INFORMERS.

ERRORS delivered by M. RICHARD MOUNTAGU in his Booke intituled A new Gagg, &c. and published by Autho­rity this present yeare, 1624.

MOUNTAGU.

THese Informers, in this Fron­tispice before their severall suggestions, impliedly un­dertake to make good Three Assertions. First, that what­soever They have challenged and articled against in their accusation, hath been in terminis so Delivered by [Page 2] M. R. MOUNTAGU in his book, as they have tendred it, and no otherwise. Secondly, that all particulars so designed by Them, and said to have beene delivered by Him, were Pub­lished by warrant of Authoritie. Thirdly, that all things so Published, and so Delivered, and by Themselves, the Informers, insisted on, and complained against, are Errors actuall in them­selves; and so stand resolved and accounted of in the Doctrine of the Church.

The first of these three, that is to say, Whe­ther, or not, whatsoever is so insisted on, as Er­ror, hath beene so Delivered and Published as is suggested, must hereafter bee examined in convenient Time and Place. For haply all hath not beene so by Him Delivered, as They have surmised and informed: at least, not in that sense as is conceived. They may mistake his meaning: why not? For have they assistance of Infallibility annexed unto their conceipts; especially in a prest and short style by him en­sued, and inclining to Scholasticall Chara­cter? Or they may wilfully mistake his mea­ning, to their owne advantage: for Faction and Affection are too frequently interessed in Oppositions. Or lastly, they may well e­nough bee guiltie of misreporting his words: I dare not trust their consciences in that point too farre. I know their Charitic is not too transcendent.

But for Publication by Authoritie, it may [Page 3] touch them neerer than they are aware of. It is not unknowne not Authoritie, that Puri­ritanicall Selfe-conceit, and Presumption, will square Law and Gospel too according unto that untoward Lesbian rule of their owne Pri­vate Spirit, and speciall opinion: and dare challenge any Authoritie, old or new, for Er­rors; preaching, publishing, maintaining Errors; viz. whatsoever doth not consort or run with the Tide of their Private Spirits motion. And it hath beene found by experience practised of such male-content maligners at States in being, Civill as well as Ecclesiasticall, that they seldome or never talke of anie misbe­ing, misordering, misdemeaning, in any point or case, but that ever and anon, directly or upon the By, they can lend a lash unto, or pinch up­on the credite of Authoritie, though most Sa­cred, that great Cordolium and Moate-in-the-eye unto popular irregularitie, and puritanicall pa­ritie, the Idoll of our Godly Brethren. It is more than probable, these Informers are of this stamp and making. I have bin told, and am assured, they are two Grandees of the faction; as great and turbulent, as most bee in the Dio­cesse of Norwich (which is not improbably thought to have of that Sect mo than enow.) They hold Authoritie interessed (as farre at least as connivency goeth) both for points of Poperie and Arminianisme, if they could bee proved his against whom they are objected.

[Page 4] If it had not beene their purpose thus to have grated upon and galled Authority; with little ado, by the addition of but one poor word, they might have amended and cleered all. Had the Information beene carried and conceived thus: and SAID to bee published by Authority; the Er­rors of Popery and Arminianisme, if any were, must have laid all and every one hard upon M. MOUNTAGU, interessed alone: no re­flection could have resulted, as now intentio­nally, upon Authoritie. For Publication, that gave life and living to these dangerous Errors, is said to bee precisely the Act of Authoritie; which is more than countenancing them, in my understanding; and I doubt not, according to their interpretation. Had this beene done, M. MOUNTAGU must have borne all alone: and, what had it been that Hee erred? He who may erre, (For in many things wee erre all) but will be no Hereticke, especially against the Church of England; to the doctrine whereof establi­shed, He hath more than once subscribed: and therefore disclaimeth all aspersion of Poperie, and is farther from it than any Puritan in the kingdome. He is indeed well acquainted with such Imputations, as Papist and Arminian, and I know not what, the ordinary language of of our precise Professors, against any man that is not, as themselves, MORE FURIOSO Cal­vinista. And having had this measure often meted unto him from their verie great Zeale, [Page 5] and very no-Charitie, hee could have been con­tented to have contemned their malice (the rather, because a Scold cannot any better way bee charmed than by contempt): but because Authoritie was drawne in, to lye at the stake for conniving in points so dan­gerous (but God knoweth how); he could not possesse his soule in patience, but thought him­selfe in duetie and in conscience bound to cleere those points from Error which he deli­vered, lest Sacred Authoritie might come in for Maintenance and Champetry, as they would have it. To come then to the Inscription.

Errors delivered, must be his Tenents and avow­ed Propositions, one way of these twain; eyther by Affirmation or Negation. For Errare (saith S. AUGUST. if yet our Informers and the Side regard what S. AUG. saith) est verum putare quod falsum est, falsumque quod verum est, vel Enchirid. c. 17. certum habere pro incerto; incertum pro certo, si­ve falsum sit, sive verum. Howsoever, there passeth omni modo a resolution for the thing er­red in, by Affirmation or Negation: So or not so. And therefore we cannot justly say, He er­reth, or at all taxe him for Erring, that neither denieth, nor affirmeth that which is imputed unto him; but only reporteth what he findeth. This is the case of M. MOUNTAGU in all, at least in the major part of these imputed Er­rors. Hee is but a Narrator of other mens opinions, suspending his owne judgement, [Page 6] sometime peradventure when hee should not have so done, out of a due respect unto Peace and Quietnesse in the Church, sufficiently al­ready disturbed; and not the least by these Bre­thren. and also because hee would not stirre the Hornets neasts of men affected otherwaies.

Secondly, Error is [...], respectively against something which is right; as being an aberration from a Rule. Now I demand of these so forward Informers, those delivered Er­rors by M. MOUNTAGU, and published Er­rors by Authoritie, against what common Tenent doe they offend? From what Rule are they an aberration? I doe not find it expressed by the Informers, Contrivers, or Subscribers, why, in what, against whose conclusions they are erroneous. Against some Rule of Faith they must bee, if Errors in Doctrine. I know none: I am told of none; but the private opinions of the Informers, or some Classicall resoluti­ons of the Brethren. Through all the seve­rall XXI Articles, or what you will call them, of Popery and Arminianisme, I finde no other proofe, but Ipse dixit: my words are re­lated onely, and you must take them, upon M. YATES and M. WARD'S bare words, to bee Popery and Arminianisme: for other proofe you cannot finde, nor must expect. So Ma­gisteriall are our Purer Brethren, those great Rabbines and Doctors in Israel; having annexed unto their Penns and Pulpits infallibilitie of [Page 7] judgement, (it seemeth) as well as the Pope of Rome unto his chayre. Popular Spirits have e­vermore great opinion of their owne singular Illumination. And you shall ever observe, that each simple Ignoránte, a classicall Dictator a­mongst the Covent, tendereth his owne dreames and conceipts, Simulachra modis volitantia mi­ris, no otherwise but as Oracles upon their owne bare words. And such prevailing power have they upon their Proselites (none living but Iesuites so great as they) that their Say­ings are held uncontroleable. And hence it is, that they vouchsafe us no proofe in their so many false Imputations. Better Popery, I will abide by it, than any one proposition in M. MOUNTAGU. For what difference betwixt their Dictates and Papall Decisions? an abortive Embryo of the much groned-for Monarchie of our Puritanicall Parochiall, would-be Popes o­ver Kings and Kaesars, and All that are called Gods.

Error then is ever against a rule. In points of Faith Error is, or should bee, against the rule of Faith. Scripture is, they will not deny, the rule of Faith, as proceeding from Revelation divine, the true Constat and Canon of Faith and Manners. It is granted, aberration from Scrip­ture is Error. The farther aberration, the grea­ter Error. Bring mee in any one point, or all points, to this Rule: Tye mee to it: Try mee there. Submitto fasceis, I fall downe and adore it: I would not, I will not swerve from it. [Page 8] But put the case, in application of any Questi­on unto that Rule, there be dissents; that I say one thing, the Informers another, the Colle­ctors a third: and in conclusion there bee quot homines tot sententiae; how many men, so many minds. For the true and exact decision thereof, what shall we do? First, in equity no man is to be his owne carver: and, Opinionibus vulgi in er­rorem rapimur. Popular positions are not ever passable. Nay, rather most commonly it is true, that Populus dicit, & ideò errat. Now Private Spi­rits are of much weaker assurance: therefore all that are not unlearnedly madde, or inso­lently wedded unto their owne wills, grant, that as the Church is Custos regulae; so doth it of right apply Examinanda unto that Rule. The Church universall in generall causes; each parti­cular and private Church, for speciall and parti­cular and territoriall questions and querees. These Informers against M. MOUNTAGU'S Errors, unto what Rule will they stand? or whither doe they appeale? I disclaime, as incompetent, Po­pular Cantonings of dismembred Scripture, and Private Interpretations of enforced Scripture. I will not bee put over unto Classicall decisi­ons, nor that Idoll of some mens Reformation, unto any Propheticall determinations in pri­vate Conventicles after Lectures. For when departed The Spirit of God from mee, or any o­ther conformable Minister of the Church of England, to speake unto them? But because the [Page 9] doubts hang in the Church of England, unto the Publicke Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land doe I appeale, contayned in those two au­thorised and by All-subscribed Bookes of the Articles and Divine Services of the Church. Let that which is against them, on Gods name, be branded with Error, and as Error be ignomini­ously spunged out: let the Author be censured, as he well deserveth, by Authority; if there be any thing in that much maligned book of M. MOUN­TAGU, either against the Rule immediate, the Word of God, or against the Rule applied or expounded in the Dictates of the Catholick Church in general, or the Tendries of our English Church in particu­lar. If I so be taken with the fact, or evidence be cleer against me, or I be convicted per testes ido­neos, to have erred thus, I will recall and recant whatsoever is so exorbitant; and further, will deal so with my owne writings as they did with their curious books, Act. 19. 19. Qui primas non habui sapientiae, modestiae & poenitentiae habebo secundas.

But to come at length up to, and joyne issue with this Information. Upon the Endictment, I pleade, Not guilty of both Accusations, of Armi­nianisme and Popery, and call therein for tryall for it by God and my Countrey; the Scriptures, as the Rule of Faith; the Church, interpreting and applying that Rule from time to time, a­gainst all Novellers: and signanter unto this English Church, against Forreyners. Dare any of the Brethren joine issue with mee upon this? [Page 10] Abs (que) hoc. They dare not. But to close with them first in Generall, then in Particular; for Arminia­nisme at large, & Arminianism in the several parts.

I disavow the name and Title of ARMI­NIAN. I am no more Arminian than they Gomarians; not so much in all probabilitie. They delight, it seemeth, to bee called after mens names. for anon they sticke not to call themselves CALVINISTS: which Title, though more honorable than Gomarian or Ar­minian, I am not so fond of, or doating upon, but I can be content to leave it unto those that affect it, and hold it reputation to bee so instiled. I am not nor would be accounted willingly ARMINIAN, CALVINIST, or LUTHE­RAN, (names of Division) but a CHRISTI­AN. For my Faith was never taught by the doctrine of men. I was not baptized into the Beliefe, or assumed by grace into the Family of any of these, or of the Pope. I will not pin my Beliefe unto any mans sleeve, carry he his head never so high; not unto S. AUGUSTINE, or any ancient Father, nedum unto men of low­er ranke. A CHRISTIAN I am, and so glo­ry to be; only denominated of CHRIST IESUS my Lord and Master: by whom I never was as yet so wronged, that I could relinquish wil­lingly that royall Title, and exchange it for any of his meniall servants. And further yet I doe professe, that I see no reason why any mem­ber of the Church of England, a Church eve­ry [Page 11] way so transcendent unto that of Leyden and Geneva, should lowt so low as to deno­minate himselfe of any the most eminent a­mongst them. But as those two Townes and States, next unto God, have stood by suppor­tance of the Crowne of England, for esse and benè esse in Temporalibus; so likewise if CHRIST IESUS must needs be divided, both One and Other, even the most eminent in one and other, ought to take name rather and denomination of Us or some of Ours, than wee be nickna­med ARMINIANS or CALVINISTS of some of them. Indignor, I avow for my owne part, to doe it; and will not doe my mother that wrong to admit it, nedum to seeke it.

Againe, for ARMINIANISME, I must and doe protest before God and his Angels, id (que) in verbo Sacerdotis, the time is yet to come that I ever read word in ARMINIUS. The course of my studies was never addressed to moderne Epitomizers; but from my first en­trance to the studie of Divinity, I balked the ordinarie and accustomed by paths of BA­STINGIUS'S Catechisme, FENNERS Di­vinitie, BUCANUS Common places, TREL­CATIUS, POLANUS, and such like; and be­tooke my selfe to Scripture the Rule of Faith, interpreted by Antiquitie, the best Expositor of Faith, and applyer of that Rule: holding it a point of discretion, to draw water, as neer as I could, to the Well-head, and to spare labour [Page 12] in vaine, in running farther off to Cisternes and Lakes. I went to enquire, when doubt was, of the dayes of old, as God himselfe dire­cted me; and hitherto I have not repented me of it. I have not found anie Canon, Order, Act, Direction in the Church of England a­gainst it; for it I have found many. I never held it wisedome to tyre my selfe with ha­ling and tugging up against the streame, when with ease enough I might, and with better dis­cretion should, secundo flumine navigare. We know, the further the current is, the more mud­dy, troubled, and at length brackish the water is. [...], Hym. 2. CALLIMACHUS said well,

If ARMINIUS in Tenents agreeth unto Scripture plaine and expresse: if he hath a­greeing unto his opinions the practice, tradi­tion, and consent of the ancient Church, I embrace his opinions; let his person or pri­vate ends, if hee had any, alone: I nor have nor will have confarreation therewith. If CALVIN, so farre in account and estimati­on before ARMINIUS, dissenteth from Anti­quity and the universall ancient Church, I follow him not. No private man, or peculiar spirit ever did, or ever shall tyrannize upon my Beliefe. I yeeld only unto God and the [Page 13] Church. Nor doe I wrong CALVIN, or a­ny other in this, more than they have wrong­ed the ANCIENT FATHERS. So much in generall for ARMINIANISME: now to particulars imputed by the Informers.

INFORMERS.

TOuching the Doctrine of Finall Perseve­rance, these are his words: As S. PETER was a private man, Christ did pray for Him, that though his Faith fell totally for a Time, yet it might not fall eternally. CHAP. 8. FOL. 64.

MOUNTAGU.

TOuching the doctrine of Finall Perse­verance, I took not upon me to Touch it, much lesse to Determine it all. I doe not there mention it, or meddle with it. I grant, these words remembred by the In­formers, are found in my Booke in the quo­ted place of fol. and chapt. and mo words than these, to make up a perfect period; which they have dismembred to their owne behoofe. My words indeed are these. Your Masters (and my [Page 14] addresse is unto the Gagger touching his Ro­mish Teachers onely) consider S. PETER two wayes, even in this Prayer made for him by our SAVIOUR. as a Private man, as a Publicke person; or, as they love to speake, as Head of the Church. As a private person, CHRIST did pray for him, that though his Faith fell totally for a time, yet it might not fall eternally and for ever, as IUDAS failed and fell: and hee was heard in that he prayed for. These are my words in publick Record. But can you say they are mine in due consideration, that is, ex animi sententiâ delivered? For all have reference, by as good Logick as ever PETER RAMUS taught you in Cambridge, unto those words, Your Masters, &c. and so, [...], as Artists speake, must all and every passage be concei­ved. Not any man but Partiaries would have taken them spoken Dogmaticè, in course of de­termined resolution: but Diegetice, by way of Narration onely; reporting the proposals of some Romane Disputers, not my determination for and in the point. But let them bee mine absolutely every way. Yet secondly, any in­genuous Reader might conceive, that they are not Assertive, thus, His Faith did fall: but only Suppositive, Though his Faith did fall. In effect thus: To put the case that S. PETER fell a­way totally for a Time, from GOD and CHRIST, in denying CHRIST; yet hee fell not finally and for ever: for he recovered footing and [Page 15] fastnesse againe, and held it out constantly un­to the last, Why this, admitted an Error, should bee reputed an Error of mine, I cannot see. For though it be Published, it is not Deli­vered; onely supposed, related, and no more. It may bee a custome amongst the Informers, and others of that Tribe, to dictate to their Popular Auditories out of their Pulpits, tan­quam de tripode, though it be quicquid in buc­cam, and the same to be received upon their bare words, as divine Oracles. whereupon they need not make any suppositions, put no cases to bee demurred on, seeing they are ubique and in omnibus peremptory, resolved, and con­clusive. But with us it is not so; we are not so happy to have our bare words passe: we must prove what wee speake, and well is it if so, and then, we finde credence. They and the Iesuites are rare men, to leade mens Faith and Beleefe so in a string. In this passage against me (it being ad oppositum, and they like enough to bee demanded Proofes for what they say) all their accusations of Arminianisme and of Popery, though they bee false and slanderous, yet are they Magisteriall. You cannot finde so much as any one proofe annexed unto a­ny of the imputed Errors, or brought in to manifest, Ideò this or that is an Error. Their Stile runneth, These are his words: or, Thus he writeth, &c. supposing all men will, at least should, take it upon their words, That what [Page 16] hee so writeth, is an Error. Such Illuminates are our Classicall Brethren. May they be in­treated a little to descend from this their Chaire of Infallibility, and yeeld somewhat, according unto reason, by producing that Rule against which touching Finall Perseverance, the words produced, if so be they are mine every way, to all intents and purposes, doe offend, and for which they may justly bee stiled Er­rors. The Rule produced; upon tryall and ap­plication, M. MOUNTAGU must eyther stand or fall. Till then, he appealeth to all indiffe­rent censures, for suspension of their judge­ments concerning Errors thus by him Delive­red and Published by Authority.

In the Interim, to come somewhat neerer unto the Error heer informed against. Doth ARMINIUS maintaine touching finall Per­severance, (you must tell mee, my good Infor­mers, for I have not read him) that sometime the Called and Elect of God, the Chosen ones and Iustified by Faith, such as S. PETER was, though they doe fall totally for a Time, shall yet recover necessarily againe, and not fall a­way finally, or for ever? If this be Arminia­nisme, and so his conclusion, then therein He holdeth with ARMINIUS. But I have bin assured, that ARMINIUS did hold as the Lutherans in Germany doe, not only Intercision for a Time, but also Abscission and Abjection too, for ever. That a man Called and Iustifi­ed [Page 17] freely through the grace of GOD in CHRIST, might fall away again from Grace Totally, finally, and become a cast-away, as IU­DAS was, for ever. For S. PETER (upon admission of this Passage, as your selves have related it in your calumniatory Information) by M. MOUNTAGU'S conclusion, did not, could not fall finally; for CHRIST prayed for him, that he might not fall; and CHRIST was ever heard in that hee prayed for. So that out of your owne mouthes M. MOUN­TAGU is acquitted of Arminianisme: for if He say any thing to the point, it is, that S. PETER could not fall finally from Faith, nor lose it for ever irrecoverably. For, say you, These are his words, Though S. PETER fell to­tally, he fell not eternally, that is, hee recovered and persevered unto the end. and so touching finall Perseverance, at least, He teacheth, in your own confession, no otherwise than your selves do. Thus Pure malice and indiscreet zeale make men many times lose their witts they know not where.

I adde, if M. MOUNTAGU be an Armini­an, you are rather Papists: for I demand, In de­nying and forswearing CHRIST, did S. PE­TER fall, or did he not fall? If abnegation, and abjuration, and execration will inforce a fall, he did. Now if he fell, he needs must fall totally or finally: for Cedo tertium, a man falleth not, who is not off or down from the Place [...] [Page 20] Grace. Multi dantur ad gratiam recessus: hee that falleth to day, may rise againe to mor­row, hold out unto the end, receive the reward of Righteousnesse, in finall Perseverance bee crowned with glory and immortalitie. I say no more than you have subscribed if you look unto it: Artic. 16. After we have received the HOLY GHOST, wee may DEPART FROM GRACE given, and FALL into Sinne, and by the grace of GOD wee may arise againe, and amend our lives, Artic. XVI. Nec beatum dixeris quenquam ante mortem; quamdiu enim vivimus, in certamine sumus: quamdiu sumus in certamine, nulla est certa victoria, was Catholick Doctrine of old.

But heer also, as in the former passage, these Informers mistake me for their owne advan­tage: for I speak but only representatively, ac­cording to the opinion and Tenent of the Ro­man Schooles. I appeale unto their Honesty, at least wise Knowledge; are not my wordes laid downe directly thus? For in YOUR opi­nion, Iustifying faith may diminish, and may be a­bolished and lost. Now Iustification being in an instant, &c. If in their opinion it may be lost, namely faith which justifieth; then Iustificati­on, which is an Effect of faith, may also bee lost; and may bee recovered after such losse. For things transitory are in a like habitude un­to being, and not being; may cease to be, and be againe. After such losse of Faith and Love, transitory in their opinion, they againe may re­vert [Page 21] and finde a being, but yet still in their o­pinion. So all heer Delivered, Errors or not Errors, so or so, is still in their opinion, not the iudgement specified of M. MOUNTAGU. My goodly Brethren, this is no faire play, to fasten that on me, as my Assertion, which precisely I relate from anothers mouth; which I remem­ber not but as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and upon that their Doctrine by Them maintained, by Him related, doe inferre against a Papist, a plaine Non sequitur from his owne Tenents, unto an inconsequent Argument by Them inferred and opposed against the true and Catholick doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, touching Iustification by Faith alone.

INFORMERS.

ANd againe: Some hold that Faith may be lost totally and finally, which is in­deed [Page 22] the Assertion of Antiquity. The Learnedst in the Church of ENGLAND assent unto Antiquitie in that Tenet: which the Protestants in GERMANIE maintaine at this day, having assented un­to the Church of ROME.

MOUNTAGU.

A Ntiquum obtinent: These men are still the same; Calumniators, and runne still along with all one indirect dea­ling. Their Information in direct tearms stan­deth thus: To make report, and no more but to make report of Arminianisme (if yet it be Arminianisme which is reported) is, in point of opinion, to bee an ARMINIAN; in point of Arianisme, with these men, to be an ARIAN: for M. MOUNTAGU in this case hath done no more. The very suggesti­on, as it is by themselves heere rendred, how­soever patched up of shreds cut out from se­verall parts, and laid together againe for most advantage to their calumniation, will yet speak no further, but onely to this purpose. For themselves set it down, in stile not of Position but of bare Narration, with these tearmes of Some hold; It is the assertion; The learnedst as­sent unto, &c. So that admit the points related were pure-pute Arminianisme, yet so long as the Relator passeth no consent upon them (I [Page 23] appeale unto your owne, though never so much Cheverellized consciences, my good Ca­lumniators) can there be inferred a just accu­sation? If so, upon as good ground, in these tearmes, I can informe against the most pre­cisest Puritan in the Kingdome, for as good Popery as any BELLARMINE hath; any, for as perfect blasphemy with the Tongue, as ever The foole said or conceived in his heart. I demand, can you finde any assent of mine annexed? nay, finde you not rather assent denied? Have you not read in that Passage these words, which any honest plaine man would have cast into the Information, but your selves; I DETERMINE nothing in the que­stion POSITIVELY? If you did not see nor reade them, your eyes were not your owne. If you read them, but marked them not, your wits went on wooll-gathering at that instant. If you read and marked them, and yet did conceale them, what became of your honesty in the interim? You foully a­bused the world with false Informations. Your deserts therefore I meddle not with: onely I observe two pretty Presbyterian tricks of Le­gerdemaine; First, to alter the property, by changing the state; as if it were asserted and assented to, which is barely related, and no more. Secondly, to conceale that which is Positive, and would discharge M^r. MOUN­TAGU from your calumniation, and leave a [Page 24] just taxation upon your selves. For hee that professeth Hee doth not DETERMINE, as M^r. MOUNTAGU in expresse and precise words doth, in my Logick, cannot bee said to consent nor concurre in opinion for him­selfe, but meerly suspendeth his judgement in the case, and leaveth it indifferent, and as he found it.

But this is not all. I must yet convent your honesty somewhat further. You have laid together into one Cento things broken and dismembred like ABSYRTUS'S limbs; such as in my Answer unto the Gagge do not cohere nor ensue, nor follow instantly upon each other. If the Gagger or his Copesmates had dealt thus with me, I would have cast in their teeth forgery and false-play, and what not? But you (my deare Brethren) are men of another stamp (and yet hard to say, whe­ther barrell better herring), I hope you did it out of simplicity, with a good charitable pure intent to promote and set forward the Holie Cause; not of Puritanicall refined malice. So I take it. And yet for my owne discharge (Charity, you knowe, and practice, beginneth at home) take it not ill, if I lay your dealing to open view.

The Romish Gagger, whosoever he was, laid downe his Proposition, as hee would have it conceived, against the approved and established Doctrine of the Church of England; not against [Page 25] any either private fancie, or more publick o­pinion of any Faction on foot, or Sect prevai­ling in the Church of England: yet that hee might play fast and loose (a fashion ordinary with those of his party), hee proposeth the imputation in ambiguous & involved tearms. In my Answer, because I would draw the Question unto an issue, and rightly state it, I was to difference Opinions confounded by the Gagger, which in and touching this Sub­ject are not a few, concerning the losse of, and falling away from faith; and therefore in the conclusion came home to distinguish them thus: Some suppose that Faith cannot bee lost either totally or finally: some, that totally, but not finally: some, that both totally and finally; which is indeed the opinion of Antiquity and of your Schooles. Some, perceiving the Current of judge­ments, for the losse thereof both totally and final­ly; and withall considering the, at least, probabi­lity of Scriptures therefore, put-in a new distin­ction of God and Man, of first and second causes of Iustification. Having reported these distinct and severall opinions of elder and moderne Divines, without naming the Parties, which I could have done without inlarging upon Particulars, no difficult thing; I demand of the Gagger, who in ambiguities lurketh post aulaea, Which of all these waies will you have the Proposition to be understood, that Faith may bee lost, &c? and so come up unto him thus: You [Page 26] meane, it may bee lost both totally and finally in regard of GOD, who made no such absolute irre­spective decree; as also in respect of second causes, in man, without man, about him, against him. All this is there, as any man may perceive, by way of bare narration. And then, for my owne opinion, I conclude thus: I DETER­MINE nothing in this Question POSITIVE­LY; that is, neither for TOTALLY not FINALLY, nor TOTALLY and FINAL­LY; nor, nor TOTALLY nor FINAL­LY; not with reference unto GOD, unto Man, unto second Causes; but leave them all as I found them, unto their AUTHORS and ABETTORS: resolving upon this, Not to go beyond my bounds, the consented, resolved, and subscribed ARTICLES of the Church of England: in which, nor yet in the Booke of COMMON PRAYER and other DIVINE OFFICES, is there any Tye put upon me, to resolve in this much-disputed Question, as these Novellers would have it: for, if there be any, it is for possibility of totall fal­ling, as we shall heare anon. Thus standeth this Passage dismembred, mis-shaped, and abused by my Opposers to their advantage and small re­putation, for dealing in the case so insincerely and calumniously in their Informations.

And concerning the Particulars; Wherein? whom have I mis-reported? If I can bee con­victed, I will reverse it. They will not con­test [Page 27] for the Roman Schooles, I know; as little for the Lutherans, I suppose. It is confessed on all hands, that they hold falling from grace, and losing of faith had, and detest the contrary opinion as hereticall. For the Tenet of An­tiquity I cannot bee challenged. S. AUGU­STINE, and after him S. PROSPER, af­firme more than M^r. MOUNTAGU hitherto hath done. Lib. de Bon. Persev. CA. 6. Si autem regeneratus & justificatus in malam vitam suâ voluntate relabitur, iste non potest dicere, Non ac­cepi; quia ACCEPTAM GRATIAM DEI, suo in malum libero AMISIT arbitrio. Ibid. CA. 13. Credendum est, quosdam de filijs perditi­onis, non accepto dono persever andi usque in finem in fide, quae per dilectionem operatur, incipere vi­vere, & aliquandiu IUSTE & FIDELITER vivere, & POSTEA CADERE, &c. IDEM de Civ. Dei. XI. XII. Licèt Sancti de suae Perseve­rantiae praemio certi sint, de ipsâ tamen Perseve­rantiâ suâ reperiuntur incerti. Quis enim homi­num se in actione profectúque justitiae perseveratu­rum usque in finem sciat, nisi aliqua revelatione ab illo fiat certus, qui de hac re justo latentique judicio, non omnes instruit, sed neminem fallit? PROSP. Resp. 7. ad Cap. GALLORUM: Ex REGENERATIS in CHRISTO IESU quos­dam, RELICTA FIDE & pijs moribus, APO­STATARE A DEO, & impiam vitant in suâ A­VERSIONE finire, multis (quod dolendum est) probatur exemplis. But the greatest question will [Page 28] be concerning the Learnedst in the Church of England, said to consent unto Antiquity in this case of falling away from grace. Where first I will not deny, but that Many in the Church of England, reputed learned, are of that opinion, that Faith had cannot be lost. But if it shall ap­peare, that the contrary Tenet is the PUB­LICK DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of England, then I have not wronged private men, in making this comparison between them, and Those whom themselves will acknowledge to be their Superiours both in learning and au­thority. Now, to give them all due satisfaction, which may thinke themselves wronged by my comparative speech, I argue as followeth.

They were the learnedst in the Church of England, that drew, composed and agreed the ARTICLES in 52. and 62. that ratified them in 71. that confirmed them againe in 604. that justified and maintained them a­gainst the Puritans at Hampton Court; that have read and subscribed them at their Induction unto Benefices, and Consecration unto Bishopricks; that penned the Homi­lies read in Churches.

But all these have, and all such doe assent un­to Antiquity in this Tenent, and subscribe it truely or in hypocrisie.

Therefore I may justly avouch it, The lear­nedst in the Church of England assent therein to Antiquitie.

[Page 29] The Major I suppose no man will question. The Informers themselves are peradventure within that Pale. The Minor I make good particularly, and will prove it accordingly ob­signatis tabulis. In the forenamed XVI. ARTI­CLE we reade and subscribe this: After that we have received the HOLY GHOST, wee may DEPART AWAY FROM GRACE, and FALL into Sinne, and by the Grace of GOD we may rise againe, and amend our lives. Now let me ask the question, Have you subscribed this Article, or have you not? If you be Beneficed men, you have read it and subscribed it, professed your assent and consent thereto, before GOD and his CHURCH, or else by Act of Parlia­ment you have forfeited your spirituall promoti­ons, and are deprived IPSO FACTO within two moneths. If so; then have you subscribed that Arminianisme which you impute as an Er­ror unto me. Haply you will be of his minde, one of your Tribe, who when he was told what hee had subscribed (for, poore ignorant man, he understood it not) protested he would teare his subscription if he could come by it; and so would have lost his Benefice: which few of you will doe, if it be a Good one, for conscience sake; marry for a Poore one you will not stick. Haply you will quarrell the Sense of the ARTICLES: but then you must remember, that the plaine words sound to the meaning for which I have produced [Page 30] them, and that untill the CHURCH it selfe expound otherwise, it is as free for me to take it according to the letter, as for you to de­vise a figure. The ARTICLE insisteth up­on men Iustified, speaketh of them after Grace received; plainly avoucheth, They may fall away, depart from that state which once they had, they may by Gods Grace rise againe, and become new men: Possible, but not Cer­taine or Necessary. But the meaning by you assigned cannot be good, being allied unto the stocke you are: for by your Tribe, the true meaning of the ARTICLE, and the Doctrine there Delivered and Published by Authority, ey­ther originall or derived, primary or seconda­ry, was upon this very point challenged as un­sound, because against the current of their In­stitutions. And had Arminianisme then been a nickname, the challenge without doubt had fastned there: but challenged it was in this Sense as Vnsound at the Conference of Hampton Court, by those that were Petitioners against the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England. And being so challenged before His sacred Majesty, was then and there Defended, maintained, avowed, averred for True, ancient, justifiable, good and Catholick, by the greatest Bishops, and learnedst Divines then li­ving in this Church, against that absolute, ir­respective, necessitating and fatall Decree of your new Predestination; stiled by you, The Doctrine [Page 31] of YOUR DIVINES, commonly called CALVI­NISTS: as indeed it is YOURS, being never heard of in the world but of late; but stiled then and there by the Lord Bishop of London, D^r. BAN­CROFT, in publick audience, with much vehe­mencie, without any check, dislike, distaste, dissent (for we reade of none) a desperate doctrine of Pre­destination. At what time also that Reverend Prelate, and most accomplished Divine (whose memorie shall ever be pretious with all good and learned men) the late Bishop of Norwich then Deane of PAULS, D^r. OVERALL, upon some touch, by occasion of mentioning the ARTI­CLES of LAMBETH, did relate unto his most SACRED MAIESTIE those concertations which himselfe had sometimes had in Cambridge with some Doctors there, about this very point of Falling from Grace; and that it was his Tenet, and had beene, That a justified man might FALL AWAY FROM GRACE, and so ipso facto incur GODS wrath; and was IN STATE OF VVRATH and DAMNATION, untill he did recover againe, and was renued after his fall. At which time, that Doctrine of the Church of England then quarrelled, now stiled Arminianisme, accused of Noveltie, slandred as pernicious by these In­formers and their Brethren, was resolved of and avowed for True, Catholick, ancient and Ortho­dox, by that Royall, Reverend, Honourable and learned SYNOD. The Booke is extant (pub­lished by warrant, and re-published by com­mand [Page 32] this present yeer) of the Proceedings at that Conference, which will averre all that I say for truth against you heer. See the Book.

And for explication of that Authorized and Subscribed doctrine, there is an Homilie in the Booke of Homilies first composed and publi­shed in King EDWARD'S time, approved and justified in Parliament in Queene ELIZA­BETH'S daies, and Authorized againe of late to be read in Churches, entituled OF FAL­LING AWAY FROM GOD. Which ve­ry TITLE is sufficient warrant for the Do­ctrine or Error in this point imputed to M. MOUNTAGU. But that which is Delivered in the Homily, will justifie Him unto the full: for the Homily doth throughly and wholly in­sist upon the Affirmation, That FAITH once had may againe be LOST. Out of the first part of that Homily, you may take this (my good Informers) for your edification: Where­as Page 54. of the last Edition. GOD hath shewed unto all them that TRU­LY do BELEEVE his Gospell, his face of mer­cy in CHRIST IESUS: which doth so en­lighten their hearts, that they be TRANSFOR­MED into his Image, be made PARTAKERS of the heavenly light, and of his HOLY SPI­RIT; be fashioned unto him in all goodnes re­quisite unto the CHILDE of GOD: So if they doe afterward NEGLECT the same; if they bee unthankfull unto him; if they order not their lives according to his doctrine and example, [Page 33] and to the setting foorth of his glory, hee will TAKE FROM THEM his holy word, his KINGDOME whereby hee should raigne in them, because they BRING NOT FORTH THE FRUIT that he looked for. Can your Learning and Understanding make any other construction of these words, than that a man may FALL away FROM GRACE; become NO childe of GOD at all? If you can, ad­vance, and teach mee that which passeth my poor apprehension. They were TRULY cal­led, that did TRULY beleeve; they were ju­stified by faith, that were so called, as I con­ceive it; that beheld the face of GOD'S mercie in CHRIST; that had their hearts so en­lightned with GOD'S SPIRIT, that they were meerly transformed from Darknes unto Light, into the Image of GOD reformed. If these be not attributes of Justified men, good Sirs teach us some new Divinity: yet in the Doctrine of the Church of England expoun­ded in this Homily, these men may prove un­thankfull, negligent, and lose the Interest they had in that his Kingdome of grace by his holie word. And yet further, in the second part of this Homily wee are sent unto a conclusion more ad oppositum, not onely of TOTALL Lapse for a time, but also of FINALL Se­paration, and for ever. Which is also accor­ding to the doctrine expressed in the ARTI­CLES: for he that saith, A man may fall a­way, [Page 34] and may recover, implieth withall, that some men may fall away, and may NOT recover; which the Homily declareth thus: They shall be NO LONGER governed by GOD'S HO­LY Page 57. SPIRIT: they shall be PUT FROM the GRACE and BENEFIT which they had, and EVER MIGHT have enjoyed in CHRIST: they shall be DEPRIVED of the heavenly light and LIFE which they had in CHRIST while that they abode in HIM. They that thus fall away unto the state of damna­tion, were TRULY justified: for it is said, They were in CHRIST; they continued some­time in CHRIST: for they abode in him. But yet this is not all: for it followeth, They shall bee GIVEN UP unto the POWER of the DIVELL, who beareth RULE in all that are CAST-AWAYES from God, as he did in SAUL and IUDAS. I suppose this is plaine and home enough.

If you be acquainted with the LITURGY and publicke religious SERVICE of our Church (as to your shame few of you and your Divines are or will be, unlesse it bee to oppose and cavill at it), there you shall find al­so as much as Falling from grace commeth to. In the Forme of holy Forme of private Bap­tisme. Baptisme we are taught (otherwise than your Masters teach), that eve­ry child which is duly baptized, being before borne in originall sinne, and in the wrath of God, is now by that Laver of Regeneration received into the [Page 35] number of the CHILDREN of GOD, and HEIRES of EVERLASTING LIFE. For our Lord IESUS CHRIST doth not deny his GRACE and mercy unto such infants, &c. So heere they bee put into the state of GRACE. And lest it should be left to mens CHARI­TY (as you use to tell the world), wee are there taught earnestly to BELEEVE, that CHRIST hath favourably RECEIVED these infants that are baptized, that he hath EMBRA­CED them with the armes of his mercy, that he hath GIVEN unto them the BLESSING of E­TERNALL LIFE; and out of that BELIEF and PERSWASION, wee are to give thankes faithfully and devoutly for it, &c. To make which doctrine the more sure against all Novelists, it is againe repeated in the Catechisme, to the end that children might likewise bee noursed up in it, and taught, that Catechisme answ. 2. in their Baptisme they were made the MEMBERS of CHRIST, and the children of GOD, and that Rubrick be­fore the Cate­chisme. it is CERTAINELY TRUE by the Word of GOD, that children being baptized have ALL things necessary for their salvation; and if they die be­fore actuall sinne, shall be UNDOUBTEDLY SAVED. According whereunto, all S. GREG. NYSSEN o­rat. de baptism. S. LEO de nat. Christ. serm. 5. OPTAT. cont. PARM. l. 5. TERT. de baptism. cap. 5. S. CYP. ep. 59. & ep. 2. CONCIL. CARTH. apud S. AUG. ep. 90. Quicunque negat parvulos per Baptismum Christi à perditione liberari, et salutem percipere aeternam, ANATHEMA sit. S. AUG. epist. 157. S. CHRYS. hom. 40. in 1. Cor. PROSP. de vocat. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 5. S. BASIL. lib. de Baptismo. S. AMBR. de poenit. lib. 1. cap. 7. et ALII. Anti­quity hath also taught us. Now let this bee acknowledged to bee the doctrine of our [Page 36] Church, that children duly baptized are put into the STATE of GRACE and SALVATI­ON (which you see you cannot, you must not deny), and both your and my experience will shew, that many so baptized children, when they come to age, by a wicked and leud life do fall away from God, and from that STATE of GRACE and SALVATION, wherein hee had set them, to a worse STATE; wherein they shall never be saved. If you grant not this, you must hold, that all men that are bap­tized are saved; which I know you will ne­ver doe.

To make an end then. In my judgement this is the doctrine of the Church of England, not delivered according unto private opinions in ordinary Tracts and Lectures, but delivered publickly, positively, and declaratorily in Au­thenticall Records. And you cannot bee ig­norant (for it is still extant upon Record) that your prime Leaders have understood the Te­net of the Church of England to be as I have reported it, and accordingly they have com­plained against it (as you have against mee), and objected it as one of their reasons why they refused to subscribe. Let there then be added EXPRESSE SCRIPTURE, EZECHIEL XVIII. XXIV. and a common UNANIMOUS S. HIERON. cont. Iovin. l. 2. S. AUO. de cor. & grat. c. 8. IDEM. ep. 59. et ep. 107. S. PROSP. ad cap. Gallor. p. 99 S. BERN. ep. 42. et alibi saepissi­mè. S. CYP. l. 1. de unit. Eccl. S. ATHANAS. cont. Arrian. rat. 4. S. BAS. ep. ad Chilonem. FATHERS expounding that and other pla­ces [Page 37] of Scripture (which consent our Church doth by open profession maintaine in these Cap. de Conci­onatoribus. Canons which she set forth to be subscribed unto, together with the XXXIX. Articles, An­no M. D. LXXI) and I see no reason, wherefore I might not have been as confident in maintai­ning falling away from grace, as you and your Divines are upon weaker grounds in defending the contrary. But I have ever bin solicitous to preserve peace, and to give as little occasion of disturbance thereof unto distempered hu­mours, as was possible. Salus Ecclesiae non ver­titur in istis: and therefore I thought it not tanti; and being not urged upon necessity in my Answer to the Gagger to handle this que­stion otherwise than I did, I suspended mine owne judgement, and lay off aloof in a kind of neutrality. Neither doe I now say more than I am urged to doe by the PLAINE and EXPRESSE words of our ARTICLES and Doctrine publickly professed and established in our Church; which I hope your selves will give mee leave to doe, the rather, because I knowe you have subscribed the same with your Hands, though what became of your Hearts in the meane time, I cannot tell.

INFORMERS.

THe whole XXI. chapt. of his book savoreth strongly of ARMINIANISME: wherin de­praving & odiously reporting the Doctrine of OUR DIVINES commonly called CALVI­NISTS, and declaring himselfe to consent with the LUTHERANS; in this point he hath these words: That PETER was saved, &c.

MOUNTAGU.

MAy not your Sense deceive you in the Savor? The Object we know is of­ten represented unto the Sense, not as it is, but as it seemeth. If your Sense be out of frame, the Savor of Arminianisme may de­ceive you; and you may strongly sent that which is but weak. Now who can help this? [Page 39] Touching this point, I beeleeve, because Iusee the experience; such as your selves can not re­lish nor savour any thing but only GOD'S se­crets. For you, and men of your Company, are never at quiet with GOD'S Arcana Imperij; can never let his eternall Predestination alone. The most ordinarie Theame of your (as I am given to understand) and their popular Prea­chings, is touching that comfortable Doctrine of Election and Reprobation. M. MOUNTAGU rubbed somewhat upon this sore, thus: That Men in Curiosity have presumed farre upon, and waded deepe into the hidden secrets of the Al­mighty. And you, amongst others, being galled, as guilty have winched at it. and hence it is that He seemeth so strongly to SAVOR of Ar­minianisme, who would not have you meddle beyond your Modell, but keepe and containe your selves within the bounds of Christian sobriety and moderation, and savor of S. PAUL'S counsell, Sapere ad sobrietatem.

He savoreth of Arminianisme: but how AR­MINIUS savoureth, we shall smell it if we can, and find it at leasure. For, having but named Him, you fall hote upon Lutheranisme, and of M. MOUNTAGU'S consent with Them: as if Ar­minianisme & Lutheranisme were two words of one signification; or in this point Lutherans and Arminians were divided; or as if in your heate you rambled up and downe, and could not well resolve what to fasten on. Will you [Page 40] have the Imputation runne thus: The XXI. chap. savoreth strongly of Arminianisme, and, He de­clareth himselfe therein to consent with the Lu­therans; two severall acts upon different ob­jects? Or shall it be, that He savoreth so of Ar­minianisme, because he declareth himselfe to con­sent with the Lutherans? If Lutheranisme and Arminianisme be distinct, heer is an Error com­mitted by these Informers against Error, that I am not presented upon point of Luthera­nisme in the Title, as well as upon point of Arminianisme. If not different but the same, Lutherans were in being and in name, when ARMINIUS was not hatched, nor in the shell. And if it be an Error of ARMINIUS, which was the Positive Doctrine of Lutherans and LUTHER before ARMINIUS was born, why is ARMINIUS entituled unto that which is none of his, but M. LUTHER'S? Why is M. MOUN­TAGU accused of Arminianisme, said to savor of Arminianisme, rather than of Lutheranisme? both in this being one and the same thing. There lyeth heer a padd in the straw. I can ghesse at the cause: a tricke of your Brother­ly charity. Because LUTHER'S opinions were not Dangerous; but ARMINIUS errors are Dan­gerous. For we are told in their Insinuati­ons, that THIS Arminianisme hath infested, and had brought into great perill, the STATES of the Vnited Provinces, if the KINGS MAIESTY, by his gracious care and providence, had not helped to [Page 41] quench the fire. Scilicet, as of old the Pagan I­dolaters accused Christianity of all those ca­lamities which befell mankinde, Postquam esse in mundo Christiana gens cepit, as ARNOBIUS speaketh. Blessed bee the PEACE-MAKER a­mongst men: the Generation of that faithfull One shall be ever blessed. And blessed be that MAN of PEACE in ISRAEL for ever. The reward of the righteous rest upon his Royall Person and Posterity; and the faithfull promise of that GRAND-PEACEMAKER betwixt Hea­ven and Earth, be sevenfold returned into his bosome, whose Princely care and providence is not confined within the surroundry of the foure Seas, but enlarged ultra unto his neigh­bours, those Vnited Provinces, primarily and be­fore all. But for this particular, Sirs Infor­mers, can you speake upon knowledge (for I must confesse my ignorance and small intel­ligence in matters of this kinde, both for acti­on and speculation) that there was no other Snake lurking in covert? nothing else but the simple difference about these School-points of Predestination, Freewill, Finall Perseverance, which had so almost indangered the state of those V­nited Provinces? Did no craftie Interloper (are you sure of that?) put in his Stocke among those brawling Bankers? Did no wiser men or man worke upon, perhaps, exasperated mindes, or exasperate minds to worke upon, as it hath hapned elsewhere, in points of controverted [Page 42] Divinitie, called into question or maintained on foote, that Religion may serve for a stal­king horse to catch fooles, and be pretended to serve turnes? Surely those very points being Scholasticall speculations meerly, and as farre from State-businesses, as Theorie is from Pra­ctice, are not of themselves aptae natae to breed dangers: Those so dangerous opinions in the Netherlands, have beene as freely quarrelled and as fiercely pursued in the Vpperlands, of as long time, without all danger but of Tongue­tryall. And why should they be so dangerous heer? Those Classicall projects, Consistoriall practices, Conventuall designes, and Propheticall speculations of the Zealous Brethren in this Land, doe [...] aime at Anarchy, po­pular confusion; Dangerous indeed to Prince and people. State Civill and Ecclesiasticall may well come under this Information, as be­ing active in Front, and not onely upon the Reare. Why informe you not against the Fomenters of them? Would you not take it ill if your selves were traduced as Dange­rous indeed, who do more than upon the Bye incline unto them? But I am loth to touch heer, or to meddle beyond my slipper. The State is not the Subject of my Profession. I pray for the prosperitie of Prince and Polity, but let their courses alone to whom they concerne. I excuse not ARMINIUS or Arminians in any misdemeanor. onely let not [Page 43] Innocency in different Opinions, bee calum­niously traduced without cause. M. MOUN­TAGU, in his owne particular, is knowne, hee giveth GOD the praise therefore, to better than your selves, or any of your Sect, be they who they will bee, to foment neyther Faction in State, whereof he is incapable; nor Schisme in Church, whereto he is not inclinable: having all his Studies addressed, and Prayers directed to one end, to make up, if it were possible, the rents in the Garment of CHRIST IESUS, the breaches and ruines in the CHURCH: for which cause it is apparant, They cannot en­dure Him, Quibus quietamoveri magna merces: and live well, fare full and fatt by Fishing in troubled waters. There is One GOD, One Faith, One Hope, One Baptisme: not dividing, but composing Christ in his Members and Profession.

Comparisons are odious, yet sometime ne­cessary. Gall and Vineger are corrosive, but must sometime bee used. There is never a Saint-seeming and Bible-bearing hypocriticall Puritan in the Packe, a better Patriot everie way, than the man that hath Delivered such dangerous Errors. Your goodly glozings, and time-serving colludings with the State, are but like Water-men upon the Thames, looking one way, rowing another way. Your Holy cause, you see, will not succeed by opposition, there­fore you come up, and seeme to cloze with [Page 44] the Church of England in her Discipline, to use the Crosse, and weare the Clothes: but for her Doctrine you wave it, preach against it, teach contrary to that which you have sub­scribed: that so through FORRAINE DOC­TRINE, being infused secretly, and instilled cunningly, and pretended craftily to bee the Churches, at length you may winde-in with FORRAINE DISCIPLINE also, and so fill Christendome with Popes in every Parish for the Church, and with popular Democraties and Democraticall Anarchies in the State. God di­vide you first in IACOB, and scatter you in IS­RAEL. In this present Passage, who or what directed you, writing in, and beeing of the Church of England, unto this Division of OUR DIVINES commonly called CALVINISTS, and Lutherans, as membra dividentia and ad opposi­tum? YOUR Divines, forsooth. Of what Li­very are you, or those YOUR Divines? Sepa­ratists from others, Singular, a Part, a Faction, a Division; or else, why YOUR Divines? Are not You and YOURS, Divines of the Church of England? If not; what make You med­dling, nestling, roosting heer? Hy you hence to the Brethren of AMSTERDAM, where YOUR Divines are, if there be any such. For there they say all religions may be met with: if a man have lost his Religion, there he may finde it: there are all Divines, the Divels and all. If yea; what make you with that Title [Page 45] of OUR Divines? why divide you non divi­denda? Mine and Thine, Yours and Ours, are not for Vnity; are not, or should not bee heard or once named in the Church of Eng­land. The Divines heer, are, or should be all of them Divines who hold, or should hold and maintaine the Doctrine established, and commanded to bee taught in the Church of England; which was never taught nor direc­ted by the precepts, or wills, or fancies, or factions, or forgeries of men, and is not to be stiled Lutheran or Calvinian, but by such onely as mean to set up ALTAR against AL­TAR, and to foment a Schisme in the Church. Such be YOUR Divines it seemeth, who are cut out into Division: Into their Secret let not my soule enter. I am none, I professe, of that Fraternity, no Calvinist, no Lutheran; but a Christian. This I Declare, not that which you calumniate, that I adhere, first unto them, con­sent unto them, All of them, and Only to them infallibly, who have been in their seve­rall times [...], taught of GOD; and [...], enspired by GOD: secondly, unto those that are [...], their true Successors, and [...], their Lieutenants; and so [...], observers of the Rules and Tra­ditions enjoyned of old according to deducti­on from that Prime Rule, interpreting the HOLY SCRIPTURES, the Rule of faith, in places controverted and obscure (which is e­ver [Page 46] in points of lower alloy), not according to the fancy and most-what presumption of some one man, delighting commonly to op­pose and thwart the streame of Antiquity, but according to the sense and meaning of those Times that drew water neerer unto the Well head, that is, to the APOSTLES, and their Successors immediately.

As for consent with Lutherans, I doe no where declare it. Shew me the place where I preferre them, commend them, once name them to this purpose. You never were so pri­vy unto any thought of mine, that you could speake what I thought of them: concerning whom, I wish that they were men of more al­layed spirits and calmer temper than they are, or doe shew themselves in opposition. And yet why may I not in some things as well, as soone, as lawfully consent unto them, as unto YOUR DIVINES, the commonly called CAL­VINISTS? IOHN CALVIN came after in time, and was but a Secondary unto MARTIN LUTHER; entring in upon his Labours and Reversions: and why should he challenge a­ny priviledge of preferment above MARTIN LUTHER, that I may not as well and lawfully declare my self for the one, as for the other? In this Church and Kingdome, doth any Rule, Canon, Law or Authority, tie or command me to reverence the one above the other? to fol­low the one rather than the other? I may, [Page 47] why not? consent with the Lutherans, rigid or mollified, in some things against the Cal­vinists; and in some other differenced opini­ons with the, YOUR Calvinists against them: why not? who tyed mee more to the one, than the other? or to eyther, more than to BELLARMINE in some things against them both? Truth hath latitude and extension. No man that I know of, hath infallibilitie from errors assigned unto him ex asse. Truth is truth whosoever speaketh it: and S. AUGUSTINE did embrace it from TYCHONIUS a Donatist in one particular, rather than the Tendries of Catholick Authors. What if I went thus far, or did so much declare my selfe to favour the Lutherans against YOUR Divines? Have I therein broken any Statute? transgressed any Canon? offended against Law? opposed Or­der? neglected any Authority? If I have, Declare against mee: let mee answer for it. If none of these take notice of YOUR Divines, what are private mens opinions unto me, who may bee as free in my opinions, as they are in theirs? But I doe not, as you informe, De­clare any such thing: for, to Declare impor­teth a publicke Act, an assent upon acknow­ledgement. Doe I in this CHAPT. professe correspondency in the point controverted with Lutherans? Doe I any where, with them or others, beside the Church of England, the ab­solutest representation of Antiquitie this day [Page 48] extant? What that Church beleeveth, I be­leeve; what it teacheth, I teach; what it reje­cteth, I reject: what it doth not tender, I am not tyed unto. I was bred a member of the Church of England, brought up a member of the Church of England; therein, by the meanes and Ministery of that Church, I received that Earnest of my salvation, when by Baptisme I was inserted into CHRIST. In the Union and Communion of that Church I have lived, not Divided with Papist, nor Separated with Puri­tan. Through the assistance of the grace of GOD'S Spirit, which is never wanting unto a­ny that seeke Him, I hope to live and dye in the Faith and Confession of that Church; than which I know none, nor can any be na­med in all points more conformable unto pu­rest Antiquitie in the best times: which I trust to make good against any and all those Bre­thren in evill, Papists and Puritans, whosoever: who looking and running two severall waies, doe like SAMPSON'S foxes joine together in the taile. If there bee in any writing, preach­ing, saying, or thought of mine, any thing De­livered or Published against the Discipline or Doctrine of THIS Church; I am sory for it, I revoke it, recant it, disclaime it. Vultu laedi­tur pietas; if I have done so in any thing unto my Mother, in all humilitie I crave pardon, and will undergoe Penance. But the presump­tions of servants, are not the Lords directions. [Page 49] Every one that prateth, readeth, lectureth, prea­cheth or professeth, must not look to have his Theses, Lectiones, Harangues or discourses taken as the Dictates or doctrines of our Church. Our Mother hath sufficiently made knowne her minde in her publicke, promulgated, au­thorized ARTICLES and COMMUNION BOOK; with those other, to which we have all subscribed, that are publickly interessed in the Priesthood and Function of this Church. Hic rhodus, hic saltus. These are those Passa­ges, at which IEPHTHA'S souldiers are to try the lisping EPHRAMITES in their Sibboleth. If heer I be concluded with that absolute De­cree of Predestination, I yeeld. If no such Pre­scription or Tye be imposed, then [...], by your leave, ringantur the Faction: I minde (I may so doe) to continue in the o­pinion I am of.

YOUR DIVINES, as you stile them, con­cerning Predestination, beleeve and teach, That in the order of the causes of salvation and damnation, Almighty GOD, primarily, and absolutely, and IRRESPECTIVELY, did from all eternity decree and resolve; and semblably brought it so to passe in time, concerning ge­nera singulorum and singulos generum, to make them vessels of honour or dishonour, to bring them unto life, or cast them off into death, to crowne them with glory and immortality, or plunge them into destruction and hell-fire [Page 50] for ever. To bring this his Decree and un­changeable purpose to passe, it was necessary he should, and so hee did, purpose, and so ef­fect the creation of man and all mankinde, necessarily also, unto life or death. So that the major part of mankinde by farre, perishing everlastingly from GOD, did so perish, because GOD had decreed irreversibly and irrespec­tively, that they should so perish, and indeed made them that they might so perish inevita­bly. For the will of GOD is the necessity of things, say YOUR Masters out of S. AUGU­STINE mis-understood. This is no malicious relating of the doctrine of YOUR Side, that delight to be stiled Calvinists. The first coun­sell, purpose, and decree of GOD was thus: Before the works of his hands of old, meerly and irrespectively to declare his power (I can­not say his justice) and what hee might and would doe upon his creatures, for his glorie sake, hee made the wicked AGAINST, nay FOR the day of vengeance. The meanes to bring this his purpose to passe, was Creation; and the cause of his creating man, was to effect it. Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum DEI decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquo­que CALVIN, Instit. 3. 21. 5. homine fieri vellet. Non enim PARI condi­tione CREANTUR homines: sed alijs vita aeter­na, alijs DAMNATIO aeterna PRAEORDINATUR. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque CON­DITUS EST, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad MOR­TEM [Page 51] PRAEORDINATUM dicimus. Hanc Deus non modò in singulis personis testatus est, sed spe­cimen ejus edidit in totâ ABRAHAE sobole. Vnde palàm fieret, in ejus arbitrio esse qualis cujusque Gentis futura sit conditio. Thus the Founder of your fancies, in expresse words. Can you find this so ruled, so taught, so prescribed in our Church? or articulated unto our Teachers? Predestination unto life (saith the XVII Article) is that everlasting purpose of GOD, whereby, be­fore the foundation of the world was laid, he hath constantly decreed, by his counsell secret unto us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST, out of mankinde, and to bring them BY CHRIST, unto everla­sting salvation, as vessels made to honour. In which, the Church speaketh onely unto Elec­tion; toucheth not upon Rejection, Reproba­tion, or Desertion and Dereliction rather: and in that also goeth no further than ad Esse rei; First, that there is a Predestination by GOD unto life. Secondly, that it was an Act of his from everlasting. Thirdly, that he foun­ded it, and resolved for it, in the Man and Mediatour CHRIST, both for the purpose and performance. Fourthly, that it is and was of some speciall ones alone, elect, called foorth, and reserved in CHRIST; and not generally extended unto all mankinde. Fiftly, the which purpose and counsell of his is like himselfe, unchangeable, done according to the counsell [Page 52] of his will. This is all that I can finde tou­ching that Purpose and Decree of GOD. Then ensueth concerning the putting it in practice and execution; in their calling by grace, justi­fication freely, and adoption of sons; in con­formity to Christ, study of good works; and then, when these are done, to finall consum­mation in glory. All which I constantly pro­fesse and beleeve: and I adde, that according unto this Doctrine, a curse is presupposed, a state of damnation and wo intended; out of which they are delivered, whom hee electeth in CHRIST: into which how they came, how they were plunged, the ARTICLE doth not speak. YOUR Teachers declare expressely, it was GOD'S positive, peremptory, prime, ir­resistable Act: they were cast into it by GOD irrespectively, because he would doe it: they were thereunto appointed by himself, for him­selfe, and his own pleasure; and being so appoin­ted by his will, were ABSOLUTELY NECES­SITATED thereunto, that they could not pos­sibly resist his will, alter his purpose, prevent his Decree, nor avoid the effects of his pleasure. For aditum vitae PRAECLUSIT, exitio DEVOVIT. Sect. 7. Now, what inferences and hideous Ibid. consequences will ensue, the Papists and Lu­therans doe not spare to speak, and presse to purpose: and you cannot avoid, to my poor understanding, their conclusions. The Church of England is not heerto liable; cannot bee [Page 53] charged with it; must not, for YOUR sakes, be put to avow or justifie it, which in wise moderation sitteth downe by this Temper; To have GOD'S promises in such wise received, as they be GENERALLY set forth to us in holy Scripture, and doth not insolently presse into GOD'S Secrets.

INFORMERS.

IN this point he hath these words: That PE­TER was saved because God would have him saved Absolutely; and resolved to save him so, Necessarily; because hee would doe so.

MOUNTAGU.

IT is true, in this point I have these words indeed; not as mine, but as yours. For, re­lating the doctrine briefly of YOU Calvi­nists, as you are and would be called, I propose it exemplified, as you use it, so. but withall I added, which is also your Doctrine, and I go no [Page 54] further there, that IUDAS was damned as ne­cessarily, because that GOD, as absolute to decree, as omnipotent to effect his decree, did primarily so resolve concerning him, and finally so conclude as touching him, WITHOUT RESPECT of any thing but his owne will. Is not this the manifest, di­rect, plain, and expresse doctrine of Him, whom you professe to follow? of whom you glorie to be denominated? Nothing is by me ascri­bed unto your Side and YOUR Doctors, but an absolute and irrespective necessitating De­cree concerning man in utram (que) partem, and con­cerning all the effects of Predestination. I brought no inferences to presse you withall; such as are commonly and odiously made a­gainst you by Opposites; Papists, Lutherans, Ar­minians, or if there be any else, whose virulent invectives and strange, though too true, imputa­tions I like not, I used not. I did not charge you with making GOD the AUTHOR OF SIN; nor that GOD, who calleth himselfe, as he is, the Father of Mercies, made the greatest part of mankinde, with intent and purpose, to PE­RISH eternally; to DAMNE them for ever in­to, and in Hell fire. That every man is, as he is Predestinate, a Sinner or Beleever, NECES­SARILY, unavoideably. That the Reprobate are incited on, and PROVOKED to sinne by GOD. That GOD was the Author of IUDAS treason, and the like. None of these dropped out of my pen against you: therefore that De­pravation [Page 55] of YOUR Doctrine, or odious relating of it, [...]? That which I relate, is confessed by your selves, That PETER could not perish; IUDAS could not but perish. Whether this be good Catholick doctrine, I did not touch.

INFORMERS.

BUt I make the world beleeve, that the Church of England doth oppose the do­ctrine of absolute and irrespective Election, which the SYNOD of DORT concluded upon and determined; and that it agreeth with the Lutherans in this point.

MOUNTAGU.

DOE I make men Beleeve it? How can you tell, that the world is so perswa­ded through my words? It is probable enough that the world thought so, and Belee­ved so, before that my name or the Gaggers came into play among you, or were heard of in the world. And for the Lutherans, this is all I say; The Lutherans abhorre it. It, that is, That opinion, as I then spake indefinitely, not imposing it on you, or YOUR Divines: as gently as I could, as tenderly as was possible. And I pray you, for the Lutherans, is it not so? [Page 57] out of your knowledge or heare-say, doe not they detest it, as horribiliter in DEUM contume­liosum, & generi humano perniciosissimum? and that so farre, with such vehemency (as their custome is, in every thing to be vehement and violent) that they sticke not to professe, they will rather come off roundly unto Poperie a­gaine, than joine with YOUR Divines upon a­ny termes, in these Questions of Prescience, Perseverance, Election, and Reprobation. where­in they say, that by your Tenents, Non Diabo­lus, sed DEUS erit AUTHOR mendacij: GOD, not the Divell, is made AUTHOR of sinne.

But concerning the Church of England's con­senting with the Lutherans, your Glosse cor­rupteth my Text. I say no such matter. That which I say, is this. The Gagger objecteth un­to us, as held by us, that which you call the Doctrine of YOUR Divines. My answer there­to, is Negative: Abs (que) hoc, no such matter. For the Lutherans in Germany doe detest and ab­horre it: the Church of England hath not taught it. And yet this is not enough to in­ferre, that we consent with the Lutherans, ey­ther in their Abhorring and Detesting of it, or in those Opinions which they hold against it; except there could be given, Nihil tertium. I adde: The Church of England doth not Beleeve it: and why may I not say so, except you shew the contrary, or bring me forth a Creed, a Canon, a Conclusion in being, for Be­leeving [Page 58] it, in the Church of England? What our Church resolveth touching this, is [...] re­solved in the XVII Article: the very words of that Article being expressed in termes, as farre as concerned that Decree. But touching the execution of that eternall purpose, both for in­choation by Grace here, and consummation in Glory hereafter, thus much is tendred in the selfe same place and Article: Therefore they that be endowed with so excellent a Benefite from GOD; be called according unto GOD'S purpose, by his Spirit working in due season. They through GOD'S grace obey that calling: they be justified freely: they be made sonnes of GOD by adoption: they be made like unto the Image of his only be­gotten Sonne IESUS CHRIST: they walke reli­giously in good works; and at length by GOD'S mercy attaine unto everlasting felicity. In all which passage, both containing GOD'S Decree, and execution of that Decree, is not one word, syllable, or apex touching your absolute, neces­sarie, determined, irresistable, irrespective Decree of GOD, to call, save and glorifie, S. PETER for instance, infallibly, WITHOUT any CONSIDE­RATION had of, or REGARD unto, his FAITH, OBEDIENCE, REPENTANCE; and to condemn IUDAS, as necessarily, without any RESPECT had at all unto his SINNE. which, say I there, and I say truely, is the private fancy of some particular men: and, as I conjecture, you are professedly of those SOME. And whereas you [Page 59] would make the World beleeve, that Ecclesia An­glicana Calvinistat; as if he were the father and founder of our Faith; as if our Beleefe were to be pinned upon his sleeve, and absolutely to be taught after his Institutions: shew mee good warrant for it, and I yeeld. I may ra­ther say, that the Church of England hath op­posed this doctrine, because that many of the Learned (your selves will not denie) in that Church, and most conformable unto the Dis­cipline and Doctrine of the Church, have mainly opposed it: and the Church it self hath directly and in EXPRESSE words overthrown the ground therof, in teaching thus: that a Iusti­fied man, and therefore Predestinate in your doctrine, may Fall away from GOD, and there­fore become, not the Child of GOD. The truth is, our Church, in these deepe and high points, hath in great Wisedeme and Prudence, gon on warily and suspensely; not presuming, [...], (as you and YOUR Divines have done and doe) to conclude upon GOD'S Secrets: not straightning & narrowing of mens consciences, by determining, specially in those Mysteries, at which that great Apostle stood at gaze, with [...]: and, [...]. and, [...]; Would you and your Party bee advised; I would counsaile you that, which I desire to follow in this particular my selfe.

I must confesse my dissent thorough and sincere from the Faction of novellizing PU­RITANS; men intractable, insociable, incom­pliable with those that will not aedificare ad dissensiones; but in no one point more, than in this their desperate doctrine of Predestina­tion. In which as they delight to trouble them­selves and others; in nothing more: so I professe I doe love to meddle nothing lesse. I have not, I did not desire, nor intend to de­clare my owne opinion in that point (ever­more with reservation of my dutifull consent with and unto my Mother): for I needed not doe it, being not forced so to do in fol­lowing of the Gagger: but because I am chal­lenged for Dangerous Doctrine therein by the Informers, and for Arminianisme or Popery, or I knowe not what; I shall as I can briefly, and plainly without scholasticall obscurities, set downe what I conceive of this Act of GOD [Page 61] (setting by all execution of purpose) or De­cree of Predestination. Take it as I conceive it, and so shall professe it, untill I am infor­med and ascertained, that the Church of Eng­land, whereof I am a member, beleeveth and teacheth all otherwise than I conceive of it.

First, whatsoever GOD willeth, cometh to passe in Heaven and in Earth. [...] is pos­sible with him. If it bee [...] once, or [...], it is also [...], or shall bee in due time. For ac­cordingly as he willeth things should, so doe they come to passe. And as they do come to passe in due time, so he would have them be­fore all times so come to passe. The one is Originall of the other: and the one is Evi­dence of the other. GOD'S Decrees are eter­nall, from everlasting, as all his purposes are, as himselfe is; like himselfe, who is Tota simul & perfecta possessio sui. So, as in Him conside­red, there is nor prius nor posterius of his de­crees: but considered in effects, and quoad Nos, one thing may be said to be first, second, or third; in nature, time, and being; before, or after another. GOD being sibi solus, [...], from everlasting, alone himselfe, and beside himselfe nothing, the first thing he did, or possibly and conceiveably could doe, was to determine to communicate himself, and did so accordingly, primò, primùm, communicate himself out of his Alonenesse everlasting un­to somewhat else. For Communication is an [Page 62] Act of Goodnes, the prime attribute of God respectively; as even the Heathen man could say, Deus est optimus & maximus, & quidem prius optimus quàm maximus. All communica­tion CICERO, I. de Divin. is, and needs must bee conceived to bee, at least, betwixt two; being an effluxe, ema­nation, issuing from, and motion betwixt tearms. GOD alone could not communicaie se, sua, or de suis, but by producing an Object communica­ble, to whom or which hee might impart as, and what, he pleased. Which, when nothing was at all but himselfe, must and doth put us up­on another purpose and Act of his, to Create; which is, framing of something out of meer nothing: nor can possibly any other Act, or resolution and counsell, prevent this, much lesse that of Predestination, yet unheard of. As is the Cause, such is the Effect; especially, a To­tall, Sufficient, Immediate Cause. The Crea­ted was then, and could not be but so, like the Creator, that is, good: and accordingly wee have that Elogium Creaturae, ALL things were exceeding good. But Good is, and must be of a double alloy; Changeably, or else un­changeably good. Thus good, is onely GOD; without beginning, not to have end; with­out change or shadow of change. Man thus made by GOD good, as otherwise than so he could not be, was yet made by him changeably good: in as much as, that being created, o­therwise than so, hee must not nor could bee. [Page 63] Good he was, but Bad he might be: Righte­ous, out of the hands of GOD; but left un­to himself, in the hands of his owne counsell, unrighteous. That, changing state of Being, if haply he should change, his alteration might be his owne Act, imputable to himselfe, not his Maker; his endowments must be such, as, un­lesse himselfe would, none else could hurt or annoy him. And such indeed they were, so sufficient in themselves, able to hold out a­gainst opposition and assault, unlesse basely and cowardly hee would betray the Fort upon summons of a Foe. Thus he did: so he ser­ved himselfe. Using his freedome of will not well as he ought, he lost his freedome, undid himselfe, and his whole race then in his loins. EVE took up sinne from the divell upon lone: ADAM by Consent acknowledged the band, & usura crevit Posteritas. For being the root and originall of all mankinde, hee received what he had, for himselfe and his; and lost what he forfeited, for them all. Falling thus from GOD, hee fell not alone: his posterity were together with him plunged into one bottom­lesse pit of perdition, and masse of damnation, through their owne fault. Thither they fell: not there were they put. GOD made not man unto destruction: much lesse did he make him to destroy him. As GOD'S Acts are in Pro­duction. so were they formerly in Intention. But Creation was before Fall or Restoring: [Page 64] therefore so was it also in GOD'S purpose. Thus farre we have gone, and not a word of Predestination: for how could it bee in a Pa­rity? There must needs first be a dispropor­tion, before there can bee conceived Election or Dereliction; unto which we are now comne in the masse of perdition, as they call it. Wherein all alike beeing plunged actually, GOD passeth by, looketh on, considereth in­tuitively, once, at once, singulos generum, gene­ra singulorum, in that very wofull plight. Hee had compassion on them: so EZECH. phraseth it. XVI. When he saw them in their bloud; and out of his mercy, in his love, motu mero, not otherwise, stretched out to them deliverance in a Mediatour, the Man IESUS CHRIST, and drew them out that took hold of mercy, leaving them there that would none of him: There whither they had fallen of Themselves; not whereinto Hee had throwne them head­long, out of his meer irrespecting will, because hee would; through his absolute power, be­cause he could; with the irresistable necessitie of an inevitable Decree, creating them to pe­rish everlastingly. This is enough, absolutely to free and to acquit GOD from being Au­THOR of SINNE, which hee so detesteth; or Author of death, which hee made not; to which he is an enemy, as being Life: and from being Author of destruction, which is meerly of our selves; he being Pater misericordiarum, [Page 65] and wholly, freely, and desiredly, giving, oc­casioning, procuring, effecting our salvation day by day. If this bee Arminianisme, esto. I must professe it. [...]. For un­lesse it be so, and that, not according to unchange­able necessity, there is not any thing in our power at all, saith IUSTIN MARTYR in his Apol. Nay, [...]. If it be absolute­ly Pag. 151. edit. ROB. STEPH. determined, that one should bee good, another bad; the one cannot be approved, nor the other rejected. For, justitia non erit justa, saith FUL­GENTIUS, si puniendum reum non invenisse, Ad MONIMUM sed fecisse dicatur DEUS. But praescivit pecca­turos; non praedestinavit ad peccatum. The rea­son is irrefragable, stante the Nature of our GOD: Nunquam ad hoc hominem potuit prae­destinare, quod ipse disposuerat, & praecepto prohi­bere, & misericordiâ diluere, & justitiâ punire. [...]. But that inevitable necessity which wee have heard of, is, that they who make choice of the better part, have allotted them their portions according to their deserts. and semblably those that go on to do ill, have proportioned as­signements devised unto them. Nam si omnem malignitatem, & si tantam malitiem excogitatam, DEUS, exactor innocentiae, odit, indubitatè, quae­cun (que) condidit, non in exitum operum constat con­didisse [Page 66] quae damnat, licèt eadem opera, per ea quae condidit, administrentur. Quando haec sit tota ra­tio damnationis, perversa administratio conditio­nis à conditis, in the opinion of TERTUL­LIAN; and not any previous, NECESSI­TATING TERT. de spe­etac. ca. z. Decree. So that [...], GOD cannot be blamed nor accused, in the judge­ment of CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, because [...], GOD is no causer of what is CLEM, ALEX. Strom. 5. pa. 261 evill: which the Heathens saw and taught, as hee there at large discourseth out of them. And children have read it in the Poet,

They accuse GOD, but the cause is in themselves. Their owne disposednesse to evill, no necessitating Decree, maketh them so liable unto just punishment. As if he had read it in the wise man, GOD ECCLES. 7. 31. made man right, but he sought out many inven­tions. [...]. We were made, saith NAZIAN­ZENE, S. GREG. NAZ. Orat. 42. pa. 696. that we might be well and happy; and such we were, being made, estated in Paradise, of Felicity there to enjoy pleasure in aboundance: we forfeited our seisure, upon our owne Transgressi­on. Home, and pithily as his stile and phrase is, concise and sententious, not diffused. His fel­low and faithfull ACHATES, in course of life and studies, Great S. BASIL, hath a Sermon to [Page 67] the purpose, That GOD is not Author, or Cause S. BASIL. Hom. Quòd DEus non est Author malorum. of evill; neither poenae nor culpae, as they speak. That malum poenae is from culpa meerly origi­nally; that culpae malum is of man himselfe, [...]. not out of any posi­tive act of GOD upon him; which he instan­ceth in PHARAOH, whom GOD, saith he, found so, did not fashion or make so: and having in long suffering forborne him long, ne sic qui­dem morti illum tradidit, donec ipsemet se praeci­pitem dedit. And though we read (saith he) in the Apostle of Vessels of wrath, fitted and disposed unto Perdition, [...]. Let us not so conceive it, as if PHARAOH had been made an evill vessell: for in so saying, or opining, we transfer the fault in Him, from Him, to HIM that made him. But reading in the Text of the Apostle, Vessels, conceive it so, and beleeve it, that All we, and every one of us, were, and was made, [...], for and to some profitable and behoofefull use. S. PAUL saith, that vessels of dis­honour, if they be purged, may become vessels of 2. TIM. 2. 20, 21. honour. which were impossible, if GOD had made them so, and inevitably decreed them to continue so for ever. Therefore S. BASIL might well bid us take heede of that sense. And because ADAM was the root of all, and ADAM'S case an exemplar of all mankinde, concerning ADAM he writeth thus: Erat prius ADAM in sublimi constitutus, non loco quidem sed arbitrio, cùm statim animâ imbutus in Coelum [Page 68] laetus suspexit, & majorem in modum ob illa visa gavisus, amore ardenti complecteretur cum, cujus munere tanto frueretur beneficio, & vita donan­dus esset immortali; ubi vocis divinae et commer­cij fruitus societate cum Angelis ex aequo & Arch­angelis, aeternùm regnaret. Qui luxurians veluti prae satietate, corporea praetulit intellectualibus, at (que) ita excidit paradiso, & depulsus est spe illâ im­mortalitatis. And then concludeth: [...]. He became evill, NOT NECES­SITATED ANY WAY, but through his owne mis­advisednesse. [...]. Thus he fell to transgresse through his wicked owne-will; and because of transgression, was lyable unto death. Nor was there any absolute decree passed upon IUDAS to make him a Traytor, [...]. Of his owne proper motion he under­tooke the Treason, saith CHRYSOSTOME, to let us know, that of his owne accord and mind ther­to S. CHRYSOST. tom. 5. pa. 551. disposed, he ran headlong upon that audacious transgression, no way moved or caused, but onely that a wicked heart within Him issued out that Treason, into which he thrust himselfe. Unlesse from damned Hereticks or stoicall Philoso­phers, I never yet read in Antiquity of any prime, previous determining Decree, by which men were IRRESPECTIVELY denied grace, [Page 69] excluded from glory, or enforced to salvati­on; as they must be, that cannot perish if they would, nor can be saved though most they de­sire. DEUS quippè, apud quem non est iniquitas, & cujus universae viae misericordia & veritas; omnium hominum bonus Conditor, justus est ordi­nator. Neminem indebitè damnans, neminem de­bitè liberans. Nostra plectens, cùm punit noxios; sua tribuens, cùm facit justos. Nam nec damnati justa quer monia, nec justificati verax est arrogan­tia: si vel ille dicat, non merüisse se poenam, vel iste asserat, merüisse se gratiam: saith PROSPER and what S. AUGUSTINE taught in this point, the PROSP. de vo­cat. Gent. l. 2. world knoweth.

But it mattereth not now (as it should seem by these Promoters) what he or his compeers taught; nor much what the Church of Eng­land tendreth: we must be confined unto For­rayne opinions of some late Writers, and tyed to the Conclusions of Dort. I derogate no­thing from that Synode, nor any particular man in that Synode. For those Divines that were there of our Church, the principall of them sometime was my worthy friend and acquain­tance; since is my Reverend and much reve­renced Diocesan: the major part of them were my antient acquaintance likewise, and one of them brought up with me of a childe so that personall respects rather seem to affie me un­to that Synod. And indeed I do reverence the Conveners for their places, worth, and lear­ning; [Page 70] but I have nothing at all to doe with their Conclusions, farther than they doe con­sent and agree to and with the Conclusions and Determinations of that Synod of London, which established the Doctrine of our Church, to which I am bound, and have subscribed. If those Conclusions goe along with these, I em­brace them willingly, will stand unto them, and as I can propugne them. If they be Contra, I will none of them: if Praeter, I may choose to receive them. For I am not bound unto them: no Law directeth mee: the Church doth not compell me. The Synod was Forinsecus, and but partiall. I see no reason why any of those worthy Divines of our Church there present, should take any offence at my dissenting, who had no authority, that I know of to conclude me; more than I do at them for differing from me in their judgements. Quis (que) abundet in sen­su suo. For I am not yet acquainted with any obligatory or compulsory act for or to the contrary, whereby the Church in generall, or any man in particular, is bound or tyed to re­ceive, abbet, maintaine or beleeve all, or any of the Articles concluded on in that Synod, far­ther than they agree with the AUTHORISED Doctrine of the Church of England, whose Dis­cipline in that and in other Harm. Sy­nod. Belg. cap. 13. can. 8. DUTCH Synods, is held unlawfull. What Ends men had in that Synod, I knowe not, nor am curious to en­quire: how things were carried, I as little [Page 71] understand or care. Whether any or all subscri­bed absolutely or with protestation, I cannot tell. Let them looke unto it, and answer for it, whom it doth concerne. This I am sure; IOHN DEODATE, Minister and Pro­fessor in the Church of Geneva, and imployed unto that Synod of Dort from his Countrey, being lately with me at Eaton, professed there unto me his owne opinion in some points contrary to the conclusions of Dort; as also the dissension of their Church at Geneva, from the PRIVATE opinions (as he called them) of CALVIN and BEZA. And I am as sure, that the Church of England never so concluded nor determined it in her Doctrime. I am sure it hath been opposed in the Church of England; otherwise taught and professed in the Schooles when I was an Auditor there. It hath been prohibited to be enjoyned, and tendred, or maintained as the Authenticall Doctrine of our Church, by supreme Autho­rity, with sharp reproofe unto those that went about to have it tendred, then, when those Conclusions or Assertions of Lambeth, as they are called in the Conference at Hampton Court, were upon sending downe to the Universitie of Cambridge; likely enough to have beene there applauded by some, through the opinion of the great worth and learning that they had of the then Professor, a thorough man everie way upon YOUR Side, and an earnest Pro­moter [Page 72] of the novell opinions against other learned Divines, part dead, and yet part alive. Since which time, at the Conference of Hamp­ton Court before HIS MAIESTY by Doc­tour BANCROFT, the then Lord Bishop of London, it was stiled, against the Articles of Lambeth, then urged by the Puritans, a Despe­rate doctrine (as I take it to be) without re­proof or taxation of any. And can wee con­ceive, this should have been acted, spoken or tolerated, against a Doctrine approved by the Church of England? Besides, in all probabi­lity, the publick Doctrine of the Church of England, is not very likely to have beene, or to be upon the Party of a Faction that hath so long had a Schisme on foot against it, to bring in Genevanisme into Church and State, wholly, totally, were it possible; at least so partially, that sensim sine sensu it might creep upon us: not as once, [...] by oppo­sing the DISCIPLINE ex adverso; but by complying with That, formerly oppugned cum infortunio, to winde in with the DOCTRINE point per point: that men, being so seasoned and infected with the ONE, may at length more readily, willingly, and sooner incline un­to the OTHER. It being so in the nature of man, that opinion settled for the excellent worth, temper, desert and conveniency of a­ny one invention or proposall of some one man, men may be disposed unto him in any [Page 73] or all other things, though of another nature. Considering then your Side, your Comport­ments, your Ends, it is not in reason proba­ble, that you should have the Doctrine of the Church on YOUR Side against M^r. MOUN­TAGU; your affection to the Church, setting reason of profite and interest aside, being such as it is well knowne to be. Say I it is not probable? I say it is directly otherwise. For the Church holdeth and teacheth punctually, and that in the Opinion, and with the dislike of the Learnedst of Your Side, that Faith, true, justifying Faith, once had, may be lost, and reco­vered againe: that a man endued with GOD'S holy Spirit, and enlightned with the Heavenly light, may LOSE that HOLY SPIRIT, have that Light put out, become like unto SAUL and IUDAS; may be brought into so vile a condition, that hee shall be thought meet for no other purpose, than to be condemned into Hell. Now, to your own understanding, my good Brethren, can the Church of England be thought to patronize YOUR Predestination; and so farre to crosse and thwart YOUR Perseverance? It is your own; GOD hath appointed them to Grace & Glo­rie; GOD according to purpose hath called and justified them: therefore it is certain, that they must and shall be saved infallibly. But if the Once justified by a lively Faith, may, in the opinion of our Church, lose that justifica­tion, they are not saved by an absolute necessitie, [Page 74] IRRESPECTIVE, without relation unto their Repentance. For whatsoever thing may be o­therwise than it is, is not necessarily to conti­nue one way, and ever the same. DAVID and PETER, falling as they did, unlesse they had repented, as also they did, should have perished eternally; which, because they repented, they did not. Certissimè liberantur, qui liberantur. No man taketh CHRIST'S sheep out of his hand; none of GOD'S Elect doe perish for ever. which although it be true, it is so true, upon supposition of the meanes, Faith, Repentance, and finall Persevering in obedience: without which they are none of GOD'S Elect, nor be­longing to CHRIST; these being the appoin­ted instrumentall causes of all their salvation. as the proper immediate cause of the wicked's destruction, is their impenitencie, infidelity, and disobeying GOD: which the very Synod of Dort denieth not, that define, the wrath of GOD to remaine on them that Beleeve not: That life eternall is for them that Beleeve: which calleth them Praeteritos, or non Electos, that perish a Ti­tle that cannot accrue unto those, that, as the Doctrine of YOUR Divines was at least, were made by GOD to perish everlastingly. Quod ante Gehennam mali pereunt, non est DIVINI operis, sed HUMANI. Quòd autem in Gehenna perituri sunt, hoc facit DEI aequitas, cui placere nulla potest Peccantis impunitas. with FULGEN­TIUS so I conclude.

INFORMERS.

HE calles the Question of Freewil betwixt us and the Papists, in this point, a Questi­on of obscurity.

MOUNTAGU.

I CALL it so indeed: and in my poor un­derstanding and small capacitie, I ever took it to be a Question, at least as it is intan­gled, of perplexed obscurity. You, my good Bre­thren, as it seemeth, esteeme it not so;

—Queis meliore luto finxit praecordia Titan. You can easily foord over all the depths therof, and cleerly còmprehend all the darkest mirksom­nesse therin. Admiror, stupeo: why are you enraged against me, if I cannot attaine the measure of your transcendentnesse, but confesse my disabi­lity and imperfection? But cleere or obscure; light or darknesse in the point of Free-will, in my Opinion, what is it to Arminianisme in your information? Was ARMINIUS also in the same opinion, that the Question of Free-will was obscure? Surely so; and yet what mea­ned [Page 76] those dangers you talk of, for opposition? seeing men are not peremptory, but upon re­solution; and resolution groweth not but upon perswasion: which is ever upon evidence to the understanding. If not so; then wherein doth N. MOUNTAGU Arminianise? But esto, as you will, every way. What Error is in it? at least, what danger consequent unto Error? I should thinke it a preservative against danger rather; inasmuch as the difficulty, and obscurity pretended, will, in all probabilitie, keep men off from meddling in it above their Modell: and so, from any consequent trouble or danger, if any such can be, about it. I have not heard ARMINIUS taxed for any such assertion. which if he had held, he had beene in the right. The Question of Freewill, so canvassed and discour­sed of up and downe, is indeed a point, and so ever hath beene held, of very great obscurity; fitting rather Schooles, than popular eares or auditories If it bee not an obscure Question, what then meane those many and manifold intricated and distracted divisions amongst men touching Freewill? the nature, state, condition of it since ADAM'S fall? the power, efficacy, and extent thereof in naturall, morall, civill, di­vine, indifferent, good, bad, determined, indeter­mined acts? the concurrence and cooperation thereof with grace? the constitution and con­nexion thereof with necessity, prescience, provi­dence, predestination? the decrees, purposes, [Page 77] and will of GOD? Protestants and Papists to­gether by the eares? Papists at odds amongst themselves? and Protestants with Protestants upon no better tearms? To my capacity, that is obscure, which is so much intangled with contradictory disputations upon all hands, and so much perplexed with oppositions. BELLAR­MINE, a man, no disparagement to your worth, of as strong a braine, and piercing apprehensi­on as eyther of you, M. WARD and M. YATES, or any new upstart Master in Israel of the pack; confesseth, that the Concurrence of Grace and Free-will is Res omnino difficilis, & fortassè in hâc vitâ incomprehensibilis. which saying of his, our Bishop MORTON (I hope nor Papist nor Arminian) disliketh not: and remembreth Appeale, lib. 2. ca. 1. §. 11. withall out of BENIUS this, De modo quo libe­rum arbitrium vel movetur vel movet ad exerci­tium boni, clamant alij, rem non posse in hâc vitâ percipi, sed omnem ingenij humani captum superare. OCHAM, & SA, & CAIETANUS, & ALII. This is strange Arminianisme, is it not?

INFORMERS.

BUt M. MOUNTAGU saith, It might better have beene omitted, and over­passed in silence: especially the differences hanging as they doe upon such niceties, and the controverted particulars being of no great moment upon due examinati­on. CHAP. XVI. pag. CVII.

MOUNTAGU.

I Must and do confesse, I am of that mind, and thinke so still; that the idle fellow the Gagger had done much better, had merited more at GOD and mens hands, to speake in his owne language, and deserved better of the Church, and have done better service to GOD Almighty: as also might the major part by [Page 79] much of his Side, if they would bee more sparing in multiplying controversies and dis­putes; and so in disquieting the peace of the Church in points of that nature, which doe not so concerne the state of mans soule, or his walking in the waies of GOD'S commande­ment; or knowing of Him, the onely true GOD, and whom he hath sent, IESUS CHRIST. Now was ARMINIUS also of that opinion? If he were not, how am I or can I bee an ARMI­NIAN for this? If he were of this opinion, then hath hee been deeply wronged by you and others, that make him an Incendiary, a Bontifeu, a Flabellum of faction and sedition, so much undeservedly, in both Church and State; that charge him so deeply as you have done with troubling the Netherlands, and en­dangering that State, by moving Disputes a­bout Prescience, Perseverance, Predestination, universall Grace, Free-will, and losse of Faith. And surely M. MOUNTAGU deserved a more moderate and lesse empassioned censure, than to bee informed against for moving of sediti­on; which toucheth deep, and will beare (I trowe) an ACTION of the Case: who hath e­vermore detested that humour of Innovators, that take the disquieting of things established, a sufficient hire to set them on work; who for feare of offending that way, concealed both his owne opinion often, and sometime the do­ctrine of the Church, which haply he should [Page 80] not have done. Is hee therefore seditious, be­cause he refused to dispute, discourse or talke de omni Ente? to contest for every thing, ut pro aris & focis? to make a Case of faith or conscience, of every speculation? or because hee professeth his dislike of multiplying con­troversies in those kindes, which increase ra­ther discord and troubles in Church and in State, than serve to edification? It is strange, that for wishing, advising, and in his owne particular using and ensuing that moderation, thereby not to engarboile the Church, and disturb the course of piety, he should so, by you and yours, be blamed, accused, and tra­duced for a PAPIST and an ARMINIAN; calumniated, almost in every Ordinary, by your means, for a dangerous driver at Popery and Sedition; being with one breath, in the selfe-same points, blamed for being so tempe­rate, for saying no more; for not mooving, favouring, fomenting unnecessary quarrels and disunions, in questions of speculation and of obscurity; advising rather to reserve them for, and referre them to the Schools (though your honest simplicity, or PURE charity, thought it fit to conceale this his moderate wish or ad­vice), rather than to thunder and lighten in your Pulpits with them, [...], by buzzing them into popular eares and capaci­ties, incapacious of them, unable to compre­hend them. O vertiginem! may I not well [Page 81] say? that men should have such whirle-gigs in their brains, and be so farre at variance with their owne wits, as to imply contradiction in adjecto? to charge M. MOUNTAGU, because he had deli­vered such and such errors in Doctrine; and yet to accuse him because he misliketh the delivering of such errors. For in such and so great variety of errors or opinions touching free-will, it may be, that not one of them all is true; but that more than one of them should be true, it cannot be, as CICERO spake in another case. If, OF the CICERO de Nat. Deor. 1. defenders of Free-will, some beleeved not the ne­cessity of grace; which doctrine the IESUITES condemne of PELAGIANISME: some denied, that GOD can absolutely determine the will; and are confuted by the most part: some disliked, that GOD should bee said by his exciting grace to work physically in man; and are gaine-said by BENIUS, as therein Adversaries unto Fathers and Councels: some hold, that GOD doth not morally determine the will; and are excepted a­gainst by SUAREZ: some gave to mans will, in the Act of conversion, an equality with, yea a preeminence before grace; and are therefore con­tradicted by others, as repugnant unto Scriptures and to Fathers: and finally, some laboured to sa­tisfie all doubts concerning the concurrence of grace and will, and yet confesse they cannot assoile them; as is confessed in these many words by the learned Bishop of Lichfield, no Papist, APPEALE, pag. 214. I think, nor yet Arminian: Then (I trust) you [Page 82] will excuse me for concluding, The point of FREE-WILL is a question of great obscurity. And then, might not that Gagger have spared his paines, and well passed over this point in silence? But if your fingers did so itch to be taxing M^r. MOUNTAGU, you ought not in common honesty to have concealed his an­nexed quous (que) and limitation of the point. For he did not say, simply and absolutely, to be silenced; but onely so farre, as from propala­ting of it in popular Passages and Auditories, which are therefore unfit, thereof uncapable; not apprehensive of those many niceties and quiddities, that are so many, and almost inex­tricable in it: to be silenced in Pulpits and in popular discourses; to be discussed in Schools, which peculiarly are disposed for such purpo­ses, and intricated questions of doubts.

But haply these things came in upon the Bye, to make up the muster, and fill up the accusation of ARMINIANISME, ut quae non prosunt singula, multa juvent. That which most offendeth, and is inexpiable, followeth in the Rere; The controverted particulars are of no such great moment, upon due examination. And this is ARMINIANISME in the highest de­gree: because, forsooth, the contrary hath often passed the hedge of your teeth; you have prea­ched the contrary from your Pulpits, and of­ten proclaimed in your Lectures and Sermons, that in the point of Free-will the Church of [Page 83] Rome absolutely and wholly Pelagianizeth, are enemies professed unto the Grace of CHRIST, advancing naturall Indowments above, and pre­ferring them before Grace: that they raze the foundation, make CHRIST none, or a partiall Mediator; Man beholding to none, but to him­selfe, for his salvation; and that we must for ever, upon paine of Damnation (strange Bug­beares and Terriculamenta) dissent from them, in this as in all things else, & have no PEACE at all with them. Indeed I wrote, The contro­verted particulars are of no great moment. I meant and meane, betwixt that Church and ours, for any materiality in this point, betwixt moderate and temperate men on eyther side: such as CASSANDER for the Church of Rome; ANDREAS FRICIUS, yea and PHILIP MELANTHON for the Protestants. For it is memorable, but true, which ANDREAS VEGA hath, one of the best flowers in the garden of TRENT, Studere debemus omnes Concordiae, & Lib. 2. cap. 18. quâcunque possimus viâ, omni vi & ope nostrâ, ve­ritati favere. And therefore in this point hee proposeth a course, Si fateamur nos non habere sufficientem libertatem ad opera spiritalia, & spe­ctantia ad religionem, nisi Deus adjuvet: & eos interpretemur hac ratione dixisse eos, nos non ha­bere libertatem respectu talium operum, quia non habemus libertatem sine gratiâ Dei ad illam suf­ficientem: inventa erit prorsus ratio, quâ illi nobis­cum, & nos cum illis in hoc Articulo conciliemur.

[Page 84] The which hee the rather intended, because then the difference was not great: for so he addeth; Et quidem ita ego eos video per DEI gratiam à prioribus erroribus resipuisse, ut inter nos & illos nullam, de hoc Articulo, jam esse putem differentiam. and so goeth on to exemplification, out of MELANTHON'S Apology for the Au­sperge Confession; and the Interim presented to CHARLES the Emperor. So I thought then, and so I thinke now, and thinke I thought not then amisse. Why I did think so; I gave my reasons by speciall reciting many Concordants inter partes. For further satisfaction in that point, unto those that are not transported with Faction, I will now enlarge, to make it appeare I spake not then without reason, though I con­cealed them.

It is supposed by some, that the greatest dif­ference betwixt the Pontificians and us, consi­steth in this, that they suppose the Will of man concurreth and cooperateth with divine Grace, in the first very instant and point of Conversion: wee teach, that the Will doth not cooperate in that first point with Grace, but in progresse of our Iustification. So KIC­KERMAN in his System. pag. CCLXIII. a better Logician than Divine, as once I heard him stiled in the Schooles at Cambridge. For, that many Pontificians and wee differ not in this point, appeareth by the expresse Doctrine of many the best learned amongst them, and [Page 85] most versed in this Controversie. Bishop MAR­TINEZ relateth, that ANDREAS VEGA, as Disp. 1. pa. 1. num. 4. great a Clerke as any came to TRENT, did yeeld, that Gratia excitans was motio, quam DEUS applicabat ad bonum: that excitatur homo à solo authore DEO: that fit in homine, activum concur­sum non praebente, sed illum tantummodo recipien­te. which, to your understanding, what maine difference doth it containe against Protestant doctrine? And it is true, VEGA discourseth thus: That GOD can, vel se solo, vel nostrae a­nimae potentijs, omnes actus causare, quibus nos ad Lib. 6. cap. 8. justificationem nostram excitat. Hee disclaimeth the opinion of CAIETAN and CAMERA­CENSIS, concerning the ability of the Minde in such acts collaterally, as not to be activated unlesse it also were active, and concludeth thus: Veruntamen pensatis omnibus, probabilius videtur, à DEO totaliter, vel per seipsum, vel per Angelos suos, & semper sine nobis, produci vocationes, illu­minationes, inspirationes, seu bonos effectus, quibus DEUS nos per se vocat, & excitat ad poenitenti­am. and in the v. chap. ejusd. lib. thus he had pre­meditated (whom STAPLETON followeth [...]) Triplicia esse DEI opera circa justifi­cationem. Lib. 4 cap. 7. de Iustif. Primi generis esse tempore illam Ante­cedentia, as post praedestinationem, electionem, pul­sare, stare ad ostium, admonere, inspirare. Quae sic DEI propria sunt, ut NULLAM IN IIS PAR­TEM HABEAT LIBERTAS VOLUNTA­TIS NOSTRAE; non CONSENSUM, non COO­PERATIONEM: [Page 86] therefore in these we are meerely PASSIVE. A second sort are, Producti­ones qualitatum Naturam excedentium, as Faith, Hope, Charity, &c. Quia ad producendum tam praecellentes qualitates Natura nostra pertingere non potest, habet se homo respectu earum PASSI­VE; sicut aer respectu luminis, cùm illustratur. Third­ly, sunt alia quaedā medij generis, as Credere, DEUM diligere, poenitere, eidem obedire. Quae DEUS in No­bis NON exercet NISI NOBIS CONSENTI­ENTIBUS. unto which purpose is applyed that of S. PAUL, 1. Cor. XV. Gratia DEI mecum. and that of S. AUGUSTINE; generally CO­OPERANDO S. AUG, de grat. & libero arbi­trio, cap. 17. perficit, quod OPERANDO ince­pit. which they learned of that grand Dicta­tor of their Schooles, A QUINAS, in 1. 2^ae. q. 3 in Corp. Artic. Gratiâ operante, mens nostra est mo­ta, non movens. DEUS autem SOLUS MOVENS. To whom accordeth SUAREZ, de Praed, lib. 1. cap. 8. Auxilia praevenientia incipiunt à DEO, & quantum ad tactum cordis, fiunt in nobis [...]INE NOBIS; and MOLINA himselfe, cyted by LESSIUS, Omninò dicendum, concursum DEI particularem gratiamve praevenientem, semper vel tempore; vel Naturâ antecedere influxum liberi arbitrij, ad actiones supernaturales; tanquam CAUSSA & PRINCIPIUM EFFICIENS in liberum arbitrium immissum. Quo mediante, DEUS ulterius, unà cum libero influxu ejusdem arbitrij, in actiones supernaturales influit. So also as I have beene by a most learned friend ad­monished, [Page 87] CABRERA in 3. THO. qu. 26. Disp. 6. art. 4. dub. 3. num. 17. CUMEI, var. disp. part. 3. pag. 69. MARTINEZ. in 1. 2^ae. qu. 10. ar. 4. dub. 1. & pa. 693. LORINUS in Psal. 22. ver. 6. NA­ZARIUS in 1. part. THO. q. 23. art. 3. controv. 2. pa. 713. CLINGIUS in locis, p. 152. And so CAIETAN, FERRARIENSIS, ALVARES, SALAS, CURIEL, VIGUERIUS, LEDESM. MONTESINUS, and OTHERS.

Now let us also hear the PROTESTANTS speak. WHITAKER, de peccato orig. pag. 149. Homo gratiam Dei LIBERE accipit. CHEMNIT. Loc. com. to. 1. pa. 508. Voluntas mota & adjuta à Spiritu sancto, non recipit impressionem sicut la­pis, sed incipit VELLE & COOPERARI. MOLLERUS in Psal. 65. Voluntas non habet se ut TRUNCUS, sed mota à Spiritu sancto ACCE­DIT & SEQUITUR vocantem DEUM, &c. Qua­rè, execrandae sunt illae voces FLACCII (and are they not YOURS also?), Homo habet se in conversione REPUGNATIVE, HOSTILITER, ADVERSATIVE, PERKINS, reform. Cath, in Free­will: In the FIRST conversion of a sinner, MAN'S FREE-WILL CONCURRETH with GOD'S grace, as a FELLOW or COWORKER in some sort. Mans will is NOT PASSIVE in all and every respect, but hath an ACTION in the FIRST conversion and change of the soule, SNEGANUS and HEMINGIUS are confessed by WILLET, to bee of this mind; and if my Notes faile me not, for I have not now the [Page 88] Book by me, diverse other Protestants in M^r. FOX, pag. 1533. In the latter Helvet. Confes­sion: In regeneratione intellectus illuminatur per Spiritum sanctum, ut & mysteria & voluntatem DEI intelligat. Et voluntas ipsa non tantùm mu­tatur per Spiritum, sed instruitur facultatibus, ut SPONTE velit & possit Bonum. Nisi hoc dede­rimus, negabimus CHRISTIANAM LIBERTA­TEM, & inducemus SERVITUTEM. and in the Confession of Saxony, Voluntas statim accepto Spiritu NON EST IAM OCIOSA. Now if the Councell of TRENT intendeth to say no more, where is that vast difference imagined inter partes, those of the Romish and Protestant Confessions? These clamorous Promoters do not reade so much, it seemeth, as their owne ordinary Protestant Writers: and therefore in their Sermons, Lectures and Pulpits, they brawle at the shadow of their owne fancies, as dogs hark at the Moon; and in fighting the Lords battels, as they would seeme, and their silly Auditors conceive, they fight with Shaw-fowles of their owne setting up; abusing the simple credulity of the unlearned; making themselves ridiculous to the Papists; hardning them rather in their superstition, when they heare them talk so confidently, and traduce so virulently, as their manner is, and yet mistake so ignorantly that which they do not under­stand. The Councell of TRENT resolveth thus: Si quis dixerit liberum hominis arbitrium, [Page 89] à DEO motum & excitatum, NIHIL COOPE­RARI, assentiendo DEO excitanti at (que) vocanti, ne (que) POSSE DISSENTIRE si velit; sed veluti INANIME instrumentum NIHIL OMNINO agere, mere (que) PASSIVE se habere, Anathema sit. Well, and what of this? Doe not WHITAKER, CHEMNITIUS, MOLLERUS, PERKINS, other Protestant Divines and Churches teach the ve­ry same concerning this first branch? and doth not MOLLERUS anathematise ILLYRICUS for holding so? The Councell addeth, A man may RESIST the grace of God. Admit: then, first, man hath Free-will against GOD: and what said OUR SAVIOUR concerning Ierusalem? HOW often would I, and THOU WOULDEST NOT! But S. STEPHEN in terminis hath the very word, Acts VII. LI. [...], YOU RESIST, nay FALL CROSSE with the holy Ghost, not suffering him to worke the worke of grace in you. If the Councell meant it de gratiâ exci­tante, praveniente, operante, I thinke no man will deny it: if de gratiâ adjuvante, subsequen­te, cooperante, there is, without question, in the naturall will of a regenerate man, so much of ADAM remaining, and carnall concupiscence, as may make him RESIST and REBELL a­gainst the Law of the Spirit. And if a man justified may FALL AWAY FROM GRACE, w^ch is the doctrine of the Church of England, then without question, your selves being Iudges, he may RESIST the grace of GOD offred.

[Page 90] Hitherto M. MOUNTAGU can see no such difference inter partes. If you with your new learning (for old you have little or none) can teach me more than yet I know, I will yeeld, and thank you for such instructions. But it may be objected, that Pontificians, hold, when the will of man is once informed, moved, in­cited, and holpen by divine grace, that then it concurreth, it is active, hath an efficiencie in the work of godlinesse by the owne pro­per NATURALL force and condition. I an­swer; The moderate and discreet Pontificians (for there are Factious and Furious amongst them as well as amongst you, that will ex­ceed) say no more than S. AUGUSTINE put into their mouthes: Vult DEUS omnes homi­nes salvos fieri, & in agnitionem veritatis ve­nire; non tamen sic, ut ijs adimat liberum ar­bitrium. And therefore, vocante DEO, surgit S. AUG. de Sp. & Lit. tom. 3. cap. 33. de libero arbitrio, quod NATURALITER cùm crearetur accepit. VOLUNTATEM LIBERAM dedisti mihi: sed SINE TE NIHIL EST cona­tus ejus. IDEM in Ps. XXVI. therefore, DEO ad­juvante, conatur, ambulat. And FULGENTIUS de Incarnat. ca. XXIII. Potest home, DEO do­nante, NATURALITER in DEUM credere. who intend this, That the WILL of man; beeing first informed, enlightned, healed by grace, and then assisted continually by the same concur­ring grace, is Pedissequa, an hand-maid and a subordinate AGENT with and under grace; [Page 91] and that beleefe, repentance, and the like, are TRUE and REALL operations of MAN'S un­derstanding and will; and proceed, as actions NATURALL, out of the powers of the reasona­ble soule, elevated and ACTUATED to that height and actuality by GOD'S grace. Illud si qui dicant, sufficere homini liberum arbitrium ad Dominica praecepta implenda, etiamsi DEI gratiâ, & Spiritus sancti dono, ad opera bona NON ADIUVETUR, omnino ANATHEMATI­ZANDUM est, & omnibus execrationibus dete­standum. Qui enim hoc asserunt, à gratiâ DEI penitus alieni sunt: qui ignorantes DEI justi­tiam, sicut de Iudaeis dicit APOSTOLUS, & ROM. 13. 10. suam volentes constituere, justitiae DEI non sunt subjecti. Plenitudo quippe legis non est nisi cha­ritas. Et utique charitas DEI diffusa est in cor­dibus nostris; NON PER NOS IPSOS, nec VIRIBUS PROPRIAE VOLUNTATIS, sed per SPIRITUM SANCTUM qui datus est no­bis. VALET itaque LIBERUM ARBITRI­UM ad opera bona, SI DIVINITÙS ADIU­VETUR: quod fit humiliter patendo & faciendo. Thus S. AUGUSTINE, and so discreet and S. AUG. tom. 2. epist. 89. moderate Pontificians. Sine DEI gratiâ NULLA possunt esse liberi arbitrij bona merita, saith the Controversor. But wee need a supply conti­nually of Divine Operation, Protection, Di­rection, and new Inspiration, to goe on with Free-will, which is Comes, non Dux, Pedissequa, non Praevia, as S. AUSTEN speaketh, Epist. 106. [Page 92] If this were not so, then faith and repentance were not the actions of man; neither could man be said to beleeve or repent, but the ho­ly Spirit that infuseth grace. Now, Id agit gratia, ut sanata natura, quod vitiata non potest, POSSIT per cum qui venit quaerere & salvare id quod perierat, S. AUGUST. Retract. 1. cap. XIII. We may, saith RUARD TAPPER, consider in every R. TAPPERUS, art. 7. de lib. arb. vertuous action of man two things: the qualitie of goodnesse, and the work it selfe. The qualitie of goodnesse is WHOLLY from grace: the worke it selfe is wrought by the FREE-WILL of man, ASSISTED by grace. Opera pietatis, Credere, poe­nitere. &c. fiunt per NATURALEM virtutem li­beri arbitrij, in quantum LIBERE fiunt, & O­PERA sunt: à gratiâ verò, ut PIETATIS ope­ra sunt. Tamen UT SIC, à libero arbitrio gra­tiâ informato, EFFECTIVE fiunt, non autem à SOLA gratiâ. He that saith thus, doth not say nor thinke, that man can by any NATURALL power EXCITE and prepare himself to grace, or apply himselfe unto GOD, to the motions of his Spirit; as if GOD'S concurse needed not, or that man by the power of his owne will, without any speciall help of grace, could sorrow for sinne; or by his PURE NATU­RALS had power to love GOD above all, or to do works holy and acceptable unto GOD, as some have prodigiously thought and writ­ten: nay, not that the grace of GOD, and power of WILL, are ex aequo joint copartners [Page 93] to goe passibus equis; much lesse, that man's will can outstrip the grace of GOD. This is denied, and cannot be inferred upon the ac­tivenesse intended, or actions insisted on, in and of our wills prevented and enabled by grace: all that is said, is, COOPERAMUR,—SEQUIMURQUE PATREM, NON PASSIBUS AEQUIS; as that childe did his father in the Poet.

This is, I conceive it, the doctrine of the Protestant Schooles. Vbi interim DUO obser­vanda esse docemus, say the Helvetians in their Confession: PRIMUM, regeneratos in boni e­lectione & operatione, non tantùm agere PAS­SIVE, sed ACTIVE. Aguntur enim à DEO, ut AGANT IPSI quod agunt. Rectè enim AUGUSTINUS adducit illud, quòd DEUS dicitur noster ADIUTOR: nequit autem ADIUVARI, nisi is, qui IPSE ALIQUID AGIT. S. PAUL, speaking of Beleevers, saith, You have obeyed from the heart that forme of Doctrine whereunto you were received, ROM. VI. XVII. And SALOMON saith, PRO. IV. XXIII. Keepe thine heart with all diligence: for out of it are the issues of life. OUR SAVIOUR saith, A good tree bringeth foorth good fruit. The WILL of man is a true naturall faculty, given to man in his cre­ation. In the state of corruption, this naturall faculty is a true efficient cause of sinne, and this naturall faculty is punished for sinne. In the state of justification, the same naturall fa­culty [Page 94] is truely and really endued with grace, and bringeth forth the works of righteousnes, and shall be rewarded with glory and immor­tality. In both these states the WILL is a TRUE Efficient; but differently: a PRIN­CIPALL Efficient in the first state; a SUB­ORDINATE Efficient in the second, because the holy Ghost activateth and enableth it. For, By the grace of GOD wee are that wee are: and that grace is not in vaine in us, in the Doctrine of the Church of England, ARTIC. X. working with us when we have that good will. GOD'S preeminence in the worke of our sal­vation, his chiefe hand in the businesse, his GRACE preventing, inspiring, enlightning, ex­citing, upholding, sustaining and concurring, doth not take away mans FREE-WILL in cases where Will hath any interest at all. The STOICKS, amongst others, held that Paradox of old, DEUM ire per omnes—Terras tractus (que) maris, coelum (que) profundum. they meant it sub­stantially, and so impiously. CHRISTIANS doe hold and beleeve it too, but disposingly, &c. in his providence, according to that Axiome of the wise, Perting it à fine, ad finem fortiter, disponens omnia suaviter; according to the se­verall natures and exigences of things, to which he gave being and power to worke so: not DESPOILING them of their OWNE by CONCURRING with them, nor by any ac­cesse ANNIHILATING his former grants or [Page 95] indowments conferred on them.

Thus having, with as great diligence as I could, examined this question inter partes of FREE-WILL, so farre as was coïncident un­to my purpose; I do ingenuously confesse, that I cannot find any such MATERIALL diffe­rence between the Pontificians, at least of bet­ter temper, and OUR Church. But if the Infor­mers can make the contrary appeare, submittam fasceis, and turne over a new leafe, even in this Article, opposing the Church of ROME as farre as any of the preciser Cut or zealous Disciples of THOMAS CARTWRIGHT'S Schoole whosoever. Then then, [...]: I am a man reserved, abhorring to multiply contro­versies, where is no cause.

INFORMERS.

IN the next page thrice hee approveth the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent touching Free-will.

MOUNTAGU.

WHolly, or in part? It would have beene explaned by honest men. For say, I beseech you, will not your owne wisedomes, or charity, or common sense, or understanding, or what you will call it, commend and approve some Determinati­ons of the Councell of TRENT? Saepè ete­nim est olitor valdè opportuna loquutus. And why not they, learned men at least, resolve some thing truely, where was no cause of Fa­ction to be opposite? Secondly, whatsoever I approve in that Councell, is not thrice appro­ved, as you doe enlarge in your suggestions; but twice at most nor yet twice, but by repea­ting the same thing, twice remembred occasio­nally. That which is so approved, is this, Sess. VI. cap. V. Si quis LIBERUM hominis ARBITRI­UM post ADAE lapsum amissum & extinctum esse dixerit, aut rem esse de SOLO TITULO, imò TITULUM SINE RE, FIGMENTUM denique A SATANA INVECTUM in Ecclesiam, Anathema sit. And so say I: and so I hope, if your wits be your owne, will you say. Man ever since [Page 97] the Fall of ADAM, is not senselesse, a stocke, a stone; meerly PASSIVE in all things, active and AGENT voluntarily in nothing. That which hee doth, at least something that hee doth, he doth it willingly and freely, QUUM homini non sit per peccatum adempta neque in­telligendi neque volendi facult as, sed duntaxat RECTE intelligendi & volendi facult as, saith THEOD. BEZA, opusc. tom. 2. pag. 666. part. 1. quaest. BEZA: at least hee doth it according to his WILL, not compellable in the proper acts thereof; To will, though drawne to performe many acts in course of life, as willingly it could wish them to be otherwise. Those in that Councell were Men, as well as Pontifici­ans: learned men they were, at least the ma­jor part, and spake as well like men, as for a factious party in the Church. In that place they speak of Free-will in enlarged tearms, and not in reference unto actions of grace, of pie­ty, of repentance, or regeneration, and godli­nesse toward GOD. Now it is, I take it, a ru­led case with all reasonable men, that in A­DAM, and through his Fall, non amisimus na­turam, sed gratiam. Indowments of grace a­bove nature, or additaments unto nature, wee lost in ADAM. Nature and naturall indow­ments were impaired, and not extinct and a­bolished in his Fall. Nec qui à Spiritu DEI igitur, ideò se putet LIBERUM NON HABERE ARBITRIUM; quod ne tunc quidem perdidit, saith PROSPER, quando Diabolo voluntate suâ PROSP. de [...] Gent. 1. 3. [Page 98] se dedit, à quo IUDICIUM VOLUNTATIS DE­PRAVATUM EST, NON ABLATUM. Quod ergo NON INTERFECTUM EST per vulnerantem, NON TOLLITUR per medentem: vulnus sana­tur, non natura removetur. In which sense and regard, I inferred then and there a second de­cision of that Councell; This branch of the TRID. Councell, is taken out of the second A­RAUS. Coun­cell. Can. XXV. Liberum arbitrium non quidem EXTINCTUM esse, sed viribus AT­TENUATUM. The which I might have enlar­ged, and commented upon, by the XVI. Canon of the Synod of Dort, in the IIII. Decision, de conversionis modo: where the Conveners will in these words proove either themselves Arminians, or you Ignorántees or malicious Calumniators; will they not? Sicuti verò per lapsum homo non desiit esse homo, intellectu & voluntate praeditus: nec peccatum, quod univer­sum genus humanum pervasit, naturam generis humani sustulit, sed depravavit, & spiritualiter occidit. It a etiam haec divina regenerationis gra­tia non agit in hominibus, tanquam TRUNCIS & stipitibus, nec VOLUNTATEM EIUS QUE PROPRIETATES TOLLIT, aut INVITAM VI­OLENTER COGIT. No otherwise than so saith M. MOUNTAGU, peradventure not so much as so. but you say, He concludeth this his Chapter thus: Our Conclusion and yours is all one: wee cannot, wee doe not deny freedome of will in man: whoso doth so, is no CATHO­LICKE: I adde, no nor PROTESTANT. For I did not conceive, that any Protestant, till you [Page 99] professed your selves so senselesse, would have denied that Conclusion, There is FREE-WILL. We eat, we drinke, we sleep, wee wake, wee walk, we rest, wee runne, wee talk, wee hold our peace, we consent, assent, disagree; freely wittingly, willingly, without any constraint, out of the naturall power of our Free-will. And yet further for your sakes I adde. It were well done, and worth the while, as SCOTUS said well, to cudgell him well and thriftily, that In 1. Sent. dist. 38. should deny FREE-WILL, so long, untill hee did confesse it to be in our power to goe on, to cease, or hold our hands. And if he should commence an action of battery, to put in this Barre; It was not I that beat him, it was FATALL NE­CESSITY; and I was thereby compelled to doe it. I had not any FREE-WILL to resist: it was not in my power to doe, or not to doe otherwise.

But concerning Freewill, the power, possi­bility, and activity of the will in the things of GOD, towards GOD, in the state of grace, I have set downe my Errors, as you call them, in two propositions, tendred unto mee, and unto you also, of the Church of England. First, that Man in state of naturall corruption cannot turne nor prepare himselfe unto GOD, by or through his owne naturall and humane power and strength. Secondly, that Prevented by grace, and by grace assisted, hee putteth to his hand, to procure augmentation of that grace; as also, con­tinuance [Page 100] unto the end in that grace. No man commeth unto GOD, but he is drawne: being drawne, hee runneth or walketh as his assis­tance is, and his owne agility and disposition, unto the end. No man beareth fruit in CHRIST IESUS the Vine, unlesse that by the Husband­man hee bee engraffed. To engraffe, is opus Hortulani ALONE. When as the branch is engraffed, that it may prosper and beare fruit, the root must supply; the slip sucke and re­taine sap supplied from the root. This is e­nough: no more need bee curiously insisted on or disputed of. The Church of England doth no way contradict this: it is the pre­cise doctrine of our Church, ARTIC. X. The condition of man after the Fall of ADAM, it such, that he cannot turne nor prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works, to faith and calling upon GOD. Wherefore we have no power to doe good works pleasant and accep­table unto GOD, without the grace of GOD by CHRIST preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have it. Man is heer in this passage, by the Church, considered two waies: as in Nature depraved; as in Nature againe by Grace restored. In Na­ture depraved, Freewill is totally denied, unto man, for any workes of righteousnesse, accepta­ble or pleasing unto GOD, before conversion; or for works of actuall concurrency in the ve­ry act of first converting: but not for workes [Page 101] of Nature or Morality; of which works only the Proposition was to be understood. Si per morale opus virtutes intelligas Philosophicas non neganius posse hominem, sine speciali gratiâ, multa De pec. orig. 2. 3. fortiter, & temperanter, & juste agere: saith D. WHITAKER. And that saying of DAMA­SCEN DAMASCEN, lib. 2. de fide orth. cap. 27. is denyed of no man that hath his braines in his head; [...]. Man being a creature endued with reason, doth ra­ther leàde nature, than is led by nature; and upon appetite or desire, may shake off, if he please, and acquit himself of that desire, or close in with it, and give consent unto it. In state of Grace repay­ring and restoring Nature, Free-will is not de­nyed man; but how? Not as in or unto na­turall objects; hic mota movet. It worketh with us, we with it together with Grace, when wee have once that good will wrought in us. And surely if wee have it working at all, it is not titulus sine re: nor is it inane nihil, as some, it seemeth, thought: which the Councell of TRENT condemneth very justly. This is not my singular fancy; as your opinions most-what are private imaginations of opiniative men, igno­rant of others, wedded to their owne conceits. OPERATUR ille, COOPERAMUR nos: NON enim AUFERT, sed ADIUVAT bone voluntatis arbitri­um: S. AUG. saith S. AUGUSTINE, Quaest. XV. super Deuteron. And againe, Quaest. L. In spirit ualibus conflictibus [Page 102] sperandum est, et petendum est adjutorium DEI. Non ut NOS NIHIL OPEREMUR; sed ut ADIUTI COO­PEREMUR. And again, Retract. I. XXIII. Vtrum (que), Credere & velle, DEI est, & NOSTRÛM. utrum (que) est DEI: DEI est, quiae praeparat voluntatem: NO­STRÛM est, quia non fit nisi volentibus nobis. and Epist. CVII. Quomodo dicuntur negare liberum vo­luntatis arbitrium, qui confitentur omnem homi­nem, quisquis credit in DEUM, non nisi SUA LI­BERA VOLUNTATE credere? And PROSPER de vocatione gentium: SED etiam voluntas ho­minis PROSP. de voc. Gent. lib. 2. cap. 9. subjungitur ei (Gratiae) at (que) CONIUNGI­TUR. Quae ad hoc praedictis est excitatae praesidijs, ut divino in se cooperetur operi, & incipiat exer­cere ad meritum, quod superno semine concepit ad studium: de suâ habens mutabilitate si deficit, de gratiae opitulatione si proficit. And FULGENTIUS de Incarnat. cap. XX. Quâ gratiâ humanum non aufertur, sed sanatur; non adimitur, sed corrigi­tur; non removetur, sed illuminatur; non eva­cuatur, sed adjuvatur, atque SERVATUR ARBI­TRIUM: ut in quo infirmitatem homo habuit, in eo habere incipiat sanitatem; quo errabat, eodem in viam redeat; in quo caecus fuit, in eo accipiat lumen; & ubi fuit iniquus, serviens immunditiae & iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ibi gratiâ praeventus atque adjutus, serviat justitiae in sanctificationem. To this purpose the words are so evident in the ARTICLE, there can be no tergiversation or eluding of them. I could name you many that at least doe write so: I content my selfe [Page 103] with one, whom I dare say you will not reject. The learned Bishop of Lichfield is the man I meane, in his Appeale, pag. XIII. Yet have they also (he speaketh it of the Centuriators of MEY­DENBURG) out of the cleere and sound testimony of the same Father S. GREGORY, drawne a doc­trine of Orthodoxall Truth in the doctrine of FREE-WILL; holding, that a man's will, in re­spect of any spirituall good, is not free in it selfe, untill that it be freed by grace. Then it is free in his opinion. And this opinion, he saith, is an Orthodoxall Truth: and his opinions, in your opinion, are neither Popish nor Arminian. How can the same opinion be Popery in M. MOUN­TAGU, who goeth not any farther than that Bi­shop hath gone? and hee had warrant from Antiquity. COOPERATORES sumus gratiae DEI operantis in nobis. Non enim DORMIENTIBUS provenit regnum coelorum, saith LEO, nee OTIO S. LEO, ser. 5. in Epiph. DESIDIAQUE TORPENTIBUS beatitudo aeterni­tatis ingeritur. who yet denieth not, that with­out GOD wee can doe nothing: it is GOD that worketh the will and the deed. All our works thou hast wrought in us; and the like. Quaeutique sine DEO nulla est, nec proprietatem obtinet dignita­tis (the righteousnesse hee meaneth of a regene­rate man) nisi Spiritu sui vegetetur Authoris. Di­cente enim Discipulis suis Domino, SINE ME NI­HIL POTESTIS FACERE, dubium non est, homi­nem bona agentem, à DEO habere & effectum o­peris, & initium voluntatis, LEO ser. 8. Epiph. [Page 104] The freedome of will doth not exclude out GOD'S prerogative royall, nor circumscribe it: and GOD'S preeminence in the work of our salvation, his chiefe hand in the businesse, his grace preventing and concurring, doth not take away mans Free-will, in cases wherein Will is interessed. Causes may be many and manifold unto severall acts and particular ends. In this [...] and concatenation of causes, there is a progresse ordinary from the first to the last, and a reflection from the last unto the first. [...]. Second causes and subordinate are reduced unto the originall, prime, and beginning cause of all; and agunt in virtute prime. If in no respect else, yet in this regard; It is not of him that wil­leth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that giveth the encrease.

To conclude then; That man hath FREE-WILL, is not by us gainsaid, saith that worthy and learned Bishop of MEATH. Freedome of will, we know, doth as essentially belong unto man, as reason it selfe: and he that spoileth him of that power, doth in effect make him a very BEAST. Quis nostrûm, saith S. AUGUSTINE against the Pelagians, dicit, quod primi hominis peccato perie­rit arbitrium de humano genere? Libertas qui­dem perijt per peccatum: sed ILLA quae fuit in Paradiso, habendi PLENAM cum immortalitate justitiam. To deny Freewill at all, is wilfull folly: but to give unto it that power and sway [Page 105] as many doe, is little lesse than Blasphemie. Truth is ever in the midst betwixt two ex­treames; and so is it heer, most wisely tem­pered and qualified with moderation in the doctrine of the Church of England; according to which I endevour to square my beleefe and opinions.

INFORMERS.

HEe expresly maketh the Church of Eng­land to cast off the defence of sundry points which the Synod of DORT maintay­ned and determined.

MOUNTAGU.

IN ALL my writing, to my remembrance, I name that SYNOD but once onely, and no more: That at DORT, and another Nationall Synod at GAPP in France; and that respectively, and in gentle, nay honourable termes, [...], with the two last in the Church of Rome; the one at FLORENCE, the other at TRENT, and pronounce, not I hope in any disgrace unto the Synod of DORT, that we may as well tender unto our Adver­saries, the Protestant conclusions and decisi­ons of those TWO Synods; as they presse us with the ANATHEMATISMES of Trent or Florence. Beside this one time and occasion, I never name DORT. And for the particular points and passages of my Booke, I protest, that to my remembrance it came not so much as within the compasse of my thoughts, [...] For what had I to doe with that Synod, not once named by the Gagger? I un­dertooke the defence of the publick doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND, of which I am; being not curious in alienâ republicâ, with which I had nothing to do. That fellow had, as the use and custome of Papists is, schisma­tically dividing himselfe from us, cast upon the Church, as of PUBLICK allowance, many and some absurd propositions of PRIVATE [Page 107] Tenents; particular fancies of some idle con­ceits. I pleaded not guilty unto the Indict­ment, and tooke off the CHURCH, falsly charged, from that issue, wherein it may bee some other had joined, against right and reason. You, or any Puritan or Papist, make it plaine, that any thing by me disclaimed for being the PUBLICKE, ESTABLISHED doctrine of our Church, is yet the doctrine of the Church, and I am ready to recant. If the Synode of DORT hath determined otherwise, let their determinations stand for me: I quarrell them not; I meddle not with them. Those that like the Decrees of that Synod, or are bound to maintaine the Decrees of that Synode, let them maintaine them if they like them: Non equidem invideo. I have no part nor portion in them. I am not tied to uphold them, far­ther than they consent unto that which I am bound to maintain, the doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND. And if it were true, which is most false, wherewith I am charged by these honest men, yet I might answer (and what if I doe?), Who bound the Church of England, or Me, a Priest and a Member of the Church of England, unto defence of all the Decrees or Determinations of that Synod? Hath Prince? or Parliament? or Convocation? Edict? Statute? or Canon? I knowe none: I have heard of none; nor ever shall, I hope. And till I heare of such (quod [...]) I answer, [Page 108] Let them that are interessed, plead for them­selves. For my part, I nor have, nor ever will subscribe that Synode absolutely, and in all points (for in some, it condemneth upon the Bye even the discipline of the Church of England), but so farre forth onely, as their Determina­tions shall bee found and made conformable unto the doctrine of OUR Church: nor I think will the Ferventest amongst you subscribe it in every point. For sure I am, YOUR Divines, as you call them, have disavowed sometimes some things resolved of in that Synod; as for in­stance: Cooperation of Free-will and Grace, Re­probation negative, rather than positive. But, as I said, the Synod of Dort is not MY Rule, and your Magisteriall Conclusions are NO Rule. I hope, all, not violently precise, will say, Ampliandum, upon your bare imputations; who bring nothing to prove me an ARMI­NIAN, but your [...], Hee saith thus and thus; and we say this is ARMINIANISME. Abs (que) hoc

And thus much for Arminianisme.

INFORMERS.

HE saith, that the Church Representa­tive, true and lawfull, never yet erred in Fundamentals; and therefore that hee seeth no cause but to avouch, The Church Repre­sentative cannot ERRE. pag. XLV.

MOUNTAGU.

IN this Accusation are two Propositions distinct, though connexed and dependent: First, The Church Representative, true and lawfull, did never erre in Fundamentals. Se­condly, The Church Representative, so true and lawfull, cannot erre in Fundamentals. Now, whether Proposition of these two is Poperie? or are both these Propositions, jointly or se­verally taken, Popery? To explicate the tearms, and draw up to anatomize your confusednes: The Church Representative is a GENERALL COUNCELL; not titularly so, as the Conven­ticle of Trent; but plenarily true, generall, and lawfull. Points Fundamentall bee such as are immediate unto faith: for instance, the [Page 117] ARTICLES of our CREED; which only be those Tenents and Points of faith, that have indeed, and so must have, Universality, Anti­quity, Consent, Knowledge. No man can be saved, that beleeveth them not; no man can be saved, that knoweth them not: which must bee understood de viâ ordinariâ, except that GOD himselfe have disposed otherwise, who may dispense with his owne Ordinances as he will▪ as in case of Infants, Naturals, fran­tick persons, which through invincible disabi­lity are extra Censure Ordinariorum. Otherwise the knowledge and beleeving of them is abso­lutely necessary, and required necessitate medij unto salvation. To say they are Fundamentals, to propose them for Fundamentals, that are thus required, and must bee knowne and ac­knowledged upon so great and dangerous an exigence, is no Popery, as I conceive; no not in your opinion. The Papists rather are ad op­positum. For they enlarge their Tenour, make their dignity and degree too common; abu­sing that honour peculiarly due to them, by promiscuously communicating it unto other points of inferiour rank and reckoning; espe­cially those XII. new ARTICLES of the Tri­dentine CREED. Thus, upon explication of the tearms, we come unto the assertion.

It is, belike, Popery to say, that in them, in these Fundamentall Points, A true and lawfull generall Councell never erred de facto, because [Page 118] (forsooth) Papists say, that a generall Coun­cell cannot erre. If this were right and regu­lar, yet first, Bate me an ace. For all is not Po­pery that Papists say: but what they say as Papists, as a Faction divided, as in particular by themselves, that haply is Popery. All is not Heresie that Hereticks hold: nor is all Purita­nisme that PURITANS beleeve or maintaine. They hold many things right with the Church of England: but what they hold as PURITANS, that is, as a schismaticall Party divided from, and opposed against the doctrine, or discipline, or both, of the Church of England, that wee may be bold to call so. Semblably wee are to judge of Papists: and so, what is said of Papists, is not presently and indistinctly Pope­ry; but may be said in terminis by Protestants, and they be never a whit the more any Pa­pists for so saying.

Againe, to say that this Proposition, A true and lawfull Generall Councell never did Erre, is Popery, cannot sinke into my understanding. For I demand, Quo warranto? hath any Classis, or Consistory of Lay-elders, or others, conclu­ded it so? It may be [...], a mis­report, an error in Storie, which goeth no far­ther than unto the thing done or not done. Historicall mistakings, mis-relatings; who made them Poperie? though I professe, I neyther know nor acknowledge any mis-report or er­ror in point of Story in so saying. Let any [Page 119] Puritan living shew me where, when, in what any Generall Councell, according to true accep­tion, or Church representative, hath so erred in the resolution and decisions of that Councell: for in the debating of doubts, questions, pro­positions, the case is otherwise, and not the same. I conceive and acknowledge but foure Councels of this kinde; that of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon. Shew me in what Fun­damentall point of Faith any of these Generall Councells have erred. But it is Popery perad­venture to say, It never was; therefore in all probability it cannot be. If so, then inconse­quences and Non sequiturs in Logick, are, in your opinion, to be ranged under Points of Popery: and so, by this your assignement, Popery will extend it selfe very farre indeed; farther than ever any POPE or Papist did pretend or claime. And if you will grant the POPE this so universall and transcendent jurisdiction, yet M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery cometh not up so high as unto generality illimited. It cannot bee at all: it insisteth but upon some points onely; and that not by or with a generall vouchee neither, but thus only, I see no cause. Now there may be cause, though I see it not. It may be, though I think, and speake, and write other­wise, or you eyther, yet both of us may bee deceived.

But somewhat there was which these men intended, and would have said, if so bee they [Page 120] could have hit upon it. It is a Conclusion of the Romane Schooles, The Church cannot Erre. which Proposition, I may both affirme and deny, as it is proposed. The Church CANNOT Erre. The Church CAN Erre. For first it i [...] ambiguous subiectivè; What the Church is, which cannot Erre. The word is [...], and must be distinguished. And secondly we may consider it obiectivè; In what things the Church cannot Erre; and Quous (que), that Not erring doth reach forth Extensivè: To this purpose, I differenced Churches two wayes: into Topicall or Particular Churches; into Ca­tholick or Vniversall. I divided also the ob­jects of erring or not erring, two wayes: in­to Fundamentalls, or superstructives. For Parti­cular locall Churches, such as Corinth, Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatyra, Laodicea, &c. it is in Confesso on both sides, that They may Erre: for it is e­vident that they have Erred, both in inferiour and in higher points of Faith. And so have Erred oftentimes, that through their Erring in Fundamentalls in that sort, they have ceased to be Churches any more. The Catholick or uni­versall Church, I considered two wayes; con­ceiving it to be Diffusive, or Representative. and that diffusion to runne out two wayes: into Vniversality of ALL, both Time and Place; or into Vniversality of Time alone. The first is so ample, that it fetcheth in the APO­STLES and all; and so includeth within the [Page 121] Verge that part of the Catholick Church which is now regnant in heaven, and free from all Error, as partaking of that blisse which leadeth infallibly, holdeth inseparably in all Truth. In this sense and acceptation, the propo­sition is not quarrelled: The Church so, hath not, cannot Erre. The second divided part, stinted from so large an extent, is yet enlar­ged respectively, to all members, to every member in particular of the Catholick Church, living any where, at any one time. so that the whole aggregation of all Christian professors, make and compose this Church. And as yet, I thinke, the Informers doe not quarrell us for Popery. Their whole stitch is against the Church Representative in a Generall Councell. In which, though I should resolve simply and punctually thus, A Generall Councell cannot Erre, yet could I not be counted a Papist. For the Tenent of the Papists, if you (my Informers) know it not, in their Schooles, is this; A Ge­nerall Councell can no way Erre in the Decisions finall thereof, which is allowed by the POPE. By which they necessarily inferre, as also they stick not to expresse, that unlesse the POPE give ratification, any Generall Councell whatso­ever may erre in any point of Faith, of what nature soever. And therefore (such is their Doctrine since the IESUITES have dominee­red in their Schooles) all the validity and as­surance of not Erring, which a Generall Coun­cell [Page 122] hath or can have, either in fide or mori­bus, is onely from that impossibility of Erring which the POPE hath, as Haeres ex asse unto S. PETER, to whom our SAVIOUR behighted that impossiblity alone. So that pretend the IESUITES as long as they will, that fair and specious shew and title of the CHURCH never so much, have they nothing in their mouthes, but, The CHURCH, the CHURCH; the POPE is that Church: and their conclu­sion heer is not for the Church, but for HIM. Now, doth M^r. MOUNTAGU come up unto, nay, looketh he toward this Catholick Roman fancy and infallible madnes? Nothing lesse. Hee directly pitcheth upon the Church Repre­sentative in a generall Councell, WITHOUT the Pope; I meane, without the Pope as Head, or exceeding the bounds and limits of a Patri­archicall Bishop. I go not unto all things dis­cussed or determinable in a Councell, but rest upon that which is Fundamentall. Nor doe I resolve it as certum & de fide, or tender it un­to others to be beleeved. I say no more but, I see no cause why I may not so resolve: and that also but upon suppositions, if the Coun­cell be truely GENERALL indeed: and of SUCH, none yet ever erred, that ever I yet read or observed, in Points Fundamentall. And therefore I saw and see no cause but a man may say, Such a Councell shall never erre in Fundamentals.

[Page 123] But concerning Fundamentals, if your stitch bee against them, I answer with B. MORTON in his Appeale, THE beleefe of some Articles is so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a Page 443. true Church, as a reasonable soule is for the es­sentiall being of a man. In such as these are, shew me an error. D^r. REYNOLDS himself, though maintaining the contrary, was not a­ble in his VI. Conclusions, out of all his reading (and yet therein was his excellency), to afford us so much as a peece of an example in An­tiquity, for a Generall Councell erring in FUN­DAMENTALS: and I am perswaded, no man living can instance it. Of such onely doe I speak, and in such onely do I conceive infal­libility: and so, as I conceive it, the promise of OUR SAVIOUR may and doth hold, HEE shall leade you into ALL TRUTH; as also that other to the same purpose, Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, I AM THERE in the MIDDEST of them.

The Church of England may seem to have been of a contrary minde in her determinati­ons; and to have taught, and prescribed to be so taught, that such Generall Councels, true and lawfull, not onely may erre for possibilitie, but also have erred in reality. For Artic. XXI. we reade thus: GENERALL Councels may not be gathered together without the commandement and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, for as much as they bee an Assembly of [Page 124] men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD, they MAYERRE, and some­time HAVE ERRED, even in things appertai­ning unto GOD. Which decision of the Ar­ticle is not home to this purpose. First, the Article avoucheth, that GENERALL Councels have erred: which cannot be understood of my limitation, Fundamentals; because there is no such Extat of any Generall Councell, true and lawfull. Secondly, things appertaining unto GOD are not all Fundamentals; but points of Piety, GOD'S Service, and Religion, which admit a very large interpretation. For many things ap­pertaine unto GOD, that are not of necessity unto salvation, both in practice and speculati­on. In these haply Generall Councels have erred: in those other none can erre. The Councell of Nice determined the controversie of Easter: it was not Fundamentall. I put the case, that in it they erred. It was a thing appertaining unto GOD, in his service: this may come un­der the sense and censure of the Article; but this toucheth not my opinion, concerning on­ly Fundamentals. Thirdly, the Article speaketh at large concerning Generall Councels, both for debating and deciding. I onely spake of the de­termination: wherein it may be possible they nor can, nor shall erre, that may and have er­red in the discussing. In that very Councell of Nice, it was an Error in debating, though not fundamentall, touching that yoke of single life, [Page 125] which they had meant once to have imposed upon the Church: but in conclusion they er­red not. PAPHNUTIUS gave better advice, and they followed it. The Article may very well have aimed at this difference in Prosecution and Decision, in saying, ALL are not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD; which is most true. but some are: and those some, in all pro­bability, ever may prevaile, as ever hitherto in such Councels in those cases they have pre­vailed, against the greater part formerly resol­ved otherwise. Againe, the Article speaketh of Generall Councels indefinitely, without precise­ly determining w^ch are Generall, which not; what is a Generall Councell, what not: and so may and doth conclude reputed or pretended GENERALL Councels, univocè GENERALL, though not ex­actly and truely indeed (such as was the Councell of Ariminum) whereof I did not so much as intend to speak; my speech being limitted with true and lawfull: of which sort are not many to be found. Lastly, the Article spea­keth of things that are controversae fidei, and contentiosi juris. I speak of things plainely deli­vered in HOLY SCRIPTURE: for such are the Fundamentall points of our Faith. And that it is so, the ensuing words of the Article doe insi­nuate; Things necessary unto Salvation, must bee taken out of SCRIPTURE alone. COUNCELS have no such over-awing power and authori­ty, as to tye men to Beleeve, upon paine of [Page 126] Damnation, without expresse warrant of GOD'S Word, as is rightly resolved in the Article. They are but Interpreters of the Law; they are not absolute to make such a Law. Interpretation is required, but in things of doubtfull issue: our Fundamentals are no such. COUNCELS are supposed not to exceed their commission, which warranteth them to debate and deter­mine questions and things litigiosi status. If they doe not hoc agere sincerely, if they shall presume to make lawes without warrant, and new articles of Faith (who have no farther authority than to interprete them) lawes with­out GOD'S word, that shall binde the consci­ence, and require obedience upon life and death; our Church will not justifie their pro­ceedings, nor doe I. Non debet se Ecclesia CHRISTO praeponere, cùm ille semper veraciter judicet; Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines, plerun (que) fallantur, saith S. AUGUSTINE against Lib. 2. cap. 27. CRESCONIUS the Donatist. but he speaketh not there of Fundamentals; indeed not of the Church representative, as I explaine my selfe. Nor doth that principall place of all make a­gainst me, which is in him contra Donatistas, concerning the erring of Generall Councells: Et ipsa Concilia, quae per singulas regiones & pro­vincias Lib. 2. cap. 3. fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati, quae siunt ex universo Christiano orbe, cedunt; ip­sa (que) plenaria saepè priora à posterioribus emendan­tur: cùm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod [Page 127] clausum er at; & cognoscitur, quod latebat. For he taketh Councells in a generall acception, as it is plaine by him: and hee speaketh not of Fundamentall points of Faith; as both the cause it selfe argueth, and his assigning of better in­formation in tract of time, to direct consequent Councells in determining contrary to precedent. who, for any thing he saith to the contrary, might have truely determined, as things then stood. To conclude, this Information is a meer cavill. De tali Concilio, & saniori parte, & con­clusionibus in fide, probabile est. No more.

INFORMERS.

AGaine, speaking of the Fathers in gene­rall, hee professeth his opinion to bee, that [Page 128] Those worthy Lights did not any way faile; nor did darkenesse possesse their cleere understandings. CHAP. XVI. pag. CXIII. The which is a saying more Popish than learned Papists durst ever affirme.

MOUNTAGU.

NAy more sottish than any Puritan, but your selves, would ever quarrell. Ma­lice and Ignorance, whither wilt thou? As if M. MOUNTAGU had affirmed, that no Father ever Erred in any point whatsoever. Masters Informers, you may goe range this calumny under some other head: for Popery will not admit nor entertaine it. No igno­rant Papist, lesse learned than your selves, ne­dum LEARNED Papist, either taught or thought, that no Father ever Erred And as for M. MOUNTAGU, he utterly disclaimeth it. Though no man living carrieth a more awfull regard, and reverent respect unto Antiquity than hee doth, yet never did hee so doate upon them. It is more than ever entred into the compasse of his thoughts, so to overlavish transcendent­ly in their commendation, as to give them prerogative of not erring at all; and so to ad­vance them unto their MAKERS seate. It be­longeth not to these Ancients, but to the An­cient of Dayes, not to Erre. And so much M. MOUNTAGU had expressed in that former [Page 129] passage of his penne: Take them at large, and they lavish so farre sometimes, that the greatest Patrons of the power and efficacy of Free-will, dare not joine issue with some of them. Then followeth that calumniated piece, by those Pure Ones; Not as if those worthy Lights had at any time failed, or darkenesse possessed their cleer understanding. Now, you Promoters, could your Christian charity be so defective; or your common wit, sense, or understanding at so low an ebbe; or your honesty so little or none at all, as out of these premises so laid together, to inferre so mishapen a calumny, that M. MOUNTAGU Delivered and Published this Er­ror, that the Fathers, none of them, eyther did or could Erre at all? as if he had erected to himselfe a new frame and fabrick of Popery, never heard of in the world. Whatsoever be­came of their Lights and Understandings, deep Malice possessed your malignant Passions, thus shamelesly to slander him with indeed more than the grossest Popery. Thus it is; M. MOUN­TAGU speaketh not of all the Fathers in ge­nerall, nor of their opinions in any one point, [...]: but onely of their opinion in and concerning Free-will, who have meddled with, and written about Free-will. This then is the first untruth by false suggestion fastned on him. Secondly, he professeth plainly, that in and concerning this point of Free-will, those Fathers did so farre outlavish; and speak sso in­largedly, [Page 130] that the very IESUITES, post mot a cer­tamina PELAGIANA, for feare of seeming to Pelagianise, dare not say so much as they have said; at least wise some of them: for which I have the warrant of Bishop MORTON in his Appeale, to bee according to the confession of most learned Papists; SIXTUS Senensis, Pag. cc1. MALDONATE, TOLET, and PERERIUS. His words are, that In the roote of the doctrine of Free-will, CHRYSOSTOME, CYRILL, THEO­PHYLACT, EUTHYMIUS, OECUMENIUS, AMMO­NIUS, and most of others, especially in the Greeke Church, did yeeld too much unto the power of Na­ture in the Free-will of man. These tearmes are farre from acquitting and discharging the Fathers of all Error in that point. And these honest well-meaning Informers, if they had imagined indeed, that I did so acquit them, rather should have challenged mee of contra­diction, than of Popery. For it seemeth as much Popery to accuse the Fathers of Errors, as to excuse them of Erring, seeing those three IE­SUITES (than whom, scarce were ever three more eminent in the Society) doe not excuse or acquit them, but accuse them rather for go­ing so farre in applauding of Free-will. In this point it is plaine, my meaning was, that their Vnderstandings were not so darkened, as their words at first apprehension may seeme to im­port, to erre so grossely in the point as they seeme to doe: nor did then and in that par­ticular, [Page 131] those worthie Lights of the Church of GOD, faile in discerning of the Truth of GOD in that particular, as (to use the words of the forenamed learned Bishop) they incli­ned, contrary to Scripture, unto Pelagianisme. For things must bee taken and considered as they are spoken, and upon what occasion and ground they are spoken. If you were not so acute to conceive this (indeed so honest to expresse it) yet your dullest Readers would have observed it, had there beene in you so much ingenuity as to have added that, which ensueth in M. MOUNTAGU, thus: That they be­ing to deale against fatall Necessity, urged by many PATNIMS, Philosophers in those dayes; as also against the execrable impiety of the MANI­CHEES, they extended the power of FREE-WILL unto the uttermost, and set it upon the Tenters; especially having then no cause to fear anyenemy at home, unto the contrary, ante mota certamina PELAGIANA: There being yet no PELAGIANS sprung up in the world, enemies to Grace, advan­cers of Nature and Naturall powers, beyond de­gree of Power, and of Possibility. In effect, M. MOUNTAGU, as touching freewill heer in this case, hath said the same, and no more but the same, that before him Bishop MORTON did in his Appeale, pag. CCII. THE occasion of this difference we learne to have beene a whirlwind of contrary Heresies, wherewith, in those dayes, the Church of GOD was miserably afflicted. Then [Page 132] the MANICHEES, and before them the STOI­CALL CHRISTIANS, had taught an absolute fa­tall Necessity of every mans Actions, thereby ta­king from man the guilt of sinne: For the over­throw of which pestilent Heresie, as is confessed concerning S. CHRYSOSTOME, some FATHERS did contrarily yeeld too much unto the power of will. This was the occasion of their by-sliding, who notwithstanding did often recover their footing, and in their more intimate meditations gave direct acknowledgement of our Orthodoxall De­fence. Iust to an haire, up and downe the same Popery that M. MOUNTAGU hath Delivered. That Bishop, and my poor self, say one and the same thing; and yet will even the Informers, I dare say, acquit Him of Popery: why not Me, as well in the selfe same case with him?

INFORMERS.

HE calleth the doctrine of the INVISI­BILITY of the Church, a private opi­nion; no doctrinall decision, nor to bee imputed unto the resolved doctrine of the Protestants. Nusquam est, saith hee, quod nun quam videtur. CHAP. V. pag. XLVIII. And againe, pag. L. Moderate men on both sides doe confesse, that this contro­versie may cease.

MOUNTAGU.

MY words were onely these; It may be, some private opinions have run upon Invisibility of the Church. But since you put me to it, if there bee any such doc­trine as you speak of, it is a private opinion; and I will now say expressely, I hold that doc­trine a PRIVATE opinion: yet then and there I did not ponere, that any had so said in ter­minis; or runne that way, but onely with re­striction, by a May-be of concession: that some men, singular from the doctrine of the Church, in their owne private opinions, had [Page 134] fallen upon, and supported an Invisibilitie. Now every man, but your selves, knowes that the doctrine of a Church, Publick and Authori­zed, is one thing; and your doctrine, or my doctrine and private opinion, is another thing. For such doctrine as you talk of, I know none, I acknowledge none, but that of Libertines and Brownists; with whom if you have any com­merce, intercourse, or confarreation, look unto it: the Church of England, as it detesteth them, so is it for and of another straine. AR­TIC. XIX. touching the Church thus we read: 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 duely ministred, &c. Where Church and Vi­sible are convertible tearmes. That doctrine then, to which you should, and would seeme to have subscribed, talketh of no invisible, but a visible Church; tendreth no Invisibility. And it is a Position drawne out from thence, and published, that there is a Church of CHRIST, not onely invisible, but also visible. Though for invisible, it is more than that Article spe­cifieth; yet is it most true, that there is a Church also invisible: which was never deni­ed, or thought upon to be denied. Secondly, it is also concluded thence, that the visible Church is a Catholick Church. So the Church is visible, and the Church is invisible: both which I beleeve and professe, distinctly taken, [Page 135] and as it ought to bee understood. For these, though seeming, are not contradictory Propo­sitions. The Church is invisible in her more noble parts; the Saints, both regnant in hea­ven, and militant in earth; such as be secreti and occultè intus; such as bee [...], the secret, hidden, the reserved Ones of GOD, Psal. LXXXIII. IV. as Iewels of price, of value, of account. I doe also beleeve and professe a visibility of the Church on earth, necessarily, toto sui, though not totâ se: in some part or other at all times; though in all parts of the world, or it selfe, intire, at no one time. No­thing visible in the amplest maner that can be, is so visible, that there is nothing in it, or of it, but is visible. It never was, it never shall be, it is wholly impossible to bee, that at some time or other there could not be found, in a­ny one part or corner of the world, not any part visible of that Church Catholick. The Divell never did, nor ever shall, so farre and fully prevaile against GOD and GOD'S King­dome, as to effect or procure such an abso­lute desolation. And so is it true (for of this onely restrainedly I spake), Non est, quod nus­quam videtur; not generally true, I grant, and without limitation. There ever was, and will bee ever, upon earth a visible Church some where or other, with visible cognisances, marks and signes to be discerned by, such as be as­signed by the XIX. Article; to which men may [Page 136] repaire to heare GOD'S Word; where Sacra­ments are ministred, and may be received un­to salvation; where Priesthood and Ordinati­on is and may be had according to CHRIST'S mission and commission. You cannot produce any time, out of any Records or Memorials, extant or remembred, in which and by which it may appeare, that these things were other­wise. The Churches of the East, Asia, Greece, and Africa, were a long time visible, eminent, and glorious. The Churches of the West have held it out longer. Since there first was a Church in England, France, Spaine, and Rome, there hath not ceased to bee a Church there. And if in any of these places, or all these places, the Church should cease or not bee visible, yet would it be still visible otherwhere, though not ever alike, nor to like purpose. A­gaine, I do call those Some mens doctrines in this point, Private Opinions: and so well may I doe, in respect of the disinvalidity and dis­proportion of them; being private mens o­pinions, and no publick proposals or resoluti­ons of the Church. I call them not so in re­gard of paucity of proposers: for they may bee many, a strong, potent, prevailing partie that thus opine, and runne a course to them­selves in their owne Tenents, against or beside publick, enacted and authorized doctrine. And yet even private opinions also are against you. That worthy Divine, my deare friend while [Page 137] he lived, D. RI. FIELD, lib. 111. pag. XIX. saith, It cannot bee, but they are the true Church, must, by profession of the truth, make themselves knowne, in such sort, that by their profession and practice they may be discerned from other men. But without all question, that Church must needs be visible, the members whereof doe make open and publick profession of their Faith, in such sort, that by their practice and profession they may be knowne and distin­guished from other men. And therefore that learned man rightly resolveth, That BELLAR­MINE laboureth in vaine to prove, that there is, Page 11. and alwayes hath beene, a VISIBLE Church; and that not consisting of some few scattered Christi­ans, without order, or Ministry, or use of Sacra­ments: for all this we do grant, and most wil­lingly yeeld unto, howsoever perhaps SOME FEW have been of ANOTHER OPINION. Marke, my good Informers, D. FIELDS Popery to the purpose; and with all D. HUMFREYES, another Iesuit. pag. 2. Papist: SECRET abodes are no Christian Convo­cations, because this communion of Saints, is an O­PEN testification of Christianity. and D. WIL­LET, no Papist I hope, unlesse your selves be, Synop. pag. 69. saith, that The ONLY absence of word and Sacra­ments doe make a nullity in a Church: therefore an existence in a Church is made by their presence. But how can you or any man pos­sibly conceive, that the Word should be prea­ched, and Sacraments administred, in a Church [Page 138] Invisible? The L. Bishop of LICHFIELD hath as much Popery in this point as M. MOUNTAGU hath. In his Appeale thus he writeth. Now Prote­stants and Romanists doe concarre in words, Page 661. and almost in sence. So that the difference is not so much in the position, as in the application of the Invisibility of the Church. And before him, long since, that IEWELL of his time, hath uttered these expresse words: The generall or outward Church of GOD is VISIBLE, and may Pag. 361. be seene; in his Defence against HARDING. And this Doctrine is sufficiently and to this pur­pose explaned by that right worthy and lear­ned Deane, D^r. WHITE, in his just Defence of his deceased Brother; against the cavills of a Iesuite. And he that hath read moe Papists than ever you have heard of, concludeth thus; Whereunto our learned adversaries for the grea­ter part agree. Great Ignorance then it must be, or malice, or faction, or all, that by the In­formation of these poore Divines, M. MOUN­TAGU is promoted for a Papist, for saying, that with moderate men on both sides, this Con­troversie might cease. or, for calling the opinion of the INVISIBILITY of the Church, a private opinion. But as I said, so I see it fareth still now adayes: as with the Iesuite and Iesuited Papist, such as be by farre the major part of that side, every man is an Heretick, a Lutheren, a Calvinist, I know not what, that is not a desperate Papist, to goe unto the Divell with [Page 139] them, though it be upon a second pouder-plot; so also with our Puritans, very Sibs unto those Fathers of the Society, every Moderate man is bedaubed with these goodly habiliments, of ARMINIANISME, POPERY, and what not? un­lesse hee will be frantick with them for their Holy Cause. Yet well fare BELLARMINE, a man of a better spirit than some of the Pa­ternitie, who ingenuously confesseth concer­ning this particular; Notandum est, multos ex nostris tempus terere, dum probant, ABSOLUTE De Eccles. 3. 13 Ecclesiam non posse deficere: nam CALVINUS, & caeteri Haeretici id concedunt. And that learned Deane of CARLILE, of late against FISHER, saith the same; It is but lost labour, to spend time in proving against us, that there is alway in the world a true Church; for we have ever ac­knowledged it: and have ever been Papists in opinion for so doing, or else these good Fel­lowes are and ever will bee; I know what. I could have produced many moe to purpose, and amongst them diverse whom they will not cast off for Papists; as M. PERKINS, M. CLAPHAM, D. SPARKS, &c. I will yet adde a little more Poperie to the former, and so leave my friends and Informers to chew the Cud upon it, as they do after Lectures. The Church of Rome hath ever beene visible. The Church of Rome is, and ever was a true Church since it was a Church: Therefore the true Church hath been visible. I say, Remember it, lest [Page 140] you mistake my saying, or maliciously mistake it; a True Church ratione essentiae, and Being of a Church, not a Sound Church every way in their Doctrine.

INFORMERS.

COncerning ANTICHRIST, thus hee wri­teth: I professe ingenuously, I am not of opinion that the Bishop of ROME per­sonally is THAT ANTICHRIST; nor yet that the Bishops of ROME successively are THAT ANTICHRIST. Chap. X. pag. 74.

MOUNTAGU.

WHat if I am not of that opini­on? what if ingenuously I pro­fesse so much, that I am not of that opinion, as indeed I am not? I was oc­casioned to shew my opinion in the point by the Gagger, who charged our Church in gene­rall with the private Fancy and opinion of some men, that the Pope of Rome was that ve­ry Antichrist mentioned and foretold in the Scripture. I must needs avow it, or disclaime it. That I could not doe, without wronging the Church and my selfe: therefore I thought it an honest mans part, ingenuously to pro­fesse what I thought. Sure it would be more [Page 142] pleasing unto GOD, and commendable with men, if your selves and such Halfers in opini­ons, omnium horarum homines for your private ends, would openly avow what covertly you conceale; and publickly professe that, in which animitùs, being rotten at the Core, you are dis­sentients indeed from the Church of England: than to be and call your selves at least Confor­mitants for fashion sake in some few and indif­ferent points of Ceremony; and to be opposites in Truth both from them and most points of Doctrine of the Church of England. For the point in question, what if I for my part pro­fesse so much? you may for your part pro­fesse the contrary if you please, so be it you trouble not the Church with it, nor would pin my Faith unto your opinion. One thing I promise you; for my part I will not lightly talke of my opinion in Pulpits: will you say as much for your opinion? I thinke not I know nay. For your opinions must bee all THE LORDS HOLY TRUTH. I am not anie way offended with you for your opinion, that The Pope is Antichrist: yet much rather might I, because you presume to determine so per­emptorily of future Contingents; which being ever uncertaine quoad nos, those things cannot but rashly be defined, or absolutely taught as true, the event whereof may hap afterwards to prove otherwise. Why should you be an­gry with mee, in such points of no assurance, [Page 143] because I doe not subscribe unto you? I am not tyed unto you, more than you to me. Who concluded it, but your selves, to be flat Popery, not to Beleeve or Preach that the Pope is that Antichrist? or to professe the contrary, that he is not that Antichrist? Who can finde it to be the doctrine of the Church of England? What Sy­nod resolved it? Convocation assented to it? What Parliament, Law, Proclamation, or Edict did ever command it to be professed, or have imposed penaltie upon repugnants, or non-con­sentients unto it? Some Protestant Divines at home and abroad, I grant, have thought so, wrote so, disputed so; in good zeale, no doubt, against that insolent, and insufferable, and out­rageous Tyrannie and Pride of the Bishops of Rome, and their infinite enormities in the Church: and out of that affection have been too violently forward, out of conjectures and probabilities, to pronounce, The POPE is that MAN OF SINNE, and SONNE OF PER­DITION. The Synod of GAPP in France made it a point of their Beleefe, and concluded it peremptorily to be so. And let them and you beleeve it so, if you will. Their inducements doe not convince or perswade me. I never yet saw proofe or argument brought, that was per­swasive; much lesse that was demonstrative in the case. I never yet met with argument or reason to the point, but, at least to my owne satisfac­tion, I was able to answer it. If you can give [Page 144] better, I am like to yeeld. Till then, there be­ing no conviction nor compulsion in foro ex­terno or interiori, I would gladly know why it should not be as lawfull for mee to opine, The Pope is NOT that Antichrist; as for others to write, to preach, to publish, to tender unto Proceeders this Proposition, The Pope Is An­tichrist. They thinke one way: I am of ano­ther minde; and so are infinite others with me. Why may not I sedatè and tranquillè as well deliver my Negative, as M. GABRIEL POWELL publish and print (as if the Church of Eng­land were of his minde), out of violent and transported passion, no doubt, thus; I am as well assured, and as throughly perswaded, that the POPE is THAT ANTICHRIST, as I am resol­ved, IESUS CHRIST was the Sonne of GOD; or to that purpose: for I have not now the booke by mee. Surely, this man made it an Article of his faith; so will not I. And yet I will not deny, but the Pope is an Antichrist. I doe not deny it: I doe beleeve it. These honest Informers should not so have dealt with mee, as by a knack of concealement to have done me so palpable a wrong, as if my meaning were, the Pope was no Antichrist at all. So I might have walked, not onely upon the Brinks, but have come much within the Verge of flat Popery: and not injuriously, as now, have been slandered for, and stiled a Papist. For that imputation might more than [Page 145] grate upon an universall approoving of the totall doctrine of the Church of Rome; in as much as there were of old, are now, and al­way will bee, many Antichrists: and hee that any way opposeth CHRIST in his Kingdom, his Word, his Church, is an Antichrist; which, as ingenuously as the former, I professe the Pope and the Church of Rome doth. And there­fore, when out of my private opinion onely (for which I will not trouble the peace of the Church) I denied that the Pope was THAT Antichrist, then yet and there I added withall, AN Antichrist notwithstanding I hold him or them, carrying themselves in the Church as they doe. Which Passage and Proposition had bin sufficient, with men not partially addicted un­to a Side, and maliciously bent to calumniate an Opposite, as it is too manifest my Infor­mers bee, to have discharged mee from guilt or tincture of Popery. For will or can any Pa­pist living say, that the Bishop of Rome now is an Antichrist? But so have I said, and writ­ten, and professed so, if these honest Informers had been pleased to have reported it so. But it stood not with their prime purpose of ca­lumniating: directly it gave check unto their detraction in chief, and so they passed it slight­ly over.

But as concerning the maine, the question on foot, Whether the Pope of Rome, or the Popes of Rome, either are, or may be accoun­ted, [Page 146] or is THAT Antichrist, or Antichrists, my irresolution grew, as I have remembred, from the much insufficiency of their proofes that tender it stoutly, strongly, affectiouately, and tantum non, as a point of faith. Not any one of their arguments is, not all their arguments together are, convincing. Secondly, because it is in Scripture every where tendred as a Pro­phecy; and therefore a Mystery sealed up, ob­scure, not manifested, nor to bee understood, but by evident and plaine event, without di­vine revelation. How then (these are the very words of Bishop MORTON in excuse of the Fathers concerning their erring in this verie case of ANTICHRIST) can ignorance of those things which cannot possibly be understood before the time of their accomplishment in the last daies, be held prejudiciall unto the wisedome of the Fa­thers of former times? I may adde thereunto, Or the cautelousnes of suspenders, and not for­ward concluders in these times? And yet far­ther; because Protestants are divided in the question. For all doe not determine or resolve, that the Pope is THAT Antichrist remembred in the Scripture: and yet none of them have hitherto at any time beene stiled or reputed Papists, no not by Puritanicall Opposites. The Scriptures, as is apparent, doe in this question propose us two persons: AN Antichrist, one with many; THE Antichrist, one eminent a­bove all. All, and every one that oppugneth [Page 147] or opposeth CHRIST and his Kingdome, his Word and Doctrine, is an Antichrist. So was SIMON MAGUS, ELYMAS, MENANDER, the NICOLAITANS, and other Heretickes abroad, and risen up in the very Apostles times: of whom S. IOHN himselfe said, And now are many Antichrists. These are all, more or lesse, Antichrists, as their opposition is more or lesse unto CHRIST and his Kingdome, in points of higher nature or of lower Tenure. But beside all these, more particularly and especially there is designed out in Scripture an egregious, emi­nent, and transcendent ANTICHRIST, called there. THE MAN OF SINNE, THE SONNE OF PERDITION. Concerning him; not them, there is diversity of judgements, discrepancie of opinion among Divines both old and new. First, some of the antient Fathers, and most of the Writers in the present Church of Rome, understand the propheticall prediction of, and apply it unto one singular individuall man onely, and no otherwise; and him to bee an Hereticke in opinion, extreamly and with all vehemency opposing the saving truth of GOD; prodigiously impious, and beyond measure: who shall by all signes and wonders, with maine force and opposition, set himself against CHRIST IESUS and his Kingdome, towards the later end of the world, not long before the day of Doome. Other Divines, as namely the major part of Protestant Writers, not all, [Page 148] understand the prophecy and prediction, not of any one man or singular person so much, as of any hereticall, wicked, tyrannicall State and Polity, directly opposing the Kingdome, State and Doctrine of CHRIST IESUS. But heer is some difference among them. For there are, that by Antichrist doe understand MAO­MET, or the Turkish State and Tyranny ere­cted against CHRIST and Christians directly; and the Pope and Papacie opposing the same indirectly and in oblique sort; both combi­ned in one confederacy and combination: that both these, though opposite ad invicem in Temporalibus, may and doe make one conjoy­ned opposition unto IESUS CHRIST, and his truth in Spiritualibus. And although that ex­ternally, and in regard of Civill Policy, they differ, and doe deadly hate each other, and mainly one oppose against the other; yet ni­hil impedit but they may, as indeed they do, conspire in opposing CHRIST and his Gos­pell, his Kingdome differently. Other, more precise Protestant Divines, do not nor yet will in any hand extend Antichristianisme beyond the Papacy; nor yet will admit or hear of any other great Antichrist, past or to come, but onely the Bishop of Rome: which is, it see­meth, the opinion, or rather faith and beliefe, of these Informers, together with M. POW­ELL, and the Synod of GAPP; as it is of most, but not of all the Divines, whom these [Page 149] men think it an honor to call CALVINISTS. I say not of all: for ZANCHIUS, ZEGEDI­NUS, GRYNAEUS, and FAIUS of Geneva him­selfe, are not so yet perswaded. For my owne private opinion, I said, and so I say still, Though I cannot, nor yet will sweare unto either, being but probable and conjecturall, yet I rather incline unto the more moderate and temperate Tenent; and rather of the two embrace that, The Turkish and Popish State, not severall but conjoyned, and opposite unto CHRIST, though severall waies, doe much rather, and may so, constitute THAT Anti­christ, than any one man or private person whatsoever, than either of the two States dis­joynedly: and of the two States, rather the Turke by much, than the Pope; rather the MAOMETAN iniquity, than the HILDEBRAN­DINAN impiety; at least wise as much every way: because the Signes, and Tokens, and Marks, and Cognisances of that eminent and great Antichrist, foretold, extant, and designed in Scripture, do all as much accrue unto, and fit the Turk, or rather and indeed more, Him and Them, than they doe the Popes, in their State and Government ad oppositum.

First, in Apostasie they are both interessed: both are departed away; but rather the Turk than the Pope is enteressed. For whether we take that Apostasie to bee a departing away from CHRIST, and his Kingdome, and his [Page 150] Doctrine, MAOMET himselfe apostated, drew away his Followers and Sectaries, sometime CHRISTIANS: and so they continue yet un­to this day Reprobates, Renegadoes, Aposta­taes, Deniers of that faith which sometime they did professe. The Churches of Asia, those seven unto which S. IOHN sometime wrote; those which S. PAUL planted, and which APOLLOS watered; where S. PETER, S. AN­DREW, and the rest preached; those manie famous Churches of Africa, and others, are fallen from GOD, his Kingdom, his CHRIST, the SPIRIT of his Grace, profession of his Name, and received the marke and stampe of the Beast: Or whether we understand Apostasie and defection from the Romane Empire, the Turke is enteressed as much, or more than the Pope. both are growne great through the ru­ines thereof; but rather the Turke than the Pope. Indeed, both from the Scepter of CHRIST and the Romane Empire is this Apostasie: and so the signes, marks, and tokens hold on either side; but upon due examination, rather upon the Turke than the Pope as yet.

Then for Deceiving signes and wonders; how­soever that cognizance holdeth in the Papacy and Sea of Rome, we are assured out of Story, that MAOMET tooke that course to beguile the simple, to insinuate into the fancies of his deceived Proselites, and to make himselfe estee­med a [...], being a false Prophet, a Decei­ver, [Page 151] a teacher of lyes, in regard of GOD and CHRIST. Such he pretended, he desired to be accounted, so he was estemed and held in his time during life, and so is he reckoned of by his followers at this day. which hitherto secundum literam, and [...], was never verified in Pope or Bishop of Rome personally; nor in succession of Popes collectively.

Again, the number of the name of the Beast, doth agree unto one as much or more than unto the other: whether wee take DCLXVI. for the Number of the Name of a man, or for the Number of the Time assigned when he should rise. The time of MAOMETS rising in the East against CHRIST and the Romane Empire, was in the sixt Centurie. and Ierusalem was taken in by HOMAR, successor unto MA­OMET, neere about the yeare DCLXVI. The name of MAOMET written in the Greek, that tongue in which S. IOHN wrote, and to which he had reference, doth make up that Number unto an haire, as well as [...] so much insisted upon, thus;

in all DCLXVI.

Fourthly, as the Learned have made obser­vation, the word TURCA, the name of the chiefe Prince of Gog and Magog, doth signifie the same that doth Apollyon and Abaddon: which is a Name ascribed and fastned unto that man of Sinne in holy writ.

Fiftly, the Turkish MAOMETANS of these [Page 152] dayes, and so the SARASINS of old are the grand professed enemies of CHRISTIANS, Christianity, CHRIST, quà tales; for that Name, that Profession, that Religion, make warre a­gainst hate, detest, persecute Christians with all hostilitie, calling themselves interim Musulmans, that is, the right Beleevers: so that religion is openly pretended for hostilitie.

Furthermore, yet MAOMET personally, as a private man and a false Prophet, was truely and indeed a man of Sinne: not only for his morall parts in his loose licentiousnesse, lewd carriage, abominable life, impietie, improbity, and impuritie every way unto the highest; but in his ALCORAN, that execrable Law of his damned Sect, he commendeth and tendreth unto, not only alloweth and tolerateth in, his Sectaries, all filthie carnall pleasures and pro­stitutions. and in reward of such a life, a sem­blable recompence also after death, in a Para­dise of that uaure, abounding withall beast­like brothelries.

Seventhly, hee directly and [...], without more ado, thrusteth himselfe into the roome, place, state, and office of CHRIST. He exalteth himselfe above CHRIST, above the Prophets, Apostles, all holy men, all holy things. and his Successors in State, arrogate and chal­lenge unto themselves absolute, supreme, inde­pendent power over the Kings and Monarchs of the earth; calling themselves in their [Page 153] high-swelling stiles, Lords of Lords, GOD of the earth, &c. as is to bee seen in the Letters of SOLYMAN, AMURATH, and others, chal­lenging absolute, irresistable, incontrouleable power to set up, pull downe, order, alter, and dispose the world, and all things in the world, at pleasure. That wretch MAOMET, like AN­TICHRIST indeed, commandeth his ALCO­RAN, and most abominable Law, to bee re­ceived of all as the Message of GOD, beeing nothing but a TYROTARICHON and hotch­potch of errors, fables, lies, impieties, impu­rities, blasphemies, derived from, and made up out of Iewish, Paganish, Manichean, Arian, heresies, religion, and superstition. He com­mendeth it unto his Followers, as comming downe from heaven, by the ministery of his familiar and old acquaintance, the Angell GA­BRIEL. He preferreth it before the Law, the Gospell, all, or any Word of GOD. Hee threatneth torments eternall unto the despisers of it; and unto the observers promiseth his carnall Paradise, abounding with all sensuall delights and carnall pleasures: and to con­clude, as in effect in despight of GOD, concul­cating and trampling under foot whatsoever is named GOD, advanceth his owne (blasphemous reprobate and forlorne miscreant as he is) di­vine power and authority forsooth, in the Di­vels name, above all things whatsoever in hea­ven and earth. If these be not certain signes [Page 154] and remonstrances of ANTICHRIST, I cannot tell what are, or may be thought to be.

Eightthly, the TURK is, and hath been long possessed of Ierusalem and the Land of pro­mise, that pleasant Land and holy City. HOMAR, the successor of MAOMET, took it: and since it hath been a neast of uncleane birds, in the hands of those barbarous blasphemous mis­creants, except for some few yeers under the French. The Iewes, when MAOMET first de­clared himselfe, came flocking unto him, as unto their MESSIAS; the sooner and rather, because he was circumcised, as bee all of his Sect at this day, receiving in their flesh the marke, stamp, and character of the Beast. They greatly advanced and propagated his impiety. They paid him tribute, to the intent to incite him against CHRIST and Christians; and ha­ving prevailed, and instigated him thereunto, assisted him readily in that enterprize.

Ninthly, the TURK fitteth [...]: it is verified in him, take the meaning for, ei­ther IN the Church, or AGAINST the Church; in both which senses it is expoun­ded. Take Templum materially, or formally, or figuratively, any way, that note will also fit him. At Mechae was he buried in the Church there. HOMAR his Successor enshrined him there; appointed an Obit and Anniversary for him there; made it meritorious to visit his Sepulchre, to undertake Pilgrimages unto his [Page 155] Reliques: which religion and custome conti­nueth yet unto this day. And yet more: The same HOMAR, having after two yeares siege taken in Ierusalem, Templum exquisivit, as wri­teth THEOPHANES cited by BARONIUS, quod SALOMON extruxerat, ad Blasphemiae suae Ora­torium constituendum. Which being done, and his Oratory erected in place of the Iewish Tem­ple, SOPHRONIUS, the then Patriarch of Ieru­salem, took up this saying, as having reference unto ANTICHRIST; In veritate, ista est abo­minatio desolationis, quae dicta est à DANIELE Prophetâ, stans in loco sancto. And yet farther: MAOMET the Great, having taken Constan­tinople, and ruined the Empire of the Greekes, sate him downe, and made his Palace in the Cathedrall Church of SAN SOPHIA; and in the Close and Cloisters, the Bishops and Priests lodgings thereabout, where is his Seraglia unto this day. Part of that large and admira­blest piece of worke, one of the wonders of the world, the Church of SAN SOPHIA, name­ly, the Chancell of that Church, where stood the High Altar or Communion-Table, and Patri­archall Throne, is now made, and so used as a Turkish Moschie: whither the GRAUND SIGNIOR also himselfe goeth often a Pro­cession unto their Service, or blasphemous Rites and Ceremonies of their Religion. Spi­ritually & figuratively he sitteth [...], against or upon the living Temples of GOD, [Page 156] the Church of the Redeemed by the bloud of IESUS, because hee hath demolished, ruined, and brought unto confusion, very many fa­mous and renowned Christian Churches in Sy­ria, Palestina, Egypt, Persia, Armenia, Arabia, A­frica, and Asia the Lesse and the More, Graecia, Thracia, and many other Countries; Those Churches, all but one, to which Saint PAUL wrote. Those in the Revelation hee hath re­moved, put out, cast off, their Candle and Can­dlestick, bereft them of their spirituall life in CHRIST, of the power of his Kingdome in preaching the Gospell; hath set the marke of the Beast upon them, circumcised them in their flesh, taught them to blaspheme, and to open their mouthes against the GOD of heaven. He maketh and ever hath made warre against the Saints, that is, against the Christians, cal­led, according to the calling of grace, unto a profession holy and sanctified, eo nomine alone, because they professe the Name and Faith of CHRIST; that they acknowledge the Onely true GOD, and Him whom GOD hath sent, CHRIST IESUS, the Saviour and Redeemer of all mankinde; and because they detest those execrable blasphemies of that false Pro­phet and man of sinne against GOD, against CHRIST, and true Religion; seeking by all meanes to make them, as they speake, Musul­mans, that is, to deny CHRIST IESUS, and to goe to hell. And for this cause, one amongst [Page 157] many, hee extremely tyrannizeth upon their bodies and temporall states: a note of ANTI­CHRIST to doe so. but in more cruell and wretched sort upon their soules, especially in that his barbarous and unheard of Tribute of CHRISTIANS children every third year, or as occasion serveth oftner or seldomer, to be vio­lently rest away from their Parents, from their GOD, Redeemer, Religion, hope of Salvation, and e­verlasting life, to become the Eunuchs in his Sera­glia, worse than those in the Court of the King of Babylon; his Ianisaries, Spahies, Beglerbegs, and Bashaes, the publick meanes and instruments of his Tyranny and insolences against GOD and his Church.

Tenthly, he is seated in Constantinople, that is, also in Rome. For Constantinople is known to have been called New Rome; was so named by CONSTANTINE himselfe the Founder; had in Church and Common-wealth, in both States, [...], every way equalled privi­ledges with the elder Rome; Senators, and one of the yearely Consuls. The adjacent country was then called Romania; and is so corruptly termed by the Turks at this day, Rumilio, or Rum-ili, that is, the Roman Country. It was the Emperiall Citie then when MAOMET that false Prophet and Antichrist arose, as well as Rome, indeed rather then Rome, since the time that CONSTANTINE, to the great advantage of barbarous nations, enemies unto the Roman [Page 158] State, translated the state of the Empire thi­ther. And lastly, this great and Emperiall CI­TY, bearing rule over the Kings of the earth, is likewise, as well as ROME, seated upon seven hills, at or neere unto the Sea: indeed in a Foreland or Landstreight where two Seas meet; the only Seat in the world for an Em­periall See. For which cause it is called [...], by NICETAS, The City with seven tops; Vrbs septicollis, by PAULUS DIACONUS: so ac­knowledged by IANUS DOUZA a Gentleman of the Netherlands in his Iournall; and by M. RICHARD KNOLLS in his Turkish History, with others.

Now upon these premised considerations, of the Marks of that Antichrist, so fitting the Turkish State and Tyranny every way, it may seeme probable, that MAOMET the false Pro­phet, and the Turkish State, as the Beast, may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Papacy, in making up that Antichrist and Antichristian Kingdome or State opposite unto the State and Kingdome of CHRIST and Christians. which respectu finis may be ac­counted one in opposition against GOD and CHRIST; though the meanes of effecting it be many, different and diverse: Turcisme one way may oppose CHRIST, as it doth, vi apertâ, by fiery force; and Ropery bee ad oppositum ano­ther way, fraude and insidijs, as it is. In which re­spect, as DANIEL may well tell us of one horn; [Page 159] so S. IOHN remembreth a Beast with two Hornes: MAOMET in the East, the POPE in the West; both Hornes pushing fiercely against the Saints: yet so also, that it may be proba­ble which ZANCHIUS hath, Miscellan lib. III. and LAMBERT also upon the Apocalypse, that beside these two, after these both, it is not unlikely, out of both these impious opposite States, one notorious, singular, mischievous An­tichrist may arise, towards the finall consum­mation of the world; who in fradulent, col­luding, malicious craftinesse, in impious, exe­crable and transcendent wickednesse, through hereticall impostures and lying miracles, shall goe beyond all other that ever lived in the world, and bee fitted with all signes and markes of Antichrist unto the full, so as no exception can bee taken against any in any one point. Surely if the Generall of the Ie­suites Order should once come to be Pope, & sit in PETERS chaire, as they call it, I would ve­hemently suspect him to bee the party desig­ned: for out of what nest that accursed bird should rather come abroad, than out of that Seraphicall Society, I cannot ghesse; and but ghesse. For in resolution, I say with that IE­WELL of England in pag. CCCXCIII. I will not say the POPE is ANTICHRIST. GOD will reveale him in his time, and he shall be knowne: yet is it probable, hee may be of that rank. I will not say the TURKE is Antichrist; [Page 160] though it bee probable, that Antichrist may come from thence; the Turkes power being increased and inlarged by the Popes policy, as the same B. IEWELL hath observed it well, that it may not seem strange, two opposite in State may conspire in opposing Piety. For all these, and whatsoever is beside these in this particular denoted, being all prophecies and predictions of things to come, obscurely and mystically delivered, are but opinions and con­jectures; not intended, not to be received as finall resolutions. For my part, I desire not to contest with any man about them; nor would I willingly have mens mindes, or the peace of the Church disquieted with them. It is an evill disease in the world among Divines, in things of indifferency they cannot endure dis­sentients. He is not my friend, I will hold no correspondency with him, that will not per omniae and in omnibus bee of my minde. There is a Rule of faith; we acknowledge it, commend it, and have recourse unto it. Things that are straight and direct, and according to that Rule confessedly, need not application, are not commonly brought to be applied to that Rule: but things of different or doubtfull stan­ding, these need application, and are applied confessedly by the perpetuall practice and tra­dition of the Catholick Church in consent of Fathers. Wee apply things doubtfull unto Scripture, our Norma, and exact and absolute [Page 161] Rule of faith and manners. We consent and agree, it is Antichristian to dissent from, to re­ject that Rule; and him an Antichrist that doth so, or proposeth any thing as Credendum a­gainst that Rule. The Pope doth this. Let him then be an Antichrist in S. IOHN'S acceptance: There are many Antichrists. But whether hee bee THAT Antichrist or not, I dare not pre­sume to determine, without speciall warrant in such a case. If you have any speciall illu­mination, or assurance by divine revelation, or rather strong perswasion through affection, much good may it do you: keepe it to YOUR selves: presse it not on others, that in such cases de­sire sapere ad sobrietatem, rather than resolve without good warrant.

INFORMERS.

TOuching Iustification, thus hee writeth: A sinner is then iustified when hee is made iust, that is, translated from the state of nature to the state of grace, as COLOS. I. XIII. which (Act) is motion, as they speak, betwixt two terms, and consisteth in forgivenesse of sinnes primarily, and grace infused secondarily. CHAP. XVIII. pag. CXLII.

MOUNTAGU.

AND this, all this, in generall, in par­ticular, is our Informers Popery. Strange Popery. Of what religion are you, M. Informers, YATES and WARD? For in Chri­stian [Page 163] Religion a man is and may be conside­red two waies, as I also have considered him, according unto a twofold state: The state of nature, to which hee was formed; and the state of grace, to which he is reformed: as hee was in ADAM, depraved and lost; as hee is in CHRIST IESUS, sought out, found, and hea­led of his maladies. In his Being, Subsisting, and Constitution, every man is first a naturall man: in that state standing, hee pleaseth not GOD. He can doe nothing, saith CALVIN, that can please him, or be accepted of him. His very best works (you I hope will say so) are abomi­nation unto GOD. Quando naturalibus dotibus censendi sunt, à vertice capitis ad plantam usque pedis, scintilla boni non reperitur; nisi fortè veli­mus insimulare falsi SCRIPTURAM, dum hisce Elogijs universes filios ADAE commendat, quòd pravo sint & praefracto corde; quòd omne fig­mentum cordis corum pravum sit à primis annis; quòd vanae sint corum cogitationes, &c. breviter, quòd caro sint: quo nomine intelliguntur opera illá omnia quae enumerantur à PAULO, Gal. V. XIX. So CALVIN, Instit. III. XIV. I. The reason then of that so great a distaste which GOD hath of the best works of meer carnall and naturall men, is that great disproportion betwixt GOD and man, that much discongru­ity betwixt HIM and us. The Fountain is im­pure from whence these works proceed; man himself not accepted, that is Author of them, [Page 164] Agent in them. And why not accepted? Be­cause hee is uncleane. GOD is of pure eyes: hee seeth whatsoever so is most secret in the boughts, and turnings, and windings of the heart; so pure, that he cannot behold vanity, nor look upon that which is defiled and un­clean. And as hee cannot endure vanity: so neither will he look upon iniquity, to approve it; or call him righteous, that is unholy and un­sanctified before him. As he beholdeth the forms of things as they are: so hee calleth everie thing by the name it hath. Man by nature (as he is, and what he is) is wholly and alto­gether vanity. The person with GOD must be made acceptable, then accepted, before any work of his become approveable or approved. This is not, cannot bee, hee continuing statu quo, a naturall man, unclean, defiled, as he was. For, Odio est ei impius & impietas ejus; so far, saith CALVIN, that quae vel summo splendore conspicua sunt opera, in hominibus nondum verè INST. 3. 148. sanctificatis, tam procul absint à justitiâ coram DOMINO, ut peccata censeantur. Ac proinde ve­rissimè illi, qui non, conciliari personae apud DE­UM, gratiam per opera tradiderunt: sed è con­verso, tum demum placere opera, ubi persona gra­tiam prius in DEI conspectu invenerit. This, I hope, is not Popery. Now, that hee may bee fully and thoroughly accepted with GOD; that himselfe first, and then his workes, may please GOD, there must (as I conceive) bee a [Page 165] change, an alteration in him and his: he must become a new man, a man renewed, a man changed, a new creature, and the like, I. Cor. V. XVII. Gal. VI. XV. Colos. III. X. Ephes. IV. XXIII. II. Cor. IV. XVI. I. Cor. V. VII. Psal. LI. X. Now, in common sense and reason, as I take it, there nor is, nor can be, any renewing of the inward man, nor any the least change of the minde, nor any new creature, nor any translating from dark­nes to light, &c. without alteration; without de­struction of the first, and privation of former Being, and induction of the second; without abolishing of the body of sinne, and induction of the Spirit of righteousnesse. Man cannot possible passe from one state unto another, with­out ceasing to bee what hee was, and becom­ming what hee was not before. If it can bee done otherwise, good Sirs let mee knowe the manner how, the place where, the time when, the parties in whom this alteration is made; and I shall wonder at it. For as yet, to my conceipt, this furpasseth humane ca­pacity and understanding, that there should be a new creature, a renewing, an alteration, and yet no change. CALVIN hath taught you o­therwise, Instit. 111. 3. 9. If then there be gran­ted a change in man, that of the childe of wrath becommeth the childe of GOD, renued in the spirit of his minde (as what childe can or will deny or doubt of that?), then this al­teration must needs bee inter terminos; as I [Page 166] thinke all mankinde, beside your selves, will confesse and acknowledge with mee, out of grounds and experiments of even naturall rea­son. A sicke man, recovered, is changed in state and habitude of body, disease, and dispo­sition; ceasing to be what he was, becomming what hee was not. When of a sick man hee became whole and sound, his change was from Sickenesse to Health: and this his changing was Motion. the termes betwixt which, Sick­nesse and Health. A dead man reviving (as the widows SONNE of Naim, or LAZARUS quadriduanus raised out of his grave) is chan­ged in state, constitution, &c. when of a dead man hee becommeth a living. Naturall men regenerated are in like case: In the opinion of some men, haply, sick, not dead: in your opinion and in mine, dead unto GOD, and to good works, so long as they consist in statu quo; are necessarily changed, when they are revi­ved and made alive unto GOD and Righte­ousnesse, heyres of promise, co-heyres with CHRIST. Et haec mutatio est dexterae Excelsi. If S. PAUL had come within these Informers fin­gers when the promoting humour was predo­minant in them, doubtlesse they would have informed also against him for Error, Popery, and what not? For he telling the CORINTHIANS what they had been, 1. Cor. VI. XI. faith, even in terminis, as I have spoken of the regenerate man; But you are washed, but you are sanctified, [Page 167] but you are justified, in the name of our Lord IESUS CHRIST, and by the SPIRIT of our GOD, which Text M. CALVIN Inst. 111. 14. 6. glosseth thus: Si CHRISTI sanguine in purifi­cationem per spiritum aspergimur, ne putemus nos alios esse, ante hujus modi irrigationem, quàm est sine CHRISTO peceator. Here is a change ad­mitted: from Being so and so; to Subsisting thus, and thus, betwixt termes. Maneat ergo illud Principium nostrae salutis, esse quandam, velut à morte in vitam, Resurrectionem. Quia propter CHRISTUM, ubi nobis datum est in eum Credere, tunc incipimus demum transire à morte in vitam. Iust the Popery that M. MOUNTAGU in this point is informed against for; A sinner is then justified, when he is made just, that is, when he is translated from the state of Nature unto the state of Grace: as Coloss. 1. 13. And if this was not Actio inter terminos, though wrought in instanti, as also mutation and change is, and needs must be, for complement of the Act, I must confesse my owne dulnesse, I cannot o­therwise understand or comprehend it. To de­nic a principle of Reason, in practice of Re­ligion, I dare not. Surely, if Popery be a masse of absurdities, this Taxation of the Informers is rather extreme Popery, than any thing here avouched by M. MOUNTAGU looking toward Popery. They deny such a Principle, that de­nie mutation to be betwixt two Termes; or that in the justified Sinner there is mutation [Page 168] and change of former state, and alteration of his sometime Being.

But haply it is better Popery which ensu­eth; and it is indeed the point which with any colour can bee touched with this aspersi­on by these men, that have set themselves to calumniate where they are ignorant of the point they undertake against. I have in conse­quence these words, And consisteth in forgive­nesse of sinnes primarily, and in grace infused se­condarily. Which words if the Informers could have understood, or would have construed ac­cording to my meaning, they might have ob­served out of my discourse, that I made a great difference betwixt these two parts; and by Secondly, intended only Concomitanter: my purpose beeing to wipe off that odious Popish imputation, of which I shall speake anon, in their calumniating our doctrine of Iustification: which because these Informers either could not, or would not understand, I shall endevour to speak somewhat more plainly and fully out unto their eares.

IUSTIFICATION, as I said, is deduced of Iustifico; which hath or may have a threefold signification: To make just and righteous, to declare just and righteous, and to make more just and righteous; for the encrease and aug­mentation of Iustification. Apoc. XXII. XI. Qui ju­stus est justificetur, by new accesse of GOD'S grace, and progresse in course of righteous­nesse [Page 169] every day more and more. Remissio pee­cati facit, ut Sanctit as incheate vires acquirat & r [...]oretur; for the declaration of the Act of Iustification upon man as where S. IAMES saith, ABRAHAM was justified by workes that is, declared to be a righteous man, by the lively fruits of a true faith; and for absolution, which is the Act of the Iudge, to speake according unto secular proceedings, from the use and practice where of the word is taken, and appli­ed unto the proportionable Acts of GOD upon man, by whom wee are justified alone. If this bee Popery, M. PERKINS is a Papist 1 In 2. ad Gal. 16 who hath in effect the very same Now I pro­fessed at first, to take Iustification only in this acceptation and inferred there upon against the Gagger, no more than was enough to con­fute him and his, that we teach and beleeve, that when sinnes are pardoned by GOD, GOD doth not change the minde of the sinner ney that yet destroyeth in him the blot and body of sinne; but that the same remaining in the soule of man, in like maner as it did before condonation, is only taken away by a not imputation of the guilt. For so BECANUS, Manet ergo homo in se pec­cator impius immundus, & solùm habetur pro ju­stopio, mundo; & omnia ejus opera sunt immun­da, [...], inquin [...]ta. But wee, saith that most learned and judictions D. WHITE, truely are Forre from this absund opinion. how farre? how Pa. ib. in Def. so? for we teach saith he, that together with the [Page 170] Action of GOD remitting sinne, concurreth ano­ther Action of divine grace, enabling man to for­sake and mortifie every greater sinne, which GOD hath pardoned. And M. PERKINS observeth, that many among us doe not hold CHRIST, or be­leeve in him aright for their Iustification, be­cause they hold him without change of heart and life: for by S. PAULS conclusion, whom CHRIST quickneth, them hee justifieth; and whom he doth not quicken, he doth not ju­stifie. In 3. Gal. ver. 22. And this is directly the doctrine of the Scripture, 1. Cor. VI. XI. Heb. IX. XIV. Rev. I. V. VI. 1. Pet. II. IX. Ezech. XXXVI. XXVI. Esay LIII. V. Psal. CIII. III. Fathers also are cyted to that purpose: BERNARD saith, Sinnes are not onely pardoned, but the gift of sanctity is conferred. and CHRYSOSTOME saith, Delivering us from sin, he engrafteth righteousnesse; yea, he extinguish­eth sinne, and doth not suffer it to be. Sinne in the soule, is as a leprosie in the bodie. Now, as when NAAMAN was restored by washing in Iordan, his leprosie was removed, and his flesh restored to that naturall health, vigour, and beautie it had: so when GOD pardoneth sinne, he removeth away the guilt thereof by free pardon, and conferreth grace, to the de­stroying of sinne, and healing of the foule. Mich. VI. XIX. and this is the meaning of S. AUGUST in Psal. VII. Cum Iustifica [...]u [...] impius, ex impio fit justus; & ex possessione Diaboli, migrat in templum DEI. and Ser. XVI. de verbis Apostoli, [Page 171] summing up whatsoever I have said in effect, and by these Ignorántes is traduced as Popery: Nos sumus & de iustitia nihil habemus? Habe­mus omnino. Grati simus ex co quod habemus, ut addatur quod non habemus, & ne perdamus quod habemus. Iustificati sumus, & ipsa iustitia cùm proficimus crescit, & quomodo crescit, dicam; & vobiscum, quodammodo, conferam, ut unusquis (que) vestrum iam in ipsa iustificatione constitutus, ac­ceptâ scilicet remissione peccatorum per lavacrum regenerationis, accepto spiritu sancto, proficiens de die in diem, videat ubi sit, accedat, proficiat, crescat donec consummetur: incipit homo à fide. Quid pertinet ad fidem? Credere: sed adhuc ista fides discernatur ab immundis spiritibus, alluding to that IAMES 2. Si tantum credis, & sine spe vi­vis, vel dilectionem non habes, & Daemones cre­dunt & contremiscunt. A new life needs then must be conjoyned with Iustification. And this is the expresse doctrine of D. WHITAKERS: Remissio peccatorum facit, ut Sanctitas in nobis inchoetur. and of CALVIN himselfe, who will have men to be taught this doctrine: Docean­tur Lib. de reform. Ecclesiae. homines fieri non passe, ut justi censecutur CHRISTI merito, quin renoventur eius spiritu in sanctam vitam: frustra (que) grataitâ DEI adoptione gloriari omnes, in quibus spiritus regenerationis non habitat. Deni (que) nullos à DEO ricipi in gra­tiam, qui non iusti quo (que) verè fiunt. Now, if a man at all times, when he is truely iustified, be also sanctified, what offence can there be, to al­low [Page 172] one common word to containe and ex­presse both these parts? But men that under­stand not the true state of things, but scumme upon the surface, and take things up in grosse, without due proportions, and come with pre­judicate malice, to lay hold upon any thing for their owne advantage; no marvell if they make strange Popery, and in indiscreet zeale cast forth they cannot tell what. CALVIN is not afraid, loco quo supra, to use the very terme of INHERENT righteousnesse. Nunquam recon­ciliamur DEO, quin simul donemur IUSTITIA INHERENTE. which speech if that M. MOUN­TAGU had used, no excuse would have put by imputation of Popery.

To conclude, and give them satisfaction, if they will take any; if not, jacta alea est, eatur. IUSTIFICATION is taken two waies in Scrip­ture; Strictè magis, and extensivè Precisely, for remission of sinnes, by the onely merits and satisfaction of CHRIST, accepted for us, and imputed to us. and enlargedly, for that Act of GOD, and the necessary and immediate concomitants unto, and consequents upon that, the whole and entire state and quality and condition of man regenerate, changed; by which a sinner guilty of death, is acquitted, cleansed, made just in himselfe, reconciled unto GOD, appointed to walke, and beginning to walke in holinesse and in newnesse of life, Remission of sinnes, and imputation of CHRIST'S Righte­ousnesse, [Page 173] saith M. PERKINS, is Iustification. a free pardoning and cancelling of all Bands and Obligations of transgression for CHRIST'S sake, through the only merit of his Death, Pas­sion, and shedding of his bloud. Which Act, Psal. XXXII. II. is called, Not imputing sin. When and where GOD doth so pardon, and not im­pute sinne, he addeth unto it, out of his love, a seconding Act of divine mercy and grace, enabling man to abandon everie mortall sinne; those sinnes that doe hang so fast on; that are more eminent, notorious, enormious, whose property is vastare conscientiam; to the amolishing of the whole body of sinne, that it raigne not in our mortall bodies: although that those delicta ordinariae incursionis, as TER­TULLIAN nameth them, cannot so easily bee De pudic. c. 19. put away. Have I unto you seemed to con­found Iustification with Sanctification, if yet you knowe the difference between them? or have I ascribed, in your seeming, anie act of Sanctification unto Iustification? You may bee pleased to remember, that I went not most punctually to work, but è re natâ to confute the Gagger, described Iustification at large: ne­ver suspecting, that any professed enemies of Popery, as you would seem to bee, would so captiously have perverted my true sense and meaning; my words, at least my passage bee­ing warranted by YOUR owne Dictators, CAL­VIN, PERKINS, BEZA. For Iustificationis no­men [Page 174] largè accipio, saith BEZA; and imagine them to bee my words, ut complectitur quic­quid à CHRISTO consequimur, tam per Imputa­tionem, quàm per Spiritus in nobis Sanctificatio­nem, Annotat in Tit. 111. ver. VII. and in Opusc. To. 11. pa. DCLXXVII. Otherwise be it known unto your Masterships, that I beleeve, Iustifi­cation in strictnes of tearms is neither Rege­neration, nor Renovation, nor Sanctification; but a certaine Action in GOD, applied unto us, or a certaine respect or relation whereby we are pardoned and acquitted of our sinnes, esteemed righteous before GOD, and accep­ted by him in CHRIST unto life everlasting: which wiser men than you have so expressed, whom haply for my sake you will hold to PERK. in Gal. 2 be Papists heereafter.

INFORMERS.

ANda little after: In the state of grace a man is iust, when hee is changed. Which change must have concurrence of two things: Privation of Beeing to that which was, The body of sinne; and se­condly, a new constitution unto GOD in another estate. In which, he that is altred in state, changed in condition, transfor­med in mind, renew'd in soule, regenerate & borne anew unto GOD by grace, is iust, in the state of Iustification; ceasing to bee what he was becoming what he was not before. In this maine point he accordeth fully with the Councell of TRENT, Sess. VI. cap. XXXVII. & contradicteth the Doctrine of the Church of England in the book of Homilies, serm. of salvation, and all other Reformed Churches.

MOUNTAGU.

HEER now at length wee have some, though very poore shew of a just and formall accusation: the rest are but meer calumniations. For heer is a charge of delivering Popery, and maintaining it; and withall an advancing of that charge, by pre­tending some seeming proofe, in a threefold branch: 1. of According fully with the Coun­cell of TRENT; 11. Contradicting the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND; 111. Dissenting from all other reformed Churches: which is done by this one Assertion, A change is made in a justified man; the substance in briefe of all the former suggestion: such an one as maketh mee beleeve, that these informations were not gathered by any Scholars or Di­vines, but subscribed unto unadvisedly, and collected by some other at odds with his owne little or frantick wits: for who can conceive, that a just and uniust, a carnall and spirituall man should be the same? that one regenerate, and reformed in the spirit of his mind, should be the same that hee was before? that a live man should bee dead? I confesse I cannot conceive, LAZARUS in his grave, and sitting at table with our SAVIOUR, to have under­gone no change nor alteration; SAUL a Per­secuter, and Saint PAUL an Apostle, without [Page 177] change; the Thiefe upon the Crosse, no o­ther man, than when hee robbed and killed upon the high-way. Was he called, justified, saved? then sure he was changed. Had hee not been changed from what hee formerly was, hee had not entred into Paradise with our SAVIOUR. Hee, whose Disciples YOUR Divines are assigned to be, never taught you this Learning. Fatemur, saith he, dum nos, in­tercedente CHRISTI justitiâ, sibi reconciliat DE­US, ac gratuitâ peccatorum remissione donatos pro justis habet, cum ejusmodi misericordiâ con­junctam simul esse hanc ejus beneficentiam, quòd per Spiritum suum sanctum in nobis habitet; cu­jus virtute, concupiscentiae carnis nostrae magis ac magis indies mortificantur, Instit. III. XIV. IX. You heare him to speak of righteousnes inha­biting in our hearts, by grace diffused from the HOLY GHOST; of a progresse in a new course of life, from grace to grace, from per­fection unto perfection: which is not a phan­tasie, but reall. Nos enim, so he addeth, sanc­tifitamur, hoc est, consecramur DOMINO in veram vitae puritatem, cordibus nostris in legis obsequium formatis. And somewhat before, as hath been remembred already, he calleth it a resurrection from death to life; and no resur­rection, but supposeth change: when this mor­tall shall have put on immortality, and this cor­ruptible shall have put on incorruption: which is indeed the work of the right hand of the [Page 178] Most High, and cannot be but betwixt terms: that à quo; and this, ad quem: which is the strangest Popery that ever yet I was acquain­ted withall. But why go I about to proove, that there is Motion, unto those that agree not upon common Principles? or bring proofs to ANAXAGORAS, for The snowe is white, who would not suffer himself to be perswaded so? nay, because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded, he said it did not so much as seem white unto him. YOUR opinions are your owne: you will opine what formerly you have thought. So doe for mee, and there an end.

If yet you would there make an end, and be content to enjoy your conceits unto your selves, and make much of them at home: but we must come over and conforme our Faith unto your thoughts, or wee shall heare of it on both our eares. For instance, at present; Odiously and maliciously you advance this ac­cusation, to procure hate and envie unto the part and parties ad oppositum unto you. It is the Doctrine, you say, of the Councell of Trent, and M. MOUNTAGU agreeth fully with that Councell. But you mistake on each hand, and knowe not what you say. I do not agree fully, but onely in part with the Councell of Trent. And is it not possible to accord in something with the Councell of Trent, and to bee no Papist, nor maintaine Popery? What say you [Page 179] to M. PERKINS in his Reformed Catholick, who professeth conformity in many and different points with them, and even in this point of Iustification? is HEE a Papist? Even in your owne understandings, though not much, there are some Decisions and Conclusions in that Councell, which you will imbrace as well as Papists doe. What say you to this? Si quis A­DAE praevaricationem sibi soli, non & ejus pro­pagini, nocuisse asserit; acceptam à DEO sancti­tatem & justitiam, quam perdidit, sibi soli, & non nobis, eum perdidisse; aut in quantum il­lum per inobedientiae peccatum mortem & poenas corporis tantùm in omne genus hominum transfu­disse, non autem & peccatum, quod mors est ani­mae; Anathema sit: and your selves will say Amen, will you not, unto it? It is not there­fore a necessary illation, M. MOUNTAGU hol­deth somewhat determined in the Councell of Trent, he is therefore a Papist. That Coun­cell, were it worse than it was (and yet for my part I hold it (in some respect) pestem Rei­publicae Christianae), yet resolving upon such a Truth, as is warranted in Reason, in Divinity, with generall consent of all Ages, is not in that to be condemned. Now such is the point there concluded, for which M. MOUNTAGU is called Papist: A man justified is changed from that state wherein hee was borne, the childe of the first ADAM, unto the state of grace and ad­option of the Sonnes of GOD, by the second A­DAM, [Page 180] IESUS CHRIST our Saviour; and of an unjust person, is made righteous; of an enemy, is made the friend of GOD: that so he may be­come heire of eternall life. Which is good Ca­tholick Doctrine, non Romano, sed antiquo more; Christian and justifiable, if S. PAUL taught Catholick and Christian Doctrine, Rom. V. X. when we were enemies, wee were reconciled unto GOD by the death of his Sonne: and being re­conciled, wee shall bee saved by his life. And a­gaine, Heb. IX. XIV. For if the bloud of Buls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling them that are unclean, sanctifieth as touching the pu­rification of the flesh; how much rather shall the bloud of CHRIST, who through the eternall Spirit offred himself without spot unto GOD, purge your consciences from dead works, to serve the living God! Can this bee conceived without a change? GOD pardoneth sinne in man, for the death and passion of CHRIST his Sonne; in that very act and instant imputing unto him the righteousnesse of CHRIST, that all-sufficient and well-pleasing sacrifice, for his justification. and doth he leave him there? his sinnes be­like remaining still in being, as they were? himselfe indeed the very man he was before? or rather (as, perfect are the workes of the mightie GOD, not done by halves, and to no purpose) doth hee not also wash and clense his soule and conscience from dead workes? doth he not wipe out his iniquities, when he can­celleth [Page 181] the band, and maketh him become an­other man? doth hee not conferre upon him of his grace, for the abolishing of the bodie of sinne, and enabling the soule against the as­saults of sinne? TERTULLIAN compareth man in the state of Nature depraved, unto that Leprosie described Levit. XIII. where, as there is a change in the body made cleane and whole from the leprosie, so violent and infec­tious; so doth he, and that justly, acknowledge the like in the clensing and purifying of the soule: Conversum enim hominem, de pristino car­nis habitu, in candorem fidei, quae vitium & ma­cula aestimatur in saeculo, & totum novatum, mun­dum voluit intelligi, qui jam non sit varius, non sit de pristino, & novo aspersus. Si verò post ab­olitionem, in vetustatem aliquid ex ea re vixerit, rursum in Carne ejus, quòd emortuum delicto ha­bebatur, immundum judicari. I would TERTUL­LIAN TERT. de pud. cap. 20. had never written worse than so. The rest of the Fathers run the same way. CLE­MENS ALEXANDRINUS in his Paedagog. pag. 96. and VII. Strom. pa. 319. commenting, as it were, upon that of the APOSTLE, But you are washed, but you are sauctified. DOMINUS qui in mentes nostras indulgentiae coelestis allapsu clemen­ter influxit, in animi obtestantis hospitio justa o­peratione tenetur: saith S. CYPRIAN, and appea­leth unto DONATUS for witnesse. Scis, &c. Epist. 1. quid detraxerit nobis, quidve contulerit, mors ista criminum, vita virtutum. which generally he had [Page 182] a little before expressed thus: Sed postquam undae genitalis auxilio, superioris avi labe detersâ, in expiatum pectus ac purum desuper se lumen infudit: postquàm coelitus spiritu hausto, in novum me hominem sensinativitate secundâ reparatum, mirum in modum protinus confirmare se dubia, patere clausa, lucere tenebrosa, facultatem dare, quod prius difficile videbatur, geri posse, quod pri­us impossible videbatur ut esset: agnoscere terre­num fuisse quod prius carnaliter natum, obnoxium delictis viveret; DEI esse coepisse, quod jam spiritus animaret. Nor doth the Church of England differ heerfrom, which never did so much as dreame of denying an alteration in state, con­dition, life, manners, unto a man that is justified. How could our Church doe it, and make an­swer unto S. PAUL, Ephes. 2. 11. 12, 13. Wherefore remember that you being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, and called uncircumcision of them which are called circumcision in the flesh, made with hands; that you were, I say, at that time without CHRIST, and were aliens from the common­wealth of Israel, and were strangers from the covenants of promise, and had no hope, but were without GOD in the world: But now in IESUS CHRIST you which were farre off, are made neere by the bloud of CHRIST? So heer is va­riation of place and station; and an alteration also in state, ver. 19. Now you are no more stran­gers and forreyners, but citizens with Saints, and of the houshold of GOD. Not that only, [Page 183] but, Two made one. As if, saith CHRYSOSTOM, two statues were, the one of brasse, the other of gold; and both being cast into the furnace, should from thence come out gold. Such is the changed estate of men justified; that they are also rege­nerate and borne anew, that are justified. I will not justifie the Councell of Trent farther than needs; they have not deserved it at the hands of any Protestants: but Truth is truth even from the Divels mouth. And if they meant no otherwise than thus, as I conceive they did not, I see no reason to quarrell them, or dissent from them.

But yet one peg higher is this imputation strained; namely, that I not onely agree with the Councell of Trent, but disagree from the Church of England. I deny this absolutely: prove it, and take all. If I disagree from the Church of England, promote, informe against me: spare not. In Morboniam all the Coun­cels of Trent in the world, if there were ten thousand of them. I forsake them all respec­tively: such regard and awfull respect doe I beare unto my Mother the CHURCH of Eng­land. You quote us the Homilies: but it is at randome, as if you spake it by Heare-say, ha­ving never read them; and no marvell: for I think you dis-repute them, as all of your Fa­ction doe. Serm. you say, of Salvation. There are three severall Homilies, or, as you call them, Sermons, of that argument, with the Title of [Page 184] Salvation. In all of them, in any one of them, shew me any contradiction unto any thing de­livered against the Gagger, or unto this Error, as you call it, of the change made in a justified man, if you can. You cite no words, name no place, send me to no Text, Page, nor particu­lar by any direction, that I may know where to finde what you intend. A meer trick of juggling companions. Marry I find some things in those Homilies, which I dare say will not down, nor digest with you; as opposing some other dreames of your Side: but I let them alone till opportune time. But in the second Sermon of Repentance, I finde directly in a man that is justified, a change made, faith the Homily. The fourth part of Repentance is amendment of life, or a new life, in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance. For they that doe truely repent them of their sinnes, must be cleane abtered and CHANGED: they must become new creatures: they must be no more the same they were before. Now look and compare M. MOUNTAGU'S private Popery with this publick Popery of the Church, and goe give your selves the check for malice and indiscretion. And afterward, having instanced this doctrine in that memo­rable example of ZACHEUS'S conversion from his evill way of covetousnes and extortion, as a common Customer, the Homily concludeth with this Epiphonema concerning him thus: Heer we see, that after his repentance he was no more [Page 185] the same man he had been before, but was clean CHANGED and altered. It was so farre off, that he would continue and abide still in his unsatia­ble covetousnesse, or take ought away fraudulent­ly from any man, that hee was most ready and willing to give away his owne. Go now, and challenge M. MOUNTAGU for his Popery upon like case, in like tearms almost, delivered. In the state of grace a man is just (and a just man I hope none is, but he that is already iustified) when he is changed. Which change of his con­sisteth in two things: Privation of Being to that which was formerly in a naturall man, the body of sinne; and A new constitution un­to GOD in another state, namely, of holinesse in life and conversation. I know well enough, what you are afraid of, what you would say, because you neyther understand your selves, nor mee, that doe not make this change the same with Iustification in the act; but an inci­dent, instant, necessarie consequent thereupon. Goe then and befoole your selves, for confu­sedly opposing common sense and reason, and well knowne and confessed Divinity on all hands. No reasonable man will denie a renew­ing in a justified man: where are evermore [...]. Without alte­teration or any other the least change of substance, old things are made new; saith ORIGEN in his Dialogue against the Marcionites, which I have manuscript.

[Page 186] Nor do Reformed Churches dissent or differ, as these Calumniators falsly suggest. The Confes­sion of Ausberge requireth novam vitam, which is obedientia mandatis DEI, and renovatio, accor­ding to S. PAUL; and that also so necessarily, that qui admittunt actiones contra Conscientiam, sint injusti, nec SPIRITUM SANCTUM, nec fidem retinent. And for the maner, I finde it thus: Fide apprehenditur remissio Peccatorum; & quia per fidem accipitur SP. SANCTUS, jam corde re­novantur, & induunt novos affectus: sic AMBRO­SIUS. Fides bonae voluntatis & justae actionis ge­nitrix est. In the confession of Saxony more direct. In declaratione vocabuli justificari, usitatè dicitur, Iustificari significat ex injusto justum fieri; quod rectè intellectum, hic quo (que) quadrat. And what that right understanding is, ensueth (fully and wholly M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery): Ex inju­sto justum, id est, absolutum à reatu propter filium DEI, id est, apprehendentem fide ipsum CHRI­STUM, qui est justitia nostra; quia EIUS merito habemus remissionem, & DEUS justitiam ejus no­bis imputat, & propter EUM nos justos reputat, & dato SPIRITU SUO SANCTO, nos vivificat & regenerat. a flat change. And in the Belgick Confession yet fuller: Credimus veram hanc Fidem unicui (que) nostrum inditam, nos regenerare, at (que) veluti novos homines efficere, ut quos ad no­vam vitam vivendam excitet. And in the French likewise, Credimus nos qui Naturâ servi sumus peccati, hac eadem fide intercedente, in no­vam [Page 187] vitam regenerari. Thus these Reformed Churches, and so all the rest, acknowledge a change in justified persons, by the grace of sanc­tification. I remembred before out of the Reverend and learned Deane of Carlile, that we are farre from that absurd opinion where­with our adversaries charge us, that GOD in justification doth not change the minde. You, it seemeth, are none of those WEE he speaketh of: for he meant it of the publick authorised Doctrine of the Church of England, and of Conformers unto the said Doctrine of that Church. You have a Church, or Conventicles of your owne, and Consistoriall fancies, it see­meth, thence derived: nor will you bee freed from that absurd opinion, nor let the Church of England willingly be freed from it. For if a man list to beleeve you before that Learned Man (whose bookes the best amongst you is not worthy to follow, or carrie after him) in justified persons there is no change.

INFORMERS.

PRoperly to speake, saith he, GOD only iustifieth, who alone imputeth not, but pardoneth sinne.

MOUNTAGU.

DEUS, propter solum CHRISTUM pas­sum & resuscitatum, propitius est peccatis nostris, nec illa nobis imputat. Imputat au­tem CHRISTI justitiam pro nostrâ. It a ut jam simus non solùm mundati à peccatis, & purgati vel sancti (good Popery, is it not? you shall have more of it) sed etiam donati justitiâ CHRI­STI, absoluti à peccatis, morte, condemnatione, justi deni (que) ac haeredes vitae aeternae. Thus much the Helvetian Confession, against your former In­formation. Now followeth expressely against this: Propriè ergo loquendo, DEUS solus nos iu­stificat (english this, M. YATES) & duntaxat propter CHRISTUM justificat, non imputans no­bis peccata, sedimputans nobis ejus justitiam. And yet you shall need not to english it; it is rea­dy englished unto your hands: for have you forgot, or rather have you read indeed, that Homily you but now alledged against me, of Salvation? In the second Homily there I have read thus: Iustification is not the office of man, but the office of GOD. and againe, Iustification [Page 189] is the office of GOD onely; and is not a thing which we render unto him, but which we re­ceive of him: not which we give to him, but which we take of him by his free mercy, and by the onely merits of his most deerly belo­ved Sonne, our Lord, our only Redeemer, Sa­viour, and Iustifier, IESUS CHRIST. And yet it is Popery in M. MOUNTAGU, to have said and written, Properly to speake, GOD only justifieth; who alone imputeth not, but pardoneth sinne. En quo vaecordia caecos! For yet moreover, is it not your owne Beleefe and Profession (for which, if he should say otherwise, M. MOUN­TAGU should be cryed downe Papist) that Iu­stification consisteth in Remission of sinnes? or, not imputing of them unto the man justified? Ne posthac dubites, saith CALVIN, Instit. III. XI. XXII. and you subscribe it, quo modo nos DEUS justificet, cum audis, Reconciliare illum nos sibi, non imputando delicta. and againe, Nos justificatio­nem simpliciter interpretamur, acceptationem illam; quâ nos DOMINUS in gratiam receptos pro ju­stis habet. Eam (que) in Peccatorum remissione ac justitiae CHRISTI imputatione positam esse dici­mus. Sect. 2. to whom per omnia agreeth M. PER­KINS in mo places, than ten, defining Iustifica­tion to be an Act of GOD absolving, &c. And yet with you M. MOUNTAGU is a Papist for affirming, GOD only justifieth properly, when your selves confesse, that Iustification, at least properly, consisteth in Remission of sinnes: [Page 190] and that none can forgive sinnes properly but GOD. How this should hang toge­ther, I professe my ignorance, I cannot tell. For eyther Iustification, in your opini­ons, must not consist in forgivenesse of sinnes; or else others, beside GOD, must have power of imputing or of not imputing sinnes. And heere it is worth the while to observe, how these detracters doe crosse their owne shinnes. It will not be long before that M. MOUNTA­GU with them be accounted a Papist, for say­ing, A Priest, GOD'S Minister, in GOD'S place, can forgive sinnes: and heer he is a Papist, for saying, GOD only justifieth properly, when them­selves will have Iustification to bee meerly for­givenesse of Sinnes, and yet hold, that none doth or can forgive Sinnes but GOD. May I not say well, ô vertiginem! In sober (and not in madde Puritanicall) sadnesse, dare you say that some other beside GOD, some creature over and above GOD, can forgive Sinnes? This is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, in that Homily which you remem­ber indeed, but can produce no testimonie thence. Because all men bee sinners (saith that Homily) and offenders against GOD, and brea­kers of his Lawes and Commandements, there­fore can no man by his owne acts, workes, or else deedes, seeme they never so good, be justified, and made righteous before GOD: but everie man, of necessity, is constrained to seek for another righte­ousnesse [Page 191] or justification. But where shall he find it? where is it to bee had? It is expressed according unto truth, To be received at GOD'S hand. It is GOD then that justifieth in this o­pinion of the Homily. And againe in the se­cond Homily of that argument, as is already remembred, Iustification is the office of GOD on­ly: it is not the office of man Credimus SPI­RITUM SANCTUM in cordibus nostris habitan­tem, voram nobis fidem impertiri, ut hujus tanti mysterij cognitionem adipiscamur; saith the Belgick Confession. which is the POPERY of M. MOUNTAGU, as pleaseth these Great Masters in Israel, Lyars against their owne knowledge, in saying it contradicteth the Do­ctrine of the English Church. Or if this be not the thing they meane, what is it, That GOD imputeth not sinnes unto the justified? or that Iustification is not in pardoning, and not impu­ting sinnes? whereas the Papists doe clamour a­gainst us for maintayning, that Iustification to be received at GODS hands, is forgivenes of sins and trespasses, in such things as hee hath beene offended in. I confesse, I am a Papist if this be Popery, or else that which followeth after Remission of sins: against which they informe in the next place.

INFORMERS.

AGaine; WHO only can and doth tran­slate from death unto life, reneweth a right spirit, and createth a new hart with­in us.

MOUNTAGU.

WHo can doe this, but only GOD most high? It is a work of Om­nipotencie to create: they say it is a greater work to recreate. Where sinne is pardoned by GOD, and a man is become re­generate, borne anew, and in state of Grace with GOD, there GOD by his HOLY SPI­RIT worketh inward renovation. Where sinne is graciously and freely pardoned, there holy [Page 193] life and conversation doth est soones ensue. This is the divinitie that I have learned in our Pro­testant Schooles, touching this point. And to my understanding it is observed and tendred by DAVID in Psal. L. X. Hide thy face from my sinnes, and put away all mine iniquities; which is Remission of sinnes. Then follow­eth, to make up a complete worke, Create in mee a clean heart, O LORD, and renew a right spirit within mee: which to me seemeth an In­fusion of Grace. And S. PAUL doth everie where, after vocation unto, and acceptation of us with GOD, urge walking according unto vocation, in newnesse and in holinesse of life. But, because GOD was moved thereunto by a true and a lively faith in him and his mer­cies in CHRIST, Faith is by mee said to iu­stifie instrumentally. That GOD justifieth cau­sally, hath beene suspected of Popery, and chal­lenged therefore. Now that Faith justifieth in­strumentally, cannot avoide the same imputati­on. And yet the maine exception of all Pa­pists against the doctrine of our Church, is, that we hold a man is iustified by Faith: which must be originally or instrumentally. THAT wee exclude with the forenamed Homilies. That we be iustified by Faith in CHRIST on­ly, is not, That this our owne act to beleeve in CHRIST, or this our faith in CHRIST, which is within us, doth iustifie us: for that were to account our selves to be iustified by some act or [Page 194] vertue within our selves. For, saith S. PAUL, Rom. VIII. XXXIII. It is GOD that iustifieth. THIS we embrace, as also in the same Homi­ly: Faith doth directly send us to CHRIST for remission of our sins. And by Faith given unto us of GOD, wee embrace the Promise of GOD'S mercie, and of Remission of sinnes: which accor­deth with the traduced passage of M. MOUN­TAGU, because GOD was drawne unto it by our Faith; which laying hold upon his mercy in CHRIST, obtayneth this freedome, and newnesse, and renewing from Him. Faith is therefore said to justifie, that is, instrumentally, or applicatorily. And so I am content to passe for a Papist, with the CHURCH of England.

INFORMERS.

HEe speaketh of an Accesse of Iustificati­on, or of a second Iustification. His words are these: S. IAMES, Cap. 2. 24. mea­neth that a man is justus declaratus, by his holy life and conversation; or that a man hath Accesse of Iustification, as it is also taught by your owne men. CHAP. XVIII. pag. 148.

MOUNTAGU.

HEe nameth indeed an Accesse unto Iu­stification, but it is as out of the mouth of Popish Writers; and not out of his owne opinion. Is there no difference, in your understanding, betwixt these two, Affirming po­sitively, and relating reservedly? Many Prote­stants give answer unto Popish objections sa­tisfactorie, out of Popish Tenents; who yet I think subscribe not unto those their Tenents. B. MORTON is most frequent in this course, and yet I hope you hold him no Papist. But I farther adde: Though I said not so in that place by you recyted, I may, and I doe also a­vow an accesse of Iustification, made unto it by workes of an Holy and a Lively Faith. Not as essentiall thereto, or ingredient intrinsically: for Iustification is properly the work of GOD, [Page 196] and eatenus, without magis or minus; but as ac­cessory and circumsistant, for destruction of the Body of sinne, by contrary actions of new Righ­teousnesse, to speake properly, is a worke of Sanctification, not of Iustification, according unto S. PAUL. But in what place do I speake by name of a second Iustification? Goe save your honest credits, and name mee the place: quote the very words. I distinguish indeed betwixt the phrase of S. PAUL and S. IAMES: that HEE speaketh of Iustification in attaining it; S. IAMES, of Iustification attained. which can­not be separated from good works, as anon is declared, and cited out of the twelfth Article of our Confession.

In briefe, the Information is rather an infe­rence upon the passage, than the passage expres­sed as it should be. It is known unto all, that the Romane Professors have ever in their mouths the Text of S. IAMES, What doth it pro­fite though a man saith he hath Faith, and hath no Works? can his Faith save him? Unto this allegation, amongst other things, this is answe­red: S. PAUL speaketh of Iustification in the attayning it, That onely Faith doth justifie; and that it is the Act of Faith in regard of man. For properly, and causally, and originally, GOD doth onely Iustifie. But S. IAMES meaneth of Iustification had and obtained: the which ne­cessarily is accompanied with good workes, and can bee no more separate from good workes, [Page 197] than light from the Sunne. So that justus fa­ctus through Faith, by the grace of God, is also justus declaratus by his holy life and conversa­tion, that is, the tree is knowne by the fruit it bringeth forth. Well may we beare the name of Christian men, say the Homilies, but we lacke that true faith which belongeth thereto: for true faith doth evermore bring forth good workes, as Saint IAMES speaketh, Shew mee thy Faith by thy Workes. Thy deeds and workes must bee an open testimonie of thy faith: otherwise thy faith being without good workes, is but the Divels faith, the faith of the wicked, a phan­tasie Hom. 3. of Faith of faith, and not a true Christian faith. This is the very declaration of the Homilies, for which, and no more, my Informers have promoted me for a Papist. For, that Accesse unto Iustification is not by me made essentiall unto Iustification, but onely declaratory; as I have plainly expressed in direct words. It nor is in it selfe, nor is delivered by mee, nor concei­ved of by mee, to bee any part of, or ingre­dient into the entire Act of proper Iustificati­on. I say proper: for as your owne Divines acknowledge, the word being, as most words are, extensive, ambiguous, and [...], doth sometime extend it selfe unto all the naturall consequents unto, and proper Acts of Iustifi­cation: and so it may be said, there is a two­fold Iustification. When S. PAUL saith (they are M. PERKINS his words) No man is justi­fied [Page 198] by the Law in the sight of GOD, he maketh a double Iustification: One, before GOD; the Com. in 3. ad Gal. ver. 12. other, before men. Iustification before GOD, is, when GOD reputeth a man just, and that onely for the merit and obedience of CHRIST. Iustifi­cation before men, is, when such as professe faith in CHRIST, are reputed just by men. The first is peculiarly the act of GOD. Not long before: Iustification is a certaine action in GOD, applied unto us; which is wrought in instanti. Good Popery also: yet to be found in the same man. For if Faith justifieth by disposing the heart (thus hee disputeth against the Papists) then there Ad Gal. cap. 2. pag. 209. must be a space of time between Iustification and justifying Faith. But there is no space of time be­twixt them: for so soone as a man beleeveth, he is presently justified. Doe you heare M. PER­KINS speak of Iustification in instanti, accor­ding to that old Rule, Nescit tarda molimina Spiritus sancti grantia? which was learned, I thinke, from S. AUGUSTINE; which place I will presently report: who learned it of S. CYPRIAN, who Epist. 1. speaketh thus: Accipe quod sentitur antequam discitur: nec per mor as temporum longâ agnitione colligitur, sed compendio gratiae maturantis hauritur. This he saith seemed to him at the first impossible; but in conclusion, being called and justified, he found it true. Vt repentè ac perniciter exuatur, quod vel genuinum, situ materiae naturalis obduruit; vel vsurpatum diu, senio vetustatis inolevit. I know Renovati­on, [Page 199] Sanctification, or the second Iustification (for why contend wee about words, that agree upon the point?) is distinct from Remission of our sins by GOD, and imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse unto us; wherein is our Accep­tance and Iustification: and for them both I conclude with S. AUGUSTINE, Sanè ista reno­vatio Lib. 14. de Trin. cap. 17. non momento uno fit, sicut momento fit uno illa renovatio in Baptismo, remissione omnium peccatorum. Neque enim vel unum quantulum­cunque remanet quod non remittatur. Sed quem­admodum aliud est carere febribus; aliud, ab in­firmitate quae febribus facta est, revalescere: itemque aliud est, infixum telum de corpore demere; aliud, vulnus quod eo factum est, secundâ curatione sanare: ita prima curatio est, causam removere languoris, quod per omnium peccatorum indulgentiam fit. Se­cunda, ipsum sanare languorem, quod fit paulatim proficiendo in renovatione hujus imaginis. Quae duo monstrantur in Psalmo; ubi legitur, Qui pro­pitius Psal. 103. 2, 3. fit omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, quod fit in Baptismo. Deinde sequitur, Qui sanat omnes in­firmitates tuas, quod fit quotidianis accessibus, cùm haec imago renovetur. De quae re Apostolus aper­tissimè loquutus est, dicens, Et si exterior homo noster corrumpitur, sed interior renovatur de die in diem. Renovatur autem in agnitione DEI, hoc est, justitiâ & sanctitate veritatis. And so I leave you to quarrell with S. AUGUSTINE, the Prophet DAVID, and the blessed APOSTLE, and to inform against them at the next bought [Page 200] for Popery, as you have already done against me; and passe on to the next, somewhat de­pending heeron, a fourth point of my Popery, concerning Merit.

INFORMERS.

HEe so extends Meritum ex condigno, that hee would make men beleeve, there is no material difference betwixt us and the Pa­pists in this point.

MOUNTAGU.

THe Church of Rome hath talked long and high, in strange termes, concerning Merit in good works; and place much confidence in the worth of those good works, which are done by men justified, and in the [Page 201] state of Grace. The Councell of Trent, in very surly maner, hath denounced Anathema against such as do it not, or denie it: Si quis di­xerit justificati hominis opera bona non verè me­reri vitam aeternam, Anathema sit. Sess. VI. Ca. XVI. can. XXXII. Their Schooles have assigned to this purpose, a twofold merit of these works (for the merit of the person, I meddle not with it) the one of Congruity, the other of Condig­nity, as they speak; that is, eyther for the worth of the worke it selfe, or in respect of the promise of GOD made to reward the worke. Now as touching this, they talk not much amongst their Proselytes, or moderne writings. They do not trouble their discour­ses with it, nor the world with their discourses about it. neyther doe they presse it much: as if it were too gentle a contestation with GOD. But that other of Condignitie is much made of, as being a piece for the nonce of some importance: an opposite of some spirit to affront GOD, and peremptorily to challenge, This is my due. Opera bona justorum absolutè esse bona, is their Assertion. and answerably BEL­LARMINE concludeth, Opera bona justorum ab­solutè BELLAR. de Iustif. 5. 17. esse MERITORIA vitae aeternae EX CON­DIGNO, non solùm ratione PACTI & accepta­tionis, sed etiam ratione OPERIS. ita ut, in opere bono, ex gratiâ procedente, sit quaedam proportio & aequalitas ad praemium vitae aeternae. But VAS­QUEZ the Iesuite is most transcendent in ad­vancing [Page 202] the worth and validitie of Workes ex condigno, even against and without the grace of CHRIST, in 1. 2^ae. Qu. 114. disp. 214. cap. 5. 7. 8. for he teacheth, first, Opera bona justorum EX SEIPSIS, abs (que) ullo pacto, & acceptatione, digna esse remuneratione vitae aeternae, & aequalem valo­rem CONDIGNITATIS habere, ad consequendam aeternam gloriam. secondly, that no Accesse of worth or dignitie doth accrue unto the works of just men, through the Merits, or Person of CHRIST: which the same workes should not otherwise have had and be indowed withall, if they had beene wrought by the same Grace of GOD, by alonely GOD, in liberall sort confer­red, without CHRIST. And in the VIII. chap. That the Promises of GOD are indeed an ac­cessory addition unto the works of good men, but yet doe they no manner way appertaine to the reason or being of Merit, but rather accrue unto the workes already made, not onely worthie or condigne, but also meritorious. And lastly, he concludeth, disput. CCXXII. cap. III. thus. Cùm opera justi condignè mereantur vitam aeternam, taenquam aequalem mercedem ac praemium: non opus est interventu alterius meriti condigni, quae­le est meritum CHRISTI, ut ijs reddatur vitae aterna. Quinimò aliquid habet peculiare meri­tum cujuscunque justi, respectu ipsius hominis ju­sti, quod non habet meritum CHRISTI, nem­pè, reddere ipsum hominem justum & dignum vi­tâ aeternâ, ut eam dignè consequatur. But the [Page 203] merit of CHRIST, saith hee, though it be such as may most worthily obtaine for us Glorie at GOD'S hands, yet hath it not this effectuall power and vertue, to make us formally just, and worthy of eternall Life: but through vertue deri­ved from him, men obtaine this effectuall power residing in themselves. And hereupon we never aske or desire of GOD, that through and by the merits of CHRIST, the reward and wages of eternall Life be given to our workes worthy and meritorious: but this; that Grace may bee given unto us by CHRIST, whereby we may be ena­bled worthily to merit this reward. To such an enormious exorbitancie are these Schooles grown since the IESUITES have swaggered and domineered in them, contrary to the na­turall origination and sense of the word, which was but to procure, to incurre, to purchase: as I observed out of CORNELIUS TACITUS, accor­ding to the phrase of those times; in which sense the FATHERS, that lived after those times, and spake according to the language of those times, used it: and not as formerly the meaning of the word was in CICERO, TERENCE, PLAU­TUS, &c. so the old Translator in Gen. 3. hath it, Maior est mea iniquitas, quàm ut veniam ME­REAR: Than that I may PURCHASE or PRO­CURE pardon. Nay farther, it is sometime ta­ken actively indeede; so much from Desert, that it signifieth to Doe well unto. The Glossary of H. STEPHEN rendreth meritum to this pur­pose, [Page 204] [...]. That meaning of it, for, to Pro­cure or incurre, was so frequent in those times, that STAPLETON confesseth, Si quis veterum STAPLETON, Prompt. Cathol. pag. 245. Interpretum vocabulo PROMERENDI usus est, non aliter intellexit, quàm consecutionem de facto. and as contrarie to the doctrine of the FA­THERS. Ne (que) enim talia sunt hominum ME­RITA, ut propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex IURE; aut DEUS injuriam faceret, nisi eam donaret: saith S. BERN. serm. 1. in Annun. Nay, Suf­ficit ad MERITUM, scire quòd non habemus ME­RITA. Vndè mihi tantum MERITI, cui indul­gentia pro coronâ est? saith S. AMBROSE, exhort. ad Virgin. Hoc enim ipsum, quòd homo justè vi­vit, in quantum potest justè vivere, non MERITI est humani, sed divini BENEFICII. AUG. in Psal. 109. And ORIGEN will not be perswaded to the contrarie, or very hardly at least: Vix mihimet persuadeo, quòd possit ullum opus esse, quod ex DEBITO remunerationem DEI deposcat. Cùm etiam, hoc ipsum, quòd agere aliquid possimus, vel cogitare, vel proloqui, ex ipsius dono & largi­tione faciamus. Contrary also to the opinion of moderate men in the very Church of Rome: of whom wee have a Catalogue in that lear­ned late worke against FISHER, written by the Deane of Carlile, pag. 172. of whose minde M. MOUNTAGU professeth himselfe directly to bee. And yet say these Informers (these false Informers, YATES and his brother WARD) he would make men beleeve there is no materi­all [Page 205] difference betwixt us and Papists in this point. And this is proved substantially no doubt: for they say as followeth.

INFORMERS.

THese are his words: This is your owne doctrine in the Romane Schooles: and so farre the Protestants, for these conditions, do go along with you.

MOUNTAGU.

THis doctrine. And what doctrine is this? that there is merit of condignity? that it is so farre forth due unto good [Page 206] works, as that through and for the worke it selfe wrought and performed, we may deserve, and challenge upon desert (or else GOD should wrong us), grace, goodnesse, heaven, happinesse, at GOD'S hands? [...]. I never said it, never thought it, doe detest it from my heart. That doctrine which is to be found in the specified place, is, touching the quality, not the validity, concerning the condition, not the imputation or account of a good worke: which conditions, specified and remembred by me, are, 1. That it be morally good, not simply evill. 2. Freely wrought, and not out of compul­sion. 3. By man, yet in this life, not after death. 4. In the state of grace, and not by any naturall man without GOD. Of these conditions (which doe not exclude other) what Protestants doe not allow? I adde (and may adde many more), Faith is necessarily required in the person, before that any thing hee doth can please GOD. For whatsoever is not of faith, is sinne. These In­formers, it seemeth, are otherwise minded: for they traduce and calumniate me for a Pa­pist, who require, as necessary, these conditi­ons unto a good worke; which were never, to my knowledge, denied untill now. And these are the conditions concerning which only I write, So far the Protestants go along with you. Concerning which consent in these particu­lars, I confesse I thought it was reall, and I think so still. I never could finde, I never [Page 207] did imagine, I doe not beleeve, any Protestant living, setting your selves aside, so ignorant, peevish, or prophane, as to deny those condi­tions specified. Now it being (as I conceived) agreed upon on all sides concerning the ne­cessity of them, I did make this conclusion unto the GAGGER, If your texts doe contra­dict this, either expressely or obliquely, look you unto it, it concerneth you as much as us. And why might I not make it, when they oppose a Position in the Protestants hands, in which themselves are as deeply interessed as Prote­stants are? But the men proceed to a specifi­cation of my consent more particularly.

INFORMERS.

ANd in that very page his words are, If this be your Merit, wee contradict it not. And, this is the Merit you plead for.

MOUNTAGU.

ANd so it is. For all the Gagger's Texts of Scripture plead for that Merit I speak of, and no other. And that Merit is no more but this, Verily there is a REWARD for the righteous, doubtlesse there is a GOD that judgeth the earth. A point of Popery put into my mouth by the Prophet DAVID; and that totidem verbis. And so King DAVID is be­come a Papist as well as I. For my words, upon which that inference is made, are, RE­WARD in heaven no man denyeth. REVVARD appointed for our good workes, all doe confesse. If this be your MERIT, we contradict it not. Doe you? Dare you doe it? that there is no RE­WARD for the righteous? Cast the lye then in­to the Psalmists throate, Psal. XIX. XI. In kee­ping of them (GOD'S Commandements) there is GREAT REVVARD; and unto him that said, GOD REVVARDETH everie man accor­ding to his worke: not onely according to the Qualitie of the worke, that he that soweth of the flesh, shall of the flesh reape Corruption; and, he that soweth in the spirit, shall of the spirit reape glory, and honour, and immortality: but ac­cording to the degree and proportion of his worke. He that soweth sparingly, shall reape spa­ringly; and he that soweth liberally, shall reape liberally. Not of works, or for works: but ac­cording [Page 209] unto works rather. For there is [...], and [...]. Alia est merces libera­litatis & gratiae; aliud virtutis stipendium, aliae laboris remuneratio: saith S. AMBR. specially Epist. 1. lib. 1. in the intercourse betwixt GOD and man, where Non debendo, sed promittendo DEUS se fecit debitorem. S. AUGUST. And from this, no Protestant, I know, dissenteth. I am sure, a spe­ciall man in your bookes, though I hold him of another spirit and Sect than you (better by farre) precisely setteth downe the same in his Comment. upon the Epistle to the Galathians. See then, Reader, the sincere and honest dea­ling of these misdeeming Informers, that accuse me of Popery for positive Scripture (by a trick of concealement) in saying, GOD REWAR­DETH GOOD WORKES.

INFORMERS.

TOuching the Doctrine of the certainty of salvation, having cited BELLARMINE'S opinion, he hath these words; This BELLAR­MINE assigneth, and this is enough. Facti­on may transport a man to wrangle for more; but when once they ioine issue, the difference will not be much CHAP. XXII. pag. 186.

MOUNTAGU.

ET quid haec ad IPHICLI Boves? what hath this to doe with merit of good workes, whereto by the Informers it is consigned? Neither in my opinion, nor yet in BELLARMINE'S judgement, doth Certaintie or Incertainty of salvation depend so necessa­rily upon Merit or Demerit of good workes. If a man continue constant in the course of good workes, he is sure and certaine of salva­tion in BELLARMINE'S judgement, and in my opinion also, though differently. Causally in his, as procured by them; Consequently in mine, as following of them. But whether hee that doth good workes, be certaine of. Salva­tion, that is, shall continue to the end, faith­full, constant in doing good workes, and so [Page 211] obtaine Salvation, (the promise of GOD be­highted unto those that doe good) is another Question of a different and disparate Na­ture. But to leave these Extravagancies, and come to the point, unto assurance of which they speake. It being by the Gagger fastned unto our Church, ignorantly or maliciously, verie absurdly, as almost everie particular in that Pamphlet is, That everie one ought infalli­bly to assure himselfe of his Salvation, and to hold, that he is of the number of the Elect and predestinate unto eternall life; I tooke him short for such his conclusion so generall: that eve­rie one ought, singuli generum (so the words intend) to assure himselfe: whereas that assu­rance, upon which the poore fellow grounded his imputation, resting upon the infallible pur­pose and decree of GOD'S predestination of the Elect, was by the So perswaded in the Church of England (for the Church of England it selfe was not of that opinion) restrained unto some only, and not enlarged unto all; as the man hath it, Every one ought. Secondly, that concerning even those some, the Church of England, in the publick, received, authorised do­ctrine thereof, did not tender nor presse any such Tenet of Certaine assurance, to be subscri­bed or received, but left it indifferent and at large. Of this minde I was: of this minde I professe my selfe to be still, and shall untill I see reason and evidence to the contrary. which [Page 212] if the Informers can supply mee withall, I yeeld; otherwise, [...], I see no cause to change. Thirdly, that if it had been so, as they pretend, tendred unto us by the Church to be received and beleeved: yet was it not a Doctrine so forlorne and uncouth, as the simple Gagger imagined; having Papists of name, and ranke, and reckoning, that proposed it, and propugned it, both in, and also since the Councell of Trent. AMBROSE CATHA­RINE, and ANTONIUS MARINARIUS a Car­melite, being put unto it by opposition, so can­vased the question against SERIPAND, SOTO, and ANDREAS VEGA; that they, and other Opposites of certitude and assurance, overcome with the strength of those mens reasons, ac­knowledged, first, a conjecturall probability; then came up unto a morall beleef; and last­ly, unto an experimentall faith. And VEGA, since that Councell, writeth thus: Maturè ta­men omnibus hinc inde pensatis, probabiliùs pro­fectò esse crediderim, posse aliquos viros spiritua­les tantopere in exercitijs spiritualibus proficere, & in familiaritate divinâ, ut abs (que) ullâ temerita­te possint certò & abs (que) ullâ haesitatione credere, se invenisse gratiam & remissionem peccatorum suorum apud DEUM. Thus VEGA, concerning certainty of Iustification. And BELLARMINE goeth not so farre off; for hee approveth S. AUGUSTINE and his Doctrine, which is e­nough against the Gagger. And this is that [Page 213] great Bug beare, that of which so much adoe is made, that I approve the saying of BEL­LARMINE; which I say is enough, as indeed it is, against that ignorant fellow the Gagger, as anie man will discerne that is not malici­ously peevish and Puritanicall; though simply it be not so, nor commeth home. Amongst the Papists, many learned make Faith not on­ly an intellectuall, but a fiduciall assent unto the Promises of GOD in the Gospell; that Faith and Confidence are the same. And many of them confesse, that without miraculous revela­tion, by ordinarie help and particular assistance of Grace, a man may understand that he hath Faith, Hope, and Charitie: and that a justified man may have a true and a certain Assurance of his justification, without distrustfull doub­ting. And they put a difference in this case betwixt Faith and Certainty of Faith, cui non potest subesse falsum. Marry you haply, men of other making, do know all things that belong, not only unto your present justification, as as­suredly as you know that CHRIST IESUS is in heaven: but are as sure of your eternall E­lection, and of your future Glorification, as you are of this Article of your Creed, that CHRIST was borne of the Virgin MARY. I professe I am not of that opinion with you. And whatsoe­ver you may resolve for your crying ABBA FATHER, secundum praesentem justitiam, I crave pardon. I cannot thinke, that you are, may or [Page 214] can be so perswaded secundum statum futurum, and evermore cry so. which is an [...] of your other singularitie, that Faith once had, cannot be lost totally, or finally and for ever.

INFORMERS.

TOuching Evangelicall Counsailes, these are his words: I know no doctrine of our English Church against them.

MOUNTAGU.

SO I say still, I know none. I doe be­leeve there are, and ever were, Evangeli­call Counsailes; such as S. PAUL mentio­neth [Page 215] in his Consilium autem do; such as our SAVIOUR pointed at and directed unto in his Qui potest capere capiat; such as a man may do or not do, without guilt of sinne, or breach of Law: but nothing lesse than such as the Papists fabricke up unto themselves in their works of Supererogation. It is an error in Di­vinitie, not to put a difference betwixt such works, and workes done upon counsell and ad­vice. If any man, not knowing or not con­sidering the state of the question, hath other­wise written, or preached, or taught, what is that to me, or the Doctrine of the Church of England? His ignorance, or fancie, or misun­derstanding, or misapplying, is not the Doc­trine of Antiquity, which with universall con­sent held Evangelicall Counsailes; nor of our Church, in which our GAMALIEL hath told Ad Apol. TORT. pa. 196. us; Quis nescit fieri à nobis multa liberè, & quae à DEO non sunt imperata voveri & reddi? These Promoters knew it not. B. MORTON in his Appeale saith (if he doe not say true, in­forme against him for it) that we allow the distinction of PRECEPTS and COUNCELS, lib. V. cap. IV. sect. 3. For his sake excuse mee from Popery, who write no more than he did before me: what in GOD'S indulgence is a matter of Counsell; in regard of strict justice, may come under Precept. Cap. IV. Sect. V.

INFORMERS.

SO he citeth & approveth to this purpose the saying of NAZIANZENE: We have Lawes that do binde of necessity; others that be left to our free choice, to keep them or not: so as if we keep them, we shall be rewarded; if we keep them not, no feare of punishment or of danger is to bee un­dergone therefore. cap. XV. pa. 103.

MOUNTAGU.

GRave crimen CAIE CAESAR, to cite and approve the saying of NAZIAN­ZENE, one of the foure Doctors of the Greek Church; [...], in S. BASIL'S opinion; viri per omniae incomparabilis, as hee is stiled by RUFFINUS; [Page 217] viri valdè eloquentis, & in Scriptur is valdè versati, as S. HIER. his scholar speaks. And to acquit him from the touch of your uncircumcised lips, S. AU­GUSTINE in commending him did not lavish at all, where he saith that he was, as indeed he was, magni nominis & famâ celeberrimâ illustris adeò Episcopus: cujus eloquia, ingentis merito gratiae, etiam in Latinam linguam translata, usquequaque claruerunt. This man, [...], whose books all the Puritans in Europe are not worthie to carrie, is phillipped off slightly by these our new Masters, as if his saying were not worth the hearing, nor the man to bee made any more account of than Iack hold my staffe, by these Rabbies. Sedeat ergo cum istis san­ctis patribus (from IGNATIUS downward, not worth the looking after) etiam sanctus GRE­GORIUS, & cum eis vestrae criminationis ina­nem patiatur invidiam, dum tamen cum eis con­tra novitiam pestem medicinalem proferat ipse sen­tentiam. So spake S. AUGUSTINE of old in his commendation, against IULIAN the Pela­gian Heretick, who slighted him then as much touching originall sinne, as you doe now tou­ching Evangelicall Counsails. And so speak I at present in S. AUGUSTINE'S phrase. I might have added unto that unskilfull Clerk NAZI­ANZENE, that great Papist S. CHRYSOSTOME in this point for companie, who Hom. VIII. de Poen. saith, a man may doe more than is comman­ded: who yet was indeed no Papist, though the [Page 218] poore Capacity of these men, not apprehen­ding what is Popery, and what is not, misdeem, mistake, misname Popery. Qui ignorat ignoret adhuc. I will not seek nor go about to beetle it into their braines: as in case of Counsels, so I say, Qui potest capere, capiat: and who is hee that cannot, but he that will not, understand? This I will avow; If this bee Popery, or I a Papist, all antiquity held Popery, and were Pa­pists. For name but one Writer of a contrary minde to this, There are Evangelicall Counsels.

INFORMERS.

ANd a little after, speaking of that place, MATH. XIX. XXI. If thou wilt bee perfect, go sell what thou hast, &c. he hath these words. A counsell it is, I grant, no im­perious forme of precept: left to choyce and liberty, to do or not to do. CHRIST tieth no man, but leaveth him to doe or not to doe. CHAP. XV. pa. 105.

MOUNTAGU.

IT is so, I have those words. It is true; I doe grant it a counsell, and no imperious precept, at least to all men. For I cannot conceive the meaning to be otherwise, where the words are so full, compleat, evident, and convincing. If thou wilt; left unto choice: not, Hoc fac & vives; upon price of thy head, paine of thy salvation, doe thus: which is sti­lus Curiae, the stile and tenor of those imperi­ous Lawes of the Lord of Hosts, that require exact Obedience. If it were a Law and a Com­mandement (saith S. CHRYSOSTOME) he should S. CHRYS. to. 5. pag. 322. edit. SAVIL. not have brought it in by way of counsell and of advice. For this very cause, hee saith not in plaine tearmes, Go sell that thou hast, lest hee might suppose it a binding Law: but hee saith, [Page 220] If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast; to let us understand, it is in our choice to doe or not to do it. Thus S. CHRYSOSTOME; not so you. Pardon me if I preferre S. CHRYSOS­TOME before you, or your betters: I meane, your Master, whose Disciples you professe your selves to be. Quod enim praecipitur, imperatur: quod imperatur, necesse est fieri: quod necesse est fieri, nisi fiat, poenam habet. Frustra jubetur, quod in arbitrio ejus ponitur, &c. So S. HIE­ROME: S. HIER. cont. IOVIN. l. 1. c. 7 and can you give better reasons? S. GREGORIE NAZIANZENE displeased you: so will S. AUGUSTINE, I make no question; but it mattereth not. Nec enim, sicut Non moe­chaberis, non occides; it a dici potest, Non nu­bes. Illa exiguntur: ista offeruntur. Si fiunt ista, laudantur: nisi fiant illa, damnantur. In illis DO­MINUS debitum imperat vobis: in hoc autem siquid De S. Virg. c. 30 amplius supererogaveritis, in redeundo, reddet vobis. So will S. AMBROSE for the same opinion, who maketh a difference betwixt Precept and Counsaile; and expoundeth that verie place of Counsaile, thus: Et ut intelligas distanti­am Praecepti, at (que) Consilij, illum recorde­ris (he speaketh unto you my Informers) cui in Evangelio antè praescribitur, ne homicidium fa­ciat, ne adulterium admittat, ne falsum testimo­nium dicat. Praeceptum enim ibi est, ubi est poe­na peccati: At verò cùm se Praecepta Legis me­morâsset implêsse, Consilium ei datur, ut vendat emnia, & sequatur DOMINUM. Haec enim non [Page 221] Praecepto imperantur, sed Consilio deferuntur. Duplex nam (que) forma mandati est: Vna praecepti­va, altera voluntaria. Vndè & DOMINUS in aliâ dicit, Non occides, ubi in aliâ praecepit, SI vis esse perfectus, vende omnia tua. Ergo hic li­ber est à Praecepto, cujus defertur arbitrio. Which Testimony of S. AMBROSE, together with that out of S. CHRYSOSTOME, doe withall insinuate in what sense TERTULLIAN in his booke de Monogamiâ, contrary unto the ordinary phrase, doth terme it Praeceptum sub­stantiae dividendae egenis, a Commandement to divide the substance unto the poor. namely so, as S. AMBROSE doth call it Mandatum: who yet saith it was no Imperious Precept to doe so, or so: but only Counsell and Advice; leaving it free unto his choice to do it or not to doe it. For every Counsell and Advice, is a kinde of man­date; though not properly, yet with condition. But my good Informers, if you will needs have it Popery to hold with any Evangelicall Counsailes, you will be found worse by farre than Papists, that are convicted in your con­sciences, to breake that willingly which you hold a Precept obligatory, and no Counsaile. For doe any of You all, the precisest in the pack, obey CHRIST'S words in this his abso­lute command, and going, selleth all that hee hath, and giveth it to the poore? I cannot yet name any one so observant. I beleeve I ne­ver shall see any so charitable; rather breaking [Page 222] that negative commandement of the highest, Thou shalt not covet that which is thy neigh­bours. and that other, Thou shalt not steale from thy neighbour. And yet howsoever other men are not obliged to go sell what they have, and give it to the Poore, you are tyed to doe it, up­on that high Commanding forme, Doe this and live. It is sinne to you, whatsoever it is to o­ther men, not to doe it: for you are so per­swaded it is a Precept. Precepts, even affirma­tive, ligant semper, though not ad semper; re­quire obedience and exact performance, at some time or other, where they are tendred. But you neyther obey it, nor will suffer others to obey it that would. For you would account and stile him a Papist, that should doe it. You would begge him that should put it in use and practice. For such opinion you hold of the ancient Monkes and Ascetae, as S. ANTHONY and others, that did practise it. Untill I may perceive that you shew forth your faith by your workes, and manifest your Beleefe by reall practice, you must give mee leave to thinke you dissemble in the point, and would per­swade men of a case of Necessity, that your selves may feed fat upon their folly, and in vacuum veniatis. Till then, whatsoever your o­pinion be, give me leave to bee of S. AUGU­STINES minde: Aliud est Consilium, saith he, aliud Praeceptum. Consilium datur, ut Virginitas Serm. LXI. de Temp. conservetur, ut à vino & carnibus abstineatur, [Page 223] ut vendantur omnia, & pauperibus erogentur. Praeceptum verò datur ut justitia custodiatur; ut omnis homo divertat à malo, & faciat bonum. Deni (que) de virginitate dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat. De justitiâ verò non dicitur, Qui potest facere, faciat; sed, Omnis arbor quae non facit fructum bonum, exscindetur, & in ignem mit­tetur. Consilium qui libenter audierit & fecerit, majorem habebit gloriam. Praeceptum verò qui non impleverit, nisi subvenerit poenitentia, poenam evadere non poterit. You cannot denie this constant resolution of Antiquity. Change there­fore your manners, or your minds. Be Papists with me, or Rebells without me. As for mee, you are like to be alone. I hold it no obliga­tion: you doe. therefore you are tyed to o­bey. That commandement. Matth. v. you will not denie: Be you perfect, as your heavenly Fa­ther is perfect. Now if this be a Precept, If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all thou hast and give it to the poore; it is a part of that perfection, being named in either place. But I leave you to bethinke your selves better. I conclude with S. CHRYSOSTOME: S. CHRYSOST. To. v. in illud, Salutate PRI­SCILLAM, &c. pag. 322. [...] [Page 224] [...]. Had this beene a Law and Comman­dement, it should have beene tendred unto him at the first: it ought to have beene digested in forme of a commandement and law, and not have beene brought in, as it is, by way of counsaile and advice. For where he saith, Possesse nor Silver nor Gold; this speech runneth in commanding forme. But when hee saith, If thou wilt be per­fect, go and sell; he speaketh it as counsailing and advising only. Now, to Counsaile, and Command, are not one and the same thing: he that comman­deth, will have the thing commanded observed upon any hand: he that counselleth and adviseth, leaving it to choice and election of a man, to doe or not doe it; maketh him Lord and Ruler of his owne actions. Thus, and much more to purpose, S. CHRYSOSTOME in that place, if you view him. If he and his fellow-Ancients be Papists, be it so. I am content to be so accoun­ted. For I meane to be a Papist with them, rather than a Noveller with you. And so I proceed.

INFORMERS.

HOwsoever in words he denyeth Limbus Patrum, yet thus he writeth: The Pa­triarchs, Prophets, and Fathers that lived [Page 227] and died before CHRIST; the Scripture resolveth, that they were not there where now they are, in the highest heavens and glorious, there where the glorified body of CHRIST is now residing at the right hand of GOD. CHAP. XLI. pag. 277.

MOUNTAGU.

THUS hee writeth. And what if he write so? Why then hee upholdeth Limbus Patrum. His Words and Opi­nion are farre asunder. So said your LIM­BOMASTIX concerning the Descent into Hell. As CHRIST was buried; so also it is to be beleeved, that CHRIST went into Hell, saith Artic. 3. the Church of England. Therefore hee went thither, saith that Ignoránte, according to this opinion, to fetch up the soules of the Fathers that were not there. Iust as you will have it, with M. MOUNTAGU in his opinion. But good Master Informers, bethinke your selves: go into your Studies again, and look better up­on your books. You understand not the state and condition of Limbus Patrum, nor yet the Descent of CHRIST into Hell. To assure you, I am for my opinion (dreame you what you will otherwise, and what you please) absolute­ly of the mind of all Antiquity, that the soules of the Blessed Dead, separated from their bo­dies, [Page 228] and Gathered (as the Scriptures speake) unto their Fathers, before CHRISTS Resur­rection from Death to Life, and his Ascen­sion into Heaven; that departed hence in the hope and assurance of GODS promises, and in the expectation of better things to come, were not yet then in Coelo propriè di­cto summo illo & glorioso, whereas now they are, in companie of all the holy Angels, with the glorified bodie of our SAVIOUR, farre above all things in heaven and earth. And yet for all this; I am not for him, that thereupon ig­norantly and maliciously inferreth, I hold with, beleeve, or conceit anie such Limbus Patrum, as the Church of Rome hath fancied unto her selfe, and tendred unto her Profelites, drawne and derived out of that negative opinion of Antiquity, ill understood, and ill applyed. As if because they were not so in heaven, per om­nia, as now they are, they must needs be so in hell as they conceive them to be. the state whereof is imagined this.

LIMBUS Patrum is so called by the Papists à subjecto contento, which they doe imagine to be the uppermost Fringe, as the word signifi­eth, or the Verge of Hell. For, as if some of their Masters had beene sent thither to take a survay thereof, they doe quarter out that in­fernall Clime into foure Regions; all agreeing in the particulars, though with some difference about the quartering and confining. That the [Page 229] Regions are foure, they all agree: Hell, pro­perly so called, of the Damned, Purgatory, Lim­bus puerorum, and Limbus patrum. For the up­permost and lowermost, they all agree; but dif­fer about the site of Purgatory and Limbus pue­rorum: they cannot resolve which is the up­permost of these two. In Hell of the Damned they imagine, and rightly, eternall losse of hap­pinesse in exclusion from GOD, as also most insufferable eternall paine. In Purgatory, there is some question, whether the losse be partiall or not: for they are conceited to have, at least somtimes, the intervening society of holy An­gels, who cannot but impart unto them some glimmering of heavenly consolation; and yet the pain, though not eternal, but only temporary, is set down to bee equall unto Hell torments. Unto the Limbus Infantum, they have fastned eternall losse and deprivation of GOD, with­out sensible paine: in Limbus patrum, tempo­rarie losse, but no paine. Limbus puerorum and Hell of the Damned, in their opinions, endure for ever. Purgatory shall cease, and be no more, at the day of judgement: but for Limbus pa­trum, the date thereof is, and was long since, expired. Now there is no such mansion or ha­bitation of soules, they are resolved: but what is become of it, or how imployed, they are not resolved. Some imagine it now all one with that Limbus Infantum. And peradventure there was need to have the roome enlarged, [Page 230] the inhabitants increasing and growing on so fast, more than they did in the dayes of old; as in popular Cities the multitude groweth greater every day and greater. So that Lim­bus puerorum, in their opinion, hath, and out of conveniency it was necessary it should swallow up Limbus Patrum. ANTE adventum CHRISTI, saith one, sancti Patres descendebant Tractat. contra Graecos, edit. à P. STEVVAR­TIO, pag. 565. eò. Nunc verò pueri qui abs (que) Baptismo discedunt, sine poenâ sensibili detinentur. Others do con­ceive of it as inane vacuum: and this is the commonly received opinion of the Romane Schooles. In effect, therefore, the Popery of Limbus Patrum is this: That in regard of state, the Fathers who died before CHRIST, were, quoad locum, in a part of HELL, in the uppermost Region of Hell; and, quoad statum, without all paine; as also without all joy, without fruition or seeing of GOD: That at CHRIST'S descent into Hell, which was locally only into this part of Hell, but virtually and powerfully into all places and regions of Hell, they were drawn out thence, led forth in tri­umph, and translated into Heaven, in regard of place; unto seeing, enjoying, and fruition of GOD, in respect of state. But this is not the Tenet of Antiquity. A man may deny their being in Heaven, and yet not inferre they were thus in Hell.

Now to come to the point; The question is concerning their soules onely: for their [Page 231] bodies, it is confessed, in ordinarie dispensa­tion, doe sleep in the dust. It is confessed on both sides, which is most materiall, concer­ning them, That being immortall in their bet­ter Part, after dissolution and separation, they still have a Being, and are subsisting in aliquo ubi: for though the nature of a soule is not to be circumscriptively in place (as TERTUL­LIAN fancied) as M. YATES and M. WARD are when they are in their Pulpits, yet are they confined in their proper ubi, definitively and indistanter, as they speake; that is, they have not, nor can have, an ubique-subsistence, but a determined and defined. Being heere, at that instant they are not there: for omnipresence is the absolute Peculiar of the ALMIGHTY. Truely then, and indeed, they must and doe subsist in place, or rather ubi; though where, and how, who can tell? For, the Scripture, content with their state and beeing, is silent for particular touching their place. And ac­cordingly the best learned of all times and places, have, if not declined quaestionem loci, yet not beene curious nor resolved for it. So heere is a maine difference at the first betwixt the Papistry of Rome, and M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery. They de fide resolving the place to have been thus: He returning Ignoramus, we are not ascertained, we cannot tell.

AGAIN, in that their Vbi wheresoever, sub­sisting, as they had Being and Subsistence, so [Page 232] did they also performe actions of life and motion, congruous and convenient unto their nature and kind. And though they are said to be at rest, yet is it qualified with, In what sort; They rest from their Labours, saith the SPIRIT. where the latter word, Labors, gi­veth species unto, and determineth the former word, Rest. For all maner rest is not predica­ted of them; not such as that rest of the bo­die in the grave. They rest not, as in a sleepe, out of minde, without motion, as not in acti­on at all; as the frame of Nature did in the dayes of IOSUA; or as ADAM in that deepe sleepe, wherein EVA was framed out of his side. Thus to rest, is contrary to their nature and condition intellectuall; though it hath beene the opinion of some Popes, they say, and is of some Anabaptists at this day: such as a­gainst whom M. CALVIN wrote his Psychopan­nychia. But being now separated from the bo­die, they live, move, exercise, performe and put in practice, acts naturall and coïncident unto their proper kindes; understanding, conceiving, willing, judging, loving, rejoycing, and such like proper acts of naturall, rationall, intellectuall creatures. Next, inasmuch as there are, and have beene alway in this life, two sorts amongst the sonnes of men; Beleevers in CHRIST, for their profession; Holy in course, for their life and conversation: then Misbeleevers and faith­lesse in regard of GOD; Wicked mis-agents in [Page 233] respect of living: so proportionably there are, and have beene ever, two states and conditi­ons of the soules of men, in their separation after death; some rewarded with happinesse, in their being for ever with GOD; some con­demned unto woe and wretchednesse, for ever estranged from GOD. All men when they dye (as, sooner or later, all do and shall) in re­gard of that unchangeable Law of kinde, Thou shalt Dye the Death, are said in SCRIPTURE To goe the way of all flesh, or of All the Earth: for never man had a priviledge of absolute or totall exemption. And in regard of their being or subsisting after their death, are said To sleepe with their Fathers, touching their bo­dies, [...]: and to be gathered to their Fathers, or, their People, in respective of their soules, were they good or bad. For all are a society, a collective people; eyther in happy or in a miserable state. The good goe to en­joying of happinesse without end, the wicked to enduring of torments everlasting. Thus is their state diversified to their deserving. and herein the Scripture speaketh plaine and evi­dent. But now for Place, we are not resolved so particularly. Certaine it is in common course of kinde, Place is ever fitted, disposed, proportioned to state and condition of the therein placed. And therefore, when this mor­tall shall have put on immortality: when those that have won many unto righteousnesse, shall [Page 230] [...] [Page 231] [...] [Page 232] [...] [Page 233] [...] [Page 234] shine as the Sunne, and be clothed with glo­ry and immortality, in the day of the resur­rection of the just; then we reade of a fitted Place, a new heaven and a new earth. Now, fit­ting unto this two-fold state and condition of soules after death, I beleeve and professe, that evermore there was, is, and shall be two seve­rall, different, distinct, proportionable Places or Vbies for them, knowne ever commonly by that generall name of Hell and Heaven. I be­leeve also, and professe, that the soules of the Fathers, Kings, Prophets, Priests, Patriarchs, righte­ous and good men, that lived and dyed before CHRIST came in the flesh, in eandem commu­nem spem nobiscum venerunt, expectantes CHRI­STUM, as IGNATIUS speaketh. and so when Ad MAGNES. they were gathered unto their people, went not into Hell locally in respect of Place, be­cause not to Hell interpretatively, that is, into wretchednesse in regard of state. They went to Heaven locally, as to their proper Vbi: they went to Heaven figuratively, that is, into happinesse and health, into joy in heavenly pa­laces; unto GOD, into the presence of GOD, the Tabernacles of peace; into Paradise, ABRA­HAMS bosome. Eadem est fides nostra, quae fuit illorum: Hoc nos credimus esse factum, quod illi crediderunt faciendum. They hoped to be sa­ved in, through, and by him, in whom we doe hope. They lived by that faith as well as we, though not in that evidence and fulnesse as [Page 235] we. They dyed in that CHRIST, in whom we, though not incarnate, and already come, as do we. But this their being, their living, their dying so, will not inferre that Place to have received them then, wherein now with us they bee, and where one day all GOD'S chosen ones shall be. For the same faith hath not ever the same measure, nor proportion in all, nor the same dispensation at all times. The same hope is more eminent in some than in others. The same persons, inlarged in their Indowments or Atchievements, are likewise enhansed and ennobled in their Accruments, Temporall or Eternall, Personall or Originall. Their bodies are not as yet reunited unto their soules, yet shall they be raised up out of the dust, and bee made conformable in their Re­surrection unto life, to the now-glorified bo­dy of CHRIST our Saviour. Their soules, then departing and at Rest, in Peace, in Happines, and Blisse, in the hands of GOD, yet were not in that degree of state as now they bee in; had not that fulnesse of joy which now they have, nor have as yet that measure and proportion that they shall have heerafter. They were then in Heaven, as they be now in Heaven, though not as now; nor yet where, as now for particular place: not in Hell, or any part of Hell, as the word and meaning is in Scripture.

This is sufficient against that dream of their [Page 236] Limbus Patrum in the Roman Church: which is conceived and dreamed to have beene a Part and Region of Hell, far distant and remo­ved from Heaven. Not then in that Heaven, where they are now; in that Part, that Site, that Region, those Mansions of Heaven in which now they are. For Heaven, so spacious, ex­tended, so capacious, as we both conceive and see, is not, nor hath beene so narrowed or streightned in roomth, that there cannot bee diverse Designations, Regions, Habitations, Mansions or Quarterings there, to speak after the phrase and language of men, remote, neer, different, distinct one from or to another; fit­ted, applied, disposed, proportioned and accom­modated unto the severall states, measures, times, qualities, habitudes and indowments of men, that were to bee carried and trans­lated thither before and since the comming of CHRIST; in the time of Promise, and of accomplishment and performance of Promise; in the time of veiles, types, shadowes; and that other of Substance, Revealing, and Con­summation. They were in happinesse, therefore not in any part of Hell: for no part of Hell is capable thereof, or fitted for any, no not the least degree or participation of joy and happinesse. I absolutely subscribe unto TER­TULLIAN; Aliud Inferi, aliud sinus ABRAHAE. TERT. contra MAR. IV. 14. and that which S. AUGUSTINE, Tom. 11. Epist. [Page 237] LVII. spake somewhat doubtingly; Non faci­lè alicubi Scripturarum Inferorum nomen posi­tum reperitur in bono: that which Tom. III. de Gen ad literam, lib. XII. cap. XXXII. hee is per­emptory in; Nondum inveni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi occurrit, Inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam duntaxat Canonicam. The Fathers then were not in the Popish LIMBUS Patrum. For their Limbus is, though the verge and up­permost region, yet a region and part of Hell. Whosoever either commeth, or ever yet came within the fringe and confines of Hell (except the humane soule of our SAVIOUR, who fini­shed all suffrings and penalties upon his cross) came thither to suffer torment and paine: whosoever came thither, except him alone, who only was liber inter mortuos, returned not out any more from thence; but sedet, aeter­num (que) sedebit infelix. Between LAZARUS in ABRAHAM'S bosome, which was the Rest of the Righteous before CHRIST, and DIVES in Hell, a place of woe and torment, was [...], a vast, void gulfe, immeasurable; and that also [...], as saith the holy Text, so seated, fixed, fastned for ever, that it was not remove­able at any time. They cannot come thence, saith Father ABRAHAM: it is impossible that they should. and he speaks it before that imagined harrowing of Hell by our SAVIOUR; intima­ting sufficiently, that they were not in Hell. But as they were not there: so were not they [Page 238] likewise in Heaven STRICTLY taken for the THIRD Heaven; that receptacle of the righ­teous now, together with the glorified body of our SAVIOUR. For that place was not then, stantibus ut tunc, fitting or accruing to them. Such a royall habitation, the None-such of GOD, did not befit their then inferiour states and conditions. But then you will aske me, If neither in Heaven above, nor in Earth beneath, nor in Hell, where possibly could they consist, or were they disposed? A being they had; therefore an ubi for their subsisting. To which, first, I answer, They had both: and in generall tearms the Scripture speaketh, they had that subsistence in the hands of GOD, with GOD, in his holy Hill, in the Tabernacles of Peace, in Paradise, in ABRAHAM'S bosome with LAZARUS, with ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and IACOB, in the Kingdome of Heaven, and of GOD. Why then they were in Heaven at least. Doubtlesse yes, in a more generall no­tion. The word is ambiguous, as I have de­clared against the Gagger; put forth for con­dition alone, place alone, or place and conditi­on together. In regard of state and conditi­on, they were in Heaven, that is, happie and blessed, as then was convenient. In regard of ubi also, they were in Heaven, in a more ge­nerall and enlarged sense; in some part of Hea­ven, where GOD disposed them. You will aske in particular, Where was that? I must [Page 239] and doe answer negatively, I cannot tell: I dare not define: I have no warrant for reso­lution. I answer positively, You should not ask nor curiously enquire, but be content to be ignorant of that which GOD hath not re­vealed. And then farther, It is not profitable to knowe: for GOD else would not have concealed it. So that to enquire it pressingly, is but curiosity; to determine it resolvedly, is but presumption at the best. Therefore M. CALVIN, and other Protestant Divines that I could name, content themselves onely with the state in speciall of joy and rest; with the u­bi in generall to be Heaven: but presume not to descend unto particular where, seeing GOD hath not been pleased to discover it. It is e­nough to knowe they were not in Hell as the Papists meane it: and it is more than proba­ble they were not in Heaven as you conceit it.

For, first, no Scripture affirmeth it expresly, that the Rest of those Righteous was there where now it is. Secondly, it is not, that I could ever reade or understand, collected out of any place of Scripture, by any one Ortho­dox Writer, for fifteene hundred yeeres after CHRIST. Thirdly, no Writer of any one con­fession hath demonstrated it to be so intended in any Scripture. Fourthly, no Article or De­termination of our Church concludeth it, or so tendreth it to bee conceived and embraced: and therefore whatsoever my private opinion [Page 240] otherwise might bee, I am tyed not to preach or publish it, according to the CANONS pre­scribed Lib. Canonum, edit anno 1571 unto Ministers in such cases; know­ing it to be the resolved doctrine of Antiqui­ty, as I do. I am not excusable, if I transgresse the CANONS. What your ignorance may pleade for you, I cannot tell: I leave it to them that must look unto it where you live, if you offend; as you are like enough to do, if it come in your way. But on the other side, there are Texts of Scripture that seem at least to say, and have been ever taken, of Wri­ters old and new, to say, that the soules of the Fathers that died before CHRIST, were not there whereas now they be; as, S. IOHN 111. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven. IOHN XIV. 3. I goe to prepare a place for you. PSAL. XXIV. 6. Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be you lift up you everlasting doors and the King of glory shall come in. Which Text of that Psalme, all Antiquity, from IUSTINE MAR­TYR downeward, doe expound of Heaven o­pened at the Ascension of our SAVIOUR: ac­cording unto that which we daily professe in our English LITURGIE, out of and with Saint AMBROSE; When thou hadst overcome the sharp­nes of death, thou didst OPEN the Kingdome of HEAVEN to all Beleevers. So Heb. IX. 8. 12. The WAY unto the HOLIEST OF ALL was NOT YET MANIFEST, while as the FIRST Taber­nacle was standing: and Heb. X. 20. & Heb. XI. 39, 40

[Page 241] UPON these grounds, and others that I now remember not, it hath been the common received opinion of all the FATHERS, Greek and Latin, that the soules of the Righteous before CHRIST, were not in the highest and most glorious Heavens locally; which is also the opinion of BULLINGER, PETER MARTYR, HYPERIUS, and others. BUCER and MUSCU­LUS directly write, that the Thief was the first, who with CHRIST entred into Paradise. Up­on M. CALVIN it is imposed by many, though injuriously, that he thought no righteous soule did, doth, or can goe into Heaven before the generall resurrection: but indeed he declineth the question of the place; and for the state, against the Popish LIMBUS, averreth, that in respect of genericall happinesse, they before CHRIST enjoyed the same that they doe now: but for accidentall beatitude and degrees of hap­pinesse, he putteth a difference; and resolveth, that even now they are in profectu untill the day of Doome: untill which time, they ex­pect in atrijs the consummation of their beati­tude. CHRISTUS, Sanctuarium Coeli ingressus, ad consummationem us (que) saeculorum, solus populi emi­nùs in atrio residentis, vota ad DEUM defert. Instit. 111. 20. 10. If a man should presse his words as they will beare, the soules of the Righteous, and those now that dye in the LORD, nedum of the Fathers before CHRIST, are not yet in Heaven: but I doe it not. This [Page 242] is all; he favoureth the opinion of all Anti­quity, that the soules of the FATHERS before CHRIST, were not in COELO SUMMO ET GLORIOSO: and yet I hope CALVIN did not maintaine Limbus Patrum.

ALL this groweth for crossing your newly invented Puritanicall conceit, and direct depra­vation of an Article of our Creed, the descent of our Saviour into Hell: and in answer unto the Gagger in this point, have I in this parti­cular angred the generation of your fellow­brethren. The Popish Gagger objected unto the Church of England this TENET, that IE­SUS CHRIST descended not into Hell. Unto whom the substance of my Answer was, With what face, or what forehead, can he say that we teach so, that in our Creed repeat it openly, and ever in the Church professe it in plaine and ex­presse words; that propose it in Baptisme inter­rogatorily unto God-fathers and God-mothers, to be answered unto, avowed, and publickly belee­ved; that teach it in our Catechisme unto chil­dren; that subscribe it in our Articles thus, THAT as CHRIST died for us, and was BURI­ED: so ALSO it is to bee beleeved, that HEWENT DOWNE INTO HELL, Artic. 111; that have publickly defended it against Puritanicall op­position; and lastly, that with us more, more really and to purpose, doe beleeve it, than the Church of ROME doth, and those that accuse us of sacrilege for violating an Article of our [Page 243] CREED? For they professe, that CHRIST onely descended into the uppermost Region of Hell, LIMBUS PATRUM, really; into the other parts and continents virtually onely, or effec­tually, in the power of his GOD-HEAD, and his Passion. Non descendit ad INFEROS reprobo­rum, ac in perpetuum damnatorum (saith their grand Dictator THOMAS AQUINAS), quoniam In 3. sent. d. 12. ex co nulla est redemptio: igitur ad eum locum descendit, qui vel sinus ABRAHAE, vel communi­ter LIMBUS PATRUM appellatur.

But the truth is, we are at some disadvan­tage with our Romish Adversaries. For as e­very one (through the greedinesse of gaine) may write and print almost what hee will, e­specially if it savor of the Lemannian Lake: so every private fancy, every wilfull opinion, ignorant assertion, and some blasphemous do­tages, cast forth by any man that is, or hath been of our Confession, or is any way divided in Communion from the Church of Rome, and us both, is by many men, and most an end by our Adversaries, cast upon the generall Te­nent of all Protestants, and more specially up­on the Church of England: though that Church, in the generall and approved Doctrine thereof, doe detest it more than the Church of Rome doth. In this very point, the manifold dreames of new refined spirits are made ours; their little lesse than blasphemies, made ours; the tergiversations, qualifications, disturbing of [Page 244] senses from [...], anima, Shéol, Hádes, Inferi, Infernus, and what not, made ours; the toies, trash, fables of Pagans, Poets, Philosophers, Magicians, and who not, of what not, brought in, to trouble and disturb our belief, by some that faine would bee, and yet are loth to be Puritans, made ours. The much urging of this Article not to be found in ancient Creeds; not to have been taught or beleeved of the Eastern Churches; not of that of Constantinople: & I know not what else, tending to make men first waver in their faith, then to doubt of their faith, and at length flatly to deny their faith. if in this, why not in other Articles that eyther are or may bee so serupulized, all made ours, laid un­to our charge by our adversary, and made the publick Doctrine of OUR Church? So the blas­phemy of CHRISTOPHER CARLILE, that made this Article an Error and a Fable, pag. XXVIII. & 77 against D. SMITH, is made ours. That horrible blasphemy, that CHRIST indu­red the very torments of Hell, and went down to suffer there, as BANISTER and AEPINUS taught, is made ours. That CHRIST did, being yet alive, suffer in his humane soule INFERNI TREMENDA TORMENTA, not onely [...], (as the Greek Liturgies discrectly call them) but even desperation and the second death, as it is in HUMES Rejoinder unto D. HILL, in DEERINGS Catechisme, in your new fangled Modell of Divinity, M. YATES (was it [Page 245] not?) and I doubt not in others of that stamp, are all made ours. That by Hell is meant now this, now that, as almost in every Catechisme, such Pamphlets, whereof we have abroad so good store, as I thinke would freight a Dry­fat to the Mart: every man making and using, and printing a Catechisme, a New Modell of his owne, according to his owne private motion, contrary to Order and Injunction, by which we are tyed unto One, the best of all. And lastly, if any man leaning to your Doctrine, though not to your Discipline, say, That we know not the native and undoubted sense of this AR­TICLE; all is still cast upon the CHURCH of England. I confesse these are disadvanta­ges for us against the Papists; as it were so many thornes in our sides: but yet they choake us not. For the Doctrine of the Church is plaine, direct, affirmative, as it should be; with­out figures, allegories, far-fetched, obscure interpre­tations, which never were intended to bee in­serted into, must not be tolerated in Articles of our CREED, easie, plaine, even and perspicu­ous of themselves; and made so purposely for the use, capacity, and instruction of the simple and ignorant, who are not capable of obscuri­ties.

It was not impossible that the humane soule of CHRIST should have been, or might be, or was, in triduo mortis & separationis suae, really, truely, properly in Hell; that land of [Page 246] darkenesse, abode and habitation of the dam­ned. Not improbable, against Scripture, religi­on, piety, reason. No inconveniency, incompeten­cy, absurdity, much lesse impiety: No compulsi­on drew Him thither. It was no needlesse thing. I have given reasons of it mo than one. He went not to deliver, to stay, to suffer; for all was fi­nished upon the Crosse, quae praedicta, quae prae­figurata. Therefore, according to the Church of England, I conclude in the words of Saint AUGUSTINE; DOMINUM quidem carne mor­tificatum, Epist. 99. venisse in INFERNUM satis constat. Ne­que enim contradici potest IOEL Prophetae qui di­xit, Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in Inferno. Quod ne aliter quisquam sapere au­deret, in Apostolorum Actibus idem PETRUS exponit, vel ejusdem PETRI illis verbis, quibus e­um asserit solvisse Inferni dolores, in quibus im­possibile erat eum teneri. Quis ergo nisi INFI­DELIS negaverit FUISSE APUD INFEROS CHRISTUM? But if it be urged, he went downe to free those that were bound there, as intended by loosing the sorrowes of Death, of which though it were impossible himselfe should be holden, yet others were then detained under, quibus alij tenebantur, quos ille noverat liberan­dos; S. AUGUSTINE will rejoine: admit it so. Quinam tamen isti sunt, temerarium est desinire. Since him, men are growne wiser, or more ad­venturous to resolve. The truth is, he that will beleeve no more than hee seeth, nor embrace [Page 247] but what he hath demonstration for, or sensi­ble apprehension; were better never meddle with the things of GOD, where Faith is the Evidence of what is not seene. Antiquity be­leeved CHRIST went into Hell: they beleeved, when he ascended into Heaven, he went a way nullius ante trita solo, and had the preroga­tive royall, as he well deserved it, to be the first, that, removing the Cherubin at the gates of Paradise, made a way for himselfe and for us into Heaven. and though [...], when he came up from the field of Blood, thousand thousands did attend him, and came up with him in his Royall Passe: yet they were not brought forth from Limbus Patrum of the Papists. The Fathers of old heard no newes thereof; the Protestants detest it as much as you: and be it knowne unto you, so doe I, as much as any Puritan in the King­dome. And yet I am of opinion (for it is not of that nature or necessity, to come within my Creed) CHRIST was the first that entred Hea­ven. The soules of the Righteous were not there before Him, taking Heaven for that su­preme and highest Heaven; though otherwise, in a more generall sense and acceptance, they were in Heaven, enjoied Happines, did see good, though not visione plenâ faciei. Many questi­ons peradventure may arise heerabout; but fit­ter for Schooles, than popular cognisance. I conclude all as I began: You understand not [Page 248] the state of Limbus Patrum, nor the depth of the Question, but scumme upon the surface, and gibberish you cannot tell for what.

INFORMERS.

TOuching Images, thus he writeth: IMA­GES have these uses assigned by your Schooles: stay there, goe no farther, and we charge you not with Idolatry. Institu­tionemrudium, Commonefactionem Historiae, & excitationem Devotionis. You and we also give unto them these.

MOUNTAGU.

THAT for this, and no more than this, the Church of Rome is Idolatrous; you affirme, I deny: prove your assertion if [Page 249] you can. Though that Church, for their en­ormities, deserve no defence: yet is it, they say, a shame to bely the Divell. I doe not, I cannot, I will not denie, that Idolatry is grosse­ly committed in the Church of Rome. The ruder sort, at least, are not excusable, who goe to it with downe-right Idolatry, without any Relative adoration; worshipping that which they behold with their eyes, the Image of the B. VIRGIN, S. PETER, S. PAUL, the CRUCIFIXE; as if CHRIST IESUS were present. This Ido­latry is ancient in their Schooles. THOMAS AQUINAS doth directly vouch it, Quòd eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini CHRISTI, & ipsi Par. 3. qu. 25. ar. 3. CHRISTO. Cùm ergo CHRISTUS adoretur ado­ratione latriae, consequens est, quòd ejus IMAGO sit adoratione LATRIAE adoranda. which is now an Article of Faith in the Romane Church, and the opposite Doctrine flat Heresie: for so CABRERA upon that place of THOMAS writeth; who alledgeth, for his purpose and o­pinion, many old and later Divines of their Schoole. And AZORIUS the Iesuite telleth us, To. 1. lib. 9. ca. 6 Constans est Theologorum sententia, Imaginem eo­dem honore & cultu honorari & coli, quo colitur id cujus est Imago. and because DURAND of old opposed such grosse Idolatry in THOMAS and his Schollers, hee is censured to deliver Doctrine, dangerous, rash, relishing Heresies, nay plainely Hereticall, say they. But what hath Hi­storicall use of Images to do with this so great ex­travagancy? [Page 250] I know none, beside your selves, that censure or condemne the Historicall use of Images, for Idolatry.

INFORMERS.

ANd again: Images in GREGORIES time were very much improved, to bee bookes for the simple and ignorant people. Hold you there, and wee blame you not.

MOUNTAGU.

NOT for Idolaters against the First and Second Commandement: for, to bee Bookes for the ignorant and unlettered, will not reach home unto Idolatry. My words concerning S. GREGORY and his times, are these, XVII. pages after the foreremembred Im­putation: S. GREGORIE is of later date than S. AUGUSTINE, and of lesse credite by much in controverted points of Divinity. Images in his [Page 251] time were much improved; and yet not unto ho­nour or adoration. Reverence and respect was gi­ven unto them; to be bookes for the simple and ignorant people; to be remembrances of things by representation. Hold you there, and we do not blame you for any Idolatry. Words abused by the Infor­mers, in leaving out that passage, To be remem­brance of Things by representation: of which that mitigation is to be understood especially, Hold you there, and we blame you not. This is that improvement I speak of in S. GREGO­RIES time; wherein Images, from no use in the most ancient times, were improved unto an Historicall use in S. GREGORIES time: whose time, as himselfe, I under-valew unto S. AUGU­STINE. These men seeme to take improved, through ignorance of the phrase, for approved: which is also true. Before S. GREGORIE, I know no such confessed employment for them. He was the first that gave such publick appro­bation unto them declaratorily, though it was true doctrine in it selfe, before he ever pro­fessed it such. who yet did ever vehemently disclaime and detest the worshipping of them: as appeareth in his Rescript unto SERENUS of Marseils, about demolishing them in his Chur­ches, upon misuse unto Idolatry. Now, had the Church of Rome gone no farther in prac­tice or precept, than that which S. GREGORY recommendeth; our Church, I suppose (for so our doctrine is) would not blame them, nor [Page 252] have departed from them about that point. Haply furious ones in our Church would pro­ceed: but [...]; they are singular illu­minates: let them gang alone. Instruct mee what Popery is in that historicall use of them, and then I will be of another opinion.

INFORMERS.

ANd a little after, IMAGES are not ut­terly unlawfull unto Christians in all maner of religious imployment. The Pictures of CHRIST, the blessed VIR­GIN, [Page 253] and SAINTS, may bee made, and had in houses, set up in Churches. The Protestants have them, they despight them not. Respect and honour may bee given unto them The Protestants do it, and use them for helps of piety.

MOUNTAGU.

BUt how, and how farre, you have very honestly left out. For hee hath added, In rememoration, and for more effectuall representment of the Prototype: which is no more but the bare historicall use of them. And you, by leaving that out, would make men beleeve, that he intended a religious respect and pious honour to be due unto them; and so to draw on unto a downe-right worship of them. But this was not his meaning. He is in that case as jealous of Gods honour, as any gloy­ting Puritan in the Pack. In our Churches, for ought that I knowe, it is not forbidden to have them: for if so, then all Tombs Mo­numents, Statues, Pictures, Paintings, are to be demolished and defaced. Nor are they utterly and absolutely unlawfull for any religious em­ployment. Our strictest Writers do not con­demne or censure S. GREGORY for putting upon them that historicall use of suggesting unto, moving or affecting the minde even in [Page 254] pious and religious affections. For instance; in remembring more feelingly, and so being em­passioned more effectually with the Death, Bloudshed, and bitter Passion of our SAVIOUR, when we see that story fully and lively repre­sented unto us in colours or work by a skill­full hand. And I know not the man that is made of humane mould, but when he readeth on this Book his tragicall endurances for man, will reflect upon himselfe, and his owne soule and conscience, with a lively apprehension of mans sinne, GOD'S love, CHRIST'S endeared charitie in undergoing these unknown sufferings for our sake. If this be Popery, let the B. of Lich­field say: For we see that the Church of Rome in the dayes of S. GREGORY (saith he) as their learned CASSANDER witnesseth, as S. GRE­GORY'S owne writings do showe, did allow of such Pictures, as historicall Monuments, whereby the unlearned might bee put in remembrance of things done, but in no case suffered to worship them. Which how little it differeth from the do­ctrine of Protestants, their owne learned Cardi­nall may witnesse, saying even of M. CALVIN, that hee doth not simply condemne the having of Images, but admitteth of them for an historicall use, that is, to this end, to represent the Acts of CHRIST and holy SAINTS, and not to worship them, lib. 1. cap. 2. sect. 25. in his Appeale.

But it hath distasted some, that respect and honour should be given unto them. Strange, it [Page 255] should displease anie that can approve of any, be it but a civill use of them. I cannot tell; unlesse men would instantly have them pulled downe in all places, demolished, stamped to powder, whosesoever, whatsoever, wheresoe­ver. The setting of them up, suffering them to stand, using them for ornaments, for helps of memorie, of affection, of rememoration, cannot be abstracted, to my understanding, from reverence and honour simply, in due kinde. Can a man have the true representation of his Prince, Parents, Patrons, &c. without awe, re­spect, regard, love, reverence, mooved by as­spect, and wrought in him? I professe my im­perfection, or what they will call it, it is so with me. Vnco impacto in Latrinas, in Gemo­nias, in malam Crucem, the pictures, statues, paintings, representations of CHRIST, the VIRGIN, APOSTLES, MARTYRS, HOLY men and women; unlesse the very having and pre­serving of them, do in some sort imply respect, regard, and honour done unto them, without offence justly given, without scandall, or incli­nation to impiety. IUNIUS was no Papist; De Imag. c. 11. n. 1. not in your opinion, I hope. Hee, in his A­nimadvers. upon BELLARMINE de Imaginibus, saith, Hoc nemo NOSTRÛM dicit, non esse colen­das, nec ullo modo. SUO MODO COLI PROBA­MUS, velut Imagines; at non religioso cultu, qui aut superstitiosus est, aut impius. Nec cum alio­rum scandalo, sive cultus separatus, sive conjunc­tus [Page 256] cum torum cultu intelligatur, quorum sunt Imagines. M. MOUNTAGU scarce saith so much, and yet he is a Papist.

INFORMERS.

BUt hee concludeth with the Papists thus: Let your practice and doctrine goe to­gether, we agree.

MOUNTAGU.

NO, my good Informers, he doth not so conclude. You misinform against him for concluding with the Papists. You finde it not in him, Let YOUR Practice, and YOUR Doctrine: but, Let practice and Doctrine. Can you finde no difference betwixt these two? I can let men see a verie maine diffe­rence, and the not malignant eye will soone discerne it. YOUR Practice, and YOUR Do­ctrine, fetcheth in all, and runneth out into [Page 257] the extravagant, Idolatrous, blasphemous do­ctrine of religious adoration, eyther primary or secondarie, absolute or respective; to that of THOMAS, CABRERA, VASQUEZ, the Divell and all. For with a trick of relative worship, VAS­QUEZ empaleth the very Divell within the bounds of worship, as well as that cautelous Doctrine of DURAND, that Images are to be worshipped improperly, in as much as, They doe put men in minde of the persons by them repre­sented; who are then adored before the Images, as if they were then really present there. Or, as that honest conclusion of MARTIN AIALA. Nemo in Ecclesiâ dicit, qui rectè sentit, Sanctos deberi a­dorari, sed venerari, whether in themselves or their representations. But Doctrine, without li­mitation of YOUR, pointeth you unto, and putteth you backe unto no other but the pre­cedently remembred Doctrine of Dulia and Latria. My words are, If this you call DULIA, and no more, we admit it, we give it too. But whatsoever you say, howsoever you qualifie the the thing with gentle words (terming it DOULIA or HYPERDOULIA) we say in your practice you far exceed, and give them that honour which you call LATRIA, and is indeed a part of DIVINE re­spect and WORSHIP: so doe not we. Let pra­ctice and doctrine goe together, and we agree, that is, give them no LATRIA, formall or in­terpretative, and we agree.

INFORMERS.

ALL directly contradicteth the doctrine of the Church of England in the Booke of Homilies.

MOUNTAGU.

YOu enlarge too much for all. For, in your opinion, doth the English Church condemn the Historicall or civill use of Images? which yet is a part of that all. It doth not in practice, all the world knoweth that; nor yet in Precept or Doctrine, that I know. Shew me that, & ponam manum meam super os. Men as learned as anie of your Side, no dispa­ragement to [...] and selfe-conceit, are, I doe assure you, of a contrary minde. I have na­med Bishop MORTON alreadie unto you. And yet, were it not so, you shew no great wise­dome in that Limitation which your selves put unto my contradicting the Church of Eng­land; namely, in saying that I doe it direct­ly. For where can you finde, in any writings of mine, expresse words against any one point established or delivered, in the authorised do­ctrine of the Church of England? and words are not direct, which be not expresse. Thirdly, to come unto the issue, you name the Homi­lies, and mean, I take it, the second Tome of [Page 260] Homilies, in the Sermon against the perill of I­dolatry. If you had vouchsafed us any proofs of your assertions, we should have gone direct­ly to worke with your allegations: but be­cause you take a rounder course, to tender e­very thing in Magisteriall Dictates, wee must shoote at Rovers after you, and come up to you as conveniently as we may.

I answer then, first, that I willingly admit the Homilies, as containing certaine godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honour and worship Almighty GOD; but not as the publick dogmaticall, resolutions confir­med of the Church of England. The XXXIII. Article giveth them to containe godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times: which they may doe, though they have not dogmaticall positions, or doctrine to be propug­ned and subscribed in all and every point; as the Books of Articles and of Common Prayer have. They may seeme, secondly, to speake somewhat too hardly, and stretch some say­ings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England, both then and now: and yet what they speake, may receive a faire, or at least a tolerable construction and mitigation well enough. For you have read peradventure (it is not unlikely that you have heard by re­lation) how strangely some of the ancientest Fathers do speake, and how they hyperbolize sometimes in some points in their popular Ser­mons: [Page 261] which in dogmaticall Decisions they would not doe, nor avow the doctrine by them so delivered resolutivè. as in case of Free-will, of Invocation of Saints, and others. S. CHRYSOS­TOME especially speaketh strangely of the Blessed Eucharist: as good Popery [...], as ever Papist conceived of Transubstantiation or orall manducation. [...], To. VI. pa. 407. Then Angels assist the Priest at the Altar: the whole troopes of Heavenly Powers cry aloud, To. VI. pa. 46. and To. V. pa. 528. Dost thou imagine, that at that time thou con­versest with man? Sure it is a thought of a stonie heart, to thinke that thou art then upon the earth, and not rather following the Angels in their Quires. and Tom. V. pag. 511. Know you not that this Table is replenished with fire? such and so consuming, that unlesse GOD'S grace assi­sted powerfully, men could not endure, but should be consumed with the violent heate thereof. Tom. 6. pag. 16. And a little before, home to the pur­pose a man would think, for Transubstantiation. [...]; When thou beholdest our LORD SACRIFICED there, and the Priest standing by the Sacrifice, and praying ever it, and every one present BERED­DED with that most precious BLOOD, dost thou suppose thou conversest then with man, or hast thy station upon earth? Which speeches cannot [Page 262] all of them possibly bee true in the literall sense, no not in the opinion of the Church of Rome; and were none of them literally true, no not in the opinion of S. CHRYSOSTOME him­selfe. Now, after this enforcing sort may our Homilies speake, and bee so interpreted. Things are not ever, of one and the same man, tou­ching one and the same thing, at different times, unto distinct Auditories, upon divers occasion, spoken after one and the same way. In verie Scripture there are many Hyperbolicall sayings, that being literally taken, will not hold weight at the ballance of the Sanctuary. In the wri­tings of the Fathers (as appeareth by that of S. CHRYSOSTOME) there are dogmaticall con­clusions for resolution in points, and retori­call inforcements to edifie affections, disposed for and according to the Auditory. Now our Homilies are all popular Sermons, fitted unto the capacitie and conditions of the common people, to edifie them, to worke upon them, ever strong in passion, but weake in understan­ding. The will is more in them to bee edifi­ed, than the judgement; the consciences and hearts of men to be wrought upon for good life and conversation, than the understanding and apprehension for any peece of know­ledge. and that also disposed accordingly, as fitted for times, for persons, and different occasions, as they doe or may happen.

As the ancient Fathers of the primitive [Page 263] times, had verie few or no Churches at all, at least of note, dignitie, or of receipt, be­cause they lived in times of fierce persecuti­on, and were seldome, or few of them, stati­onarie, but compelled subindè mutare sedes; so had they very few, I grant, or no pictures at all in publicke use amongst them, not so much as for ornament sake. And the reason was, because they lived continually amongst Pagans, and were themselves, for the most part, such as had abandoned and come over from Paganisme unto CHRIST; that were bred in, brought up in, inured to, and fast settled unto Idolatry in Image-worship. Therefore they spake against them with some tartnesse, and inveighing sort, least happely by conversing with, or neighbouring upon Pagans, or through former use of being mis-led by those Pagans (which was the case of the Israelites in Egypt, and the bordering Nations upon Canaan) the novell and tender shoots of Christianity might receive hurt, and learne to worship Idols, as those Pagans did. In like sort, peradventure, OUR Predecessors and Fathers comming late out of Popery, living neere unto Papists and Popish times, conversing with them, having beene nuzzled and brought up amongst them, and knowing that Images used to be crept unto, incensed, worshipped, and adored amongst them, might, if they were suffered to stand as they did, put them in minde of their former pra­ctice, [Page 264] induce them to doe as they had some­time done, at least in heart to worship and adore them; therefore in a godly zeale, such as moved EZECHIAS to destroy the brae­sen serpent, they spake thus vehemently, and indeed hyperbolically against them. For the peo­ple, with whom they then dealt, were by all meanes to bee preserved from the taint and tincture of their superstitious practices. And for this cause I say (it may seem) the Church-Governours of those times in their popular Sermons tooke that course which the ancient Fathers did, and stretched their exhortations and enforcements, as also their dehortations, somewhat hard upon the Tentors. For in their dogmaticall resolutions, and doctrinall positi­ons, they are more reserved, and goe not so farre. We may do well then to consider why, wherefore, when, and to what manner men these popular Sermons were made, and doe speake; and not presse everie passage hand o­ver head, for advantage. I rest in that judge­ment and censure which our Church hath passed upon them, Artic. xxxv. where it is said in terminis, THEY containe a godly and wholesome doctrine, necessary for THESE times: the times in which and for which, this Homi­ly against Images and the perill of Idolatry, was specially made. To conclude, Images may be had and made, but with some limitation. The Image of GOD Almighty is not to bee [Page 265] made at all, and no Image is to bee made for religious worship; no not of relation, as they speak; which yet is minimae Entitatis; but, ut ornatui sint, ut memoriae, ut Historiae: and that they may bee made for such ends, no law of GOD forbiddeth, saith our GAMA­LIEL. Pag. 203. ad A­pol. BEL.

INFORMERS.

OF signing our selves, not children onely in Baptisme, with the signe of the Cross, he speaketh very superstitiously: We use sig­ning with the signe of the Crosse, both in the forehead and elsewhere. Caro signa­tur, ut anima muniatur, said TERTUL­LIAN: and so we.

MOUNTAGU.

NOT onely in Baptisme? Tell me then, are ye come so farre home unto the Church of England, as to allow signing with the Crosse in Baptisme? that Popish Ce­remony, as your Forefathers and Patriarches of the schisme were wont to exclaime against it? There is hope you may grow in time, upon better advice, in love and practice with some of M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery, with the signe of the CROSSE in the forehead, and elsewhere. If it be not superstitious to signe in the fore­head, why is it to signe any other part of the bodie? why more out of Baptisme, than in Baptisme? Is one part of the body more sub­ject [Page 267] and liable to superstition, than another? the brest, or belly, or armes, than is the fore­head? Superstition is in Subjecto, or in Acti­one. In that if you fasten superstition, you must give us some reason why one part is more subject and liable unto it, than another; and wherfore you put this difference betwixt the parts. And concerning actions: religious and pious actions are more liable to supersti­tion to be committed in them, than common, civill, or ordinary actions be; nay, all supersti­tion whatsoever reflecteth upon religion. It is not but in such acts as bee of themselves, or appliedly, acts of religion and piety. There­fore, in all probability, if it bee superstitious to signe the forehead without Baptisme, it is more superstitious to do it in Baptisme. Nor can the Injunction of the Church give any priviledge of immunity unto a superstitious action of it self, to bee used in point of piety without superstition: for, if to signe with the signe of the Crosse be superstitious in it selfe, as by your opinion it seemeth to bee; then cannot the Church command it to bee used on the forehead in Baptisme, because no act of the Church can acquit and discharge the action of that naturall and inherent property. If it be not superstitious absolutely, originally, and in it self, eat your words of superstition, and elsewhere; or give us some reason why extra Baptismum it should bee superstition to [Page 268] use it [...], or to signe the brest, forehead, legs, head, or any one part, or all the body, and not so in Baptisme for the forehead.

The ancient Church used it in Baptism as we do. TERTULLIAN spake of Baptism the words remembred; Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur: which he learned not of MARCI­ON nor MONTANUS, as some have fabled; but of the practice of the Church before they were born. And you shall finde, if you over­look the place againe, that I remembred the words for Baptisme, and not otherwise: you have chopt off the vinculum that tyed my words together, and relate them as if I cited TERTULLIAN in generall tearms for any signing with the Crosse, in any place, at any time. For which action, though lawfull, I doe not alledge him. I say, though lawfull: for where is it forbidden? What hindereth, but that I may signe my self with the signe of the Crosse in any part of my body, at any time; at night when I goe to bed, in the morning when I rise, at my going out, at my returning home? The ancient Church so used it out of Bap­tisme ordinarily: and so may wee, for ought I knowe, without just scandall and superstition. The practice of Antiquity you will not deny: you cannot, if you knowe any thing in Anti­quity. Therefore I will not trouble you with testimonies: you shall onely have some rea­sons for their practice. First, out of CYRIL [Page 269] against IULIAN, remembred in the Apologie a­gainst Cardinall BELLARMINE. Quod omnia Resp. ad Apol. BEL. p. 198. CHRISTI beneficia recordari nos faciat. YOU need not that help. Happy men, that are ever in actu exercitato, and need no rubbing of your memory. And that worthy Divine, D. WHITE, in his Brothers Defense, pag. 61. hath these words: The SIGNING of the body with the SIGNE OF THE CROSSE, as it was anci­ently used by the prime Christians to these ends; I. To professe, that they were not ashamed of CHRIST crucified; 2. nor of the persecution and crosses which befell them for his sake; 3. that they hoped for redemption and salvation by CHRIST crucified, whom Iewes and Gentiles despised: our Divines acknowledge to be lawfull. What saith M. MOUNTAGU more in his So do wee? and then, remembring some abuses of it in the Church of Rome, addeth; In regard of these abuses, our Church observeth not so common an use of the signe of the Crosse, as was in for­mer Ages: neverthelesse we condemne not the same signe in regard of it self. You do: I do not. And heerin you see I am not alone. IU­NIUS, Animadv. c. BEL. de Imag. ca. 29. Respectus Crucis, etiam Crucis CHRISTI, ut historicus, non malus simpliciter, sed bonus. Malus verò ef­ficitur, si proficiscatur ex animo praesumente me­reri ex opere operato. Nos in rebus sacris non improbaremus planè SIGNUM CRUCIS, si abesset superstitio, &c. Rem non adeò fugeremus, si ab­essent [Page 270] vitia indignè rem illam fermentantia. Tol­le errorem superstitionem (que), nemo vestrum aut illorum factum improbaturus est. M. PERKINS in his Probleme, though he faine would puri­tanize it, and so goeth on, heawing hoofe a­gainst hoofe, yet confesseth, that the Fathers used to arme themselves against the Divell with the signe of the Crosse; but addeth, They did not ascribe unto the outward signe any pow­er, or to opus operatum any efficacy. As if we imagined so, we say with himselfe, that it is an idle and foolish forgery. And one day you may reade if you will what M. MOUNTAGU hath written against ROSW. the Iesuite to that very purpose. But setting this superstition a­side, neyther can any moderate Protestant dis­allow the use of the Crosse, as the Fathers used it; nor can Master PERKINS refell it. You are of THO. CARTWRIGHT'S minde, I make no question, that great Apostle of Pu­ritanicall Schisme; That that reason which mo­ved the Fathers to use, should move us not to use the signe of the Crosse. They lived with Heathens, who had the CROSSE of CHRIST in contempt; we, with such as ADORE the CROSSE. Where first I answer with that incomparable HOOKER, You erre, not knowing the Fathers rea­sons. This was one; but this reason was not all, because they lived with Pagans that did despite it. Secondly, wee live not so with Papists, as they did with Pagans. For the State, [Page 271] and Prince in State, is for us against the Papists: so was it not for Christians against Pagans. But thirdly, I come home to you indeed. The same reason that moved them, may move us to use it more frequently than we are enjoyned, more ordinarily than wee doe. For wee live with Puritans, and opposite Factionists, that have the Crosse of CHRIST in as great contempt and despight, as ever had IULIAN or any Pagan. But as the Fathers, when the CROSSE of CHRIST was in utter contempt, did not supersti­tiously adore the same, but rather did declare that they so esteemed it as was meet: In like maner, if wee finde the Crosse to have that honour which is due to CHRIST, is it not as lawfull for us to retaine it in that estimation which it ought to have, and in that use which it had of old, without offence; as by taking it cleane away, to seeme followers of their example, who doe cure wilfully by abscission, that which they might both preserve and heale? So that worthy HOO­KER, most learnedly and rightly. For your resolution; I am enjoyned to use it in Bap­tisme: and so are you. I doe so use it: do you? I scarce beleeve you doe it willingly. I am not enioyned to use it in other actions, places or times. But am I inhibited to use it so? Shew where, how, by whom. I see reasons to my selfe peradventure, to use it so, or so; and thus doe, or may other as well as I. It is superstition you say: pardon me if I [Page 272] take not your words for Gospell. Prove it superstition, and I yeeld. The rule of your consciences, is not the square of mine; nor shall be, except it were more regular, perfect, and exact, than it is. Enjoy your opinions to your self: let me alone with mine, in things indifferent, that are not prohibited by lawfull authoritie any way. For, saith the XXX. Ca­non, and I embrace it, Things of themselves in­different doe in some sort alter their natures, when they are eyther commanded or forbidden by a lawfull Magistrate, and may not be omitted at every mans pleasure, contrary to the law, when they bee commanded; nor ùsed when they are prohibited, Till then, at least, I may use the signe of the Crosse. You say it is Popery; but you must remember, that all your words are not Gospell, nor all Popery that displeaseth a Puritan.

INFORMERS.

HEmentioneth and approveth the practice of the ANCIENTS. They signed, saith he, their foreheads, their hands, &c.

MOUNTAGU.

IT Is true, he mentioneth that practice of An­tiquity; it is false, that hee approveth it in that passage of his: for he barely relateth it, and no more. But you knew his heart per­adventure by instinct. For though it then dropped not from his pen what hee thought thereof, yet seeing you put him to it to dis­cover himselfe, he hath done it, and doth as­sure you he doth approve it. And it seemeth strange to him, that some few Pigmies of these times should presume to controll the practice of those Ancient Heroes of former ages, and to doe it so with an high-hand: wherein unadvisedly they runne upon that rocke, which of all they cannot endure to fall upon. For they confesse therein, that Popery is ancient: which, M. MOUNTAGU saith, all the Papists in the world cannot prove. For they say in direct tearms, M. MOUNTAGU ap­proveth the practice of the Ancients: and that which he approveth, is by themselves censured [Page 274] for Popery. Nay more, they professe them­selves therein Papists, that give so much cre­dit unto Popery, as to confesse it so directly to bee ancient. Out of this ground, è lege [...]alio­nis, because they have now more than once informed against mee for Popery, I might as well pay them in their owne coine. Howso­ever, let all Novellers knowe, I had rather venture to approove a supposed error with those Ancients, the learnedst in the primitive Church of old, than an imaginary truth, or not so good, with these Younglings; accor­ding to that dictate of the Councell of Niee, [...].

INFORMERS.

HE citeth and approveth the testimony of one of them. By the signe of the [Page 275] CROSSE of CHRIST, all Magick spells are disappointed, sorcery and Witchcraft commeth to nothing, all Idolls are abandoned and forsaken.

MOUNTAGU.

QVàm contemptim! One of them? And was not that One worth the naming? Deserved hee no respect from your Great Selves? Your uncircumcised lips might well be sweetned with the name of that cer­taine quidam, as you call him out of contempt. Goe to it roundly, quid haesitatis? and with those prophane ones, call him without more adoe, SATHANASIUS: for ATHANASIUS was the man there named to your hand. A man deserving better of GOD'S Church, than you and all YOUR Divines, put them all together. If you misdoubt the Testimony to bee forged, because it was forgotten to name the place; it is in his Book de Incarnatione verbi, pag. 61. and was formerly remembred by him in the Tract against the Gentiles, pa 1. If you call the truth of the Relation into question, ATHA­NASIUS Word will passe where your Bond will not goe currant. But you shall have mo witnesses to speake to the same purpose. EPI­PHANIUS relateth of a Christian young Gen­tlewoman, Haeres. 30. quae est E [...] 10. that was quitted from the wanton [Page 276] assaults of a young man, by signing herselfe with the signe of the Crosse; [...], that in it GOD might remonstrate his wondrous power. And againe the same Father saith, [...]. The Magicians and Sor­cerers prevailed not: [...]. for the woman found helpe in the SIGNE of CHRIST, and through faith in him. which is gladius [...] against Puritan and Papist: against him, for the bare signe; a­gainst you, for the signe. [...]. where the name of CHRIST was invocated, and the signe of the CROSSE made, there Sorcery and Witch­craft could do nothing. If you list to see more, and hear more evidence to this purpose, you may look upon that which NAZIANZENE hath of IULIAN the Apostata, in his first Invec­tive. which THEODORET hath of a certaine Iew, lib. 3. cap. 3. which EPIPHANIUS of another Ho. 8. ad Rom. Iew, IOSEPHUS by name. [...], saith CHRYSOSTOME, we have also spirituall conjura­tions, the Name of our Lord IESUS CHRIST, [...], and the power of the CROSSE. Nec mirum est quòd haec signa valent, cùm à bo­nis Christianis adhibentur; quando etiam, cùm u­surpantur ab extraneis, qui omnino suum nomen ad istam militiam non dederunt, propter honorem ta­men excellentissimi Imperatoris, valent; faith S. AUGUST. or whosoever wrote the LXXXIII. Quest. to DULCITIUS. Now what say you to Qu. 79. [Page 277] that Testimony of one of them? If you will not admit the Doctrine, because M. MOUNTAGU delivereth it, I can name you one will say and approove as much, whom you dare not deny to be of credit, or stile a certain one of them. The SIGNE of the CROSSE, saith B. IEWEL, was had in great regard among Christians; and the more, both for the publick reproach and shame that by the common judgement of the world was conceived against it; and also for that most wor­thy price of our redemption that was offred up­on it. Therefore the faithfull which beleeved in CHRIST, in all their talk, in their whole life and conversation, used so much the more to extoll and magnifie the same. Thus, as THEODORET reporteth, the Christians every where, in their common resorts and open market-places, published and proclaimed the victory and triumph of the CROSSE. The which, as CHRYSOSTOME saith, they were not ashamed to set as a Posie to any thing that they did, and to any thing that they possessed. Likewise GOD, that the world might more deepely thinke of the death of CHRIST, wrought oftentimes strange miracles by the same. Now is not this as good Popery as M. MOUN­TAGU'S alledging and approving ONE of them? See more, if you be so disposed, in his XIV. Article against HARDING.

INFORMERS.

HEe professeth, that hee knoweth no cause of such distraction and disaffec­tion betwixt us and the Papists, for the reverent use of signing with the signe of the Crosse, &c.

MOUNTAGU.

FOR this use, betwixt any, not alone, nay not at all, Vs and Papists. For he nameth no Papists, no more than Puritans. It is a Glosse of your owne, none of my Text: [Page 279] and yet I will not desire to have it expunged, though I might put it off unto that franticke Puritan PARKER and his furious Followers, that indite the poor Crosse of felony, murder, adultery, and all the sinnes against both the Tables. I knowe no reason why they should charge us: marry those of your shorter Cut they may both charge and challenge, for be­ing singular in their owne conceit, against consent of Antiquity. For, the reverent, pi­ous and religious use of signing, ad omnem om­tum, gestum, habitum, with the signe of the Crosse, is no Popery; which is a grand abuse and a sacrilege committed by them, in adoring the Crosse, and giving unto it divine worship, and ascribing effects unto the bare signe ex o­pere operato: which Antiquity never did, not then when GOD shewed greatest wonders, and magnified his power most of all at the use of it: which you cannot disprove nor deny, though you ramble, and are ready to grinde the teeth at it. HELEN adored the KING of Deobit. THE­ODOSII. heaven, and not the woodden CROSSE, saith S. AMBROSE. In regard of that great and prophane abuse of it in the Roman Church, we doe abstaine from the more frequent, or­dinary, publick use of the signe; which other­wise is lawfull: and we might practice it much more than we do, were it not for scandall.

But I adde in the conclusion, I could tell some experimented effects thereof. You meane, [Page 280] in my owne experience, by my selfe, or some other of my acquaintance. What I meane, IUNIUS, Ani­mad. c. BEL. de Imag. ca. 29. Prisci illi Pa­tres praesentiā, virtutem, ope­rationem salu­tarem CHRIS­TI implorabāt, profitebantur, occupabant, ad­hibito SIGNO EXTERNO CRUCIS: cujus simplicitate, omnia Daemonū Ethnicorum (que) Ludibria clude­rent in DOMI­NO. you have no authoritie to examine me. What­soever you have given out amongst the Bre­thren in this point, I may by all Law, in tearms of ambiguity expound my selfe. There­fore prate you in corners what you please: I may intend this, that I can out of my rea­ding afford the Gagger (who hath related none) some examples of strange works wrought by GOD, in the times of old, at the use of the signe of the Crosse; and some I have formerly made you acquainted withall out of EPIPHA­NIUS, NAZIANZENE, CHRYSOSTOME, and others: whose much, grave, and respected au­thority in the Church, you, though aptly dis­posed thereto, dare not trample under foot, as little account as you even now made of the Ancients. As I told the Gagger before, that I could afford him Fathers for the use there­of, hee having recited none: so heer I may bee supposed to tell him (why not?) that I could supply him with some experimented ef­fects out of the same, or the like Fathers; whereunto his small reading could not, I am sure hath not led him.

And what if I meant some experimented ef­fects of my owne knowledge? What then? Can you controll or convince me? I am not bound to confesse my self to you: but what if upon diverse extremities I have found ease [Page 281] and remedy by using that ejaculatory prayer of our Letanie, PER CRUCEM, &c. By thy CROSSE (and when I said it, what if, to testi­fie my faith, I made the signe of the Crosse?) and by thy Passion, good LORD deliver us? I cannot tell what you will say: but you know well, that some of your lewd Forefathers have accounted this, and a great deal more of that heavenly Prayer, to be no better than conju­ring. If you will bee rightly informed (Ma­ster-Informers), it is not by the bare signe of the Crosse that any such effect cometh, but by the vertue and force of CHRIST'S death and passion then remembred, and at that time re­presented by the signe of the Crosse. It is true, miracles are ceased. But what if this be none? What if so ceased, that notwithstanding GOD can, and may, and will, and doth sometimes work even miracles in these dayes? CHRY­SOSTOME saith they were ceased in his time, To. 5. pa. 605. yet hee elsewhere relateth many miracles done even in his daies. His meaning was, they were ceased from the frequent and ordinary use: some extraordinary use of them might then, and yet may bee, for ought you knowe, or are able to proove the contrary. The Crosse of our SAVIOUR, in the externall signe thereof, beeing as much vilified and de­spised by furious Puritans in these daies, as e­ver it was by frantick Pagans in those; why may not GOD, to teach men better manners, [Page 282] and to check this exorbitancy against the signe of our deare REDEEMER'S death, antiquum ob­tinere, do now as hee hath done in the daies of old, and shew some signe and token, to magnifie the thing so much despised? Sed [...]. You have enough. Take it which way you will, all is one to me. It commeth next in the Rere, which also formerly did advance in Front. Heare an argument of my Informers presumption against almost the current of An­tiquity, out of ignorance at least, if not folly extreme.

INFORMERS.

IN another place hee saith, IOSUAH in fight prevailed against AMALEC, through the signe of the CROSSE, rather than by the sword. Chap. VIII. pag. 66.

MOUNTAGU.

ISAY so indeed; and were not you either ignorant or insolent, you would not op­pose or censure my saying so for Popery. For almost which of the ancient Fathers hath not said it? To instruct your ignorance, or else to abate your arrogance, take a particular of some of them for the purpose. IUSTIN MAR­TYR against TRYPHO, pag. 95. and 99. edit. Graec. ROB. STEPHANI. TERTULLIAN, contr. Iudaeos, pag. 102. and lib. 3. against MARCION in the same words; and in other places. CYPRIAN, lib. 2. cap. 21. Testimon. adv. Iud. S. AMBROSE, Tom. 5. Ser. 52. in diem Parasceves. HIERON. Tom. 5. in XII. OSEE, pag. 71. CHRYSOST. Tom. 5. pag. 662. and else where. NAZIANZ. Orat. 6. pag. 137. and those remarkeable Verses of his,

which was also intended by ATHANASIUS the Great, Tom. 1. pag. 406. in this close couched maner: [...]. who by his people ISRAEL, working by his secret and mysticall grace and power, did vanquish A­MALECH in fight. In a point of this nature, I can be contented to be censured for a Papist, with these and the like Worthies: in the meane time, you may blush for your ignorance and presumption.

INFORMERS.

OF the Sacrament of the LORDS Supper hee writeth very Popishly.

MOUNTAGU.

I Verily doth hee, indeed lo. Our deer Brethren are heere cleane out of Patience. Hitherto their progresse hath beene from savouring [Page 285] to saying and writing, marry it was but simple Popery. Now upon improvement, he writeth VERY Popishly. For, first, he calleth the Sup­per of the LORD in expresse tearms, not as using their phrase, but his owne, The Sacrament of the Altar. Very Popish, forsooth, to use a word, no stranger in the world. And my good Brethren, have not your selves, as holy and precise as you would seeme, used the like phrase? Have you not named the Masse, and Purgatory, and Transubstantiation, and the like, without any adjection of, As they call it, or so? Mo times than you have fingers and toes, I doubt not. Then sure, out of your owne mouthes, you speak very Popishly; and, which must follow in your inferences against Mast. MOUNTAGU, are very Papists, in suffering such prophane words to flee over the hedge of your teeth. And yet M. MOUNTAGU speaketh by way of concession: you have let those words slip from you absolutely. Sir Carnifex of words, and tormentor of phrases, I could answer you as TERTULLIAN and ATHENAGO­RAS did the elder Pagans; You draw low upon the lees of malice & detraction, when you have nothing left but words and phrases to calum­niate. But I rather chuse to speak in our B. MORTON'S words, apologizing for Protestants against Papists. It may be I have taken licence in use of tearmes; but no error in doctrine can you finde: for, to put off your imputati­on [Page 286] from farther fastning, I beleeve no such Sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth. I fancie no such Altars as they imploy, though I professe a Sacrifice and an Altar. In the same reverend Bishops words: The LORDS Table, being called improperly an Altar, can no more conclude a Sacrifice understood properly, than when as S. PAUL calling TITUS his sonne according to the Faith, which is improperly, a man may contend, S. PAUL was his naturall father ac­cording to the flesh.

So it is, The LORDS Table hath been called [...] from the beginning; not, as some falsly teach, by succeeding Fathers. S. PAUL himselfe may seeme to have given authoritie and warrant to the phrase, Heb. 13. 10. IGNA­TIUS, S. IOHNS Disciple, useth the word in the Christian use and Liturgie more than thrice. So doth CLEMENS, the APOSTLES Canons, DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. IRENAE us, lib. 4. cap. 20. speaketh of the Ministers of the New Testament, not the Old, that they doe DEO & ALTARI deservire. These Altars were not of Stone at first, untill the dayes of CONSTAN­TINE, that the Church came to have rest and peace; nor then frequently and in ordinarie Churches, but in Cathedrall only, or in great Cities. But of Stone they were, it is certaine; and I prove it elsewhere, before that Popery Contr. BARON. in Exerc. ined. was heard of in the world, or in the Church of Rome it selfe. But the name of Altars was [Page 287] given unto them when they were of Wood; as is plaine out of OPTATUS and others, as I have there collected. Now though you may stumble and break your shinnes at the Altar, yet I hope you will not overthrowe the Sa­crifice. I have so good opinion of your un­derstanding, though weak, that you will con­fesse the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, or Communion-table, whether you please, to be a Sacrifice; not propitiatory, as they call it (I will use this word, Call it, lest you challenge me upon Popery for using propitiatory) for the living and dead; not an externall, visible, true, and proper Sacrifice, but onely representative, rememorative, and spirituall Sacrifice. Now if you grant a Sacrifice, why deny you an Altar? D. REYNOLDS and B. MORTON have granted, that though we have no proper Altar, yet Al­tar and Sacrifice have a mutuall relation and dependance one upon the other. The name of Priests is given not only unto all Christians in generall, but also to the Ministers of the new Testament in particular, by the confession of D. REYNOLDS out of Esay LXVI. 21. in his Conference, chap. VIII. Divis. 4. pag. 470. Indeed first to the Ministers, and then to those that are all a royall Priesthood. They have authority, as he confesseth, to sacrifice spiritually: good Sirs, why not then an Altar, at least of the same making, to sacrifice upon? And why then is it such Popery to name the LORD'S Supper, The [Page 288] Sacrament of the ALTAR? Walk at random and at rovers in your by-paths, if you please. I have used the phrase of Altar for the Com­munion-table, according to the manner of An­tiquity, and am like enough sometimes to use it still. S. PAUL calleth the Pagan ALTARS (which were indeed and truely Altars) TA­BLES: and why may not wee name the LORD'S TABLE an Altar, by the same war­rant? You cannot communicate, he saith, of the TABLE of the LORD, and the TABLE of Di­vels. Nor will I abstaine, notwithstanding your oggannition, to follow the steps and pra­ctice of Antiquity, in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also, and yet bee farther from Popery in that practice, than you from Purita­nisme, or any Puritan is indeed from true Po­pery; being two birds of one feather.

INFORMERS.

AFterwards hee expresseth himselfe more fully, and saith thus unto his adversary: But that you were bred up in a faction, o­therwise you would acknowledge there need be no difference betwixt the Papists and Us in the point of Reall Presence. pag. 253.

MOUNTAGU.

MORE fully (you meane, to be a Papist) than before; and that in the point of Reall presence: which Reall presence, in your Divinitie, is flat Popery; but not in the Divinitie of the Church of England. Concer­ning this point I said, and I say so still, that if men were disposed, as they ought, unto peace, there need be no difference. and I added a rea­son, which I repeate again heer: The disagree­ment is only in de modo praesentiae: the thing is yeelded to on eyther side, that there is in the holy Eucharist a Reall presence. God forbid, saith Bishop BILSON, we should deny that the [Page 290] flesh and bloud of CHRIST are TRULY PRE­SENT, and truely received of the faithfull at the LORDS Table. It is the doctrine that we teach others, and comfort our selves withall. Pag. 779. of True subject. And the reverend and learned Answerer unto BELLARMINES Apologie, com­meth home to the Faith, or Popery if you will, condemned in M. MOUNTAGU, who learned it of him and such as hee is. Nobis vobiscum de OBIECTO convenit, de modo lis omnis est. You understand not objectum and modum heer: take his owne application, to the purpose. PRAE­SENTIAM, inquam, credimus non minus quàm vos VERAM. De MODO PRAESENTIAE nil te­merè definimus. And to them agreeth Bishop MORTON, pag. 93. The question is not concer­ning a Reall Presence, which Protestants, as their owne Iesuits witnesse, do also professe. FOR­TUNATUS a Protestant, holding that CHRIST is in the Sacrament, MOST REALLY: verissimè, realissime (que) are his words. CALVIN, teaching that the presence of CHRIST'S Body, in respect of the soules of the faithfull, is TRLUY in this Sacrament, and SUBSTANTIALLY received. with whom BEZA and SADAEL doe consent. If this be the Doctrine that the Church of Eng­land teacheth and professeth, as it is indeed, I leave you to those that must looke unto you. Yea but it is inexpiable that I say, Wee need not so dissent from Papists. As if it were a sa­crilege, not to jarre and jingle infinitely with­out [Page 291] cause. I may, I see, turne my speech to you, and you will not refuse to take it to your selves, which I uttered touching the Iesuite Faction: But that the Divell bred you up in a FACTION, and sent you abroad to do him service in maintaining a FACTION, otherwise you might right well acknowledge, there is no such cause why in this point of the SACRAMENT we should be so distrac­ted as WE and the PAPISTS are, seeing both con­fesse that which is enough, This is my body; and contend meerly about the MODUS, HOW it is my body. A point of faith undeniable, though it be unsearchable and incomprehen­sible. Incomparable HOOKER, that Puritano­mastix, might well say, and you in your right wits would subscribe it, thus: Seeing that by opening the severall opinions which have beene held, they are growne, for ought I can see, on all sides at the length to a generall agreement con­cerning that which alone is materiall, namely, the reall participation of CHRIST, and of life in his body and bloud by meanes of this Sacrament, wherefore should the world continue still distrac­ted (yes, to please the humours, and serve the turnes of Iesuites and Puritans) and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remayneth now no controversie, saving only about the subject, Where CHRIST is? yea, even in this point ney­ther side denyeth, but that the soule of man is the receptacle of CHRIST'S presence. It was no blessed speech, in my opinion; but unworthy [Page 292] to be heard in an open Pulpit, and Published in Print, MALEDICTI PACIFICI; those that endevour to make up such rents. Be you of that family, if you please. I am for peace and reconciliation, and say still, BEATI PACIFICI; as I have good warrant from CHRIST, and his blessed servant, King IAMES of most hap­pie memorie.

INFORMERS.

ANd againe, No man denieth a change, an alteration, a transmutation, a transe­lementation, as they speake.

MOUNTAGU.

NO MAN denyeth: you doe. But par­don me, I meant it of discreet, mode­rate, understanding Divines. I should have exempted you (I perceive my error) and such as you, out of the number. Pardon mee this fault, I will commit it no more. If I have any occasion hereafter to speake of lear­ned and moderate men, I will ever except and exempt you and yours. I must confesse my er­ror and simplicity: for I would have thought, that in the Sacrament everie man would have confessed a change; that the consecrated Ele­ments had beene somewhat more than meere ordinary Bread and Wine. For I did conceive a sacramentall Beeing of them, and not onely a naturall, in their use and designment. Vbi ac­cesserit CONSECRATIO, de pane fit caro CHRI­STI. And S. AUGUSTINES Saying is common and well knowne, Accedat Verbum ad elemen­tum, & fiet Sacramentum. And CYRIL of Ie­rusalem, Catech. v. saith to the same purpose: Precamur DEUM hominum amantem, ut emittat SANCTUM suum SPIRITUM in res propositas, ut FACIAT PANEM CORPUS CHRISTI, & VINUM SANGUINEM CHRISTI. For, quicquid contigerit SPIRITUS SANCTUS, illud ipsum [...], it is sanctified and changed, saith S. BASIL in his Liturgie: and who is [Page 294] not of the same minde? Speaketh he not un­to the selfe same purpose? You never heard, it seemeth, of [...] in HIM; not of [...] out of THEOPHYLACT in MATTH. XXVI. not of [...] in GREGORY NYSSEN, nor of [...] in HIM, in CHRYSOSTOME, and others. For it appeareth you are not much versed in Antiquity; and ignorantly imagine, that, if these be granted, Popish Transubstantia­tion must needs ensue: which if it were so, then that Popish Minion, as Bish. MORTON calleth it, were not, as it is, a Babe of yesterdayes birth, never heard of in the world for MCC. yeers after CHRIST. but, a change of the e­lements, that is, Transmutation and Transelemen­tation, do not inferre, you must knowe, Tran­substantiation. For in the other two the matter remaineth; but in this the matter is destroied: the quantity and accidents onely remain. There is a Conversion Sacramentall, that is, of signifi­cation, and of operation and use; as also in the Water of Baptism. And in Conversions that are substantiall, whether by divine power or course ordinary, there is evermore tertium quid, novum, noviter productum, out of that which is converted. But in their Transubstantiation the Body of CHRIST is not produced anew, nor receiveth any substantiall change. Many be the differences that might be insisted upon: but I passe them over. The poor men that tendred this for Popery, were doubtlesse out of their [Page 295] element, and meddled beyond their latchet, or else they may goe to their bookes afresh, stu­die somewhat more strongly; and then per­haps they will begin to sent it, that Change, Transmutation, Transelementation, doe not con­clude, as they simply beleeve, Transubstantia­tion. Then that speech of S. CYPRIAN will not relish of anie Poperie; Iste panis quem DO­MINUS Discipulis suis porrigebat, non effigie sed naturâ mutatus, omnipotentiâ verbi factus est ca­ro. Et sicut in personâ CHRISTI humanitas videbatur, latebat Divinitas; ita Sacramento vi­sibili invisibiliter divina se infundit Substantia. Nor that Saying of S. AMBROSE, by these pu­ny Divines censured for Popery; as also Mast. MOUNTAGU for approving it, and subscri­bing to it: Before Consecration it was bread, com­mon bread; but after Consecration, it becommeth the FLESH OF CHRIST, because then the Sa­crament is consummate. Which did not seem Po­pery unto Bishop MORTON, pag. 106. The Fa­thers, saith he, doe note in Baptisme a certaine change. AMBROSE, speaking of the water in Baptisme, saith: The nature thereof is by Bene­diction changed. And hee is produced in the like case for proofe of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. In the margin he setteth down his words thus: Fortè dices, meus panis est usi­tatus: sed panis iste, ante verba Sacramentorum, PANIS est: ubi accesserit Consecratio, de pane fit CARO CHRISTI. The very words by mee [Page 296] recited out of Lib. IV. cap. 4. de Sacram. Is this Popery in M. MOUNTAGU? Is it good Catholick Doctrine in Bish. MORTON? Hee approveth it, and explaneth it thus; and yet S. AMBROSE (if you can light upon the right e­dition) saith also of the elements, Operatorius sermo est, & sunt quae erant, & in aliud commu­tantur. But, esse quod erant, doth utterly take away and abolish that fiction of Transubstan­tiation unto another nature. They remained what they were indeed, yet changed in use, to be Instruments by Faith of Grace, as his owne similitude doth illustrate. Tu ipse eras vetus Creatura: postquam consecratus es, nova Creatura coepisti esse. Accipe igitur quemadmodum sermo CHRISTI omnem Creaturam mutare consuevit. It was intolerable insolence in such Ignaroes, to challenge this for Popery which they under­stood not; or else malice Puritanicall, to tra­duce me for Popery so publickly, which in that learned Bishop they approve for good Divi­nitie. In conclusion, you manifest your selves meere Sacramentaries, or worse, that denie CHRISTS Body and his Bloud to be in the Sacrament (I dare call it so in despight of de­traction) of the Altar. For you informe a­gainst these words as Popish. Bee contented with, That it is the Body of CHRIST, and doe not seeke nor define how it is so, and wee shall not contest nor contend. Which GOD forbid the Church of ENGLAND should maintain, said Bi­shop [Page 297] BILSON. The Figurists, Significatists, Sym­bolists, taught you this Doctrine, who acknow­ledge nothing, receive nothing, but naked and bare signes and figures. I must subscribe unto our Church against you, and them, and Papists; all three. Transubstantiation, or the Change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the LORD, cannot bee proved by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacra­ment, and hath given occasion unto many superstitions. The BODY of CHRIST is given, taken, and eaten in the SUPPER only after an heavenly and SPIRITUALL maner; and the meanes whereby the BODYof CHRIST is recei­ved and eaten in the SUPPER, is Faith. ARTIC. XXVIII.

INFORMERS.

WE require men, saith he, to make spe­ciall confession of their sinnes unto a Priest, if they finde their consciences trou­bled with any weighty matter, eyther when they be sick, or before receiving of the LORDS Supper.

MOUNTAGU.

BALAM at last went not to fetch divi­nations, as at other times; but set his face toward the wildernesse: nor these men to cast on me particular calumnies, but per satyram congested and conjected at a masse upon the Church of England, in pretence [Page 299] of mee. My words are, It is confessed, that private confession unto a Priest is of very anci­ent practice in the Church; of excellent use and benefit, being discreetly handled. We refuse it to none, if men require it, if need be to have it: we urge and perswade it in extremis: wee re­quire it in case of perplexitie, for the quieting of men disturbed, and their consciences. This is my Popery per partes. For warrant whereof, I bring my witnesse and authoritie, the Injuncti­on, Direction and Practice of the Church, and of Bishops accordingly in the Church. If I have misalledged, falsified, or else misapplyed my Authors and Authority, why am I not tax­ed for that, and charged with it? If I cyte them truly and faithfully, but they have er­red into Popery, speake it out, my good Bre­thren, that they to whom it appertaineth may stand up according, as I hope they will, as I am sure they should, to maintaine, according to their duetie and places, that which their Mother, Holy Church, hath commanded in that sort and case to be observed. What that is, let Bishop MORTON speak, and Bishop US­HER deliver: no Papists I know; and I think none in your opinion. The Bishop of LICH­FIELD in his Appeale, lib. 2. cap. 14. saith thus: It is not questioned betweene us, whether it be convenient for a man burthened with sin, to lay open his conscience in private unto the Mi­nister of GOD, and to seeke at his hands both [Page 300] counsell of instruction, and the comforts of GODS pardon: But whether there be, as from CHRISTS institution, such an absolute necessity of this pri­vate Confession, both for all sorts of men, and for every particular sinne knowne, and ordinarie transgression, so, as that without it there can be no remission or pardon to bee hoped for from GOD. And hereupon he reduceth the Diffe­rences betwixt Papists and Protestants unto two heads. 1. the Necessity: 2. the Possibili­ty. The PAPISTS impose a Necessity of Confes­sion absolutè, de jure divino, of all sinnes, with all circumstances: which is a tyrannie, and impos­sible, and a torture to the conscience. The PRO­TESTANTS doe acknowledge, saith he, the use of private Confession, but with a double limitation and restraint: the first is the foresaid freedome of conscience; the second, the possibility of perfor­mance. And to this end and purpose he reci­teth out of BELLARMINE CALVIN'S judge­ment, thus. Admittit etiam CALVINUS priva­tam Confessionen coram Pastore, quando quis it a angitur & afflictatur Peccatorum sensu, ut se expli­care, nisi alieno adjutorio, nequeat: sed addit mo­derationem, ut libera sit; nec ab omnibus exiga­tur, nec necessariò de omnibus. The Councell of TRENT, that Popish Cynosura, hath decreed Auricular Confession to be of absolute Necessi­ty, from Ordinance divine. and so wee must take it, or incurre their Anathema, if wee care for it. The Master of Sentences saith, Without [Page 301] it there is no way to heaven. In IV. dist. 17. IN­NOCENTIUS 111. denieth Christian buriall unto the not confessed, when they dye. In Concil. La­teranensi. C. XXI. HUGO, de potestate Ecclesiae, is bold, hee saith, to speake it. Whosoever com­meth to Communion unconfessed, be hee never so repentant and sorie for his sinnes, doth, without doubt, receive to judgement. More bold than wise in saying so, I wis: for it is oftentimes a matter of impossibilitie to doe it; ever im­possible to do it with particular enumeration of each sinne, and speciall circumstance in each sinne. Nor was it so rigidly practised of old, as appeareth by LYRA in XVI. XXI. of Levit. nor is there such necessitie of absolute use, nor anie such originall imposition. The lear­ned Bishop of MEATH setteth downe, in his Answer unto the Iesuites Challenge, the state of Confession in the doctrine of OUR Church, thus. Wee tell him againe, that by the PUBLICK OR­DER prescribed in our Church, before the admi­nistration of the HOLY COMMUNION, the Minister likewise doth exhort the people, that if there be any of them, which cannot quiet his owne conscience, but requireth further comfort or counsell, he should come to him, or some other dis­creet and learned Minister of GOD'S Word, and open his griefe, that he may receive such ghostly counsell, advice, and comfort, as his conscience may be relieved; and that by the ministery of GODS Word hee may receive comfort, and the benefite [Page 302] of ABSOLUTION, to the quieting of his consci­ence. Whereby it appeareth (saith that learned Bishop) that the exhorting of the people to CON­FESSE their sinnes unto their GHOSTLY FA­THERS, maketh no such wall of separation be­twixt the ANCIENT Doctors and Us. And againe, Be it therefore knowne unto him, that no kinde of Confession, eyther publick or private, is disallowed by us, that is any way requisite for the due execution of the ancient power of the Keyes, which CHRIST bestowed upon his Church. The thing which we reject, is, that new pick-lock of Sacramentall Confession, obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessary to salvation. So that setting these late Romish ab­errations aside, which M. MOUNTAGU also hath excepted; In HIS opinion, as well as in M. MOUNTAGU'S, wee may, as wee doe, advise, and urge the use thereof. And lest this phrase should be excepted against, Vrging doth not ever imploy constraint or imperium; it reflec­teth as often upon argument, perswasion, and inducement. Therefore, you that are Informers against the Church and me, remember to bee more temperate hereafter, at least for some mens sakes, whom you dare not, cannot, will not censure for Popish errors, as you doe M. MOUNTAGU.

INFORMERS.

WHereas his Adversary chargeth our Church to maintain, that no interior grace is given by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of holy Orders, and that this our opinion is contrary to expresse words of our owne Bibles; hee taketh no exception to him for calling it, The SACRAMENT of holy Orders.

MOUNTAGU.

THis is no positive, but negative Popery; a sinne, not of commission, but omissi­on. Not to take exception, no Peccadillo, but a capitall crime with Puritanicall quick-sil­ver Spirits, whose service unto GOD is per­formed by taking exception against all things that sute not with their fancy. Else, what ma­keth it so hainous an offence with them, to take no exception at a terme, or a word? We brabble not for words; our difference is for, and about things. Contentions may be multipli­ed beyond all degrees of bounds, moderation or measure, and that in things needlesse, and to no purpose oftentimes. You foment this hu­mor more than you need, or shall have thank for of the PRINCE OF PEACE, that call us out still unto direct Contestation, and censure us for Papists, because wee are not so conten­tious nor brabbling as you would have us. For heer what need you quarrell the not excep­ting against the terme Sacrament? It was not proposed whether Ordination were a sacrament or not; but whether in that which they call the Sacrament of holy Orders, and the Church of England, at least, holy Orders, any interior Grace were given by imposition of hands. Iust as not long since you sought a knot in a rush for u­sing the like phrase of sacrament of the Altar: [Page 305] So, if being to say somewhat against Transub­stantiation, I doe not quarrell the word, I am a Papist, though I dispute never so earnestly against the thing. See how apt and disposed men are, that love faction and division, to take hold and fasten upon any thing to maintaine it.

But I can otherwise excuse my selfe, and I beleeve shall not finde them in the excepting humor for it. Know then, Sirs Informers, I durst not except against the phrase, for feare of drawing more fists about my eares than my owne, viz. of all YOUR DIVINES (and they are [...]) whom you call CALVINISTS. For have you not read it? or doe you not remember it, what BELLARMIN hath said, that CALVIN admitteth Ordination for a Sa­crament? And BELLARMINE doth not belie CALVIN; for he doth so indeed. These are his words, lib. IV. ca. 19. sect. 31. Superest Impo­sitio manuum: quam ut in veris legitimis (que) ordi­nationibus Sacramentum esse concedo, ita nego locum habere in hâc fabulâ, &c. How that is, and in what sort, he expresseth himself, lib. IV. cap. 14. sect. 20. Nam impositionem manuum, quâ Ecclesiae Ministri in suum munus initiantur, ut non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum, ita in­ter ordinaria Sacramenta non numero. He ad­mitteth it a Sacrament, but not an ordinarie Sacrament. No Papist living, I think, will say or desire more. It is not for all, but for some. Which Saying of his is semblably expressed [Page 306] in that short, small, but perfect Catechisme in our Communion Book: where the Question be­ing asked, How many SACRAMENTS are there? the Answer is made, TWO onely as generally necessary unto salvation; not excluding others from that name and designation, though from the prerogative and degree. For, touch­ing sacramentall unction, it is observed out of M. HOOKER, that in the Writings of the an­tient Fathers, all Articles peculiar unto Chri­stian faith, all Duties of Religion contayning that which sense or naturall reason cannot of it selfe discerne, are commonly called Sacra­ments. And this is not denied by B. MORTON. For if wee should speak of improper Sacraments, Pag. 339. saith hee, which are mentioned by the antient Fathers, our Adversaries would not deny, that not onely seven, but seventy times seven Sacra­ments might bee named. Therefore, for the Church of England's sake, be good to Master MOUNTAGU in this sinne of omission; and unto the Church of England, for the antient Fathers sakes; unto them and unto all, for B. MORTON'S and M. CALVIN'S sake, who is the Father of your Divines called Calvinists; who for Orders (will you suffer them to bee called Holy?) goeth as farre as may be, both for force, and for forme of administration: as if Ordination did, in his opinion, consist in relation unto some such gift or grace superna­turall, as onely GOD can bestowe; being the [Page 307] powerfull meanes of GOD, though in diffe­rent degrees, unto eternall life. It followeth.

INFORMERS.

BUt denieth our Church to hold any such opinion. These are his words: This in­deed is contrary to expresse words of our Bible, and therefore directly contrarie to our opinion, doctrine, & practice. CHAP. XXXVIII. fol. 269.

MOUNTAGU.

COunterfeyting at length will be dismas­ked, and Hypocrisie appeare in the true comportment. For heer, Sorex suo se indicio. The Ape discovers himselfe to bee so, by cracking of nuts: so doe these men, who, what, and what Side they are of; Puritans in Faction, and engrayned in their affection that way, howsoever pretending conformity by subscription. For what is that, trowe ye, that M. MOUNTAGU denieth our Church to hold? which these Informers and their Abbetters hold not? which they deny? which in their opinion is Popery? The Gaggers imputation up­on us and our Church, was, that in the doctrine of the Church of England, no interior Grace is given by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of holy Orders: In effect, that when it is for­mally and solemnly said, RECEIVE THE HO­LY GHOST, this is but idle, and without ef­fect. This imputation M. MOUNTAGU de­nieth to be true and just, and affirmeth, that in the resolution and doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND, by imposition of hands, internall Grace is conferred. Now this these good Informers have presented to be a Popish error, namely, the publike and by Parliament established and authorised doctrine of our Church. So said their grand Patriarches and Fathers before them; [Page 309] the Puritan Vndertakers, and Complayners unto Parliament also, against the doctrine and disci­pline of the CHURCH. Papisticus quidam ritus, are their owne words, stultè quidem ab illis, & sine ullo Scripturae fundamento institutus, & à dis­ciplinae nostrae authoribus, pace illorum dixerim, non magno primum judicio acceptus, minore adhuc in Ecclesiâ nostrâ retinetur. Eccles. discipli. pag. 53. They say, Wee cannot give the HOLY GHOST, and therefore we doe foolishly to bid men RECEIVE it. And yet these men, that are of the Clergy, M. YATES and M. WARD, have subscribed, I hope, That interior Grace is gi­ven, that is, the HOLY GHOST is given in Or­dination; who present M. MOUNTAGU as a Papist for saying so. How can these Priests answer the one Act, or the other? When they entred into Priesthood, their profession was then amongst other things acknowledged and subscribed, that the booke of ordering Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons, contayneth nothing contrary unto the Word of GOD: and yet now it contayneth. For this is expressely contay­ned there, which M. MOUNTAGU amongst o­ther points of Popery delivereth, That interior Grace, that is, the HOLY GHOST, is conferred in HOLY ORDERS; and that this is the opinion, doctrine, and practice of the Church of Eng­land. I may and do conclude with the VIII Canon against them; leaving the execution, which I hope will not be neglected, unto Au­thority. [Page 310] The Canon is, Whosoever shall hereafter affirme or teach, that the forme and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Dea­cons, contayneth any thing in it contrary to the Word of GOD, let him be excommunicate IPSO FACTO. These men have affirmed it in most publick maner: for Popery is contrary to the Word of GOD; and they have imputed Popery to me, for saying as I and they have subscri­bed. I referre it to Them unto whom it be­longeth, whether they stand not therefore ex­communicate; not to bee restored untill they re­pent, and publickly revoke such their wicked re­rors: the Censure of the Canon. But I proceed from Ordination to Execution of Priesthood; from the Originall denied, unto the Ministeriall part rejected also by them: and so I shall have done with them.

INFORMERS.

THis is the Doctrine, saith hee, of our Communion-Booke, and the practice of our Church accordingly, that Priests have power not only to pronounce, but to give Remission of sinnes. CHAP. XI. Pag. 78. 79.

MOUNTAGU.

FIRST be pleased, whosoever shalt view or reade this Apologie, to take the true state and Tenent in the point informed against by these Promoters. It was imposed by the Gagger, as a doctrine authorised in our Church, None but GOD can forgive sinnes, or retaine them. It was answered by me, that in some sense it was true, None else can doe it, viz. by authority and right originall, because all sinne is properly committed against GOD; [Page 312] Tibi soli peccavi: and that in some sense also it was not true. For by delegation others also might doe it ministerially. GOD doth forgive them by the ministery of men. The Priest, to doe this, hath power conferred upon him by GOD in as ample sort as he or any man can receive it. And that this was indeed the doc­trine of our Church, I proved by the witnesse of an enemy, and therefore the stronger; pro­ducing the verdict of a Papist, who confesseth, that Protestants hold, that Priests have power, not only to pronounce, but to give remission of sinnes. Which seemeth to bee the doctrine of the COMMUNION BOOKE in the visitation of the fick. where the PRIEST saith, AND BY HIS AUTHORITY COMMITTED UNTO MEE, I ABSOLVE THEE FROM ALL THY SINNES. This is my relation hither­to, of what I finde. So that heer is commit­ted crimen falsi by these Informers. I relate what one of that Side saith; I say it not my selfe, but only recognize the truth of his relation, which I could not deny. For in the visitation of the sick, in the Communion-Booke, the doctrine and practice is as hee relateth it. So that were it not justifiable which is heere reported, these honest, faithfull Brethren had put a trick upon mee, namely, an Assertion for a bare Relation; as if I had justified what I doe but report. But it is justifiable: it is the doctrine and practice of the Church of Eng­land. [Page 313] The Bishop of Meath was of that opini­on, Pag. 109. against a Iesuites challenge; HE hath done us open wrong in charging us to deny, that PRIESTS HAVE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. And hee giveth a reason irrefragable; Whereas the very formall words which our Church requi­reth to be used in the Ordination of a Minister, are these: WHOSE SINNES THOU DOST FOR­GIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN; AND WHOSE SINNES THOU DOST RETAINE, THEY ARE RETAINED. The execution of which autho­rity accordingly is put in practice in the Visi­tation of the sick. And no man can say more, or come more fully home unto Popery in this point than Bishop MORTON in his Appeale, Pag. 270. And indeed the POWER OF ABSO­LUTION, whether it be GENERALL or PARTI­CULAR, whether in PUBLIKE or in PRIVATE, it is professed in OUR CHURCH; where both in our PUBLIKE SERVICE is proclaimed pardon and Absolution upon all penitents; and a PRI­VATE applying of PARTICULAR ABSOLUTI­ON unto Penitents by the office of the MINI­STER. And greater power than this, no man hath received from GOD. In as much then as these Informers declare and speake against some part of the Communion-Booke, in the Vi­sitation of the sick, for Absolution in remission of sinnes; and that they stand convicted there­of per evidentiam facti, by statute of 1. of Eli­zab. [Page 314] they are to lose the profits of all their spi­rituall promotions and benefices for one yeare, un­to the KING; and without baile or maineprise, to suffer imprisonment for halfe a yeare. If they are not beneficed, their indurance is the longer: the punishment alotted, is, one whole yeares im­prisonment. which it were not amisse, that Au­thority would deservedly inflict upon them, to teach them better manners heereafter, than to call that a point of Popery, which is apparant, and confessed to be the expresse and avowed doctrine and discipline of the Church, confirmed for performance by Act of Parliament. I leave the censure of their deserts unto Authoritie, whom it toucheth; and proceede to the next Information upon the same point, though with some addition.

INFORMERS

ANd a little after; It is consessed, that all Priests, and none but Priests, have po­wer to forgive Sinnes. CHAP. XII. Pag. 83.

MOUNTAGU.

ANd is it not so confessed, when by pub­lick warrant in Ordination, that power is given unto all Priests to do so, in those solemne words of Ordination, WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN? and unto none but Priests, because none have else such Ordination? If this bee not confessed, I will put my selfe to you to school, to learne and to know what is confessed. The fact is ap­parant, you cannot say nay: haply you will, nay, certainly you do question, Quo jure, quàm rectè it is confessed. The truth is, you cannot deny the thing. But with you Puritans this do­ctrine and practice of the Church is held to be Popery. And heer you inferre necessarily, that Priests have no more power to doe this, than Lay-men have. For what else can you mean by, And none but Priests, but eyther, that neyther one nor other have that power; or else, that one [Page 316] as much and as great as other? To which you incline, I cannot say assuredly. No great dif­ference: for both are exact Puritanisine: you cast Confession upon both one and other. Any Lay-man may heare it as well as a Priest: and therefore it is probable, you will not be very precise for Absolution, to conferre it on a Lay­man, as well as on a Priest. So the power of the keyes are to both alike in equall assise. But Sirs, Absolution is a part of that Priestly pow­er, which could not be given by Men or An­gels, but onely and immediately by Almighty GOD himself; a part of that paramount pow­er which the GOD of glory hath invested mortall men withall. In which respect, and not otherwise, as some claime, it hath beene said, The head of the EMPEROR hath been sub­jected unto the PRIEST'S hands. In which re­gard, no earthly power is of equall value and assise unto it; as not onely the ANCIENTS (you shall have a Catalogue of them if you desire it), but Bishop MORTON confesseth. None can arrogate this power and authority unto himself: none can bee invested with it, but by commission. Priests onely have this com­mission from CHRIST; unto whom hee said, As my Father sent me, so send I you; and, Re­ceive you the holy Ghost: whose sinnes you remit, they are remitted, &c. This commission (as they may doe any) those that have it under seale [Page 317] in good warrant, may abuse. And so they have done in the Church of Rome: but that abuse doth not evacuate the commission; not in the Exceeders and Transgressers, much lesse in them that exceed not. They have abused it: for saith one, Sacerdos utitur ipsissimâ CHRISTI potestate in remittendis peccatis. it is BULLEN­GER in Diatribis, Pag. 267. that is, Primaria, authoritativa, if it be ipsissima; not secundaria & delegata. For our late Masters in the Church of Rome doe fasten the efficacie of forgiving sinnes, unto the externall word pronounced by the Priest. For, saith SUAREZ, Sacraments have To. 3. d. 2. § 2. a PHYSICALL efficacity in conferring grace, as CHRIST'S humanity had in working miracles. And therefore no marvell if they abate Con­trition, by acquiring onely, as sufficient and e­nough, a kinde of overly desire to serve GOD anew; such as the Schoolemen call vellëity: no full resolved purpose, no matter for it; no deep sorrow or Contrition. And therefore are they so facile in Absolution, so easie and often chil­dish in Satisfaction.

We professe and beleeve, that none can for­give sinnes but GOD, by expiating, wiping out, blotting away, and purging; that no man can forgive them absolutely, authoritatively, by pri­mer and originall power; that Priests have de­legated power from GOD to reconcile unto him, by preparing of them by the Word and [Page 318] Sacraments to repentance, to bee capable of forgivenesse; first, to chafe and prepare the wax to receive the Seale; then, as Officers, to set to that Seale, to pronounce them absolved in the name of CHRIST, and actually to absolve them, so farre as Ministeriall Power can extend, qui non ponunt obicem by unbeliefe or irrepen­tance. The phrase of the Ancients, and even of the elder Roman Schooles, was this, and no otherwise: Sacerdos absolvendo confitentem pronunciat absolutum, non remittit peccatum. And again, Sacerdotes dimittunt ostendendo & mani­festando. Habent se, ad modum demonstrantis, non directè, sed dispositivè. And that because ea adhibent per quae DEUS dimittit peccata, & dat gratiam. To conclude; the Master of their Sentences, their ancient Ritualls, their formall words of Absolution, taught them better doc­trine than now they teach. Aliter DEUS solvit vel ligat, aliter Ecclesia. Ipse enim per se tantùm dimittit peccatum, quia animam mundat à maculâ interiori, & à debito mortis aeternae sol­vit. Non autem hoc Sacerdotibus concessit, qui­bus tamen tribuit solvendi & ligandi, id est, o­stendendi homines ligatos vel solutos, potestatem. Vnde DOMINUS leprosum sanitati prius per se restituit: deinde misit ad Sacerdotes, quorum ju­dicio ostenderetur solutus. Setting some rigo­rous Puritans aside, that like no Religion but one of their owne making, and yet in all [Page 319] probability would not hold that long, I think there are few Calvinists, as you call your Di­vines, that will wrench at this. So that it must unavoideably be one of these two, The good men either know not the Tenet of their owne Doctors and Divines of the more temperate sort, and that also established in the Church of England; or covertly mislike the one and other: but daring not doe it openly, and give the whole Church the affront so palpably with a brazen forehead, they undertake it by traducing M. MOUNTAGU for a PAPIST, whom they knowe to be no PURITAN. thus wounding their Mother through their Brothers sides.