurrence of grace and freewill is a thing very difficill: the same he proueth out of Benius, Occham, Sa, and Caietan: Fit Authors to iustifie Popery, which indeed doth so neere touch Pelagianisme, that it cannot be separated from it. If the Mountebanke had not a mountaine of Popish haeresie in his braine, he would neither hold such con­clusions, nor offer to iustifie them by such Authors; all the difficulty consisting in this, how they might vphold their errours against the doctrine of our Church groun­ded on Scriptures and Fathers.

Chap. 9. pag. 1. The Gagger (he saith) had merited more at Gods hands, if he would haue beene more sparing in multiplying controuersies. And so he betraying the cause of God, and [Page 39] yeelding to his enemy, for feare of multi­plying controuersies, thinketh he meriteth much at Gods hands, as if honour were to be obtained by dishonoring and betraying the truth. If he had liued in the time of the Arrians, he would haue reconciled Catho­like Christians and Arrians, that hopeth to reconcile true Christians, and Antichri­stian Papists.

Speaking to English in French, he nei­ther speaketh good English, nor French. Nay, he speaketh not like a true Christian, denying either Arminius to be a Bontifeu, or incendiary, he should say Boutefeu, or that himselfe is a mouer of contention; and there­fore meaneth, as he saith, to haue an action of the case against the informers. But while he is fitting a case with a cockescombe for his owne crowne, let him looke to follow his Appeale more closely. The informers feare him nothing, being alwayes ready to iusti­fie their charge, and auerring confidently, that the Mountebanke in this Church, and Arminius in the Low Countries, with their intempestiue contentions, about grace, [Page 40] will, predestination, and perseverance, & o­ther points of refined popery haue kindled such a flame, as I feare will not easily bee quenched. He commēdeth himselfe much for his moderation, and dislike of multiplying controversies; So doe also other vaineglori­ous pedants: but his moderation is no­thing but treason to religion, and his dis­like of controversies a liking of Popery. Howbeit no man blameth him for his tem­per, or for saying no more, but for saying too much, and because he could not tem­per himselfe so, but that he shewed great zeale in fomenting seeds of Popery.

The controverted particulars (about free­will) as he beleeueth, are of no such great moment vpon due examination. As if he could better examine the wicked doctrine of po­pery, thē the Church of England, which art: 10. resolueth, that man after his fall cannot prepare himselfe to faith by his owne strength, or doe good workes acceptable to God: both directly against Papists, whom hee seemeth to favour. The 2. Councell of Orange c. 1. determineth, that the liberty of