CHAP. 5. A censure upon his fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters concerning Election, Praedestination, and Reprobation.  
IN the argument of his fifth Chapter, his words stand so as if he meant to overthrow the Apostles doctrine concerning predestination. But his text showeth, that he meaneth to dispute against God's purpose in choosing some, and rejecting others; and to declare, that God saw some cause in man why he did both: holding part with Arminius, part with the Jesuits; who make either faith or works foreseen, or man's freewill to be cause of man's election, and salvation; and say, that man is not rejected, or not chosen, but for the defect of his will and works. Which is misliked by all sound Divines, not because such enter into God's secrets, but because this is divine doctrine revealed in the Apostles writings.  
He praetendeth to consent with the Lutherans. But Zanchius declareth that they are a bastard brood of Lutherans that oppugn that doctrine, which is the Apostles, and was lately taught, by Luther, Bucer, and other Germane Divines.  
As the Pagans did attribute the causes of their calamities to Christian Religion, so saith the Mountebank some have attributed the troubles of the Low Countries falsely, to the dissension wrought by the Arminians. But this he speaketh out of his ignorance, not knowing the danger wherein the Low Countries stood by the practices of Barnevelt, and other of that sect. And absurdly compareth the false doctrine of Arminius with the Catholic doctrine of the Apostles, and Christians, that mislike the heresies of Arminius, with Pagans blaspheming our Christian faith.  
Blessed be the peacemaker among men, saith the Mountebank. But he is not the peacemaker, that troubleth the peaceable state of the Church, with his intempestive doctrines of Popery: nor is it a fit means to make peace, to betray the truth of Religion to the public enemies thereof. Many fall away to the Pope, but their apostasy maketh the division the greater, and maketh up no rents, but renteth the unity of the faith.  
There is never a Bible-bearing hypocritical Puritan in the pack, saith he, a better Patriot than himself. As if Bible-bearing were a brand of an hypocrite. By which argument, either you or your man will prove hypocrites, or Puritans when you appear in the pulpit, which is very seldom. What do, or can, professed Papists say more? Such particoloured iacket-wearers, albeit they seem to make a fair lustre in the pack of cards, yet are they nothing but Canarian pedants, praising and pleasing themselves, and no man else. As for Bertius and Barnevelts followers, they are Apostates, and have forsaken the faith, and so would he have once, if marriage, and hope of preferment had not stayed him. His heart is with the enemy, and if any occasion be offered, it is justly to be suspected, his body will not be long from them.  
John Calvin (saith he) came after in time. So worthy Master John Calvin that famous Divine, with this biting Canarian is but plain john Calvin: and he in his lofty conceit will be called Master Mountebank, and Rabbi, and that is forsooth, because he teacheth Pharisaical justice, and such like heresies. But why noteth he as a defect in Calvin, that he came after Luther? Doth not he come after Arminius, and betrayeth truth, as judas betrayed Christ?  
He professeth, he will not be more tied to Calvin, then to Luther, or to either of them, more than to Bellarmine: As if Bellarmine were equally to be prized with these two Doctors, that were great discoverers of the Pope's Antichristian heresy and policy. We see indeed he standeth rather with Bellarmine, then with Calvin and Luther, or Causabon, if any way they follow his squinteyed positions. But in wars and state, if any false traitor be found flying to the enemy, the Marshal, where laws are executed, ties him up as a fugitive, & stops his flight. Pag. 40. he telleth us he was brought up a member of the Church of England. But why then did he once determine to aband 〈…〉 urch of England? And why doth he now in so many points follow rather Bellarmine and Arminius, than the Doctors of our Church?  
Explaining his adversary's doctrine, he saith they hold, that God primarily, absolutely, and irrespectively, did from all eternity decree to make some vessels of honour, and some of dishonour; to bring them unto life, or to cast them off unto death; to crown them with glory, or to plunge them into destruction and hell fire. But if he were not ashamed of his own absurd opinion, he would first declare what himself holdeth, and then more truly report his adversary's doctrine. That God did not respect somewhat in himself, & somewhat in his ends, we deny not; neither can any doubt that all the elect were praedestinated in Christ; only we say he respected not man's freewill, or faith, or works, in choosing some, and rejecting others. Secondly; we distinguish the decree of reprobation from the execution, and deny that God did condemn and destroy any but for their evil deeds and deservings. Albeit, he loved jacob, and hated 〈…〉 they had done either good or evil, as the Apostle declareth, Rom. 9  
Chap. 9 He insinuateth, that Calvin taught, that God is Author of sin, that God made the most part of the world to perish everlastingly, that the reprobate are incited and provoked to sin by God, that God was the Author of Iuda's treason. Damnable calumniations against that faithful servant of God, and borrowed from Papists, in whose steps this man doth commonly and willingly tread. I need not refute them, for that the Mountebank durst not affirm them. But he that will be resolved of Caluins sincere dealing, let him read the words as he setteth them down in his own books, and consider the malice of his adversaries, distorting his words contrary to all sense and true meaning.  
That Peter (being elected) could not perish, or that judas (being a reprobate) could not but perish, is a Catholic doctrine; unless it be an error to hold God to be unchangeable in his decrees, and heresy, to hold God's decrees to be mutable. If the Mountebank doth maintain the contrary, he will discover himself to be who he is, and what the world supposeth him to be.  
God's absolute decree in election and reprobation without respect to works in man, the Lutherans, saith the Mountebank, do abhor. But Zanchius de Na●en. Dei lib. 5. cap. 2. and in his Tract. de Praedest. Sanct. in Miscellan. doth show such to be Pseudolutherans, proving that Luther and Bucer taught as he did. And that no such inference can be drawn out of it, as they calumniously and blasphemously do make.  
That the Church of England teacheth, that election or reprobation was decreed without respect of men's works, or freewill well used, this gaggler denieth. But the declaration 〈…〉 de at Lambeth, doth manifestly 〈…〉 shameless denial. The A 〈…〉 e also which this Church defendeth▪ refelleth his boldness. For Rom. 9 he showeth, that God loved jacob and hated Esau, before they had done good or evil, and that he hath mercy me for works foreseen, but because God hath mercy on whom▪ he will have mercy, and hardeneth whom he will.  
He addeth, that God did not call, save▪ and glorify Peter, without consideration of his faith, obedience, and repentance▪ nor condemn Judas without respect to his sin: but this is the gaggling of a Goose to no purpose. For the quaestio●●s of election and reprobation, and not of salvation and damnation; of which, damnation is for evil works, and salvation followeth works, although not the merit of works. That our will and works go not before election, the Apostle declareth, Rom. 9 It is not in him that willeth, (saith the Apostle) nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy. Ephes. 1. He saith we are praedestinated in good works; which is a plain 〈…〉▪ that good works are the eff 〈…〉 e causes of election.  
Boldly also the Mountebank avoucheth, that our Church teacheth, that a man truly justified & praedestinated may fall from grace, & prove not to be the child of God. A most shameless slander against the whole Church of England, that in the sixteenth Article by him pointed at, doth neither speak of the falling away of the truly justified, or of such as are praedestinated. Nay contrary, in the seventeenth Article our Church determineth, first, that the decree of praedestination, was before the foundation of the world was laid: and secondly, that the same was constantly decreed.  
We enter not into search of God's secrets, as he doth charge us, but only learn what God hath revealed unto us in his word, & what the Apostle teacheth all of us. And this we may do without danger; but to contest with God, and to deny what the Apostle teacheth, as the Mountebank doth, is not only dangerous, but also impious.  
That the doctrine of God's absolute decree concerning praedestination to life, without respect to men's works, is desperate; no man that is pious and learned will affirm: for it is the doctrine of the Apostle, of the Church, and most learned Divines: only such desperate Papists and Arminians, as this desperate Mountebank declareth himself to be, desperately avouch untruth. But shall we hear the profundity of this Mountebanks learning concerning praedestination? Listen then, first, he saith whatsoever God willeth, cometh to pass. A profound piece of work, which every natural man understandeth: and yet this natural by consequence denieth, that they are all saved, whom God willeth and decreeth shall be saved. He doth also contradict himself, promising before that he would not meddle with the execution of God's purpose.  
2. He pitcheth upon creation, and saith it goeth necessarily before praedestination; a doctrine most false & impious. The Apostle Eph. 1. saith, God hath chosen us in Christ, ante mundi constitutionem, that is, before the creation. The Church of England, likewise, Art. 17. speaking of praedestination, saith, it is Gods everlasting purpose before the foundations of the world were laid. He should therefore, if he cast off all piety, yet remember his subscription to the Articles of our Religion, of which he so oft talketh.  
Thirdly, he saith, that all being in the mass of perdition, God stretched out deliverance in a Mediator, the man jesus Christ; and drew ehem out that took hold of mercy, leaving them that would none of him. But first, the Mountebank forgetteth what he hath in hand, that is, God's eternal decree before the world, of saving the elect: and speaketh of the execution of the decree, of which formerly he made promise to say nothing. Next he maketh man's will to go before election, and to be the cause of our salvation; and not God's election, which is the prime cause of it. The foundation of God remaineth firm, and hath this seal saith the Apostle 2 Tim. 2. God knoweth who are his. Thirdly, he contradicteth the Apostle Romans 9 who maketh God's will to be the cause of our election, and not our will apprehending God's mercy. 4. He saith nothing of faith, obedience and works foreseen, which notwithstanding, his consorts make to be causes of election.  
This is enough, saith the Appellant, to free God from being the Author of sin. As if God by the Apostle were not freed from this wicked imputation, albeit he did choose men before the foundation of the world, & did elect or reject according to the purpose of his will, or men did not sin willingly: albeit, he did elect some and reject others. Further, if God did draw out such as would lay hold of his mercy, and damned the rest; yet seeing he knew all things before, and decreed how all things should be, God by the inference of this Mountebank should be the Author of sin and damnation for it. And if this be fate, then is the Mountebank a teacher not only of fate, but also of much fatuity; making man to be the cause of his own salvation, and God the Author of man's damnation, which he would impute to others.  
Justine Martyr in his Apology, speaketh against fate, as he saith, and so do we. But if election and reprobation infer fate, as he praetendeth, then is this fatal Mountebank a teacher of fate, not daring to deny Gods aeternal decree of election and reprobation, according to his own purpose and wil Fulgentius ad Monimum saith, justice cannot be justice, if God be said not to find men unjust, but to make them unjust. As if any of us held, that God made man unjust, or as if this did follow of God's decree of reprobation. He addeth that God doth praedestinate none to sin. But the man hath lost both shame & wit, if he say, that Calvin taught that man is praedestinated to sin.  
Going about to define fate, the Mountebank saith it is this; that they that choose the better part, should receive worthy rewards, and that they that do evil, should receive contrary rewards. But fate is not only in receiving rewards, but in the disposition of things by a concatenation of inevitable causes. But if it be fate that men should receive rewards according to works, then is this talker of fate chained with the bonds of fate; teaching; as others do, rewards to be given according to works. Tortullian de spectac. cap. 2, denieth that God created his works to their destruction, and saith, that the cause of damnation, is men's perverse administration: which we also confess. And yet election and reprobation is not for works foreseen, as the Popish Mountebank would have it. With Clement also of Alexandria we deny, that God is cause of evil: and reason taught heathen men so to say. And yet if this Mountebank should praesume to say, that God set him on to make this blind Appeal, he should undoubtedly hold, that God is cause of evil. Ecclesiastes chap. 7. saith, God made man right, but he busied himself with many quastions, as this Mountebank doth. Nazianzen orat. 42. saith, we were made to be well and happy: and Basil in a certain Homily proveth, that God is not the Author of evil: As if it were evil, that God chooseth some, and not others. Against us he praevaileth no more than if he should cast feathers against the wind. For man originally was made right and to live well and happily: But falling wilfully from God, he incurred God's wrath. Saint Paul 2 Tim. 2 saith▪ if any man cleanse himself, he shall be made a vessel of honour: but if the Mountebank say he can cleanse himself, and hath it in his power to be made a vessel of honour, he shall dishonour his Mountebankship, turning plain Pelagian. Of any thing that we say it followeth not, that man is of necessity forced to be evil, as Basil saith, for he sinneth willingly. Chrysostome saith, judas ran wilfully into his treason: so oftentimes blind and ignorant men run wilfully into Popery and other heresies. To conclude, Prosper de vocat. Gent. cap. 2. saith God damneth no man unjustly. But what maketh all this long speaking against Calvin? Doth he say, or can the Mountebank conclude out of his words, that God damneth any man unjustly, or is cause of evil?  
Thus he wrestleth against Calvin in vain: But his own wicked doctrine is quickly overthrown without any great wrestling. For if election and reprobation of men be made for the good use of freewill, or works foreseen, why doth the Apostle Rom. 9 say, that God did before they had done any works love jacob and hate Esau? And why did he deny he calleth them for their works? Why doth he assign no cause of election, but God's purpose? In the same place he saith, God will have mercy, on whom he will have mercy: and Ephes. 1. that God made choice of his children before the foundation of the world. Saint Austin goeth a little further lib. 15. the civet. Dei c. 1. when dividing all mankind into two societies, he saith, The one is praedestinated to reign eternally with God, the other to sustain eternal punishment with the devil. And epist. 105. ad Sixt. God made some vessels of wrath to destruction, that he might therein show his power. This is also the doctrine of Peter Lombard sent. lib. 1. dist. 41. a. of Thomas 1. q. 23 art. 2. and many Schoolmen.  
Neither is this a foreign doctrine, as is his Foppery, Popery, and Arminianism: but the true tenet of the domesticals of faith yea, of the Church of England, from which this runagate doth wilfully descent. Art. 17. The Church saith, predestination is Gods everlasting decree before the foundation of the world was laid: The Mountebank maketh praedestination to follow the creation. The Church maintaineth that we are justified freely: This Factor for Antichrist teacheth justification by somewhat inhaerent in us. The Church alloweth the doctrine of praedestination to be sweet, pleasant, and comfortable: Desperate Dick holdeth it to be a desperate doctrine.  
He refuseth to be tied to the conclusions at Dort: So doth also Master Alder and other Papists. But what hath he to object against the conclusions of that reverend Synod, wherein his Diocesan, and diverse learned Divines of England did sit as judges? Is not such a blinking bayard ashamed to control such authority? And if he can say somewhat against it, he will prove a profounder Arminian, than his fellows. He praetendeth to follow the determinations of the Synod at London: yet I have proved that he directly opposeth them. Further, like as judas betraying Christ, kissed him, so this treacherous runagate praetending to praise our English Divines, that were actors in the Synod of Dort, doth secretly buffet them, as confirming desperate doctrine, and false conclusions.  
Railing against our brethren in the Low Countries, he saith, our Church's discipline in the Synod of Dort, and other Dutch Synods is held unlawful: a shameless untruth. For in the Synod of Dort, nothing was mentioned, that condemned our discipline, and other Synods established their own orders, and spoke nothing of ours. But to him all are Puritans and enemies, that are not of his Popish cut. This is certain, that neither our Church, nor any Orthodox congregation doth hold, that the reprobate and vessels of dishonour, may be purged & made vessels of honour, as he doth p. 67. This is to rake hell, and make Gods heavenly decrees mutable.  
That Deodatus a minister of Geneva dissented from the conclusions at Dort, as he affirmeth, is not probable For why then did he subscribe to them? That the Church of Geneva should descent from Calvin and Beza her teachers, I shall then believe when the Mountebank shall show wherein. Let the Mountebank show, if he can, that the learned in Schools, or the Church in Synods maintained his Arminianism; or opposed, or sharply reproved the Articles established in a Synod at Lambeth, as he boldly, blindly, and impudently affirmeth, or else he hath for ever lost his credit. And as for Doctor Whitaker of pious memory, he was a man of that sincerity and learning, that none of his Arminian consorts, if he were alive, durst encounter him in disputation or otherwise. As for this Mountebank he dares not declare all his opinions, but spewing forth his poison here and there by fragments, hideth himself in the confusion of his other discourses. Returning back to talk of justification, he saith, a justified man may become like Saul and Judas. But the Church of England teacheth not so, nor doth it hold that Saul and Judas were truly justified: nor if he were once justified, should he be so like Saul and Judas.  
He inveigheth against our brethren of France, and the Low Countries, as not conformable to us in their discipline: Bu● his hatred is more to their doctrine of faith, then of discipline. This is only to make a division, and to stir up men's hatred against them, that in the end they and we may have our throats cut for our doctrine of faith.  
Of saving by absolute necessity, without relation of repentance, he talketh idly. For albeit God save sinners, yet he saveth none, but such as are repentant. And albeit he conferreth grace upon men, yet he doth not grace them, but he changeth their will, and maketh them conformable to his laws. But this is not the cause, either of man's election, or justification; but the effect rather. Of the destruction of the reprobate, he disputeth contrary to the doctrine of Saint Austin lib. 15 the civet. Dei, and Epist. 105. ad Sixtum. Yea, contrary to the doctrine of his own Fulgentius; who saith, God's equity maketh some to perish in hell. Nay, he doth not only resist the doctrine of the Fathers, but of the Apostle also; who Rome 9 saith God made some vessels to honour, some to dishonour.   

CHAP. 6. The censure passed upon the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh Chapters of the Mountehankes mishapen Appeal.  
THe quaestion of freewill, saith the Mountebank is full of perplexed obscurity. And why so I pray you? Forsooth, because he findeth not that in praedestination and salvation God respecteth man's freewill, or that man hath power to resist God's grace effectually moving him, and such like points of Popery and Pelagianisme. But Saint Austin thought it no such matter of difficulty. Neither doth our Church so think, determining, that man after Adam's fall cannot by force of his will and works prepare himself to faith, and to call upon God, or to do good works. But saith he, to my capacity, that is obscure, that is so much entangled with contradictory disputations. Wherein he showeth himself to be a man of shallow capacity. For Papists against Scriptures, and plain points of faith, oppose and dispute: and yet will not say all points of faith, which we hold against them, are obscure & perplexed. He addeth, that Bellarmine saith that concurrence of grace and freewill is a thing very difficile: the same he proveth out of Benius, Occam, Sa, and Caietan: Fit Authors to justify Popery, which indeed doth so near touch Pelagianisme, that it cannot be separated from it. If the Mountebank had not a mountain of Popish heresy in his brain, he would neither hold such conclusions, nor offer to justify them by such Authors; all the difficulty consisting in this, how they might uphold their errors against the doctrine of our Church grounded on Scriptures and Fathers.  
Chap. 9 pag. 1. The Gagger (he saith) had merited more at God's hands, if he would have been more sparing in multiplying controversies. And so he betraying the cause of God, and yielding to his enemy, for fear of multiplying controversies, thinketh he meriteth much at God's hands, as if honour were to be obtained by dishonouring and betraying the truth. If he had lived in the time of the Arrians, he would have reconciled Catholic Christians and Arrians, that hopeth to reconcile true Christians, and Antichristian Papists.  
Speaking to English in French, he neither speaketh good English, nor French. Nay, he speaketh not like a true Christian, denying either Arminius to be a Bontifeu, or incendiary, he should say Boutefeu, or that himself is a mover of contention; and therefore meaneth, as he saith, to have an action of the case against the informers. But while he is fitting a case with a coxcomb for his own crown, let him look to follow his Appeal more closely. The informers fear him nothing, being always ready to justify their charge, and averring confidently, that the Mountebank in this Church, and Arminius in the Low Countries, with their intempestive contentions, about grace, will, predestination, and perseverance, & other points of refined popery have kindled such a flame, as I fear will not easily be quenched. He commendeth himself much for his moderation, and dislike of multiplying controversies; So do also other vainglorious pedants: but his moderation is nothing but treason to religion, and his dislike of controversies a liking of Popery. Howbeit no man blameth him for his temper, or for saying no more, but for saying too much, and because he could not temper himself so, but that he showed great zeal in fomenting seeds of Popery.  
The controverted particulars (about freewill) as he believeth, are of no such great moment upon due examination. As if he could better examine the wicked doctrine of popery, them the Church of England, which art: 10. resolveth, that man after his fall cannot prepare himself to faith by his own strength, or do good works acceptable to God: both directly against Papists, whom he seemeth to favour. The 2. Council of Orange c. 1. determineth, that the liberty of