APPELLO CAESAREM. A just APPEAL FROM TWO UNJUST INFORMERS.  
BY RICHARD MOUNTAGU.  
LONDON, Printed by H. L. for Matthew Lownes. M. DC. XXV.   

TO HIS MOST SACRED MAJESTY.  
MOST GRACIOUS AND DREAD SOVEREIGN,  
BY a Missive, from a Papist I am sure, and I suppose from a Priest, I was not long since forced upon the Controversies of these times, between the Protestant and Romish Confessionists. And because it hath been ever truly counted a readier way for the advancement of Piety, rather to lessen and abate, than to multiply the number of many needless contentions in the Church: therefore when I first undertook to answer that very worthless Author, The GAGGER of all Protestants mouths for ever, I did it with a firmed purpose to leave all Private Opinions, and Particular Positions or Oppositions whatsoever, unto their own Authors or Abettors, either to stand or fall of themselves; and not to suffer the Church of England to be charged with the maintenance of any Doctrine which was none of Her own, publicly and universally resolved on. For we are at a great disadvantage with our Adversaries, to have those Tenants put and pressed evermore upon us, for the General Doctrine established in our Church, which are but either the Problematic all Opinions of Private Doctors, to be held or not held either way; or else the Fancies many of them of Factious men, disclaimed and censured by the Church, not to be held any way, Such disadvantages hath This Church too long endured: and out of just indignation against this Gagger and his Fellows, I could not but so much the more labour to vindicate Her Freedom ex professo, and to assert Her (as far as I was able) unto Her own proper, true, and ancient Tenants, such as be without any doubt or question, legitimate and genuine, such as She will both acknowledge and maintain for her own. My direct dealing herein, MOST DREAD SOVEREIGN, so reasonable, so necessary (as I supposed) hath very much and highly discontented some Private Divines, who desire to have those Opinions, which are controverted among ourselves, to be taken and defended for the common and public Doctrine of the Church: but more especially hath it incensed those Classical Puritans, who were wont to pass all their Strange Determinations, Sabbatarian Paradoxes, and apocalyptical Frenzies, under the Name and Covert of The True Professors of Protestant Doctrine; supposing, as it should seem, that in this case we were all liable to the Statute, that is, bound to keep and foster their Conceits as our own Doctrines, because they have cast them upon Us and upon Our Church, like Bastards upon the Parish where they were borne, or Vagabonds on the Town where they last dwelled, or were suffered to pass without due correction. Such Irchins it was necessary to disband, and send them away to shift for themselves, that our Mother the Church might no more be troubled with them. And yet for this cause have some Informers Articled against me, and traduced me to the World for a Papist and an Arminian; though the world and themselves know, I flatly defied and opposed the One; and GOD in Heaven knoweth that I never so much as yet read word in the other. It was my happiness, MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, that so mean a Vassal as my poor self was sufficiently known to be nor So nor So, unto Him, who, if ever any of the Royal rank, was indeed sicut Angelus Domini to discern, my late MOST SACRED LORD and MASTER of ever Blessed memory, unto whom that Information should have been represented; by whom, in his most able and impartial judgement, I had my Quietus est, and Discharge. But in regard their Clamours were so impetuous, and Accusations so divulged, it pleased HIS MAJESTY, out of that Goodness which was ever eminent in his most blessed disposition, not only to grant me leave humbly to Appeal from my Defamers unto His most sacred Cognisance in public, and to represent my just Defence against their Slanders and false Surmises unto the world; but also to give express order unto Doct. WHITE the Reverend Dean of Carlisle, for the authorising and publishing thereof, after it had been duly read over and approved by him, to contain nothing in it, but what was agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England, whereof HIS MAJESTY was most tender. It was read, approved, and sent to the Press accordingly. Since which time, it hath pleased the King of Kings to call Him unto Himself, and to Crown Him with Glory and Immortality in Heaven, before I could return the Book into His Royal hands. But blessed for ever be the LORD GOD of Heaven, that hath preserved YOUR MAJESTY, and set YOU upon His Throne as King in stead of HIM, to go in and out before his People in his Place, and to execute Judgement in FATHER's room. What was then intended unto HIM, according to his Own most Gracious and Royal direct appointment, I humbly crave leave upon my bended knees, to present unto YOUR MOST EXCELLENT and SACRED SELF; And in all lowly wise I cast both It and myself, and the best Service I shall be able to do in GOD'S Church, at YOUR MAJESTY'S feet, desiring no longer to live than I shall be and continue a most conformable and true member of this Church, and  
YOUR MAJESTY'S most loyal and faithful Subject and Servant, RICHARD MOUNTAGU.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE SEVERAL CHAPTERS.  

THE FIRST PART TOVching ARMINIANISM.  
CHAP. I. OF the Inscription which the Informers made to their several Articles.  
CHAP. II. Of S. PETER'S FALL.  
CHAP. III. Of the loss of Faith and justification.  
CHAP. IU. Of FALLING FROM GRACE.. The Tenet of Antiquity therein. The doctrine of the Church of England in the 16th Article, the Conference at Hampton Court, the Book of Homilies, and the public Liturgy.  
CHAP. V. Touching PREDESTINATION. Of Arminians, Lutherans, Calvinists, foreign Divines. Of the Church of England: Submission thereunto. The question between them and us.  
CHAP. VI Dangerous consequents brought by Others, upon the irrespective Decree.  
CHAP. VII. Lutherans averse from the doctrine of Calvinists. The moderation of the Church of England in these great & unsearchable mysteries. The Author's submission thereunto. The doctrine of Predestination. Man the Author of his own destruction, and not GOD. The doctrine of Antiquity contemned by Novellers. The Synod of Dort no obligation to us. The Saying of DEODATE. The Articles of Lambeth forbidden by Authority. Foreign Doctrine maintained, to bring-in Foreign Discipline. The Church of England no Patroness of novel opinions.  
CHAP. VIII. Touching freewill, the III. point of Arminianism.  
CHAP. IX. Controversies unnecessarily multiplied: the AUTHOR no Favourer of them. Questions of obscurity and speculation, not fit for Pulpits and popular ears. freewill made no such controversy among moderate men, either of the Pontifician or Protestant Side, as people are borne in hand withal.  
CHAP. X. The Council of Trent not wholly to be condemned. Man's Will not merely passive, but active and free in the proper acts thereof. The memorable Saying of SCOTUS. The power of the Will in things divine.  
CHAP. XI. The fourth and last point of ARMINIANISM touching the Synod of DORT. The Synod of Dort not our Rule. Private opinions no Rule. The Informers imputations nothing at all.   

THE SECOND PART touching POPERY.  
CHAP. I. THe Author uncharitably traduced. His profession for the doctrine & discipline received and commanded in the Church of England. Conformable Puritans. Furious zeal. The Church of Rome not a sound, yet a true Church. Private opinions disclaimed. The Church of England asserted to her own public and proper Tenants. The cause of all these Imputations.  
CHAP. II. The Church Representative, and Points Fundamental, what they are. All that Papists say, is not Popery. Particular Churches, have and may err. The Catholic Universal Church hath not, cannot err. Of General Counsels. The Author far from the Jesuits fancy. The XXI Article of the Church of England explained.  
CHAP. III. Strange accusations. Antiquity reverenced, not deified. Fathers accused of some error by Jesuits. The occasion of their enlarged speeches concerning freewill. The Author acquitted of Popery.  
CHAP. IU. Private and public doctrine differenced. In what sense the Church is said to be always visible. The Author acquitted from Popery again by others, learned Divines. Of the Church of Rome.  
CHAP. V. Touching ANTICHRIST. The Pope and Prelacy of Rome, Antichristian. That he is Magnus ille Antichristus, is neither determined by the public doctrine of the Church, nor proved by any good argument of private men. Difference among Divines, who The Man of sin should be. The marks of the great Antichrist fit the Turkish Tyranny every way, as well as the Papacy. The peace of the Church not to be disquieted through variety of opinions. No final resolution to be yet had in this point.  
CHAP. VI Touching JUSTIFICATION. The state of a mere natural man; who, to please GOD, must become a new creature. That newness cannot be wrought without a real change of a sinner in his qualities. In what sense it may be said, that there is an Access of justification, both by daily receiving remission of new sins, and by increase of grace, enjoining virtuous and good deeds unto faith.  
CHAP. VII. A change made in a justified man. The Author agreeth in part with the Council of Trent, and therefore maintaineth Popery, no necessary illation. The doctrine of the Church of England, and of other reformed Churches, in this point of justification.  
CHAP. VIII. Strange Popery. GOD only and properly justifieth.  
CHAP. IX. Holiness of life added unto justification and Remission of sins. GOD justifieth originally, and Faith instrumentally.  
CHAP. X. An Access declaratory made to the act of justification by the works of a lively faith. S. PAUL and S. JAMES reconciled. The old Prophets and ancient Fathers made new Papists by the Informers.  
CHAP. XI. The doctrine of MERIT ex condigno rejected as false and presumptuous. Difference between the old and the new signification of Mereri.  
CHAP. XII. The quality and conditions of a good work, required by the Roman Writers, to make it rewardable (as far as they are positive) no Protestant disalloweth of. To those conditions may others be added.  
CHAP. XIII. GOD surely rewardeth good works according to his promise, of his free bounty and grace.  
CHAP. XIV. The Church of England holdeth no such absolute certainty of salvation in just persons, as they have of other objects of Faith expressly and directly revealed by GOD.  
CHAP. XV. Touching Evangelicall Counsels. Evangelicall Counsels admitted according to the doctrine of the old Fathers, and many learned Divines of our Church. Popish doctrine concerning works of Supererogation rejected.  
CHAP. XVI. S. GREG. NAZIANZ. defended from the touch of uncircumcised lips.  
CHAP. XVII. The exposition of the saying of our SAVIOUR. If thou wilt be perfect, etc. S. CHRYSOST. S. AUG. S. HIER. S. AMBR. make it no imperious precept. If it be, the Informers are the least observers of it, and sin against their own consciences.  

CHAP. XVIII.  Touching LIMBUS PATRUM. The dreams of Papists about Limbus Patrum, related and rejected. The state of men's souls after death. The place proportioned to their state. The souls of the blessed Fathers before CHRIST'S ascension, in heavenly Palaces, yet not in the third and highest heavens, nor in that fullness of joy which they have now, and more of which they shall have hereafter. The opinion of old and new Writers. Our Canons not to be transgressed. The doctrine and faith of the Church of England concerning the Article of CHRIST'S descent into Hell. The disadvantage we are at with our Adversaries. Every Novellers' Fancy printed, and thrust upon us for the general Tenet of our Church. The plain and easy Articles of our CREED disturbed and obscured by the wild dreams of little less than blasphemous men; by new Models of Divinity; by Dry-fatts of several Catechisms. The Belief of Antiquity. The Author and It far from POPERY.  
CHAP. XIX. The seventh point of Popery touching IMAGES. The Historical use of Images maketh nothing for the adoring of them. Popish extravagancies.  
CHAP. XX. S. GREG. doctrine concerning Images, far from Popery.  
CHAP. XXI. No religious honour or worship to be given unto Images. They may affect the minds of religious men, by representing unto them the actions of CHRIST and his Saints. In which regard, all reverence simply cannot be abstracted from them.  
CHAP. XXII. Popish doctrine and practice both, about adoration of Images, rejected.  
CHAP. XXIII. The Church of England condemneth not the historical use of Images. The Book of Homilies contains a general godly doctrine; yet is it not in every point the public, dogmatic, resolved doctrine of the Church. The Homily that seemeth to condemn all making of Images, is to be understood with a restriction of making them to an unlawful end. Many passages therein were fitted to the present times, and to the conditions of the people that then were. The final resolution of this controversy.  
CHAP. XXIV. Touching signing with the Sign of the CROSS. To sign with the sign of the Cross out of Baptism, or upon the breast, etc. no more superstition than to sign in Baptism, or upon the forehead. The practice of the ancient Church. The reasons that moved them, that might move us to use often signing. They lived with Pagans, and we with Puritans; both deriders of the sign of CHRIST'S Cross.  
CHAP. XXV. The practice of the primitive Church approved. Unadvised Informers. Novellers rejected.  
CHAP. XXVI. The testimony of S. ATHANASIUS vilified by the Informers. The testimonies of other Fathers concerning the efficacy and power of the sign of the Cross.  
CHAP. XXVII. Popery is not the signing with, but the adoring of the Cross. Strange effects which GOD hath wrought of old adhibito signo CRUCIS; and may do still by virtue of CHRIST'S Death and Passion, which that Sign doth represent.  
CHAP. XXVIII. The Informers presumption against the current of Antiquity.  
CHAP. XXIX. Touching the SACRAMENT of the ALTAR. The Informers drawn low, when they leave matter, and take offence at words. The antiquity of Altars. A Sacrifice representative and spiritual, acknowledged by all. The Author herein farther from Popery, than the Informers from Puritanisme.  
CHAP. XXX. A real presence maintained by us. The difference betwixt us and Popish Writers is only about the modus, the manner of CHRIST'S presence in the blessed sacrament. Agreement likely to be made, but for the factious and unquiet spirits on both sides. Beati pacifici.  
CHAP. XXXI. The Author's acknowledgement of his error. Consecration of the elements causeth a change; yet infers no Popish Transubstantiation. The Informers out of their element. Antiquity maintained. Figurists and Novellers condemned.  
CHAP. XXXII. Touching CONFESSION. Information against the express direction and practice of the Church of England. No new Popish custom, but the ancient and pious manner of Confession for the help and furtherance of men's true repentance, and for the continuing of them in amendment of life, is, may be, and aught to be urged. How Confession of sins to a Priest, is required by the Church before the Receiving of the LORDS Supper.  
CHAP. XXXIII. Touching the Sacrament of ORDERS. 
The new religion full of exceptions, though but against words only. Ordination acknowledged to be a Sacrament by M. CALVIN himself. A Sacrament in lato sensu. What our Church meaneth in saying there are but TWO SACRAMENTS.   
CHAP. XXXIV. Information against the Church-Book of Ordination; which acknowledgeth the giving and receiving of the HOLY GHOST in sacred Orders: so that Priests have that interior grace and power conferred upon them for the dispensation of divine mysteries, which others have not.  
CHAP. XXXV. Touching power of Priesthood to forgive Sins. Priests have power to forgive sins, not originally, but ministerially. The doctrine of the Ordination and Communion-Booke for public and private Absolution. The Informers to lose the profits of their livings, and to be imprisoned without bail, for declaring against it.  
CHAP. XXXVI. Priests only and none other have commission from CHRIST to forgive sins. The Extravagancies of Puritans and Papists both in this point.  
CHAP. XXXVII. THE CONCLUSION. 
The issue of YATES and his FELLOW-Informers fond Accusations. Other flying reports & defamations neglected: The Author's humble submission unto the Church of England and to HIS most sacred MAJESTY.    
FINIS.   

The Approbation.  
I FRANCIS WHITE, Doctor of Divinity, and Dean of Carlisle, by the special direction and commandment of His most excellent Majesty, have diligently perused and read over this BOOK, entitled, APPELLO CAESAREM, A just Appeal from TWO unjust Informers; by RICHARD MOUNTAGU: and finding nothing therein, but what is agreeable to the Public Faith, Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England, I do approve it as fit to be printed, Dat. 15. Febr. 1624.  
FRANCIS WHITE.   

APPELLO CAESAREM. AN APPEAL FROM THE BRETHREN.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Inscription which the Informers made to their several Articles.  

INFORMERS.  
ERRORS delivered by M. RICHARD MOUNTAGU in his Book entitled A new Gag, etc. and published by Authority this present year, 1624.   

MOUNTAGU.  
THese Informers, in this Frontispiece before their several 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 M. R. MOUNTAGU in his book, as they have tendered it, and no otherwise. Secondly, that all particulars so designed by Them, and said to have been delivered by Him, were Published by warrant of Authority. Thirdly, that all things so Published, and so Delivered, and by Themselves, the Informers, insisted on, and complained against, are Errors actual 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 been so Delivered and Published as is suggested, must hereafter be examined in convenient Time and Place. For haply all hath not been 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 conceits; especially in a pressed and short style by him ensued, and inclining to Scholastical Character? Or they may wilfully mistake his meaning, to their own advantage: for Faction and Affection are too frequently interessed in Oppositions. Or lastly, they may well enough be guilty of misreporting his words: I dare not trust their consciences in that point too far. I know their Charitic is not too transcendent.  
But for Publication by Authority, it may touch them nearer than they are aware of. It is not unknown not Authority, that Puriritanicall Self-conceit, and Presumption, will square Law and Gospel too according unto that untoward Lesbian rule of their own Private Spirit, and special opinion: and dare challenge any Authority, 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 been found by experience practised of such malcontent maligners at States in being, Civil as well as Ecclesiastical, that they seldom or never talk of any 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 credit of Authority, though most Sacred, that great Cordolium and Moate-in-the-eye unto popular irregularity, and puritanical parity, the Idol of our Godly Brethren. It is more than probable, these Informers are of this stamp and making. I have been told, and am assured, they are two Grandees of the faction; as great and turbulent, as most be in the Diocese of Norwich (which is not improbably thought to have of that Sect more than enough.) They hold Authority interessed (as far at least as connivency goeth) both for points of Popery and Arminianism, if they could be proved his against whom they are objected.  
If it had not been 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 cleared all. Had the Information been carried and conceived thus: and SAID to be published by Authority; the Errors of Popery and Arminianism, 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 Authority. For Publication, that gave life and living to these dangerous Errors, is said to be precisely the Act of Authority; which is more than countenancing them, in my understanding; and I doubt not, according to their interpretation. Had this been done, M. MOUNTAGU must have borne all alone: and, what had it been that He erred? He who may err, (For in many things we err all) but will be no Heretic, especially against the Church of England; to the doctrine whereof established, He hath more than once subscribed: and therefore disclaimeth all aspersion of Popery, and is farther from it than any Puritan in the kingdom. 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 very great Zeal, and very no-Charitie, he could have been contented to have contemned their malice (the rather, because a Scold cannot any better way be charmed than by contempt): but because Authority was drawn in, to lie at the stake for conniving in points so dangerous (but God knoweth how); he could not possess his soul in patience, but thought himself in duty and in conscience bound to clear those points from Error which he delivered, lest Sacred Authority might come in for Maintenance and Champetry, as they would have it. To come then to the Inscription.  
Errors delivered, must be his Tenants and avowed Propositions, one way of these twain; either 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 tax 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. He is but a Narrator of other men's opinions, suspending his own judgement, sometime peradventure when he should not have so done, out of a due respect unto Peace and Quietness in the Church, sufficiently already disturbed; and not the least by these Brethren. and also because he would not stir the Hornets nests of men affected otherways.  
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 Authority, against what common Tenent do they offend? From what Rule are they an aberration? I do 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 be, if Errors in Doctrine. I know none: I am told of none; but the private opinions of the Informers, or some Classical resolutions of the Brethren. Through all the several XXI Articles, or what you will call them, of Popery and Arminianism, I find no other proof, but Ipse dixit: my words are related only, and you must take them, upon M. YATES and M. WARD'S bare words, to be Popery and Arminianism: for other proof you cannot find, nor must expect. So Magisteriall are our Purer Brethren, those great Rabbins and Doctors in Israel; having annexed unto their Penns and Pulpits infallibility of judgement, (it seemeth) as well as the Pope of Rome unto his chair. Popular Spirits have evermore great opinion of their own singular Illumination. And you shall ever observe, that each simple Ignoránte, a classical Dictator amongst the Covent, tendereth his own dreams and conceits, Simulachra modis volitantia miris, no otherwise but as Oracles upon their own bare words. And such prevailing power have they upon their Proselytes (none living but Jesuits so great as they) that their Sayings are held uncontroleable. And hence it is, that they vouchsafe us no proof 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 Papal Decisions? an abortive Embryo of the much groned-for Monarchy of our Puritanical Parochial, wouldbe 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 be, 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 me in any one point, or all points, to this Rule: Tie me to it: Try me there. Submitto fasceis, I fall down and adore it: I would not, I will not swerve from it. 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 be 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 own 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 mad, or insolently wedded unto their own wills, grant, that as the Church is Custos regulae; so doth it of right apply Examinanda unto that Rule. The Church universal in general causes; each particular and private Church, for special and particular and territoriall questions and querees. These Informers against M. MOUNTAGU'S Errors, unto what Rule will they stand? or whither do they appeal? I disclaim, as incompetent, Popular Cantoning of dismembered Scripture, and Private Interpretations of enforced Scripture. I will not be put over unto Classical decisions, nor that Idol of some men's Reformation, unto any Prophetical determinations in private Conventicles after Lectures. For when departed The Spirit of God from me, or any other conformable Minister of the Church of England, to speak unto them? But because the doubts hang in the Church of England, unto the Public Doctrine of the Church of England do I appeal, contained in those two authorised and by All-subscribed Books of the Articles and Divine Services of the Church. Let that which is against them, on God's 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 Catholic Church in general, or the Tendries of our English Church in particular. If I so be taken with the fact, or evidence be clear 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 own 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 join issue with this Information. Upon the Endictment, I plead, Not guilty of both Accusations, of Arminianism and Popery, and call therein for trial for it by God and my Country; 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 Foreigners. Dare any of the Brethren join issue with me upon this? Absque hoc. They dare not. But to close with them first in General, then in Particular; for Arminianism 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 probability. They delight, it seemeth, to be called after men's names. for anon they stick not to call themselves CALVINISTS: which Title, though more honourable than Gomarian or Arminian, I am not so fond of, or doting upon, but I can be content to leave it unto those that affect it, and hold it reputation to be 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 baptised into the Belief, or assumed by grace into the Family of any of these, or of the Pope. I will not pin my Belief unto any man's sleeve, carry he his head never so high; not unto S. AUGUSTINE, or any ancient Father, nedum unto men of lower rank. A CHRISTIAN I am, and so glory to be; only denominated of CHRIST JESUS my Lord and Master: by whom I never was as yet so wronged, that I could relinquish willingly that royal Title, and exchange it for any of his menial servants. And further yet I do profess, that I see no reason why any member of the Church of England, a Church every way so transcendent unto that of Leyden and Geneva, should lout so low as to denominate himself of any the most eminent amongst them. But as those two Towns and States, next unto God, have stood by supportance of the Crown of England, for esse and benè esse in Temporalibus; so likewise if CHRIST JESUS must needs be divided, both One and Other, even the most eminent in one and other, aught to take name rather and denomination of Us or some of Ours, than we be nicknamed ARMINIANS or CALVINISTS of some of them. Indignor, I avow for my own part, to do it; and will not do my mother that wrong to admit it, nedum to seek it.  
Again, for ARMINIANISM, I must and do protest before God and his Angels, idque 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 modern Epitomizers; but from my first entrance to the study of Divinity, I balked the ordinary and accustomed by paths of BASTINGIUS' Catechism, FENNERS Divinity, BUCANUS Common places, TRELCATIUS, POLANUS, and such like; and betook myself to Scripture the Rule of Faith, interpreted by Antiquity, the best Expositor of Faith, and applyer of that Rule: holding it a point of discretion, to draw water, as near as I could, to the Wellhead, and to spare labour in vain, in running farther off to Cisterns and Lakes. I went to inquire, when doubt was, of the days of old, as God himself directed me; and hitherto I have not repent me of it. I have not found any Canon, Order, Act, Direction in the Church of England against it; for it I have found many. I never held it wisdom to tire myself with haling and tugging up against the stream, 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. 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hym. 2.  CALLIMACHUS said well,  
Assyrius magnam Euphrates vim volvit aquarum:  
At multâ illuvie, foedaque it turbidus uluâ.  
If ARMINIUS in Tenants agreeth unto Scripture plain and express: 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 he had any, alone: I nor have nor will have confarreation therewith. If CALVIN, so far in account and estimation before ARMINIUS, dissenteth from Antiquity and the universal ancient Church, I follow him not. No private man, or peculiar spirit ever did, or ever shall tyrannize upon my Belief. I yield only unto God and the Church. Nor do I wrong CALVIN, or any other in this, more than they have wronged the ANCIENT FATHERS. So much in general for ARMINIANISM: now to particulars imputed by the Informers.    

CHAP. II.  
Of S. PETER'S FALL.  

INFORMERS.  
TOuching the Doctrine of Final 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. FOLLY. 64.   

MOUNTAGU.  
TOuching the doctrine of Final Perseverance, I took not upon me to Touch it, much less to Determine it all. I do not there mention it, or meddle with it. I grant, these words remembered by the Informers, are found in my Book in the quoted place of fol. and chapt. and more words than these, to make up a perfect period; which they have dismembered to their own behoof. My words indeed are these. Your Masters (and my address is unto the Gagger touching his Romish Teachers only) consider S. PETER two ways, even in this Prayer made for him by our SAVIOUR. as a Private man, as a Public person; or, as they love to speak, 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 JUDAS failed and fell: and he was heard in that he prayed for. These are my words in public Record. But can you say they are mine in due consideration, that is, ex animi sententiâ delivered? For all have reference, by as good Logic as ever PETER RAMUS taught you in Cambridge, unto those words, Your Masters, etc. and so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Artists speak, 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 only; reporting the proposals of some Roman Disputers, not my determination for and in the point. But let them be 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 he fell not finally and for ever: for he recovered footing and fastness again, and held it out constantly unto the last, Why this, admitted an Error, should be reputed an Error of mine, I cannot see. For though it be Published, it is not Delivered; only supposed, related, and no more. It may be a custom amongst the Informers, and others of that Tribe, to dictate to their Popular Auditories out of their Pulpits, tanquam de tripod, 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 be 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 pass: we must prove what we speak, and well is it if so, and then, we find credence. They and the Jesuits are rare men, to lead men's Faith and Belief so in a string. In this passage against me (it being ad oppositum, and they like enough to be demanded Proofs for what they say) all their accusations of Arminianism and of Popery, though they be false and slanderous, yet are they Magisteriall. You cannot find so much as any one proof annexed unto any of the imputed Errors, or brought in to manifest, Ideò this or that is an Error. Their Style runneth, These are his words: or, Thus he writeth, etc. supposing all men will, at least should, take it upon their words, That what he so writeth, is an Error. Such Illuminates are our Classical Brethren. May they be entreated a little to descend from this their Chair of Infallibility, and yield somewhat, according unto reason, by producing that Rule against which touching Final Perseverance, the words produced, if so be they are mine every way, to all intents and purposes, do offend, and for which they may justly be styled Errors. The Rule produced; upon trial and application, M. MOUNTAGU must either 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 nearer unto the Error here informed against. Doth ARMINIUS maintain touching final Perseverance, (you must tell me, my good Informers, for I have not read him) that sometime the Called and Elect of God, the Chosen ones and justified by Faith, such as S. PETER was, though they do fall totally for a Time, shall yet recover necessarily again, and not fall away finally, or for ever? If this be Arminianism, and so his conclusion, than therein He holdeth with ARMINIUS. But I have been assured, that ARMINIUS did hold as the Lutherans in Germany do, not only Intercision for a Time, but also Abscission and Abjection too, for ever. That a man Called and justified freely through the grace of GOD in CHRIST, might fall away again from Grace Totally, finally, and become a castaway, as JUDAS was, for ever. For S. PETER (upon admission of this Passage, as yourselves 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 he prayed for. So that out of your own mouths M. MOUNTAGU is acquitted of Arminianism: 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, he recovered and persevered unto the end. and so touching final Perseverance, at least, He teacheth, in your own confession, no otherwise than yourselves do. Thus Pure malice and indiscreet zeal make men many times lose their wits they know not where.  
I add, 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 enforce 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 Grace. Multi dantur ad gratiam recessus: he that falleth to day, may rise again to morrow, hold out unto the end, receive the reward of Righteousness, in final Perseverance be crowned with glory and immortality. I say no more than you have subscribed if you look unto it: 
c Artic. 16.  After we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may DEPART FROM GRACE. given, and FALL into Sin, and by the grace of GOD we may arise again, 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 Catholic Doctrine of old.  
But here also, as in the former passage, these Informers mistake me for their own advantage: for I speak but only representatively, according to the opinion and Tenent of the Roman Schools. I appeal unto their Honesty, at least wise Knowledge; are not my words laid down directly thus? For in YOUR opinion, justifying faith may diminish, and may be abolished and lost. Now justification being in an instant, etc. If in their opinion it may be lost, namely faith which justifieth; then justification, which is an Effect of faith, may also be lost; and may be recovered after such loss. For things transitory are in a like habitude unto being, and not being; may cease to be, and be again. After such loss of Faith and Love, transitory in their opinion, they again may revert and find a being, but yet still in their opinion. So all here Delivered, Errors or not Errors, so or so, is still in their opinion, not the judgement specified of M. MOUNTAGU. My goodly Brethren, this is no fair play, to fasten that on me, as my Assertion, which precisely I relate from another's 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, do infer against a Papist, a plain Non sequitur from his own Tenants, unto an inconsequent Argument by Them inferred and opposed against the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church of England, touching justification by Faith alone.    

CHAP. IU.  
Of FALLING FROM GRACE.: The Tenet of Antiquity therein. The doctrine of the Church of England in the 16th Article, the Conference at Hampton Court, the Book of Homilies, and the public Liturgy.  

INFORMERS.  
ANd again: Some hold that Faith may be lost totally and finally, which is indeed the Assertion of Antiquity. The Learnedest in the Church of ENGLAND assent unto Antiquity in that Tenet: which the Protestants in GERMANY maintain at this day, having assented unto the Church of ROME.   

MOUNTAGU.  
A Ntiquum obtinent: These men are still the same; Calumniators, and run still along with all one indirect dealing. Their Information in direct terms standeth thus: To make report, and no more but to make report of Arminianism (if yet it be Arminianism which is reported) is, in point of opinion, to be an ARMINIAN; in point of Arianism, 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 here rendered, howsoever patched up of shreds cut out from several parts, and laid together again for most advantage to their calumniation, will yet speak no further, but only to this purpose. For themselves set it down, in style not of Position but of bare Narration, with these terms of Some hold; It is the assertion; The learnedst assent unto, etc. So that admit the points related were pure-pute Arminianism, yet so long as the Relator passeth no consent upon them (I appeal unto your own, though never so much Cheverellized consciences, my good Calumniators) can there be inferred a just accusation? If so, upon as good ground, in these terms, I can inform against the most precisest Puritan in the Kingdom, for as good Popery as any BELLARMINE hath; any, for as perfect blasphemy with the Tongue, as ever The fool said or conceived in his heart. I demand, can you find any assent of mine annexed? nay, find you not rather assent denied? Have you not read in that Passage these words, which any honest plain man would have cast into the Information, but yourselves; I DETERMINE nothing in the question POSITIVELY? If you did not see nor read them, your eyes were not your own. 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 conceal them, what became of your honesty in the interim? You foully abused the world with false Informations. Your deserts therefore I meddle not with: only I observe two pretty Presbyterian tricks of Legerdemain; 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 conceal that which is Positive, and would discharge Mr. MOUNTAGU from your calumniation, and leave a just taxation upon yourselves. For he that professeth He doth not DETERMINE, as Mr. MOUNTAGU in express and precise words doth, in my Logic, cannot be said to consent nor concur in opinion for himself, but merely 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 dismembered like ABSYRTUS' limbs; such as in my Answer unto the Gag 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 dear Brethren) are men of another stamp (and yet hard to say, whether barrel better herring), I hope you did it out of simplicity, with a good charitable pure intent to promote and set forward the Holy Cause; not of Puritanical refined malice. So I take it. And yet for my own discharge (Charity, you know, and practice, beginneth at home) take it not ill, if I lay your dealing to open view.  
The Romish Gagger, whosoever he was, laid down his Proposition, as he would have it conceived, against the approved and established Doctrine of the Church of England; not against any either private fancy, or more public opinion of any Faction on foot, or Sect prevailing in the Church of England: yet that he might play fast and loose (a fashion ordinary with those of his party), he proposeth the imputation in ambiguous & involved terms. 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 loss of, and falling away from faith; and therefore in the conclusion came home to distinguish them thus: Some suppose that Faith cannot be 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 Schools. Some, perceiving the Current of judgements, for the loss thereof both totally and finally; and withal considering the, at least, probability of Scriptures therefore, put-in a new distinction of God and Man, of first and second causes of justification. Having reported these distinct and several opinions of elder and modern Divines, without naming the Parties, which I could have done without enlarging upon Particulars, no difficult thing; I demand of the Gagger, who in ambiguities lurketh post aulaea, Which of all these ways will you have the Proposition to be understood, that Faith may be lost, & c? and so come up unto him thus: You mean, it may be 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 own 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 Book of COMMON PRAYER and other DIVINE OFFICES, is there any Tie 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 total falling, as we shall hear anon. Thus standeth this Passage dismembered, 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 misreported? If I can be convicted, I will reverse it. They will not contest for the Roman Schools, 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 heretical. For the Tenet of Antiquity I cannot be challenged. S. AUGUSTINE, and after him S. PROSPER, affirm more than Mr. 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 JUSTE & FIDELITER vivere, & POSTEA CADERE, etc. 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 JESU 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 be concerning the Learnedest 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 appear, that the contrary Tenet is the PUBLIC DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of England, than I have not wronged private men, in making this comparison between them, and Those whom themselves will acknowledge to be their Superiors both in learning and authority. Now, to give them all due satisfaction, which may think 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 again 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 Bishoprics; that penned the Homilies read in Churches.  
But all these have, and all such do assent unto Antiquity in this Tenent, and subscribe it truly or in hypocrisy.  
Therefore I may justly avouch it, The learnedst in the Church of England assent therein to Antiquity.  
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 read and subscribe this: After that we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may DEPART AWAY FROM GRACE, and FALL into Sin, and by the Grace of GOD we may rise again, 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 spiritual promotions, and are deprived IPSO FACTO within two months. If so; then have you subscribed that Arminianism which you impute as an Error unto me. Haply you will be of his mind, one of your Tribe, who when he was told what he had subscribed (for, poor ignorant man, he understood it not) protested he would tear his subscription if he could come by it; and so would have lost his Benefice: which few of you will do, if it be a Good one, for conscience sake; marry for a Poor one you will not stick. Haply you will quarrel the Sense of the ARTICLES: but than you must remember, that the plain words sound to the meaning for which I have produced them, and that until the CHURCH itself 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 justified, speaketh of them after Grace received; plainly avoucheth, They may fall away, depart from that state which once they had, they may by God's Grace rise again, and become new men: Possible, but not Certain or Necessary. But the meaning by you assigned cannot be good, being allied unto the stock you are: for by your Tribe, the true meaning of the ARTICLE, and the Doctrine there Delivered and Published by Authority, either original or derived, primary or secondary, was upon this very point challenged as unsound, because against the current of their Institutions. And had Arminianism then been a nickname, the challenge without doubt had fastened there: but challenged it was in this Sense as Unsound 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 Catholic, by the greatest Bishops, and learnedst Divines then living in this Church, against that absolute, irrespective, necessitating and fatal Decree of your new Predestination; styled by you, The Doctrine of YOUR DIVINES, commonly called CALVINISTS: as indeed it is YOURS, being never heard of in the world but of late; but styled then and there by the Lord Bishop of London, Dr. BANCROFT, in public audience, with much vehemency, without any check, dislike, distaste, descent (for we read of none) a desperate doctrine of Predestination. At what time also that Reverend Prelate, and most accomplished Divine (whose memory shall ever be precious with all good and learned men) the late Bishop of Norwich then Deane of PAUL'S, Dr. OVERALL, upon some touch, by occasion of mentioning the ARTICLES of LAMBETH, did relate unto his most SACRED MAJESTY those concertations which himself 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 been, That a justified man might FALL AWAY FROM GRACE, and so ipso facto incur GOD'S wrath; and was IN STATE OF WRATH and DAMNATION, until he did recover again, and was renewed after his fall. At which time, that Doctrine of the Church of England then quarrelled, now styled Arminianism, accused of Novelty, slandered as pernicious by these Informers and their Brethren, was resolved of and avowed for True, Catholic, ancient and Orthodox, by that Royal, Reverend, Honourable and learned SYNOD. The Book is extant (published by warrant, and re-published by command this present year) of the Proceedings at that Conference, which will aver all that I say for truth against you here. See the Book.  
And for explication of that Authorized and Subscribed doctrine, there is an Homily in the Book of Homilies first composed and published in King EDWARD'S time, approved and justified in Parliament in Queen ELIZABETH'S days, and Authorized again of late to be read in Churches, entitled 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 justify Him unto the full: for the Homily doth throughly and wholly insist upon the Affirmation, That FAITH once had may again 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 showed unto all them that TRULY do BELIEVE his Gospel, his face of mercy in CHRIST JESUS: 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 goodness requisite unto the CHILD of GOD: So if they do afterward NEGLECT the same; if they be unthankful unto him; if they order not their lives according to his doctrine and example, and to the setting forth of his glory, he will TAKE FROM THEM his holy word, his KINGDOM whereby he should reign 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 child of GOD at all? If you can, advance, and teach me that which passeth my poor apprehension. They were TRULY called, that did TRULY believe; they were justified by faith, that were so called, as I conceive it; that beheld the face of GOD'S mercy in CHRIST; that had their hearts so enlightened with GOD'S SPIRIT, that they were merely transformed from Darkness unto Light, into the Image of GOD reform. 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 unthankful, negligent, and lose the Interest they had in that his Kingdom of grace by his holy word. And yet further, in the second part of this Homily we are sent unto a conclusion more ad oppositum, not only of TOTALL Lapse for a time, but also of FINAL Separation, and for ever. Which is also according to the doctrine expressed in the ARTICLES: for he that saith, A man may fall away, and may recover, implieth withal, 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 be GIVEN UP unto the POWER of the DEVIL, who beareth RULE in all that are CASTAWAYS from God, as he did in SAUL and JUDAS. I suppose this is plain and home enough.  
If you be acquainted with the LITURGY and public religious SERVICE of our Church (as to your shame few of you and your Divines are or will be, unless it be to oppose and cavil at it), there you shall find also as much as Falling from grace cometh to. In the Form of holy 
d Form of private Baptism.  Baptism we are taught (otherwise than your Masters teach), that every child which is duly baptised, being before borne in original sin, and in the wrath of God, is now by that Laver of Regeneration received into the number of the CHILDREN of GOD, and HEIRS of EVERLASTING LIFE. For our Lord JESUS CHRIST doth not deny his GRACE and mercy unto such infants, etc. So here they be put into the state of GRACE.. And lest it should be left to men's CHARITY (as you use to tell the world), we are there taught earnestly to BELIEVE, that CHRIST hath favourably RECEIVED these infants that are baptised, that he hath EMBRACED them with the arms of his mercy, that he hath GIVEN unto them the BLESSING of ETERNAL LIFE; and out of that BELIEF and PERSUASION, we are to give thanks faithfully and devoutly for it, etc. To make which doctrine the more sure against all Novelists, it is again repeated in the Catechism, to the end that children might likewise be nursed up in it, and taught, that 
e Catechism answ. 2.  in their Baptism they were made the MEMBERS of CHRIST, and the children of GOD, &c. and that 
f Rubric before the Catechism.  it is CERTAINLY TRUE by the Word of GOD, that children being baptised have ALL things necessary for their salvation; and if they die before actual sin, shall be UNDOUBTEDLY SAVED. According whereunto, all 
g S. GREG. NYSSEN orat. de baptism. S. LEO the nat. Christ. serm. 5. OPTAT. cont. PARM. l. 5. TERT. the 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 be acknowledged to be the doctrine of our Church, that children duly baptised 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 show, that many so baptised children, when they come to age, by a wicked and lewd life do fall away from God, and from that STATE of GRACE. and SALVATION, wherein he 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 baptised are saved; which I know you will never do.  
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 publicly, positively, and declaratorily in Authentical Records. And you cannot be 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 me), and objected it as one of their reasons why they refused to subscribe. Let there then be added EXPRESS SCRIPTURE, EZECHIEL XVIII. XXIV. and a common UNANIMOUS 
k 
S. HIERON. cont. jovin. l. 2. S. AUO. de cor. & great. 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 of Scripture (which consent our Church doth by open profession maintain in these 
l 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 been 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 own judgement, and lay off aloof in a kind of neutrality. Neither do I now say more than I am urged to do by the PLAIN and EXPRESS words of our ARTICLES and Doctrine publicly professed and established in our Church; which I hope yourselves will give me leave to do, the rather, because I know you have subscribed the same with your Hands, though what became of your Hearts in the mean time, I cannot tell.    

CHAP. V.  
Touching PREDESTINATION. Of Arminians, Lutherans, Calvinists, foreign Divines. Of the Church of England: Submission thereunto. The Question between them and us.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
MAy not your Sense deceive you in the Savour? 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 Savour of Arminianism may deceive you; and you may strongly sent that which is but weak. Now who can help this? Touching this point, I beeleeve, because jusee the experience; such as yourselves 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 eternal Predestination alone. The most ordinary Theme 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 far upon, and waded deep 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 SAVOUR of Arminianism, who would not have you meddle beyond your Model, but keep and contain yourselves within the bounds of Christian sobriety and moderation, and savour of S. PAUL'S counsel, Sapere ad sobrietatem.  
He savoreth of Arminianism: but how ARMINIUS savoureth, we shall smell it if we can, and find it at leisure. For, having but named Him, you fall hot upon Lutheranism, and of M. MOUNTAGU'S consent with Them: as if Arminianism & Lutheranism were two words of one signification; or in this point Lutherans and Arminians were divided; or as if in your heat you rambled up and down, and could not well resolve what to fasten on. Will you have the Imputation run thus: The XXI. chap. savoreth strongly of Arminianism, and, He declareth himself therein to consent with the Lutherans; two several acts upon different objects? Or shall it be, that He savoreth so of Arminianism, because he declareth himself to consent with the Lutherans? If Lutheranism and Arminianism be distinct, here is an Error committed by these Informers against Error, that I am not presented upon point of Lutheranism in the Title, as well as upon point of Arminianism. 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 entitled unto that which is none of his, but M. LUTHER'S? Why is M. MOUNTAGU accused of Arminianism, said to savour of Arminianism, rather than of Lutheranism? both in this being one and the same thing. There lieth here a pad in the straw. I can guess at the cause: a trick 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 Arminianism hath infested, and had brought into great peril, the STATES of the United Provinces, if the KING'S MAJESTY, by his gracious care and providence, had not helped to quench the fire. Scilicet, as of old the Pagan Idolaters accused Christianity of all those calamities which befell mankind, Postquam esse in mundo Christiana gens cepit, as ARNOBIUS speaketh. Blessed be the PEACEMAKER amongst men: the Generation of that faithful One shall be ever blessed. And blessed be that MAN of PEACE in ISRAEL for ever. The reward of the righteous rest upon his Royal Person and Posterity; and the faithful promise of that GRAND-PEACEMAKER betwixt Heaven and Earth, be sevenfold returned into his bosom, whose Princely care and providence is not confined within the surroundry of the four Seas, but enlarged ultra unto his neighbours, those United Provinces, primarily and before all. But for this particular, Sirs Informers, can you speak upon knowledge (for I must confess my ignorance and small intelligence in matters of this kind, 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, Final Perseverance, which had so almost endangered the state of those United Provinces? Did no crafty Interloper (are you sure of that?) put in his Stock among those brawling Bankers? Did no wiser men or man work upon, perhaps, exasperated minds, or exasperate minds to work upon, as it hath happened elsewhere, in points of controverted Divinity, called into question or maintained on foot, that Religion may serve for a stalking horse to catch fools, and be pretended to serve turns? Surely those very points being Scholastical speculations merely, and as far from State-businesses, as Theory is from Practice, are not of themselves aptae natae to breed dangers: Those so dangerous opinions in the Netherlands, have been as freely quarrelled and as fiercely pursued in the Vpperlands, of as long time, without all danger but of Tongue-tryall. And why should they be so dangerous here? Those Classical projects, consistorial practices, conventual designs, and Prophetical speculations of the Zealous Brethren in this Land, do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aim at Anarchy, popular confusion; Dangerous indeed to Prince and people. State Civil and Ecclesiastical may well come under this Information, as being active in Front, and not only upon the Rear. Why inform you not against the Fomenters of them? Would you not take it ill if yourselves were traduced as Dangerous indeed, who do more than upon the Buy incline unto them? But I am loath to touch here, or to meddle beyond my slipper. The State is not the Subject of my Profession. I pray for the prosperity of Prince and Polity, but let their courses alone to whom they concern. I excuse not ARMINIUS or Arminians in any misdemeanour. only let not Innocency in different Opinions, be calumniously traduced without cause. M. MOUNTAGU, in his own particular, is known, he giveth GOD the praise therefore, to better than yourselves, or any of your Sect, be they who they will be, to foment neither Faction in State, whereof he is incapable; nor Schism 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 JESUS, the breaches and ruins in the CHURCH: for which cause it is apparent, They cannot endure Him, Quibus quietamoveri magna merces: and live well, fare full and fat by Fishing in troubled waters. There is One GOD, One Faith, One Hope, One Baptism: not dividing, but composing Christ in his Members and Profession.  
Comparisons are odious, yet sometime necessary. Gall and Vinegar are corrosive, but must sometime be used. There is never a Saint-seeming and Bible-bearing hypocritical Puritan in the Pack, a better Patriot every way, than the man that hath Delivered such dangerous Errors. Your goodly gloze, and time-serving colludings with the State, are but like Watermens upon the Thames, looking one way, rowing another way. Your Holy cause, you see, will not succeed by opposition, therefore you come up, and seem to close with the Church of England in her Discipline, to use the Cross, and wear the Clothes: but for her Doctrine you wave it, preach against it, teach contrary to that which you have subscribed: that so through FOREIGN DOCTRINE, being infused secretly, and instilled cunningly, and pretended craftily to be the Churches, at length you may winde-in with FOREIGN DISCIPLINE also, and so fill Christendom with Popes in every Parish for the Church, and with popular Democraties and democratical Anarchies in the State. God divide you first in JACOB, and scatter you in ISRAEL. In this present Passage, who or what directed you, writing in, and being 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 here? High 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 find it: there are all Divines, the Devils and all. If yea; what make you with that Title of OUR Divines? why divide you non dividenda? Mine and Thine, Yours and Ours, are not for Unity; are not, or should not be heard or once named in the Church of England. The Divines here, are, or should be all of them Divines who hold, or should hold and maintain the Doctrine established, and commanded to be 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 styled Lutheran or Calvinian, but by such only as mean to set up ALTAR against ALTAR, and to foment a Schism in the Church. Such be YOUR Divines it seemeth, who are cut out into Division: Into their Secret let not my soul enter. I am none, I profess, 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 several times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taught of GOD; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inspired by GOD: secondly, unto those that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their true Successors, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Lieutenants; and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, observers of the Rules and Traditions enjoined 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 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 stream of Antiquity, but according to the sense and meaning of those Times that drew water nearer unto the Well head, that is, to the APOSTLES, and their Successors immediately.  
As for consent with Lutherans, I do no where declare it. Show me the place where I prefer them, commend them, once name them to this purpose. You never were so privy unto any thought of mine, that you could speak what I thought of them: concerning whom, I wish that they were men of more allayed spirits and calmer temper than they are, or do show themselves in opposition. And yet why may I not in some things as well, as soon, as lawfully consent unto them, as unto YOUR DIVINES, the commonly called CALVINISTS? JOHN CALVIN came after in time, and was but a Secondary unto MARTIN LUTHER; entering in upon his Labours and Reversions: and why should he challenge any privilege of preferment above MARTIN LUTHER, that I may not as well and lawfully declare myself for the one, as for the other? In this Church and Kingdom, 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, 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 tied me more to the one, than the other? or to either, more than to BELLARMINE in some things against them both? Truth hath latitude and extension. No man that I know of, hath infallibility from errors assigned unto him ex ass. Truth is truth whosoever speaketh it: and S. AUGUSTINE did embrace it from TYCHONIUS a Donatist in one particular, rather than the Tendries of Catholic Authors. What if I went thus far, or did so much declare myself 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 me: let me answer for it. If none of these take notice of YOUR Divines, what are private men's opinions unto me, who may be as free in my opinions, as they are in theirs? But I do not, as you inform, Declare any such thing: for, to Declare importeth a public Act, an assent upon acknowledgement. Do I in this CHAPT. profess correspondency in the point controverted with Lutherans? Do I any where, with them or others, beside the Church of England, the absolutest representation of Antiquity this day extant? What that Church believeth, I believe; what it teacheth, I teach; what it rejecteth, I reject: what it doth not tender, I am not tied unto. I was bred a member of the Church of England, brought up a member of the Church of England; therein, by the means and Ministry of that Church, I received that Earnest of my salvation, when by Baptism 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 seek 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 Antiquity in the best times: which I trust to make good against any and all those Brethren in evil, Papists and Puritans, whosoever: who looking and running two several ways, do like SAMPSON'S foxes join together in the tail. If there be in any writing, preaching, saying, or thought of mine, any thing Delivered or Published against the Discipline or Doctrine of THIS Church; I am sorry for it, I revoke it, recant it, disclaim it. Vultu laeditur pietas; if I have done so in any thing unto my Mother, in all humility I crave pardon, and will undergo Penance. But the presumptions of servants, are not the Lords directions. 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 known her mind in her public, promulgated, authorized ARTICLES and COMMUNION BOOK; with those other, to which we have all subscribed, that are publicly interessed in the Priesthood and Function of this Church. Hic rhodus, hic saltus. These are those Passages, at which IEPHTHA'S soldiers are to try the lisping EPHRAMITES in their Sibboleths. If here I be concluded with that absolute Decree of Predestination, I yield. If no such Prescription or Tie be imposed, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by your leave, ringantur the Faction: I mind (I may so do) to continue in the opinion I am of.  
YOUR DIVINES, as you style them, concerning Predestination, believe 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 pass 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 crown them with glory and immortality, or plunge them into destruction and hellfire for ever. To bring this his Decree and unchangeable purpose to pass, it was necessary he should, and so he did, purpose, and so effect the creation of man and all mankind, necessarily also, unto life or death. So that the major part of mankind by far, 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 misunderstood. This is no malicious relating of the doctrine of YOUR Side, that delight to be styled Calvinists. The first counsel, purpose, and decree of GOD was thus: Before the works of his hands of old, merely and irrespectively to declare his power (I cannot say his justice) and what he might and would do upon his creatures, for his glory sake, he made the wicked AGAINST, nay FOR the day of vengeance. The means to bring this his purpose to pass, 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 aliis vita aeterna, aliis DAMNATIO aeterna PRAEORDINATUR. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque CONDITUS EST, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad MORTEM 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 express 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 counsel secret unto us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST, out of mankind, and to bring them BY CHRIST, unto everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. In which, the Church speaketh only 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 Mediator CHRIST, both for the purpose and performance. Fourthly, that it is and was of some special ones alone, elect, called forth, and reserved in CHRIST; and not generally extended unto all mankind. Fiftly, the which purpose and counsel of his is like himself, unchangeable, done according to the counsel of his will. This is all that I can find 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 final consummation in glory. All which I constantly profess and believe: and I add, that according unto this Doctrine, a curse is presupposed, a state of damnation and woe intended; out of which they are delivered, whom he electeth in CHRIST: into which how they came, how they were plunged, the ARTICLE doth not speak. YOUR Teachers declare expressly, it was GOD'S positive, peremptory, prime, irresistible Act: they were cast into it by GOD irrespectively, because he would do it: they were thereunto appointed by himself, for himself, 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 do not spare to speak, and press to purpose: and you cannot avoid, to my poor understanding, their conclusions. The Church of England is not heerto liable; cannot be charged with it; must not, for YOUR sakes, be put to avow or justify it, which in wise moderation sitteth down 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 press into GOD'S Secrets.    

CHAP. V.  
Dangerous consequences brought by Others, upon the Irrespective Decree.  

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 he would do 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 withal I added, which is also your Doctrine, and I go no further there, that JUDAS 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 own will. Is not this the manifest, direct, plain, and express doctrine of Him, whom you profess to follow? of whom you glory to be denominated? Nothing is by me ascribed unto your Side and YOUR Doctors, but an absolute and irrespective necessitating Decree concerning man in utramque partem, and concerning all the effects of Predestination. I brought no inferences to press you withal; 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 himself, as he is, the Father of Mercies, made the greatest part of mankind, with intent and purpose, to PERISH eternally; to DAMN them for ever into, and in Hell fire. That every man is, as he is Predestinate, a Sinner or Believer, NECESSARILY, unavoideably. That the Reprobate are incited on, and PROVOKED to sin by GOD. That GOD was the Author of JUDAS treason, and the like. None of these dropped out of my pen against you: therefore that Depravation of YOUR Doctrine, or odious relating of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? That which I relate, is confessed by yourselves, That PETER could not perish; JUDAS could not but perish. Whether this be good Catholic doctrine, I did not touch.    

CHAP. VII.  
Lutherans averse from the doctrine of Calvinists. The moderation of the Church of England in these great and unsearchable mysteries. The Author's submission thereunto. The doctrine of Predestination. Man the Author of his own destruction, and not GOD. The doctrine of Antiquity contemned by Novellers. The Synod of Dort no obligation to us. The saying of DEODATE. The Articles of Lambeth forbidden by Authority. Foreign Doctrine maintained, to bring in foreign Discipline. The Church of England no Patroness of Novel opinions.  

INFORMERS.  
BUt I make the world believe, 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.  
DO I make men Believe it? How can you tell, that the world is so persuaded through my words? It is probable enough that the world thought so, and Believed 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 abhor it. It, that is, That opinion, as I then spoke 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? out of your knowledge or hearsay, do not they detest it, as horribiliter in DEUM contumeliosum, & generi humano perniciosissimum? and that so far, with such vehemency (as their custom is, in every thing to be vehement and violent) that they stick not to profess, they will rather come off roundly unto Popery again, than join with YOUR Divines upon any terms, in these Questions of Prescience, Perseverance, Election, and Reprobation. wherein they say, that by your Tenants, Non Diabolus, sed DEUS erit AUTHOR mendacij: GOD, not the Devil, is made AUTHOR of sin.  
But concerning the Church of England's consenting with the Lutherans, your Gloss 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: Absque hoc, no such matter. For the Lutherans in Germany do detest and abhor it: the Church of England hath not taught it. And yet this is not enough to infer, that we consent with the Lutherans, either in their Abhorring and Detesting of it, or in those Opinions which they hold against it; except there could be given, Nihil tertium. I add: The Church of England doth not Believe it: and why may I not say so, except you show the contrary, or bring me forth a Creed, a Canon, a Conclusion in being, for Believing 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 terms, as far as concerned that Decree. But touching the execution of that eternal purpose, both for inchoation by Grace here, and consummation in Glory hereafter, thus much is tendered in the self same place and Article: Therefore they that be endowed with so excellent a Benefit 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 sons of GOD by adoption: they be made like unto the Image of his only begotten Son JESUS CHRIST: they walk religiously in good works; and at length by GOD'S mercy attain 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, necessary, determined, irresistible, irrespective Decree of GOD, to call, save and glorify, S. PETER for instance, infallibly, WITHOUT any CONSIDERATION had of, or REGARD unto, his FAITH, OBEDIENCE, REPENTANCE; and to condemn JUDAS, as necessarily, without any RESPECT had at all unto his SIN. which, say I there, and I say truly, is the private fancy of some particular men: and, as I conjecture, you are professedly of those SOME. And whereas you would make the World believe, that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat; as if he were the father and founder of our Faith; as if our Belief were to be pinned upon his sleeve, and absolutely to be taught after his Institutions: show me good warrant for it, and I yield. I may rather say, that the Church of England hath opposed this doctrine, because that many of the Learned (your selves will not deny) in that Church, and most conformable unto the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church, have mainly opposed it: and the Church itself hath directly and in EXPRESS words overthrown the ground thereof, in teaching thus: that a justified 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 deep and high points, hath in great Wisdom and Prudence, gone on warily and suspensely; not presuming, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as you and YOUR Divines have done and do) to conclude upon GOD'S Secrets: not straightening & narrowing of men's consciences, by determining, specially in those Mysteries, at which that great Apostle stood at gaze, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Would you and your Party be advised; I would counsel you that, which I desire to follow in this particular myself.  
Ne curiosus quaere causas omnium  
Quaecunque libris vis Prophetarum indidit  
Afflata caelo plena veraci DEO.  
Nec operta sacri supparo stlentij  
Irrumpere aude, sed prudenter praeteri.  
NESCIRE VELLE QUAE MAGISTER MAXIMUS  
DOCERE NON VULT, ERUDITA EST INSCITIA.  
I must confess my dissent through 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 profess I do love to meddle nothing less. I have not, I did not desire, nor intent to declare my own opinion in that point (evermore with reservation of my dutiful consent with and unto my Mother): for I needed not do 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 Arminianism or Popery, or I know not what; I shall as I can briefly, and plainly without scholastical obscurities, set down what I conceive of this Act of GOD (setting by all execution of purpose) or Decree of Predestination. Take it as I conceive it, and so shall profess it, until I am informed and ascertained, that the Church of England, whereof I am a member, believeth and teacheth all otherwise than I conceive of it.  
First, whatsoever GOD willeth, cometh to pass in Heaven and in Earth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is possible with him. If it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or shall be in due time. For accordingly as he willeth things should, so do they come to pass. And as they do come to pass in due time, so he would have them before all times so come to pass. The one is Original of the other: and the one is Evidence of the other. GOD'S Decrees are eternal, from everlasting, as all his purposes are, as himself is; like himself, 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 himself, and beside himself nothing, the first thing he did, or possibly and conceiveably could do, was to determine to communicate himself, and did so accordingly, primò, primùm, communicate himself out of his aloneness everlasting unto somewhat else. For Communication is an Act of Goodness, the prime attribute of God respectively; as even the Heathen man could say, Deus est optimus & maximus, & quidem prius optimus quam maximus. All communication 
CICERO, I. de Divin.  is, and needs must be conceived to be, at least, betwixt two; being an effluxe, emanation, issuing from, and motion betwixt terms. GOD alone could not communicaie see, sua, or de suis, but by producing an Object communicable, to whom or which he might impart as, and what, he pleased. Which, when nothing was at all but himself, must and doth put us upon another purpose and Act of his, to Create; which is, framing of something out of mere nothing: nor can possibly any other Act, or resolution and counsel, prevent this, much less 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 we 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 only 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, he must not nor could be. Good he was, but Bad he might be: Righteous, out of the hands of GOD; but left unto himself, in the hands of his own counsel, unrighteous. That, changing state of Being, if haply he should change, his alteration might be his own Act, imputable to himself, not his Maker; his endowments must be such, as, unless himself 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, unless basely and cowardly he would betray the Fort upon summons of a Foe. Thus he did: so he served himself. Using his freedom of will not well as he ought, he lost his freedom, undid himself, and his whole race then in his loins. EVE took up sin from the devil upon lone: ADAM by Consent acknowledged the band, & usura crevit Posteritas. For being the root and original of all mankind, he received what he had, for himself and his; and lost what he forfeited, for them all. Falling thus from GOD, he fell not alone: his posterity were together with him plunged into one bottomless pit of perdition, and mass of damnation, through their own fault. Thither they fell: not there were they put. GOD made not man unto destruction: much less 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: therefore so was it also in GOD'S purpose. Thus far we have gone, and not a word of Predestination: for how could it be in a Parity? There must needs first be a disproportion, before there can be conceived Election or Dereliction; unto which we are now comen in the mass of perdition, as they call it. Wherein all alike being plunged actually, GOD passeth by, looketh on, considereth intuitively, once, at once, singulos generum, genera singulorum, in that very woeful plight. He had compassion on them: so EZECH. phraseth it. XVI. When he saw them in their blood; and out of his mercy, in his love, motu mero, not otherwise, stretched out to them deliverance in a Mediator, the Man JESUS 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 He had thrown them headlong, out of his mere irrespecting will, because he would; through his absolute power, because he could; with the irresistible necessity of an inevitable Decree, creating them to perish everlastingly. This is enough, absolutely to free and to acquit GOD from being AuTHOR of SIN, which he so detesteth; or Author of death, which he made not; to which he is an enemy, as being Life: and from being Author of destruction, which is merely of ourselves; he being Pater misericordiarum, and wholly, freely, and desiredly, giving, occasioning, procuring, effecting our salvation day by day. If this be Arminianism, esto. I must profess it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For unless it be so, and that, not according to unchangeable necessity, there is not any thing in our power at all, saith JUSTIN MARTYR in his Apol. Nay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If it be absolutely 
Pag. 151. edit. ROB. STEPH.  determined, that one should be 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 we 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 assignments devised unto them. Nam si omnem malignitatem, & si tantam malitiem excogitatam, DEUS, exactor innocentiae, odit, indubitatè, quaecunque condidit, non in exitum operum constat condidisse 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  evil: which the Heathens saw and taught, as he 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 own disposedness to evil, 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 Nazianzen, 
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 abundance: we forfeited our seizure, upon our own Transgression. Home, and pithily as his style and phrase is, concise and sententious, not diffused. His fellow and faithful ACHATES, in course of life and studies, Great S. BASIL, hath a Sermon to the purpose, That GOD is not Author, or Cause 
S. BASIL. Hom. Quòd DEus non est Author malorum.  of evil; neither poenae nor culpae, as they speak. That malum poenae is from culpa merely originally; that culpae malum is of man himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 forborn 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 evil vessel: 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 believe it, that All we, and every one of us, were, and was made, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for and to some profitable and behooveful 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 heed of that sense. And because ADAM was the root of all, and ADAM'S case an exemplar of all mankind, concerning ADAM he writeth thus: Erat prius ADAM in sublimi constitutus, non loco quidem sed arbitrio, cum statim animâ imbutus in Coelum 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, atque ita excidit paradiso, & depulsus est spe illâ immortalitatis. And then concludeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He became evil, NOT NECESSITATED ANY WAY, but through his own misadvisednesse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus he fell to transgress through his wicked owne-will; and because of transgression, was liable unto death. Nor was there any absolute decree passed upon JUDAS to make him a Traitor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of his own proper motion he undertook the Treason, saith chrysostom, to let us know, that of his own accord and mind thereto 
S. CHRYSOST. tom. 5. pa. 551.  disposed, he ran headlong upon that audacious transgression, no way moved or caused, but only that a wicked heart within Him issued out that Treason, into which he thrust himself. Unless from damned Heretics or stoical Philosophers, I never yet read in Antiquity of any prime, previous determining Decree, by which men were IRRESPECTIVELY denied grace, 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, cum punit noxios; sua tribuens, cum 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 tendereth: we must be confined unto Foreign opinions of some late Writers, and tied to the Conclusions of Dort. I derogate nothing from that Synod, nor any particular man in that Synod. For those Divines that were there of our Church, the principal of them sometime was my worthy friend and acquaintance; since is my Reverend and much reverenced Diocesan: the major part of them were my ancient acquaintance likewise, and one of them brought up with me of a child so that personal respects rather seem to affy me unto that Synod. And indeed I do reverence the Conveners for their places, worth, and learning; but I have nothing at all to do with their Conclusions, farther than they do 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 go 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 me: the Church doth not compel me. The Synod was Forinsecus, and but partial. 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. Quisque 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 general, or any man in particular, is bound or tied to receive, abbet, maintain or believe 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 unlawful. What Ends men had in that Synod, I know not, nor am curious to inquire: how things were carried, I as little understand or care. Whether any or all subscribed absolutely or with protestation, I cannot tell. Let them look unto it, and answer for it, whom it doth concern. This I am sure; JOHN DEODATE, Minister and Professor in the Church of Geneva, and employed unto that Synod of Dort from his Country, being lately with me at Eton, professed there unto me his own 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 Schools when I was an Auditor there. It hath been prohibited to be enjoined, and tendered, or maintained as the Authentical Doctrine of our Church, by supreme Authority, with sharp reproof unto those that went about to have it tendered, then, when those Conclusions or Assertions of Lambeth, as they are called in the Conference at Hampton Court, were upon sending down to the University of Cambridge; likely enough to have been there applauded by some, through the opinion of the great worth and learning that they had of the then Professor, a thorough man every way upon YOUR Side, and an earnest Promoter of the novel opinions against other learned Divines, part dead, and yet part alive. Since which time, at the Conference of Hampton Court before HIS MAJESTY by Doctor BANCROFT, the then Lord Bishop of London, it was styled, 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 we conceive, this should have been acted, spoken or tolerated, against a Doctrine approved by the Church of England? Besides, in all probability, the public Doctrine of the Church of England, is not very likely to have been, or to be upon the Party of a Faction that hath so long had a Schism 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 wind 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 proposal of some one man, men may be disposed unto him in any 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 Mr. MOUNTAGU; your affection to the Church, setting reason of profit and interest aside, being such as it is well known 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 Learnedest of Your Side, that Faith, true, justifying Faith, once had, may be lost, and recovered again: that a man endued with GOD'S holy Spirit, and enlightened with the Heavenly light, may LOSE that HOLY SPIRIT, have that Light put out, become like unto SAUL and JUDAS; may be brought into so vile a condition, that he 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 patronise YOUR Predestination; and so far to cross and thwart YOUR Perseverance? It is your own; GOD hath appointed them to Grace & Glory; 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 necessity, 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, unless they had repent, 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 do perish for ever. which although it be true, it is so true, upon supposition of the means, Faith, Repentance, and final Persevering in obedience: without which they are none of GOD'S Elect, nor belonging to CHRIST; these being the appointed instrumental causes of all their salvation. as the proper immediate cause of the wicked's destruction, is their impenitency, infidelity, and disobeying GOD: which the very Synod of Dort denieth not, that define, the wrath of GOD to remain on them that Believe not: That life eternal is for them that Believe: 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.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Touching freewill, the III. point of Arminianism.  

INFORMERS.  
HE calls the Question of Freewill 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 capacity, I ever took it to be a Question, at least as it is entangled, of perplexed obscurity. You, my good Brethren, as it seemeth, esteem it not so;  
— Queis meliore luto finxit praecordia Titan. You can easily ford over all the depths thereof, and clearly còmprehend all the darkest mirksomnesse therein. Admiror, stupeo: why are you enraged against me, if I cannot attain the measure of your transcendentnesse, but confess my disability and imperfection? But clear or obscure; light or darkness in the point of freewill, in my Opinion, what is it to Arminianism in your information? Was ARMINIUS also in the same opinion, that the Question of freewill was obscure? Surely so; and yet what meaned those dangers you talk of, for opposition? seeing men are not peremptory, but upon resolution; and resolution groweth not but upon persuasion: 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 think it a preservative against danger rather; inasmuch as the difficulty, and obscurity pretended, will, in all probability, keep men off from meddling in it above their Model: 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 been in the right. The Question of Freewill, so canvassed and discoursed of up and down, is indeed a point, and so ever hath been held, of very great obscurity; fitting rather Schools, than popular ears or auditories If it be not an obscure Question, what then mean 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 natural, moral, civil, 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, and will of GOD? Protestants and Papists together by the ears? Papists at odds amongst themselves? and Protestants with Protestants upon no better terms? To my capacity, that is obscure, which is so much entangled with contradictory disputations upon all hands, and so much perplexed with oppositions. BELLARMINE, a man, no disparagement to your worth, of as strong a brain, and piercing apprehension as either of you, M. WARD and M. YATES, or any new upstart Master in Israel of the pack; confesseth, that the Concurrence of Grace and freewill 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 
Appeal, lib. 2. ca 1. §. 11.  withal 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 Arminianism, is it not?    

CHAP. IX.  
Controversies unnecessarily multiplied: the AUTHOR no Favourer of them. Questions of obscurity and speculation not fit for Pulpits & popular ears. Freewill made no such controversy among moderate men, either of the Pontifician or Protestant side, as people are borne in hand withal.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
I Must and do confess, I am of that mind, and think so still; that the idle fellow the Gagger had done much better, had merited more at GOD and men's hands, to speak in his own language, and deserved better of the Church, and have done better service to GOD Almighty: as also might the major part by much of his Side, if they would be more sparing in multiplying controversies and disputes; and so in disquieting the peace of the Church in points of that nature, which do not so concern the state of man's soul, or his walking in the ways of GOD'S commandment; or knowing of Him, the only true GOD, and whom he hath sent, JESUS CHRIST. Now was ARMINIUS also of that opinion? If he were not, how am I or can I be an ARMINIAN for this? If he were of this opinion, then hath he 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, universal Grace, freewill, and loss of Faith. And surely M. MOUNTAGU deserved a more moderate and less empassioned censure, than to be informed against for moving of sedition; which toucheth deep, and will bear (I trow) 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 fear of offending that way, concealed both his own opinion often, and sometime the doctrine of the Church, which haply he should not have done. Is he therefore seditious, because he refused to dispute, discourse or talk 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 he professeth his dislike of multiplying controversies in those kinds, 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 own 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 selfsame points, blamed for being so temperate, for saying no more; for not moving, favouring, fomenting unnecessary quarrels and disunions, in questions of speculation and of obscurity; advising rather to reserve them for, and refer them to the Schools (though your honest simplicity, or PURE charity, thought it fit to conceal this his moderate wish or advice), rather than to thunder and lighten in your Pulpits with them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by buzzing them into popular ears and capacities, incapacious of them, unable to comprehend them. O vertiginem! may I not well say? that men should have such whirle-gigs in their brains, and be so far at variance with their own 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 freewill, 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 spoke in another case. If, OF the 
CICERO de Nat. Deor. 1.  defenders of freewill, some believed not the necessity of grace; which doctrine the JESUITS condemn of PELAGIANISM: some denied, that GOD can absolutely determine the will; and are confuted by the most part: some disliked, that GOD should be said by his exciting grace to work physically in man; and are gainsaid by BENIUS, as therein Adversaries unto Fathers and Counsels: some hold, that GOD doth not morally determine the will; and are excepted against by SUAREZ: some gave to man's 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 satisfy all doubts concerning the concurrence of grace and will, and yet confess they cannot assoil them; as is confessed in these many words by the learned Bishop of Lichfield, no Papist, 
APPEAL, pag. 214.  I think, nor yet Arminian: Then (I trust) you will excuse me for concluding, The point of freewill is a question of great obscurity. And then, might not that Gagger have spared his pains, and well passed over this point in silence? But if your fingers did so itch to be taxing Mr. MOUNTAGU, you ought not in common honesty to have concealed his annexed quousque and limitation of the point. For he did not say, simply and absolutely, to be silenced; but only so far, 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 Buy, to make up the muster, and fill up the accusation of ARMINIANISM, ut quae non prosunt singula, multa juvent. That which most offendeth, and is inexpiable, followeth in the Rear; The controverted particulars are of no such great moment, upon due examination. And this is ARMINIANISM 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 freewill the Church of Rome absolutely and wholly Pelagianizeth, are enemies professed unto the Grace of CHRIST, advancing natural Endowments above, and preferring them before Grace: that they raze the foundation, make CHRIST none, or a partial Mediator; Man beholding to none, but to himself, for his salvation; and that we must for ever, upon pain of Damnation (strange Bugbears 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 mean, betwixt that Church and ours, for any materiality in this point, betwixt moderate and temperate men on either 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 & open nostrâ, veritati favere. And therefore in this point he 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.  
The which he 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 think now, and think I thought not then amiss. Why I did think so; I gave my reasons by special reciting many Concordants inter parts. For further satisfaction in that point, unto those that are not transported with Faction, I will now enlarge, to make it appear I spoke 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: we teach, that the Will doth not cooperate in that first point with Grace, but in progress of our justification. So KICKERMAN in his System. pag. CCLXIII. a better Logician than Divine, as once I heard him styled in the Schools at Cambridge. For, that many Pontificians and we differ not in this point, appeareth by the express Doctrine of many the best learned amongst them, and most versed in this Controversy. Bishop MARTINEZ relateth, that ANDREAS VEGA, as 
Disp. 1. pa. 1. num. 4.  great a Clerk as any came to TRENT, did yield, 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 main difference doth it contain 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. He disclaimeth the opinion of CAIETAN and CAMERACENSIS, concerning the ability of the Mind in such acts collaterally, as not to be activated unless 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. the justif.  Primi generis esse tempore illam Antecedentia, as post praedestinationem, electionem, pulsare, stare ad ostium, admonere, inspirare. Quae sic DEI propria sunt, ut NULLAM IN JIS PARTEM HABEAT LIBERTAS VOLUNTATIS NOSTRAE; non CONSENSUM, non COOPERATIONEM: therefore in these we are merely PASSIVE. A second sort are, Productiones qualitatum Naturam excedentium, as Faith, Hope, Charity, etc. Quia ad producendum tam praecellentes qualitates Natura nostra pertingere non potest, habet se homo respectu earum PASSIVE; sicut aer respectu luminis, cum illustratur. Thirdly, sunt alia quaedam medij generis, as Credere, DEUM diligere, poenitere, eidem obedire. Quae DEUS in Nobis NON exercet NISI NOBIS CONSENTIENTIBUS. unto which purpose is applied that of S. PAUL, 1. Cor. XV. Gratia DEI mecum. and that of S. AUGUSTINE; generally COOPERANDO 
S. AUG, the great. & libero arbitrio, cap. 17.  perficit, quod OPERANDO incepit. which they learned of that grand Dictator of their Schools, A QUINAS, in 1. 2ae. q. 3 in Corp. Artic. Gratiâ operante, mens nostra est mota, non movens. DEUS autem SOLUS MOVENS. To whom acordeth SUAREZ, de Praed, lib. 1. cap. 8. Auxilia praevenientia incipiunt à DEO, & nobis●INE ●INE NOBIS; and MOLINA himself, cited 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 been by a most learned friend admonished, CABRERA in 3. THO. qu. 26. Disp. 6. art. 4. dub. 3. num. 17. CUMEI, var. disp. part. 3. pag. 69. MARTINEZ. in 1. 2ae. 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. come. 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, etc. 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 freewill CONCURRETH with GOD'S grace, as a FELLOW or COWORKER in some sort. Man's will is NOT PASSIVE in all and every respect, but hath an ACTION in the FIRST conversion and change of the soul, SNEGANUS and HEMINGIUS are confessed by WILLET, to be of this mind; and if my Notes fail me not, for I have not now the Book by me, divers other Protestants in Mr. 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 JAM OCIOSA. Now if the Council of TRENT intendeth to say no more, where is that vast difference imagined inter parts, those of the Romish and Protestant Confessions? These clamorous Promoters do not read so much, it seemeth, as their own ordinary Protestant Writers: and therefore in their Sermons, Lectures and Pulpits, they brawl at the shadow of their own fancies, as dogs hark at the Moon; and in fight the Lords battles, as they would seem, and their silly Auditors conceive, they fight with Shaw-fowles of their own setting up; abusing the simple credulity of the unlearned; making themselves ridiculous to the Papists; hardening them rather in their superstition, when they hear them talk so confidently, and traduce so virulently, as their manner is, and yet mistake so ignorantly that which they do not understand. The Council of TRENT resolveth thus: Si quis dixerit liberum hominis arbitrium, à DEO motum & excitatum, NIHIL COOPERARI, assentiendo DEO excitanti atque vocanti, neque POSSE DISSENTIRE si velit; sed veluti INANIME instrumentum NIHIL OMNINO agere, mereque PASSIVE se habere, Anathema sit. Well, and what of this? Do 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 Council addeth, A man may RESIST the grace of God. Admit: then, first, man hath freewill against GOD: and what said OUR SAVIOUR concerning jerusalem? HOW often would I, and THOU wouldst NOT! But S. STEPHEN in terminis hath the very word, Acts VII. LI. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, YOU RESIST, nay FALL CROSS with the holy Ghost, not suffering him to work the work of grace in you. If the Council meant it de gratiâ excitante, praveniente, operante, I think no man will deny it: if de gratiâ adjuvante, subsequent, cooperante, there is, without question, in the natural will of a regenerate man, so much of ADAM remaining, and carnal concupiscence, as may make him RESIST and REBEL against the Law of the Spirit. And if a man justified may FALL AWAY FROM GRACE, which is the doctrine of the Church of England, then without question, yourselves being judges, he may RESIST the grace of GOD offered.  
Hitherto M. MOUNTAGU can see no such difference inter parts. If you with your new learning (for old you have little or none) can teach me more than yet I know, I will yield, 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 efficiency in the work of godliness by the own proper NATURAL 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 mouths: Vult DEUS omnes homines salvos fieri, & in agnitionem veritatis venire; non tamen sic, ut iis adimat liberum arbitrium. And therefore, vocante DEO, surgit 
S. AUG. de Sp. & Lit. tom. 3. cap. 33.  de libero arbitrio, quod NATURALITER cum crearetur accepit. VOLUNTATEM LIBERAM dedisti mihi: sed SINE TE NIHIL EST conatus ejus. IDEM in Ps. XXVI. therefore, DEO adjuvante, conatur, ambulat. And FULGENTIUS the Incarnate. ca XXIII. Potest home, DEO donante, NATURALITER in DEUM credere. who intent this, That the WILL of man; being first informed, enlightened, healed by grace, and then assisted continually by the same concurring grace, is Pedissequa, an handmaid and a subordinate AGENT with and under grace; and that belief, repentance, and the like, are TRUE and REAL operations of MAN'S understanding and will; and proceed, as actions NATURAL, out of the powers of the reasonable soul, 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, & 
ROME 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 we need a supply continually of Divine Operation, Protection, Direction, and new Inspiration, to go on with freewill, which is Comes, non Dux, Pedissequa, non Praevia, as S. AUSTEN speaketh, Epist. 106. If this were not so, then faith and repentance were not the actions of man; neither could man be said to believe or repent, but the holy Spirit that infuseth grace. Now, Id agit gratia, ut sanata natura, quod vitiata non potest, POSSET 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.  virtuous action of man two things: the quality of goodness, and the work itself. The quality of goodness is WHOLLY from grace: the work itself is wrought by the freewill of man, ASSISTED by grace. Opera pietatis, Credere, poenitere. etc. 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 think, that man can by any NATURAL power EXCITE and prepare himself to grace, or apply himself unto GOD, to the motions of his Spirit; as if GOD'S concourse needed not, or that man by the power of his own will, without any special help of grace, could sorrow for sin; 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 to go passibus equis; much less, that man's will can outstrip the grace of GOD. This is denied, and cannot be inferred upon the activeness 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 child did his father in the Poet.  
This is, I conceive it, the doctrine of the Protestant Schools. Vbi interim DUO observanda esse docemus, say the Helvetians in their Confession: PRIMUM, regeneratos in boni electione & operatione, non tantùm agere PASSIVE, said 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 Believers, saith, You have obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine whereunto you were received, ROME VI XVII. And SALOMON saith, PRO. IU. XXIII. Keep thine heart with all diligence: for out of it are the issues of life. OUR SAVIOUR saith, A good tree bringeth forth good fruit. The WILL of man is a true natural faculty, given to man in his creation. In the state of corruption, this natural faculty is a true efficient cause of sin, and this natural faculty is punished for sin. In the state of justification, the same natural faculty is truly and really endued with grace, and bringeth forth the works of righteousness, and shall be rewarded with glory and immortality. In both these states the WILL is a TRUE Efficient; but differently: a PRINCIPAL 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 we are that we are: and that grace is not in vain 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 work of our salvation, his chief hand in the business, his GRACE preventing, inspiring, enlightening, exciting, upholding, sustaining and concurring, doth not take away man's freewill in cases where Will hath any interest at all. The STOICS, amongst others, held that Paradox of old, DEUM ire per omnes— Terras tractusque maris, coelumque profundum. they meant it substantially, and so impiously. CHRISTIANS do hold and believe it too, but disposingly, &c. in his providence, according to that Axiom of the wise, Perting it à fine, ad finem fortiter, disponens omnia suaviter; according to the several natures and exigences of things, to which he gave being and power to work so: not DESPOILING them of their OWN by CONCURRING with them, nor by any access ANNIHILATING his former grants or endowments conferred on them.  
Thus having, with as great diligence as I could, examined this question inter parts of freewill, so far as was coïncident unto my purpose; I do ingenuously confess, that I cannot find any such MATERIAL difference between the Pontificians, at least of better temper, and OUR Church. But if the Informers can make the contrary appear, submittam fasceis, and turn over a new leaf, even in this Article, opposing the Church of ROME as far as any of the preciser Cut or zealous Disciples of THOMAS CARTWRIGHT'S School whosoever. Then then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: I am a man reserved, abhorring to multiply controversies, where is no cause.    

CHAP. X.  
The Council of Trent not wholly to be condemned. Man's Will not merely passive, but active and free in the proper acts thereof. The memorable saying of SCOTUS. The power of the Will in things divine.  

INFORMERS.  
IN the next page thrice he approveth the Doctrine of the Council of Trent touching freewill.   

MOUNTAGU.  
WHolly, or in part? It would have been explained by honest men. For say, I beseech you, will not your own wisdoms, or charity, or common sense, or understanding, or what you will call it, commend and approve some Determinations of the Council of TRENT? Saepè etenim est olitor valdè opportuna locutus. And why not they, learned men at least, resolve some thing truly, where was no cause of Faction to be opposite? Secondly, whatsoever I approve in that Council, is not thrice approved, as you do enlarge in your suggestions; but twice at most nor yet twice, but by repeating the same thing, twice remembered 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 own, will you say. Man ever since the Fall of ADAM, is not senseless, a stock, a stone; merely PASSIVE in all things, active and AGENT voluntarily in nothing. That which he doth, at lest something that he doth, he doth it willingly and freely, QUUM homini non sit per peccatum adempta neque intelligendi neque volendi facultas, sed duntaxat RECTE intelligendi & volendi facultas, saith 
THEOD. BEZA, opusc. tom. 2. pag. 666. part. 1. quaest.  BEZA: at least he doth it according to his WILL, not compellable in the proper acts thereof; To will, though drawn to perform many acts in course of life, as willingly it could wish them to be otherwise. Those in that Council were Men, as well as Pontificians: learned men they were, at least the major part, and spoke as well like men, as for a factious party in the Church. In that place they speak of freewill in enlarged terms, and not in reference unto actions of grace, of piety, of repentance, or regeneration, and godliness 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. Endowments of grace above nature, or additaments unto nature, we lost in ADAM. Nature and natural endowments 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.  se dedit, à quo JUDICIUM 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 Council; 
* This branch of the TRIED. Council, is taken out of the second ARAUS. Council. 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 FOUR Decision, de conversionis modo: where the Conveners will in these words prove 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: we cannot, we do not deny freedom of will in man: whoso doth so, is no CATHOLIC: I add, no nor PROTESTANT. For I did not conceive, that any Protestant, till you professed yourselves so senseless, would have denied that Conclusion, There is freewill. We eat, we drink, we sleep, we wake, we walk, we rest, we run, we talk, we hold our peace, we consent, assent, disagree; freely wittingly, willingly, without any constraint, out of the natural power of our freewill. And yet further for your sakes I add. It were well done, and worth the while, as SCOTUS said well, to cudgel him well and thriftily, that 
In 1. Sent. dist. 38.  should deny freewill, so long, until he did confess it to be in our power to go on, to cease, or hold our hands. And if he should commence an action of battery, to put in this Bar; It was not I that beat him, it was FATAL NECESSITY; and I was thereby compelled to do it. I had not any freewill to resist: it was not in my power to do, or not to do 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 down my Errors, as you call them, in two propositions, tendered unto me, and unto you also, of the Church of England. First, that Man in state of natural corruption cannot turn nor prepare himself unto GOD, by or through his own natural and humane power and strength. Secondly, that Prevented by grace, and by grace assisted, he putteth to his hand, to procure augmentation of that grace; as also, continuance unto the end in that grace. No man cometh unto GOD, but he is drawn: being drawn, he runneth or walketh as his assistance is, and his own agility and disposition, unto the end. No man beareth fruit in CHRIST JESUS the Vine, unless that by the Husbandman he be engrafted. To engraft, is opus Hortulani ALONE. When as the branch is engrafted, that it may prosper and bear fruit, the root must supply; the slip suck and retain sap supplied from the root. This is enough: no more need be 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 turn nor prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon GOD. Wherefore we have no power to do 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 here in this passage, by the Church, considered two ways: as in Nature depraved; as in Nature again by Grace restored. In Nature depraved, Freewill is totally denied, unto man, for any works of righteousness, acceptable or pleasing unto GOD, before conversion; or for works of actual concurrency in the very act of first converting: but not for works 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, & just agere: saith D. WHITAKER. And that saying of DAMASCEN 
DAMASCEN, lib. 2. de fide orth. cap. 27.  is denied of no man that hath his brains 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 repairing and restoring Nature, freewill is not denied man; but how? Not as in or unto natural objects; hic mota movet. It worketh with us, we with it together with Grace, when we have once that good will wrought in us. And surely if we have it working at all, it is not titulus sine re: nor is it inane nihil, as some, it seemeth, thought: which the Council 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 own conceits. OPERATUR ille, COOPERAMUR nos: NON enim AUFERT, sed ADIUVAT bone voluntatis arbitrium: 
S. AUG.  saith S. AUGUSTINE, Quaest. XV. super Deuteron. And again, Quaest. L. In spirit valibus conflictibus sperandum est, et petendum est adjutorium DEI. Non ut NOS NIHIL OPEREMUR; sed ut ADIUTI COOPEREMUR. And again, Retract. I. XXIII. Vtrumque, Credere & velle, DEI est, & NOSTRÛM. utrumque 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 the vocatione gentium: SED etiam voluntas hominis 
PROSP. de voc. Gent. lib. 2. cap. 9  subjungitur ei (Gratiae) atque 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 the Incarnate. 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 do write so: I content myself with one, whom I dare say you will not reject. The learned Bishop of Lichfield is the man I mean, in his Appeal, pag. XIII. Yet have they also (he speaketh it of the Centuriators of MEYDENBURG) out of the clear and sound testimony of the same Father S. GREGORY, drawn a doctrine of Orthodoxal Truth in the doctrine of freewill; holding, that a man's will, in respect of any spiritual good, is not free in itself, until that it be freed by grace. Then it is free in his opinion. And this opinion, he saith, is an Orthodoxal 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 he 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 we can do 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 righteousness he 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. The freedom of will doth not exclude out GOD'S prerogative royal, nor circumscribe it: and GOD'S preeminence in the work of our salvation, his chief hand in the business, his grace preventing and concurring, doth not take away man's freewill, in cases wherein Will is interessed. Causes may be many and manifold unto several acts and particular ends. In this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and concatenation of causes, there is a progress ordinary from the first to the last, and a reflection from the last unto the first. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Second causes and subordinate are reduced unto the original, 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 increase.  
To conclude then; That man hath freewill, is not by us gainsaid, saith that worthy and learned Bishop of MEATH. Freedom of will, we know, doth as essentially belong unto man, as reason itself: 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 wilful folly: but to give unto it that power and sway as many do, is little less than Blasphemy. Truth is ever in the midst betwixt two extremes; and so is it here, most wisely tempered and qualified with moderation in the doctrine of the Church of England; according to which I endeavour to square my belief and opinions.    

CHAP. XI. The fourth and last point of ARMINIANISM touching the Synod of DORT.  
The Synod of Dort not our Rule. Private opinions no Rule. The Informers imputations nothing at all.  

INFORMERS.  
He expressly maketh the Church of England to cast off the defence of sundry points which the Synod of DORT maintained and determined.   

MOUNTAGU.  
IN ALL my writing, to my remembrance, I name that SYNOD but once only, and no more: That at DORT, and another national Synod at GAP in France; and that respectively, and in gentle, nay honourable terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 press us with the ANATHEMATISMS of Trent or Florence. Beside this one time and occasion, I never name DORT. And for the particular points and passages of my Book, I protest, that to my remembrance it came not so much as within the compass of my thoughts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what had I to do with that Synod, not once named by the Gagger? I undertook the defence of the public 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 custom of Papists is, schismatically dividing himself from us, cast upon the Church, as of PUBLIC allowance, many and some absurd propositions of PRIVATE Tenants; particular fancies of some idle conceits. I pleaded not guilty unto the Indictment, and took off the CHURCH, falsely charged, from that issue, wherein it may be some other had joined, against right and reason. You, or any Puritan or Papist, make it plain, that any thing by me disclaimed for being the PUBLIC, ESTABLISHED doctrine of our Church, is yet the doctrine of the Church, and I am ready to recant. If the Synod of DORT hath determined otherwise, let their determinations stand for me: I quarrel them not; I meddle not with them. Those that like the Decrees of that Synod, or are bound to maintain the Decrees of that Synod, let them maintain 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 do?), 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 know none: I have heard of none; nor ever shall, I hope. And till I hear of such (quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I answer, Let them that are interessed, plead for themselves. For my part, I nor have, nor ever will subscribe that Synod absolutely, and in all points (for in some, it condemneth upon the Buy even the discipline of the Church of England), but so far forth only, as their Determinations shall be 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 freewill 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He saith thus and thus; and we say this is ARMINIANISM. Absque hoc  
And thus much for Arminianism.     

THE SECOND PART. TOUCHING POINTS OF POPERY IN GENERAL.  

CHAP. I.  
The Author uncharitably traduced. His profession for the doctrine and discipline received and commanded in the Church of England. Conformable Puritans. Furious zeal. The Church of Rome not a sound, yet a true Church. Private opinions disclaimed. The Church of England asserted to her own public and proper Tenants. The cause of all these Imputations.  
NOw come they to POPERY in a larger extent. A strange imputation, in my opinion, considering the subject upon which they work: which may argue in them, with any indifferent Reader, an uncharitable, unchristian, fiery, Puritanical zeal, malice, and indiscretion too. For, did I prevaricate? was it a compact between Me and the Papists to collude? If I favoured them, would I so have handled them, as few have beside me, in so exasperating a style? Sure, A Kingdom, I know, divided cannot stand. But the truth is, As with the JESUIT he is an Heretic, that is not furioso more a Roman Catholic: so with the PURITAN he is a Papist, that will not run a-madding with them. It is not the first time, for this very cause, I have been talked of, esteemed of, traduced as a Papist: which I can the better brook, because they have meted this measure to the Church of England itself, as sympathising with Papists in her Liturgy, Discipline and Doctrine too. It were to be wished, that such transported spirits were taught to be more submiss and sparing in their talk.  
I call GOD and all his holy Angels to witness, I nor am, nor have been, nor intent to be hereafter, either Papist, or ROMISH Catholic; a Papist of State, or of Religion; but a Priest, a member, a follower of the Church, and Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND. The Original grounds of Popery, are, to my understanding, against Reason, have not their warrant from revealed Truth, stand not with the purer practice of prime Antiquity. I have been born, and bred, and brought up in the Confession of the Church of England. I have learned, loved, admired, and proposed unto myself to follow indeclinably, not only the Discipline of the Church of England (whereunto the Puritans and Schismatics themselves, at least the wiser and subtler sort of them, come off roundly now, for ends best known amongst themselves, remaining quod erant, quoad doctrinam, & tantum non in EPISCOPATU Puritani) but the whole and entire Doctrine of that Church, proposed in Synods, confirmed by Law, commanded and established by Act of PARLIAMENT. This total, both Doctrine and Discipline, I willingly and thoroughly embrace. In profession thereof, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have lived, and will die; and will maintain it, by GOD'S grace, to be Ancient, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolical. I say it again, a never was or will be a Papist, no not in heart; though many be arrant Puritans in heart, that only for preferment do conform; hold with the Hare, and run with the Hound: who so they might vivere and valere, would as willingly have up the Presbyterian Anarchy, as would THO. CARTWRIGHT, were he living; though many, once Puritans, turn often Papists. And no marvel: for fleeting is commonly from one extreme unto another. Men of moving, violent, Quicksilver, Gunpowder spirits, can never rely upon middling courses, but, dum furor in cursu est, run on headlong into extremes. And so, I may avow, I will not be a Papist in haste, because I never was a Puritan in earnest or in jest; having found it true, in my small observation, that our Revolters unto Popery, were Puritan avowed or addicted first.  
And yet it must be granted; All powder doth not take fire alike, nor are all Puritan Spirits of one disposition. With some of them, more brainsick than the rest, all my Book against the Gagger is quickly branded with Popery or scurrility. With others, more discreet, I do but walk upon the brinks of Popery; wherein is some allaying of that former fervency: for, upon their better advice, I am but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at the next door unto it. What they think or speak, I cannot hinder, nor do I greatly care. I profess myself none of those furious ones in point of difference nowadays, whose profession and resolution is, That the farther in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome, the nearer unto GOD and Truth: that we ought to have no commerce, society, or accordance with Papists in things divine, nor almost humane, upon pain of eternal damnation; but must bid defiance irreconcilable unto them for ever. I am absolutely persuaded, and shall be till I see cause to the contrary, that the Church of Rome is a true, though not a sound Church of CHRIST, as well since, as before the Council of Trent; a part of the Catholic, though not the Catholic Church; which we do profess to believe in our Creed: a Church, in which, among many tares, there remaineth some wheat. In Essentials and Fundamentals they agree, holding one Faith, in one Lord, into whom they are inserted through one Baptism. Ecclesia Papalis (saith FRANCISCUS JUNIUS, neither Papist nor Arminian) quâ id habet 
Lib. de Eccles. cap. 17.  in se quod ad definitionem Ecclesiae pertinet, est Ecclesia. And I verily am persuaded, that I ought not to go farther from the Church of Rome in these her worst days, than she hath gone away from herself in her best days. I hold it to be furious zeal without discretion, issuing out of ignorance, or malice, or both, in them who proceed so far in their extravagant assertions, as to profess, that Turks and Turkism is to be preferred before, and rather embraced than Papists and Popery: with whom the Puritan-Papist, the JESUIT, is quit. For, they teach the like concerning Turks and Heretics, as they call us. But the truth is, haec non est illa HELENA, these opinions are not the things which offend them so much, or moved them to impute these calumnies unto M. MOUNTAGU: there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For whereas the PURITANS were wont to be shrouded under the covert of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, and to vent, publish, and tender their many idle dreams, fancies and furies unto the world, under pretext of the doctrine of OUR CHURCH; and our Opposites of the Romish Side did accordingly charge OUR CHURCH with them: M. MOUNTAGU, out of just indignation against that open wrong and injury done unto his Mother, and, as he doth assuredly hope, to the good service of HIS MAJESTY and the CHURCH, hath disbanded them from their shelter, taken them off from colluding under the CHURCH'S protection, and sent them to their own home, to shroud there if they could, and to answer for themselves; to make good their own cause by and of themselves: and likewise hath asserted the CHURCH unto her own true Tenants, natural and proper unto that doctrine which is publicly determined and authorized in her authentic Records, to the high displeasure (no doubt) and distaste of such a porent overweening faction as they are. Hinc mihi sola mali labes. This is the ground of all the POPERY and ARMINIANISM with which I am aspersed, The particulars whereof in the one I have wiped away aheady: the other will as easily off too. I take them in order, as they were proposed in the copy that came unto my hands: in which they are digested without any good method or due order, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of angry and idle brains.   

POINTS OF POPERY IN PARTICULAR.  
CHAP. II.  
The Church Representative, and Points Fundamental, what they are. All that Papists say, is not Popery. Particular Churches have and may err. The Catholic universal Church hath not, cannot err. Of General Counsels. The Author far from the jesuits fancy. The XXI. Article of the Church of England explained.  

INFORMERS.  
HE saith, that the Church Representative, true and lawful, never yet erred in Fundamentals; and therefore that he seeth no cause but to avouch, The Church Representative cannot ERR. pag. XLV.   

MOUNTAGU.  
IN this Accusation are two Propositions distinct, though connexed and dependent: First, The Church Representative, true and lawful, did never err in Fundamentals. Secondly, The Church Representative, so true and lawful, cannot err in Fundamentals. Now, whether Proposition of these two is Popery? or are both these Propositions, jointly or severally taken, Popery? To explicate the terms, and draw up to anatomize your confusedness: The Church Representative is a GENERAL COUNCIL; not titularly so, as the Conventicle of Trent; but plenarily true, general, and lawful. Points Fundamental be such as are immediate unto faith: for instance, the ARTICLES of our CREED; which only be those Tenants and Points of faith, that have indeed, and so must have, Universality, Antiquity, Consent, Knowledge. No man can be saved, that believeth them not; no man can be saved, that knoweth them not: which must be understood de viâ ordinariâ, except that GOD himself have disposed otherwise, who may dispense with his own Ordinances as he will▪ as in case of Infants, Naturals, frantic persons, which through invincible disability are extra Censure Ordinariorum. Otherwise the knowledge and believing 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 be known 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 Tenor, make their dignity and degree too common; abusing that honour peculiarly due to them, by promiscuously communicating it unto other points of inferior rank and reckoning; especially those XII. new ARTICLES of the Tridentine CREED. Thus, upon explication of the terms, we come unto the assertion.  
It is, belike, Popery to say, that in them, in these Fundamental Points, A true and lawful general Council never erred de facto, because (forsooth) Papists say, that a general Council cannot err. 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 Heresy that Heretics hold: nor is all Puritanisme that PURITANS believe or maintain. They hold many things right with the Church of England: but what they hold as PURITANS, that is, as a schismatical Party divided from, and opposed against the doctrine, or discipline, or both, of the Church of England, that we may be bold to call so. Semblably we 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.  
Again, to say that this Proposition, A true and lawful General Council never did Err, is Popery, cannot sink 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 Story, which goeth no farther than unto the thing done or not done. Historical mistake, mis-relatings; who made them Popery? though I profess, I neither know nor acknowledge any misreport or error in point of Story in so saying. Let any Puritan living show me where, when, in what any General Council, according to true acception, or Church representative, hath so erred in the resolution and decisions of that Council: for in the debating of doubts, questions, propositions, the case is otherwise, and not the same. I conceive and acknowledge but four Counsels of this kind; that of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon. Show me in what Fundamental point of Faith any of these General Counsels have erred. But it is Popery peradventure to say, It never was; therefore in all probability it cannot be. If so, than inconsequences and Non sequiturs in Logic, are, in your opinion, to be ranged under Points of Popery: and so, by this your assignment, Popery will extend itself very far indeed; farther than ever any POPE or Papist did pretend or claim. And if you will grant the POPE this so universal and transcendent jurisdiction, yet M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery cometh not up so high as unto generality illimited. It cannot be at all: it insisteth but upon some points only; and that not by or with a general vouchees 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 speak, and write otherwise, or you either, yet both of us may be deceived.  
But somewhat there was which these men intended, and would have said, if so be they could have hit upon it. It is a Conclusion of the Roman Schools, The Church cannot Err. which Proposition, I may both affirm and deny, as it is proposed. The Church CANNOT Err. The Church CAN Err. For first it i● ambiguous subiectiuè; What the Church is, which cannot Err. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and must be distinguished. And secondly we may consider it obiectiuè; In what things the Church cannot Err; and Quousque, that Not erring doth reach forth Extensiuè: To this purpose, I differenced Churches two ways: into Topical or Particular Churches; into Catholic or Universal. I divided also the objects of erring or not erring, two ways: into Fundamentals, or superstructives. For Particular local Churches, such as Corinth, Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatyra, Laodicea, etc. it is in Confesso on both sides, that They may Err: for it is evident that they have Erred, both in inferior and in higher points of Faith. And so have Erred oftentimes, that through their Erring in Fundamentals in that sort, they have ceased to be Churches any more. The Catholic or universal Church, I considered two ways; conceiving it to be Diffusive, or Representative. and that diffusion to run out two ways: into Universality of ALL, both Time and Place; or into Universality of Time alone. The first is so ample, that it fetcheth in the APOSTLES and all; and so includeth within the Verge that part of the Catholic Church which is now regnant in heaven, and free from all Error, as partaking of that bliss which leadeth infallibly, holdeth inseparably in all Truth. In this sense and acceptation, the proposition is not quarrelled: The Church so, hath not, cannot Err. The second divided part, stinted from so large an extent, is yet enlarged respectively, to all members, to every member in particular of the Catholic 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 think, the Informers do not quarrel us for Popery. Their whole stitch is against the Church Representative in a General Council. In which, though I should resolve simply and punctually thus, A General Council cannot Err, yet could I not be counted a Papist. For the Tenent of the Papists, if you (my Informers) know it not, in their Schools, is this; A General Council can no way Err in the Decisions final thereof, which is allowed by the POPE. By which they necessarily infer, as also they stick not to express, that unless the POPE give ratification, any General Council whatsoever may err in any point of Faith, of what nature soever. And therefore (such is their Doctrine since the JESUITS have domineered in their Schools) all the validity and assurance of not Erring, which a General Council hath or can have, either in fide or moribus, is only from that impossibility of Erring which the POPE hath, as Haeres ex ass unto S. PETER, to whom our SAVIOUR behighted that impossiblity alone. So that pretend the JESUITS as long as they will, that fair and specious show and title of the CHURCH never so much, have they nothing in their mouths, but, The CHURCH, the CHURCH; the POPE is that Church: and their conclusion here is not for the Church, but for HIM. Now, doth Mr. MOUNTAGU come up unto, nay, looketh he toward this Catholic Roman fancy and infallible madness? Nothing less. He directly pitcheth upon the Church Representative in a general Council, WITHOUT the Pope; I mean, without the Pope as Head, or exceeding the bounds and limits of a patriarchical Bishop. I go not unto all things discussed or determinable in a Council, but rest upon that which is Fundamental. Nor do I resolve it as certum & de fide, or tender it unto others to be believed. I say no more but, I see no cause why I may not so resolve: and that also but upon suppositions, if the Council be truly GENERAL indeed: and of SUCH, none yet ever erred, that ever I yet read or observed, in Points Fundamental. And therefore I saw and see no cause but a man may say, Such a Council shall never err in Fundamentals.  
But concerning Fundamentals, if your stitch be against them, I answer with B. MORTON in his Appeal, THE belief of some Articles is so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a 
Page 443.  true Church, as a reasonable soul is for the essential being of a man. In such as these are, show me an error. Dr. 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 piece of an example in Antiquity, for a General Council erring in FUNDAMENTALS: and I am persuaded, no man living can instance it. Of such only do I speak, and in such only do I conceive infallibility: and so, as I conceive it, the promise of OUR SAVIOUR may and doth hold, HE shall lead 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 MIDST of them.  
The Church of England may seem to have been of a contrary mind in her determinations; and to have taught, and prescribed to be so taught, that such General Counsels, true and lawful, not only may err for possibility, but also have erred in reality. For Artic. XXI. we read thus: GENERAL Counsels may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, for as much as they be an Assembly of 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 GENERAL Counsels have erred: which cannot be understood of my limitation, Fundamentals; because there is no such Extat of any General Council, true and lawful. 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 appertain unto GOD, that are not of necessity unto salvation, both in practice and speculation. In these haply General Counsels have erred: in those other none can err. The Council of Nice determined the controversy of Easter: it was not Fundamental. 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 General Counsels, both for debating and deciding. I only spoke of the determination: wherein it may be possible they nor can, nor shall err, that may and have erred in the discussing. In that very Council of Nice, it was an Error in debating, though not fundamental, touching that yoke of single life, 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 prevail, as ever hitherto in such Counsels in those cases they have prevailed, against the greater part formerly resolved otherwise. Again, the Article speaketh of General Counsels indefinitely, without precisely determining which are General, which not; what is a General Council, what not: and so may and doth conclude reputed or pretended GENERAL Counsels, univocè GENERAL, though not exactly and truly indeed (such as was the Council of Ariminum) whereof I did not so much as intend to speak; my speech being limited with true and lawful: 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 plainly delivered in HOLY SCRIPTURE: for such are the Fundamental points of our Faith. And that it is so, the ensuing words of the Article do insinuate; Things necessary unto Salvation, must be taken out of SCRIPTURE alone. COUNSELS have no such over-awing power and authority, as to tie men to Believe, upon pain of Damnation, without express 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 doubtful issue: our Fundamentals are no such. COUNSELS are supposed not to exceed their commission, which warranteth them to debate and determine questions and things litigiosi status. If they do not hoc agere sincerely, if they shall presume to make laws without warrant, and new articles of Faith (who have no farther authority than to interpret them) laws without GOD'S word, that shall bind the conscience, and require obedience upon life and death; our Church will not justify their proceedings, nor do I. Non debet se Ecclesia CHRISTO praeponere, cum ille semper veraciter judicet; Ecclesiastici autem judices sicut homines, plerunque 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 explain myself. Nor doth that principal place of all make against me, which is in him contra Donatistas', concerning the erring of General Counsels: Et ipsa Concilia, quae per singulas regiones & provincias 
Lib. 2. cap. 3.  fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati, quae siunt ex universo Christiano orbe, cedunt; ipsaque plenaria saepè priora à posterioribus emendantur: cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod clausum er at; & cognoscitur, quod latebat. For he taketh Counsels in a general acception, as it is plain by him: and he speaketh not of Fundamental points of Faith; as both the cause itself argueth, and his assigning of better information in tract of time, to direct consequent Counsels in determining contrary to precedent. who, for any thing he saith to the contrary, might have truly determined, as things then stood. To conclude, this Information is a mere cavil. De tali Concilio, & saniori parte, & conclusionibus in fide, probabile est. No more.    

CHAP. III.  
Strange accusations. Antiquity reverenced, not Deified. Fathers accused of some error by Jesuits. The occasion of their enlarged speeches concerning freewill. The Author acquitted of Popery.  

INFORMERS.  
Again, speaking of the Fathers in general, he professeth his opinion to be, that Those worthy Lights did not any way fail; nor did darkness possess their clear understandings. CHAP. XVI. pag. CXIII. The which is a saying more Popish than learned Papists durst ever affirm.   

MOUNTAGU.  
NAy more sottish than any Puritan, but yourselves, would ever quarrel. Malice and Ignorance, whither wilt thou? As if M. MOUNTAGU had affirmed, that no Father ever Erred in any point whatsoever. Master's Informers, you may go range this calumny under some other head: for Popery will not admit nor entertain it. No ignorant Papist, less learned than yourselves, 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 awful regard, and reverend respect unto Antiquity than he doth, yet never did he so dote upon them. It is more than ever entered into the compass 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 MAKER'S seat. It belongeth not to these Ancients, but to the Ancient of Days, not to Err. And so much M. MOUNTAGU had expressed in that former passage of his pen: Take them at large, and they lavish so far sometimes, that the greatest Patrons of the power and efficacy of freewill, dare not join 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 darkness possessed their clear understanding. Now, you Promoters, could your Christian charity be so defective; or your common wit, sense, or understanding at so low an ebb; or your honesty so little or none at all, as out of these premises so laid together, to infer so mishapen a calumny, that M. MOUNTAGU Delivered and Published this Error, that the Fathers, none of them, either did or could Err at all? as if he had erected to himself a new frame and fabric of Popery, never heard of in the world. Whatsoever became of their Lights and Understandings, deep Malice possessed your malignant Passions, thus shamelessly to slander him with indeed more than the grossest Popery. Thus it is; M. MOUNTAGU speaketh not of all the Fathers in general, nor of their opinions in any one point, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but only of their opinion in and concerning freewill, who have meddled with, and written about freewill. This then is the first untruth by false suggestion fastened on him. Secondly, he professeth plainly, that in and concerning this point of freewill, those Fathers did so far outlavish; and speak sso inlargedly, that the very JESUITS, post mot a certamina PELAGIANA, for fear 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 Appeal, to be according to the confession of most learned Papists; SIXTUS Senensis, 
Pag. cc1.  MALDONATE, TOLET, and PERERIUS. His words are, that In the root of the doctrine of freewill, chrysostom, CYRILL, THEOPHYLACT, EUTHYMIUS, OECUMENIUS, AMMONIUS, and most of others, especially in the Greek Church, did yield too much unto the power of Nature in the freewill of man. These terms are far 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 me 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 JESUITS (than whom, scarce were ever three more eminent in the Society) do not excuse or acquit them, but accuse them rather for going so far in applauding of freewill. In this point it is plain, my meaning was, that their Understandings were not so darkened, as their words at first apprehension may seem to import, to err so grossly in the point as they seem to do: nor did then and in that particular, those worthy Lights of the Church of GOD, fail 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 Pelagianism. For things must be 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 express it) yet your dullest Readers would have observed it, had there been in you so much ingenuity as to have added that, which ensueth in M. MOUNTAGU, thus: That they being to deal against fatal Necessity, urged by many PATNIMS, Philosophers in those days; as also against the execrable impiety of the MANICHEES, they extended the power of freewill 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 Natural powers, beyond degree of Power, and of Possibility. In effect, M. MOUNTAGU, as touching freewill here in this case, hath said the same, and no more but the same, that before him Bishop MORTON did in his Appeal, pag. CCII THE occasion of this difference we learn to have been a whirlwind of contrary Heresies, wherewith, in those days, the Church of GOD was miserably afflicted. Then the MANICHEES, and before them the STOICAL CHRISTIANS, had taught an absolute fatal Necessity of every man's Actions, thereby taking from man the guilt of sin: For the overthrow of which pestilent Heresy, as is confessed concerning S. chrysostom, some FATHERS did contrarily yield 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 Orthodoxal Defence. Just to an hair, up and down 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 self same case with him?    

CHAP. IU.  
Private and public doctrine differenced. In what sense the Church is said to be always visible. The Author acquitted from Popery again by others, learned Divines. Of the Church of Rome.  

INFORMERS.  
HE calleth the doctrine of the INVISIBILITY of the Church, a private opinion; no doctrinal decision, nor to be imputed unto the resolved doctrine of the Protestants. Nusquam est, saith he, quoth nun quam videtur. CHAP. V. pag. XLVIII. And again, pag. L. Moderate men on both sides do confess, that this controversy may cease.   

MOUNTAGU.  
MY words were only these; It may be, some private opinions have run upon Invisibility of the Church. But since you put me to it, if there be any such doctrine as you speak of, it is a private opinion; and I will now say expressly, I hold that doctrine a PRIVATE opinion: yet then and there I did not ponere, that any had so said in terminis; or run that way, but only with restriction, by a May-be of concession: that some men, singular from the doctrine of the Church, in their own private opinions, had fallen upon, and supported an invisibility. Now every man, but yourselves, knows that the doctrine of a Church, Public 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 strain. ARTIC. XIX. touching the Church thus we read: The VISIBLE CHURCH of CHRIST is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of GOD is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, etc. Where Church and Visible are convertible terms. That doctrine then, to which you should, and would seem to have subscribed, talketh of no invisible, but a visible Church; tendereth no Invisibility. And it is a Position drawn out from thence, and published, that there is a Church of CHRIST, not only 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 Catholic Church. So the Church is visible, and the Church is invisible: both which I believe and profess, distinctly taken, and as it ought to be 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 be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the secret, hidden, the reserved Ones of GOD, Psal. LXXXIII. IV. as jewels of price, of value, of account. I do also believe and profess 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 itself, entire, at no one time. Nothing visible in the amplest manner 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 be, 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 Catholic. The Devil never did, nor ever shall, so far and fully prevail against GOD and GOD'S Kingdom, as to effect or procure such an absolute desolation. And so is it true (for of this only restrainedly I spoke), Non est, quod nusquam videtur; not generally true, I grant, and without limitation. There ever was, and will be ever, upon earth a visible Church some where or other, with visible cognisances, marks and signs to be discerned by, such as be assigned by the XIX. Article; to which men may repair to hear GOD'S Word; where Sacraments are ministered, 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 remembered, in which and by which it may appear, 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, Spain, and Rome, there hath not ceased to be a Church there. And if in any of these places, or all these places, the Church should cease or not be visible, yet would it be still visible otherwhere, though not ever alike, nor to like purpose. Again, I do call those Some men's doctrines in this point, Private Opinions: and so well may I do, in respect of the disinvalidity and disproportion of them; being private men's opinions, and no public proposals or resolutions of the Church. I call them not so in regard of paucity of proposers: for they may be many, a strong, potent, prevailing party that thus opine, and run a course to themselves in their own Tenants, against or beside public, enacted and authorized doctrine. And yet even private opinions also are against you. That worthy Divine, my dear friend while he lived, D. RI. FIELD, lib. 111. pag. XIX. saith, It cannot be, but they are the true Church, must, by profession of the truth, make themselves known, 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 do make open and public profession of their Faith, in such sort, that by their practice and profession they may be known and distinguished from other men. And therefore that learned man rightly resolveth, That BELLARMINE laboureth in vain to prove, that there is, 
Page 11.  and always hath been, 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 yield unto, howsoever perhaps SOME FEW have been of ANOTHER OPINION. Mark, my good Informers, D. FIELDS Popery to the purpose; and with all D. HUMFREY'S, another 
jesuit. 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, unless yourselves be, 
Synop. pag. 69.  saith, that The ONLY absence of word and Sacraments do 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 administered, in a Church Invisible? The L. Bishop of LICHFIELD hath as much Popery in this point as M. MOUNTAGU hath. In his Appeal thus he writeth. Now Protestant's and Romanists do concarre in words, 
Page 661.  and almost in sense. 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 JEWEL of his time, hath uttered these express words: The general or outward Church of GOD is VISIBLE, and may 
Pag. 361.  be seen; in his Defence against HARDING. And this Doctrine is sufficiently and to this purpose explained by that right worthy and learned Deane, Dr. WHITE, in his just Defence of his deceased Brother; against the cavils of a jesuit. And he that hath read more Papists than ever you have heard of, concludeth thus; Whereunto our learned adversaries for the greater part agree. Great Ignorance than it must be, or malice, or faction, or all, that by the Information of these poor Divines, M. MOUNTAGU is promoted for a Papist, for saying, that with moderate men on both sides, this Controversy 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 adays: as with the jesuit and jesuited Papist, such as be by far the major part of that side, every man is an Heretic, a Lutherens, a Calvinist, I know not what, that is not a desperate Papist, to go unto the Devil with 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 ARMINIANISM, POPERY, and what not? unless he will be frantic with them for their Holy Cause. Yet well fare BELLARMINE, a man of a better spirit than some of the paternity, 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 CARLISLE, of late against FISHER, saith the same; It is but lost labour, to spend time in proving against us, that there is always 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 Fellows are and ever will be; I know what. I could have produced many more to purpose, and amongst them divers whom they will not cast off for Papists; as M. PERKINS, M. CLAPHAM, D. SPARKS, etc. I will yet add a little more Popery 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 been 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 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.    

CHAP. V. Touching ANTICHRIST.  
The Pope and Prelacy of Rome Antichristian. That he is Magnus ille Antichristus, is neither determined by the public doctrine of the Church, nor proved by any good argument of private men. Difference among Divines, who The Man of sin should be. The marks of the great Antichrist fit the Turkish Tyranny every way, aswell as the Papacy. The peace of the Church not to be disquieted through variety of Opinions. No final Resolution to be yet had in this point.  

INFORMERS.  
COncerning ANTICHRIST, thus he writeth: I profess 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 profess so much, that I am not of that opinion, as indeed I am not? I was occasioned to show my opinion in the point by the Gagger, who charged our Church in general 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 disclaim it. That I could not do, without wronging the Church and myself: therefore I thought it an honest man's part, ingenuously to profess what I thought. Sure it would be more pleasing unto GOD, and commendable with men, if yourselves and such Halfers in opinions, omnium horarum homines for your private ends, would openly avow what covertly you conceal; and publicly profess that, in which animitùs, being rotten at the Core, you are dissentients indeed from the Church of England: than to be and call yourselves 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 profess so much? you may for your part profess 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 talk of my opinion in Pulpits: will you say as much for your opinion? I think not I know nay. For your opinions must be all THE LORDS HOLY TRUTH. I am not any 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 uncertain 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 me, in such points of no assurance, because I do not subscribe unto you? I am not tied unto you, more than you to me. Who concluded it, but yourselves, to be flat Popery, not to Believe or Preach that the Pope is that Antichrist? or to profess the contrary, that he is not that Antichrist? Who can find 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 penalty 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 zeal, no doubt, against that insolent, and insufferable, and outrageous Tyranny 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 SIN, and SON OF PERDITION. The Synod of GAP in France made it a point of their Belief, and concluded it peremptorily to be so. And let them and you believe it so, if you will. Their inducements do not convince or persuade me. I never yet saw proof or argument brought, that was persuasive; much less that was demonstrative in the case. I never yet met with argument or reason to the point, but, at least to my own satisfaction, I was able to answer it. If you can give better, I am like to yield. Till then, there being no conviction nor compulsion in foro externo or interiori, I would gladly know why it should not be as lawful for me 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 think one way: I am of another mind; 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 mind), out of violent and transported passion, no doubt, thus; I am as well assured, and as throughly persuaded, that the POPE is THAT ANTICHRIST, as I am resolved, JESUS CHRIST was the Son of GOD; or to that purpose: for I have not now the book by me. 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 do not deny it: I do believe it. These honest Informers should not so have dealt with me, as by a knack of concealment 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 only upon the Brinks, but have come much within the Verge of flat Popery: and not injuriously, as now, have been slandered for, and styled a Papist. For that imputation might more than grate upon an universal approving of the total doctrine of the Church of Rome; in as much as there were of old, are now, and always will be, many Antichrists: and he that any way opposeth CHRIST in his Kingdom, his Word, his Church, is an Antichrist; which, as ingenuously as the former, I profess the Pope and the Church of Rome doth. And therefore, when out of my private opinion only (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 withal, AN Antichrist notwithstanding I hold him or them, carrying themselves in the Church as they do. Which Passage and Proposition had been sufficient, with men not partially addicted unto a Side, and maliciously bend to calumniate an Opposite, as it is too manifest my Informers be, to have discharged me 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 main, the question on foot, Whether the Pope of Rome, or the Popes of Rome, either are, or may be accounted, or is THAT Antichrist, or Antichrists, my irresolution grew, as I have remembered, from the much insufficiency of their proofs that tender it stoutly, strongly, affectiovately, 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 tendered as a Prophecy; and therefore a Mystery sealed up, obscure, not manifested, nor to be understood, but by evident and plain event, without divine revelation. How then (these are the very words of Bishop MORTON in excuse of the Father's concerning their erring in this very case of ANTICHRIST) can ignorance of those things which cannot possibly be understood before the time of their accomplishment in the last days, be held prejudicial unto the wisdom of the Fathers of former times? I may add 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 do not determine or resolve, that the Pope is THAT Antichrist remembered in the Scripture: and yet none of them have hitherto at any time been styled or reputed Papists, no not by Puritanical Opposites. The Scriptures, as is apparent, do in this question propose us two persons: AN Antichrist, one with many; THE Antichrist, one eminent above all. All, and every one that oppugneth or opposeth CHRIST and his Kingdom, his Word and Doctrine, is an Antichrist. So was SIMON MAGUS, ELYMAS, MENANDER, the NICOLAITANS, and other Heretics abroad, and risen up in the very Apostles times: of whom S. JOHN himself said, And now are many Antichrists. These are all, more or less, Antichrists, as their opposition is more or less unto CHRIST and his Kingdom, 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 SIN, THE SON OF PERDITION. Concerning him; not them, there is diversity of judgements, discrepancy of opinion among Divines both old and new. First, some of the ancient Fathers, and most of the Writers in the present Church of Rome, understand the prophetical prediction of, and apply it unto one singular individual man only, and no otherwise; and him to be an Heretic in opinion, extremely and with all vehemency opposing the saving truth of GOD; prodigiously impious, and beyond measure: who shall by all signs and wonders, with main force and opposition, set himself against CHRIST JESUS and his Kingdom, towards the later end of the world, not long before the day of Doom. Other Divines, as namely the major part of Protestant Writers, not all, understand the prophecy and prediction, not of any one man or singular person so much, as of any heretical, wicked, tyrannical State and Polity, directly opposing the Kingdom, State and Doctrine of CHRIST JESUS. But here is some difference among them. For there are, that by Antichrist do understand MAOMET, or the Turkish State and Tyranny erected against CHRIST and Christians directly; and the Pope and Papacy 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 do make one conjoined opposition unto JESUS CHRIST, and his truth in Spiritualibus. And although that externally, and in regard of Civil Policy, they differ, and do 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 Gospel, his Kingdom 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 only the Bishop of Rome: which is, it seemeth, the opinion, or rather faith and belief, 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 men think it an honour to call CALVINISTS. I say not of all: for ZANCHIUS, ZEGEDINUS, GRYNAEUS, and FAIUS of Geneva himself, are not so yet persuaded. For my own private opinion, I said, and so I say still, Though I cannot, nor yet will swear unto either, being but probable and conjectural, yet I rather incline unto the more moderate and temperate Tenent; and rather of the two embrace that, The Turkish and Popish State, not several but conjoined, and opposite unto CHRIST, though several ways, do 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 Turk by much, than the Pope; rather the MAOMETAN iniquity, than the HILDEBRANDINAN impiety; at least wise as much every way: because the Signs, 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 do the Popes, in their State and Government ad oppositum.  
First, in Apostasy they are both interessed: both are departed away; but rather the Turk than the Pope is enteressed. For whether we take that Apostasy to be a departing away from CHRIST, and his Kingdom, and his Doctrine, MAOMET himself apostated, drew away his Followers and Sectaries, sometime CHRISTIANS: and so they continue yet unto this day Reprobates, Renegadoes, Apostates, Deniers of that faith which sometime they did profess. The Churches of Asia, those seven unto which S. JOHN sometime wrote; those which S. PAUL planted, and which APOLLO'S watered; where S. PETER, S. ANDREW, and the rest preached; those many 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 mark and stamp of the Beast: Or whether we understand Apostasy and defection from the Roman Empire, the Turk is enteressed as much, or more than the Pope. both are grown great through the ruins thereof; but rather the Turk than the Pope. Indeed, both from the Sceptre of CHRIST and the Roman Empire is this Apostasy: and so the signs, marks, and tokens hold on either side; but upon due examination, rather upon the Turk than the Pope as yet.  
Then for Deceiving signs and wonders; howsoever that cognizance holdeth in the Papacy and Sea of Rome, we are assured out of Story, that MAOMET took that course to beguile the simple, to insinuate into the fancies of his deceived Proselytes, and to make himself esteemed a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being a false Prophet, a Deceiver, a teacher of lies, in regard of GOD and CHRIST. Such he pretended, he desired to be accounted, so he was esteemed 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 we 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 Roman Empire, was in the sixth Centurie. and jerusalem was taken in by HOMAR, successor unto MAOMET, near about the year DCLXVI. The name of MAOMET written in the Greek, that tongue in which S. JOHN wrote, and to which he had reference, doth make up that Number unto an hair, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much insisted upon, thus; 40 I 70 40 5 300 10 200 μ α ο μ ε τ ι σ in all DCLXVI.  
Fourthly, as the Learned have made observation, the word TURCA, the name of the chief Prince of Gog and Magog, doth signify the same that doth Apollyon and Abaddon: which is a Name ascribed and fastened unto that man of Sin in holy writ.  
Fiftly, the Turkish MAOMETANS of these days, and so the SARACENS of old are the grand professed enemies of CHRISTIANS, Christianity, CHRIST, quà tales; for that Name, that Profession, that Religion, make war against hate, detest, persecute Christians with all hostility, calling themselves interim Musulmans, that is, the right Believers: so that religion is openly pretended for hostility.  
Furthermore, yet MAOMET personally, as a private man and a false Prophet, was truly and indeed a man of Sin: not only for his moral parts in his loose licentiousness, lewd carriage, abominable life, impiety, improbity, and impurity every way unto the highest; but in his ALCORAN, that execrable Law of his damned Sect, he commendeth and tendereth unto, not only alloweth and tolerateth in, his Sectaries, all filthy carnal pleasures and prostitutions. and in reward of such a life, a semblable recompense also after death, in a Paradise of that vaure, abounding withal beastlike brothelries.  
Seventhly, he directly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without more ado, thrusteth himself into the room, place, state, and office of CHRIST. He exalteth himself 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 Monarches of the earth; calling themselves in their highswelling styles, Lords of Lords, GOD of the earth, etc. as is to be seen in the Letters of SOLYMAN, AMURATH, and others, challenging absolute, irresistible, incontrouleable power to set up, pull down, 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 be received of all as the Message of GOD, being nothing but a TYROTARICHON and hotchpotch of errors, fables, lies, impieties, impurities, blasphemies, derived from, and made up out of jewish, Paganish, Manichean, Arian, heresies, religion, and superstition. He commendeth it unto his Followers, as coming down from heaven, by the ministry of his familiar and old acquaintance, the Angel GABRIEL. He preferreth it before the Law, the Gospel, all, or any Word of GOD. He threateneth torments eternal unto the despisers of it; and unto the observers promiseth his carnal Paradise, abounding with all sensual delights and carnal pleasures: and to conclude, as in effect in despite of GOD, conculcating and trampling under foot whatsoever is named GOD, advanceth his own (blasphemous reprobate and forlorn miscreant as he is) divine power and authority forsooth, in the Devil's name, above all things whatsoever in heaven and earth. If these be not certain signs 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 jerusalem and the Land of promise, that pleasant Land and holy City. HOMAR, the successor of MAOMET, took it: and since it hath been a nest of unclean birds, in the hands of those barbarous blasphemous miscreants, except for some few years under the French. The jews, when MAOMET first declared himself, came flocking unto him, as unto their MESSIAS; the sooner and rather, because he was circumcised, as be all of his Sect at this day, receiving in their flesh the mark, 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 enterprise.  
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 Obits and Anniversary for him there; made it meritorious to visit his Sepulchre, to undertake Pilgrimages unto his Relics: which religion and custom continueth yet unto this day. And yet more: The same HOMAR, having after two years' siege taken in jerusalem, 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 jewish Temple, SOPHRONIUS, the then Patriarch of jerusalem, 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 greeks, sat him down, and made his Palace in the Cathedral Church of SAN SOPHIA; and in the Close and Cloisters, the Bishops and Priests lodgings thereabout, where is his Seraglios unto this day. Part of that large and admirablest piece of work, one of the wonders of the world, the Church of SAN SOPHIA, namely, the Chancel of that Church, where stood the High Altar or Communion-Table, and patriarchal Throne, is now made, and so used as a Turkish Moschie: whither the GRAND SIGNIOR also himself 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, the Church of the Redeemed by the blood of JESUS, because he 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 Less and the More, Graecia, Thracia, and many other Countries; Those Churches, all but one, to which Saint PAUL wrote. Those in the Revelation he hath removed, put out, cast off, their Candle and Candlestick, bereft them of their spiritual life in CHRIST, of the power of his Kingdom in preaching the Gospel; hath set the mark of the Beast upon them, circumcised them in their flesh, taught them to blaspheme, and to open their mouths against the GOD of heaven. He maketh and ever hath made war 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 profess the Name and Faith of CHRIST; that they acknowledge the Only true GOD, and Him whom GOD hath sent, CHRIST JESUS, the Saviour and Redeemer of all mankind; and because they detest those execrable blasphemies of that false Prophet and man of sin against GOD, against CHRIST, and true Religion; seeking by all means to make them, as they speak, Musulmans, that is, to deny CHRIST JESUS, and to go to hell. And for this cause, one amongst many, he extremely tyrannizeth upon their bodies and temporal states: a note of ANTICHRIST to do so. but in more cruel and wretched sort upon their souls, especially in that his barbarous and unheard of Tribute of CHRISTIANS children every third year, or as occasion serveth oftener or seldomer, to be violently rest away from their Parents, from their GOD, Redeemer, Religion, hope of Salvation, and everlasting life, to become the Eunuches in his Seraglios, worse than those in the Court of the King of Babylon; his janissaries, Spahies, Beglerbegs, and Bashaes', the public means 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 himself the Founder; had in Church and Commonwealth, in both States, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every way equalled privileges with the elder Rome; Senators, and one of the yearly 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 Imperial City then when MAOMET that false Prophet and Antichrist arose, as well as Rome, indeed rather than Rome, since the time that CONSTANTINE, to the great advantage of barbarous nations, enemies unto the Roman State, translated the state of the Empire thither. And lastly, this great and Imperial CITY, bearing rule over the Kings of the earth, is likewise, as well as ROME, seated upon seven hills, at or near unto the Sea: indeed in a Foreland or Landstreight where two Seas meet; the only Seat in the world for an Imperial See. For which cause it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by NICETAS, The City with seven tops; Vrbs septicollis, by PAULUS DIACONUS: so acknowledged by JANUS DOUZA a Gentleman of the Netherlands in his journal; 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 seem 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 Kingdom or State opposite unto the State and Kingdom of CHRIST and Christians. which respectu finis may be accounted one in opposition against GOD and CHRIST; though the means of effecting it be many, different and divers: Turkism one way may oppose CHRIST, as it doth, vi apertâ, by fiery force; and Ropery be ad oppositum another way, fraud and insidijs, as it is. In which respect, as DANIEL may well tell us of one horn; so S. JOHN remembreth a Beast with two Horns: MAOMET in the East, the POPE in the West; both Horns 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 final consummation of the world; who in fradulent, colluding, malicious craftiness, in impious, execrable and transcendent wickedness, through heretical impostures and lying miracles, shall go beyond all other that ever lived in the world, and be fitted with all signs and marks of Antichrist unto the full, so as no exception can be taken against any in any one point. Surely if the General of the Jesuits Order should once come to be Pope, & sit in PETER'S chair, as they call it, I would vehemently suspect him to be the party designed: for out of what nest that accursed bird should rather come abroad, than out of that Seraphical Society, I cannot guess; and but guess. For in resolution, I say with that JEWEL of England in pag. CCCXCIII. I will not say the POPE is ANTICHRIST. GOD will reveal him in his time, and he shall be known: yet is it probable, he may be of that rank. I will not say the TURK is Antichrist; though it be probable, that Antichrist may come from thence; the Turks power being increased and enlarged by the Pope's policy, as the same B. JEWEL 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 final resolutions. For my part, I desire not to contest with any man about them; nor would I willingly have men's minds, or the peace of the Church disquieted with them. It is an evil 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 be of my mind. There is a Rule of faith; we acknowledge it, commend it, and have recourse unto it. Things that are strait 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 doubtful standing, these need application, and are applied confessedly by the perpetual practice and tradition of the Catholic Church in consent of Fathers. We apply things doubtful unto Scripture, our Norma, and exact and absolute 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. JOHN'S acceptance: There are many Antichrists. But whether he be THAT Antichrist or not, I dare not presume to determine, without special warrant in such a case. If you have any special illumination, or assurance by divine revelation, or rather strong persuasion through affection, much good may it do you: keep it to Yourselves: press it not on others, that in such cases desire sapere ad sobrietatem, rather than resolve without good warrant.    

CHAP. VI Touching JUSTIFICATION.  
The state of a mere natural man; who, to please GOD, must become a new creature. That newness cannot be wrought without a real change of a sinner in his qualities. In what sense it may be said, that there is an Access of justification, both by daily receiving remission of new sins, and by increase of grace, in joining virtuous and good deeds unto Faith.  

INFORMERS.  
TOuching justification, thus he writeth: A sinner is then justified when he is made just, 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 forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace infused secondarily. CHAP. XVIII. pag. CXLII.   

MOUNTAGU.  
AND this, all this, in general, in particular, is our Informers Popery. Strange Popery. Of what religion are you, M. Informers, YATES and WARD? For in Christian Religion a man is and may be considered two ways, as I also have considered him, according unto a twofold state: The state of nature, to which he was form; and the state of grace, to which he is reform: as he was in ADAM, depraved and lost; as he is in CHRIST JESUS, sought out, found, and healed of his maladies. In his Being, Subsisting, and Constitution, every man is first a natural man: in that state standing, he pleaseth not GOD. He can do 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 cord; quòd omne figmentum cordis corum pravum sit à primis annis; quòd vanae sint corum cogitationes, etc. 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 mere carnal and natural 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, Agent in them. And why not accepted? Because he is unclean. GOD is of pure eyes: he 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 he 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 he calleth every 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 approvable or approved. This is not, cannot be, he continuing statu quo, a natural 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 he may be fully and thoroughly accepted with GOD; that himself first, and then his works, may please GOD, there must (as I conceive) be a 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 mind, nor any new creature, nor any translating from darkness to light, etc. without alteration; without destruction of the first, and privation of former Being, and induction of the second; without abolishing of the body of sin, and induction of the Spirit of righteousness. Man cannot possible pass from one state unto another, without ceasing to be what he was, and becoming what he was not before. If it can be done otherwise, good Sirs let me know 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 conceit, 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 child of wrath becometh the child of GOD, renewed in the spirit of his mind (as what child can or will deny or doubt of that?), than this alteration must needs be inter terminos; as I think all mankind, beside yourselves, will confess and acknowledge with me, out of grounds and experiments of even natural reason. A sick man, recovered, is changed in state and habitude of body, disease, and disposition; ceasing to be what he was, becoming what he was not. When of a sick man he became whole and sound, his change was from Sickness to Health: and this his changing was Motion. the terms betwixt which, Sickness and Health. A dead man reviving (as the widow's SON of Naim, or LAZARUS quadriduanus raised out of his grave) is changed in state, constitution, etc. when of a dead man he becometh a living. Natural 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 Righteousness, heirs of promise, coheirs 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, doubtless 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, but you are justified, in the name of our Lord JESUS 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, quam est sine CHRISTO peceator. Here is a change admitted: from Being so and so; to Subsisting thus, and thus, betwixt terms. 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. Just 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 compliment of the Act, I must confess my own dulness, 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 mass 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 deny mutation to be betwixt two Terms; or that in the justified Sinner there is mutation 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 be 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 forgiveness of sins 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 being to wipe off that odious Popish imputation, of which I shall speak anon, in their calumniating our doctrine of justification: which because these Informers either could not, or would not understand, I shall endeavour to speak somewhat more plainly and fully out unto their ears.  
JUSTIFICATION, as I said, is deduced of justifico; 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 increase and augmentation of justification. Apoc. XXII. XI. Qui justus est justificetur, by new access of GOD'S grace, and progress in course of righteousness every day more and more. Remissio peecati facit, ut Sanctit as incheate vires acquirat & r●●oretur; for the declaration of the Act of justification upon man as where S. JAMES saith, ABRAHAM was justified by works 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 judge, to speak 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 we are justified alone. If this be 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 justification 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 believe, that when sins are pardoned by GOD, GOD doth not change the mind of the sinner neigh that yet destroyeth in him the blot and body of sin; but that the same remaining in the soul of man, in like manner 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 we, saith that most learned and judictions D. WHITE, truly are Forre from this absund opinion. how far? how 
Pa. ib. in Def.  so? for we teach saith he, that together with the Action of GOD remitting sin, concurreth another Action of divine grace, enabling man to forsake and mortify every greater sin, which GOD hath pardoned. And M. PERKINS observeth, that many among us do not hold CHRIST, or believe in him aright for their justification, because they hold him without change of heart and life: for by S. PAUL'S conclusion, whom CHRIST quickeneth, them he justifieth; and whom he doth not quicken, he doth not justify. 
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 cited to that purpose: BERNARD saith, Sins are not only pardoned, but the gift of sanctity is conferred. and chrysostom saith, Delivering us from sin, he engrafteth righteousness; yea, he extinguisheth sin, and doth not suffer it to be. Sin in the soul, is as a leprosy in the body. Now, as when NAAMAN was restored by washing in jordan, his leprosy was removed, and his flesh restored to that natural health, vigour, and beauty it had: so when GOD pardoneth sin, he removeth away the guilt thereof by free pardon, and conferreth grace, to the destroying of sin, and healing of the foul. 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, 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. justificati sumus, & ipsa iustitia cum proficimus crescit, & quomodo crescit, dicam; & vobiscum, quodammodo, conferam, ut unusquisque 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 JAMES 2. Si tantum credis, & sine spe vivis, vel dilectionem non habes, & Daemons credunt & contremiscunt. A new life needs then must be conjoined with justification. And this is the express doctrine of D. WHITAKERS: Remissio peccatorum facit, ut Sanctitas in nobis inchoetur. and of CALVIN himself, who will have men to be taught this doctrine: Doceantur 
Lib. de reform. Ecclesiae.  homines fieri non pass, ut justi censecutur CHRISTI merito, quin renoventur eius spiritu in sanctam vitam: frustraque grataitâ DEI adoptione gloriari omnes, in quibus spiritus regenerationis non habitat. Denique nullos à DEO ricipi in gratiam, qui non iusti quoque verè fiunt. Now, if a man at all times, when he is truly justified, be also sanctified, what offence can there be, to allow one common word to contain and express both these parts? But men that understand not the true state of things, but scum upon the surface, and take things up in gross, without due proportions, and come with prejudicated malice, to lay hold upon any thing for their own advantage; no marvel if they make strange Popery, and in indiscreet zeal cast forth they cannot tell what. CALVIN is not afraid, loco quo supra, to use the very term of INHERENT righteousness. Nunquam reconciliamur DEO, quin simul donemur JUSTITIA 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. JUSTIFICATION is taken two ways in Scripture; Strictè magis, and extensiuè Precisely, for remission of sins, by the only 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 himself, reconciled unto GOD, appointed to walk, and beginning to walk in holiness and in newness of life, Remission of sins, and imputation of CHRIST'S Righteousness, saith M. PERKINS, is justification. 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 blood. Which Act, Psal. XXXII. II. is called, Not imputing sin. When and where GOD doth so pardon, and not impute sin, he addeth unto it, out of his love, a seconding Act of divine mercy and grace, enabling man to abandon every mortal sin; those sins that do hang so fast on; that are more eminent, notorious, enormous, whose property is vastare conscientiam; to the amolishing of the whole body of sin, that it reign not in our mortal bodies: although that those delicta ordinariae incursionis, as TERTULLIAN nameth them, cannot so easily be 
De pudic. c. 19  put away. Have I unto you seemed to confound justification with Sanctification, if yet you know the difference between them? or have I ascribed, in your seeming, any act of Sanctification unto justification? You may be pleased to remember, that I went not most punctually to work, but è re natâ to confute the Gagger, described justification at large: never suspecting, that any professed enemies of Popery, as you would seem to be, would so captiously have perverted my true sense and meaning; my words, at least my passage being warranted by YOUR own Dictator's, CALVIN, PERKINS, BEZA. For justificationis nomen largè accipio, saith BEZA; and imagine them to be my words, ut complectitur quicquid à CHRISTO consequimur, tam per Imputationem, quam per Spiritus in nobis Sanctificationem, Annotat in Tit. 111. ver. VII. and in Opusc. To. 11. pa. DCLXXVII. Otherwise be it known unto your Mastership's, that I believe, justification in strictness of terms is neither Regeneration, nor Renovation, nor Sanctification; but a certain Action in GOD, applied unto us, or a certain respect or relation whereby we are pardoned and acquitted of our sins, 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 hereafter.    

CHAP. VII.  
A change made in a justified man. The Author agreeth in part with the Council of Trent, and therefore maintaineth Popery, no necessary illation. The doctrine of the Church of England, and of other reformed Churches, in this point of justification.  

INFORMERS.  
ANda little after: In the state of grace a man is just, when he is changed. Which change must have concurrence of two things: Privation of Being to that which was, The body of sin; and secondly, a new constitution unto GOD in another estate. In which, he that is altered in state, changed in condition, transformed in mind, renewed in soul, regenerate & borne anew unto GOD by grace, is just, in the state of justification; ceasing to be what he was becoming what he was not before. In this main point he acordeth fully with the Council 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.  
HERE now at length we have some, though very poor show of a just and formal accusation: the rest are but mere calumniations. For here is a charge of delivering Popery, and maintaining it; and withal an advancing of that charge, by pretending some seeming proof, in a threefold branch: 1. of According fully with the Council 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 brief of all the former suggestion: such an one as maketh me believe, that these informations were not gathered by any Scholars or Divines, but subscribed unto unadvisedly, and collected by some other at odds with his own little or frantic wits: for who can conceive, that a just and unjust, a carnal and spiritual man should be the same? that one regenerate, and reform in the spirit of his mind, should be the same that he was before? that a live man should be dead? I confess 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 change; the Thief upon the Cross, no other man, than when he robbed and killed upon the highway. Was he called, justified, saved? then sure he was changed. Had he not been changed from what he formerly was, he had not entered into Paradise with our SAVIOUR. He, 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 hear him to speak of righteousness inhabiting in our hearts, by grace diffused from the HOLY GHOST; of a progress in a new course of life, from grace to grace, from perfection unto perfection: which is not a fantasy, but real. 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 remembered already, he calleth it a resurrection from death to life; and no resurrection, but supposeth change: when this mortal shall have put on immortality, and this corruptible shall have put on incorruption: which is indeed the work of the right hand of the 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 withal. But why go I about to prove, that there is Motion, unto those that agree not upon common Principles? or bring proofs to ANAXAGORAS, for The snow is white, who would not suffer himself to be persuaded so? nay, because he was otherwise by preconceit persuaded, he said it did not so much as seem white unto him. YOUR opinions are your own: you will opine what formerly you have thought. So do for me, 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 conform our Faith unto your thoughts, or we shall hear of it on both our ears. For instance, at present; Odiously and maliciously you advance this accusation, to procure hate and envy unto the part and parties ad oppositum unto you. It is the Doctrine, you say, of the Council of Trent, and M. MOUNTAGU agreeth fully with that Council. But you mistake on each hand, and know not what you say. I do not agree fully, but only in part with the Council of Trent. And is it not possible to accord in something with the Council of Trent, and to be no Papist, nor maintain Popery? What say you to M. PERKINS in his Reformed Catholic, who professeth conformity in many and different points with them, and even in this point of justification? is HE a Papist? Even in your own understandings, though not much, there are some Decisions and Conclusions in that Council, which you will embrace as well as Papists do. 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 Council of Trent, he is therefore a Papist. That Council, 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 general 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 he was borne, the child of the first ADAM, unto the state of grace and adoption of the Sons of GOD, by the second ADAM, JESUS 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 heir of eternal life. Which is good Catholic Doctrine, non Romano, sed antiquo more; Christian and justifiable, if S. PAUL taught Catholic and Christian Doctrine, Rom. V. X. when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto GOD by the death of his Son: and being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And again, Heb. IX. XIV. For if the blood of Bulls 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 blood of CHRIST, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto GOD, purge your consciences from dead works, to serve the living God Can this be conceived without a change? GOD pardoneth sin in man, for the death and passion of CHRIST his Son; in that very act and instant imputing unto him the righteousness of CHRIST, that all-sufficient and wellpleasing sacrifice, for his justification. and doth he leave him there? his sins belike remaining still in being, as they were? himself indeed the very man he was before? or rather (as, perfect are the works of the mighty GOD, not done by halves, and to no purpose) doth he not also wash and cleanse his soul and conscience from dead works? doth he not wipe out his iniquities, when he cancelleth the band, and maketh him become another man? doth he not confer upon him of his grace, for the abolishing of the body of sin, and enabling the soul against the assaults of sin? TERTULLIAN compareth man in the state of Nature depraved, unto that Leprosy described Levit. XIII. where, as there is a change in the body made clean and whole from the leprosy, so violent and infectious; so doth he, and that justly, acknowledge the like in the cleansing and purifying of the soul: 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 witness. Scis, etc. 
Epist. 1.  quid detraxerit nobis, quidve contulerit, mors ista criminum, vita virtutum. which generally he had 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 dream of denying an alteration in state, condition, life, manners, unto a man that is justified. How could our Church do 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 JESUS CHRIST you which were far off, are made near by the blood of CHRIST? So here is variation of place and station; and an alteration also in state, ver. 19 Now you are no more strangers and foreigners, but citizens with Saints, and of the household of GOD. Not that only, but, Two made one. As if, saith CHRYSOSTOM, two statues were, the one of brass, 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 justify the Council of Trent farther than needs; they have not deserved it at the hands of any Protestants: but Truth is truth even from the Devil's mouth. And if they meant no otherwise than thus, as I conceive they did not, I see no reason to quarrel them, or descent from them.  
But yet one peg higher is this imputation strained; namely, that I not only agree with the Council 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, inform against me: spare not. In Morboniam all the Counsels of Trent in the world, if there were ten thousand of them. I forsake them all respectively: such regard and awful respect do I bear unto my Mother the CHURCH of England. You quote us the Homilies: but it is at random, as if you spoke it by Hearsay, having never read them; and no marvel: for I think you dis-repute them, as all of your Faction do. Serm. you say, of Salvation. There are three several Homilies, or, as you call them, Sermons, of that argument, with the Title of Salvation. In all of them, in any one of them, show 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 find what you intent. A mere 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 dreams of your Side: but I let them alone till opportune time. But in the second Sermon of Repentance, I find 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 do truly repent them of their sins, must be clean 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 public Popery of the Church, and go give yourselves the check for malice and indiscretion. And afterward, having instanced this doctrine in that memorable example of ZACHEUS' conversion from his evil way of covetousness and extortion, as a common Customer, the Homily concludeth with this Epiphonema concerning him thus: Here we see, that after his repentance he was no more the same man he had been before, but was clean CHANGED and altered. It was so far off, that he would continue and abide still in his unsatiable covetousness, or take aught away fraudulently from any man, that he was most ready and willing to give away his own. Go now, and challenge M. MOUNTAGU for his Popery upon like case, in like terms almost, delivered. In the state of grace a man is just (and a just man I hope none is, but he that is already justified) when he is changed. Which change of his consisteth in two things: Privation of Being to that which was formerly in a natural man, the body of sin; and A new constitution unto GOD in another state, namely, of holiness in life and conversation. I know well enough, what you are afraid of, what you would say, because you neither understand yourselves, nor me, that do not make this change the same with justification in the act; but an incident, instant, necessary consequent thereupon. Go then and befool yourselves, for confusedly opposing common sense and reason, and well known and confessed Divinity on all hands. No reasonable man will deny 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.  
Nor do Reform Churches descent or differ, as these Calumniators falsely 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 manner, I find it thus: Fide apprehenditur remissio Peccatorum; & quia per fidem accipitur SP. SANCTUS, jam corde renovantur, & induunt novos affectus: sic AMBROSE. Fides bonae voluntatis & justae actionis genitrix est. In the confession of Saxony more direct. In declaratione vocabuli justificari, usitatè dicitur, justificari significat ex injusto justum fieri; quod rectè intellectum, hic quoque 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 & regenerate a flat change. And in the Belgic Confession yet fuller: Credimus veram hanc Fidem unicuique nostrum inditam, nos regenerare, atque 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 vitam regenerari. Thus these Reformed Churches, and so all the rest, acknowledge a change in justified persons, by the grace of sanctification. I remembered before out of the Reverend and learned Deane of Carlisle, that we are far from that absurd opinion wherewith our adversaries charge us, that GOD in justification doth not change the mind. You, it seemeth, are none of those WE he speaketh of: for he meant it of the public 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 own, and consistorial fancies, it seemeth, thence derived: nor will you be freed from that absurd opinion, nor let the Church of England willingly be freed from it. For if a man list to believe you before that Learned Man (whose books the best amongst you is not worthy to follow, or carry after him) in justified persons there is no change.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Strange Popery. GOD only and properly justifieth.  

INFORMERS.  
PRoperly to speak, saith he, GOD only justifieth, who alone imputeth not, but pardoneth sin.   

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 denique ac haeredes vitae aeternae. Thus much the Helvetian Confession, against your former Information. Now followeth expressly 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 alleged against me, of Salvation? In the second Homily there I have read thus: justification is not the office of man, but the office of GOD. and again, justification is the office of GOD only; 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 only merits of his most dear beloved Son, our Lord, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and justifier, JESUS CHRIST. And yet it is Popery in M. MOUNTAGU, to have said and written, Properly to speak, GOD only justifieth; who alone imputeth not, but pardoneth sin. En quo vaecordia caecos! For yet moreover, is it not your own Belief and Profession (for which, if he should say otherwise, M. MOUNTAGU should be cried down Papist) that justification consisteth in Remission of sins? 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 again, Nos justificationem simpliciter interpretamur, acceptationem illam; quâ nos DOMINUS in gratiam receptos pro justis habet. Eamque in Peccatorum remissione ac justitiae CHRISTI imputatione positam esse dicimus. Sect. 2. to whom per omnia agreeth M. PERKINS in more places, than ten, defining justification to be an Act of GOD absolving, etc. And yet with you M. MOUNTAGU is a Papist for affirming, GOD only justifieth properly, when yourselves confess, that justification, at least properly, consisteth in Remission of sins: and that none can forgive sins properly but GOD. How this should hang together, I profess my ignorance, I cannot tell. For either justification, in your opinions, must not consist in forgiveness of sins; or else others, beside GOD, must have power of imputing or of not imputing sins. And here it is worth the while to observe, how these detractors do cross their own shins. 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 sins: and here he is a Papist, for saying, GOD only justifieth properly, when themselves will have justification to be merely forgiveness of Sins, and yet hold, that none doth or can forgive Sins but GOD. May I not say well, o vertiginem! In sober (and not in mad Puritanical) sadness, dare you say that some other beside GOD, some creature over and above GOD, can forgive Sins? This is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, in that Homily which you remember indeed, but can produce no testimony thence. Because all men be sinners (saith that Homily) and offenders against GOD, and breakers of his Laws and Commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, works, or else deeds, seem they never so good, be justified, and made righteous before GOD: but every man, of necessity, is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification. But where shall he find it? where is it to be 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 again in the second Homily of that argument, as is already remembered, justification 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 Belgic Confession. which is the POPERY of M. MOUNTAGU, as pleaseth these Great Masters in Israel, Liars against their own knowledge, in saying it contradicteth the Doctrine of the English Church. Or if this be not the thing they mean, what is it, That GOD imputeth not sins unto the justified? or that justification is not in pardoning, and not imputing sins? whereas the Papists do clamour against us for maintaining, that justification to be received at GOD'S hands, is forgiveness of sins and trespasses, in such things as he hath been offended in. I confess, I am a Papist if this be Popery, or else that which followeth after Remission of sins: against which they inform in the next place.    

CHAP. IX.  
Holiness of life added unto justification and Remission of sins. GOD justifieth originally, and Faith instrumentally.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
WHo can do this, but only GOD most high? It is a work of Omnipotency to create: they say it is a greater work to recreate. Where sin 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 sin is graciously and freely pardoned, there holy life and conversation doth est 'zounds ensue. This is the divinity that I have learned in our Protestant Schools, touching this point. And to my understanding it is observed and tendered by DAVID in Psal. L. X. Hide thy face from my sins, and put away all mine iniquities; which is Remission of sins. Then followeth, to make up a complete work, Create in me a clean heart, O LORD, and renew a right spirit within me: which to me seemeth an Infusion of Grace. And S. PAUL doth every where, after vocation unto, and acceptation of us with GOD, urge walking according unto vocation, in newness and in holiness 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 me said to justify instrumentally. That GOD justifieth causally, hath been suspected of Popery, and challenged therefore. Now that Faith justifieth instrumentally, cannot avoid the same imputation. And yet the main exception of all Papists against the doctrine of our Church, is, that we hold a man is justified by Faith: which must be originally or instrumentally. THAT we exclude with the forenamed Homilies. That we be justified by Faith in CHRIST only, is not, That this our own act to believe in CHRIST, or this our faith in CHRIST, which is within us, doth justify us: for that were to account ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue within ourselves. For, saith S. PAUL, Rom. VIII. XXXIII. It is GOD that justifieth. 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, we embrace the Promise of GOD'S mercy, and of Remission of sins: which acordeth with the traduced passage of M. MOUNTAGU, because GOD was drawn unto it by our Faith; which laying hold upon his mercy in CHRIST, obtaineth this freedom, and newness, and renewing from Him. Faith is therefore said to justify, that is, instrumentally, or applicatorily. And so I am content to pass for a Papist, with the CHURCH of England.    

CHAP. X.  
An Access declaratory made to the act of justification by the works of a lively Faith. S. PAUL and S. JAMES reconciled. The old Prophets and ancient Fathers made new Papists by the Informers.  

INFORMERS.  
He speaketh of an Access of justification, or of a second justification. His words are these: S. JAMES, Cap. 2. 24. meaneth that a man is justus declaratus, by his holy life and conversation; or that a man hath Access of justification, as it is also taught by your own men. CHAP. XVIII. pag. 148.   

MOUNTAGU.  
He nameth indeed an Access unto justification, but it is as out of the mouth of Popish Writers; and not out of his own opinion. Is there no difference, in your understanding, betwixt these two, Affirming positively, and relating reservedly? Many Protestants give answer unto Popish objections satisfactory, out of Popish Tenants; who yet I think subscribe not unto those their Tenants. B. MORTON is most frequent in this course, and yet I hope you hold him no Papist. But I farther add: Though I said not so in that place by you recited, I may, and I do also avow an access of justification, made unto it by works of an Holy and a Lively Faith. Not as essential thereto, or ingredient intrinsically: for justification is properly the work of GOD, and eatenus, without magis or minus; but as accessary and circumsistant, for destruction of the Body of sin, by contrary actions of new Righteousness, to speak properly, is a work of Sanctification, not of justification, according unto S. PAUL. But in what place do I speak by name of a second justification? Go save your honest credits, and name me the place: quote the very words. I distinguish indeed betwixt the phrase of S. PAUL and S. JAMES: that HE speaketh of justification in attaining it; S. JAMES, of justification attained. which cannot be separated from good works, as anon is declared, and cited out of the twelfth Article of our Confession.  
In brief, the Information is rather an inference upon the passage, than the passage expressed as it should be. It is known unto all, that the Roman Professors have ever in their mouths the Text of S. JAMES, What doth it profit 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 justification in the attaining it, That only Faith doth justify; and that it is the Act of Faith in regard of man. For properly, and causally, and originally, GOD doth only justify. But S. JAMES meaneth of justification had and obtained: the which necessarily is accompanied with good works, and can be no more separate from good works, than light from the Sun. 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 known by the fruit it bringeth forth. Well may we bear the name of Christian men, say the Homilies, but we lack that true faith which belongeth thereto: for true faith doth evermore bring forth good works, as Saint JAMES speaketh, Show me thy Faith by thy Works. Thy deeds and works must be an open testimony of thy faith: otherwise thy faith being without good works, is but the Devil's faith, the faith of the wicked, a fantasy 
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 Access unto justification is not by me made essential unto justification, but only declaratory; as I have plainly expressed in direct words. It nor is in itself, nor is delivered by me, nor conceived of by me, to be any part of, or ingredient into the entire Act of proper justification. I say proper: for as your own Divines acknowledge, the word being, as most words are, extensive, ambiguous, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth sometime extend itself unto all the natural consequents unto, and proper Acts of justification: and so it may be said, there is a twofold justification. When S. PAUL saith (they are M. PERKINS his words) No man is justified by the Law in the sight of GOD, he maketh a double justification: One, before GOD; the 
Com. in 3. ad Gal. ver. 12.  other, before men. justification before GOD, is, when GOD reputeth a man just, and that only for the merit and obedience of CHRIST. justification before men, is, when such as profess faith in CHRIST, are reputed just by men. The first is peculiarly the act of GOD. Not long before: justification is a certain 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 he disputeth against the Papists) then there 
Ad Gal. cap. 2. pag. 209.  must be a space of time between justification and justifying Faith. But there is no space of time betwixt them: for so soon as a man believeth, he is presently justified. Do you hear M. PERKINS speak of justification in instanti, according to that old Rule, Nescit tarda molimina Spiritus sancti grantia? which was learned, I think, 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 usurpatum diu, senio vetustatis inolevit. I know Renovation, Sanctification, or the second justification (for why contend we about words, that agree upon the point?) is distinct from Remission of our sins by GOD, and imputation of CHRIST'S righteousness unto us; wherein is our Acceptance and justification: 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, cum haec imago renovetur. De quae re Apostolus apertissimè locutus 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 quarrel with S. AUGUSTINE, the Prophet DAVID, and the blessed APOSTLE, and to inform against them at the next bought for Popery, as you have already done against me; and pass on to the next, somewhat depending heeron, a fourth point of my Popery, concerning Merit.    

CHAP. XI.  
The doctrine of MERIT ex condigno rejected as false and presumptuous. Difference between the old and the new signification of Mereri.  

INFORMERS.  
HEe so extends Meritum ex condigno, that he would make men believe, 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 terms, 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 state of Grace. The Council of Trent, in very surly manner, hath denounced Anathema against such as do it not, or deny it: Si quis dixerit justificati hominis opera bona non verè mereri vitam aeternam, Anathema sit. Sess. VI Ca XVI. can. XXXII. Their Schools 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, either for the worth of the work itself, or in respect of the promise of GOD made to reward the work. Now as touching this, they talk not much amongst their Proselytes, or modern writings. They do not trouble their discourses with it, nor the world with their discourses about it. neither do they press it much: as if it were too gentle a contestation with GOD. But that other of Condignity 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 justif 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 jesuit is most transcendent in advancing the worth and validity of Works ex condigno, even against and without the grace of CHRIST, in 1. 2ae. Qu. 114. disp. 214. cap. 5. 7. 8. for he teacheth, first, Opera bona justorum EX SEIPSIS, absque ullo pacto, & acceptatione, digna esse remuneratione vitae aeternae, & aequalem valorem CONDIGNITATIS habere, ad consequendam aeternam gloriam. secondly, that no Access of worth or dignity doth accrue unto the works of just men, through the Merits, or Person of CHRIST: which the same works should not otherwise have had and be endowed withal, if they had been wrought by the same Grace of GOD, by alone GOD, in liberal sort conferred, without CHRIST. And in the VIII. chap. That the Promises of GOD are indeed an accessary addition unto the works of good men, but yet do they no manner way appertain to the reason or being of Merit, but rather accrue unto the works already made, not only worthy or condign, but also meritorious. And lastly, he concludeth, disput. CCXXII. cap. III. thus. cum opera justi condignè mereantur vitam aeternam, taenquam aequalem mercedem ac praemium: non opus est interventu alterius meriti condigni, quaele est meritum CHRISTI, ut iis 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 merit of CHRIST, saith he, though it be such as may most worthily obtain for us Glory at GOD'S hands, yet hath it not this effectual power and virtue, to make us formally just, and worthy of eternal Life: but through virtue derived from him, men obtain this effectual power residing in themselves. And hereupon we never ask or desire of GOD, that through and by the merits of CHRIST, the reward and wages of eternal Life be given to our works worthy and meritorious: but this; that Grace may be given unto us by CHRIST, whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this reward. To such an enormous exorbitancy are these Schools grown since the JESUITS have swaggered and domineered in them, contrary to the natural origination and sense of the word, which was but to procure, to incur, 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 spoke according to the language of those times, used it: and not as formerly the meaning of the word was in CICERO, TERENCE, PLAUTUS, etc. so the old Translator in Gen. 3. hath it, Maior est mea iniquitas, quam ut veniam MEREAR: Than that I may PURCHASE or PROCURE pardon. Nay farther, it is sometime taken actively indeed; so much from Desert, that it signifieth to Do well unto. The Glossary of H. STEPHEN rendereth meritum to this purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That meaning of it, for, to Procure or incur, 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, quam consecutionem de facto. and as contrary to the doctrine of the FATHERS. Neque enim talia sunt hominum MERITA, ut propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex JURE; 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 persuaded to the contrary, or very hardly at least: Vix mihimet persuadeo, quòd possit ullum opus esse, quod ex DEBITO remunerationem DEI deposcat. cum 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 we have a Catalogue in that learned late work against FISHER, written by the Dean of Carlisle, pag. 172. of whose mind M. MOUNTAGU professeth himself directly to be. And yet say these Informers (these false Informers, YATES and his brother WARD) he would make men believe there is no material difference betwixt us and Papists in this point. And this is proved substantially no doubt: for they say as followeth.    

CHAP. XII.  
The quality and conditions of a good work required by the Roman Writers, to make it rewardable (as far as they are positive) no Protestant disalloweth of. To those conditions may others be added.  

INFORMERS.  
THese are his words: This is your own doctrine in the Roman Schools: and so far 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 far forth due unto good works, as that through and for the work itself wrought and performed, we may deserve, and challenge upon desert (or else GOD should wrong us), grace, goodness, heaven, happiness, at GOD'S hands? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I never said it, never thought it, do 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 work: which conditions, specified and remembered by me, are, 1. That it be morally good, not simply evil. 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 natural man without GOD. Of these conditions (which do not exclude other) what Protestants do not allow? I add (and may add many more), Faith is necessarily required in the person, before that any thing he doth can please GOD. For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. 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 work; which were never, to my knowledge, denied until 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 confess I thought it was real, and I think so still. I never could find, I never did imagine, I do not believe, any Protestant living, setting yourselves aside, so ignorant, peevish, or profane, 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 do contradict this, either expressly 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.    

CHAP. XIII.  
GOD surely rewardeth good works according to his promise, of his free bounty and grace.  

INFORMERS.  
ANd in that very page his words are, If this be your Merit, we 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, doubtless 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. REWARD appointed for our good works, all do confess. If this be your MERIT, we contradict it not. Do you? Dare you do it? that there is no REWARD for the righteous? Cast the lie then into the Psalmists throat, Psal. XIX. XI. In keeping of them (GOD'S Commandments) there is GREAT REWARD; and unto him that said, GOD REWARDETH every man according to his work: not only according to the Quality of the work, that he that soweth of the flesh, shall of the flesh reap Corruption; and, he that soweth in the spirit, shall of the spirit reap glory, and honour, and immortality: but according to the degree and proportion of his work. He that soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly; and he that soweth liberally, shall reap liberally. Not of works, or for works: but according 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 special man in your books, though I hold him of another spirit and Sect than you (better by far) precisely setteth down 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 concealment) in saying, GOD REWARDETH GOOD WORKS.    

CHAP. XIV.  
The Church of England holdeth no such absolute certainty of salvation in just persons, as they have of other objects of Faith expressly and directly revealed by GOD  

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 join issue, the difference will not be much CHAP. XXII. pag. 186.   

MOUNTAGU.  
ET quid haec ad IPHICLI Boves? what hath this to do with merit of good works, whereto by the Informers it is consigned? Neither in my opinion, nor yet in BELLARMINE'S judgement, doth Certainty or Incertainty of salvation depend so necessarily upon Merit or Demerit of good works. If a man continue constant in the course of good works, he is sure and certain 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 he that doth good works, be certain of. Salvation, that is, shall continue to the end, faithful, constant in doing good works, and so obtain Salvation, (the promise of GOD behighted unto those that do 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 speak. It being by the Gagger fastened unto our Church, ignorantly or maliciously, very absurdly, as almost every particular in that Pamphlet is, That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation, and to hold, that he is of the number of the Elect and predestinate unto eternal life; I took him short for such his conclusion so general: that every one ought, singuli generum (so the words intent) to assure himself: whereas that assurance, upon which the poor fellow grounded his imputation, resting upon the infallible purpose and decree of GOD'S predestination of the Elect, was by the So persuaded in the Church of England (for the Church of England itself 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 public, received, authorised doctrine thereof, did not tender nor press any such Tenet of Certain assurance, to be subscribed or received, but left it indifferent and at large. Of this mind I was: of this mind I profess myself to be still, and shall until I see reason and evidence to the contrary. which if the Informers can supply me withal, I yield; otherwise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I see no cause to change. Thirdly, that if it had been so, as they pretend, tendered unto us by the Church to be received and believed: yet was it not a Doctrine so forlorn and uncouth, as the simple Gagger imagined; having Papists of name, and rank, and reckoning, that proposed it, and propugned it, both in, and also since the Council 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 men's reasons, acknowledged, first, a conjectural probability; then came up unto a moral belief; and lastly, unto an experimental faith. And VEGA, since that Council, 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 absque ullâ temeritate possint certò & absque ullâ haesitatione credere, se invenisse gratiam & remissionem peccatorum suorum apud DEUM. Thus VEGA, concerning certainty of justification. And BELLARMINE goeth not so far off; for he approveth S. AUGUSTINE and his Doctrine, which is enough against the Gagger. And this is that great Bug bear, that of which so much ado 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 any man will discern that is not maliciously peevish and Puritanical; though simply it be not so, nor cometh home. Amongst the Papists, many learned make Faith not only an intellectual, but a fiducial assent unto the Promises of GOD in the Gospel; that Faith and Confidence are the same. And many of them confess, that without miraculous revelation, by ordinary help and particular assistance of Grace, a man may understand that he hath Faith, Hope, and Charity: and that a justified man may have a true and a certain Assurance of his justification, without distrustful 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 JESUS is in heaven: but are as sure of your eternal Election, and of your future Glorification, as you are of this Article of your Creed, that CHRIST was borne of the Virgin MARY. I profess 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 think, that you are, may or can be so persuaded secundum statum futurum, and evermore cry so. which is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of your other singularity, that Faith once had, cannot be lost totally, or finally and for ever.    

CHAP. XV. Touching Evangelicall Counsels.  
Evangelicall Counsels admitted according to the doctrine of the old Fathers, and many learned Divines of our Church. Popish doctrine concerning works of Supererogation rejected.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
SO I say still, I know none. I do believe there are, and ever were, Evangelicall Counsels; such as S. PAUL mentioneth 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 sin, or breach of Law: but nothing less than such as the Papists fabric up unto themselves in their works of Supererogation. It is an error in Divinity, not to put a difference betwixt such works, and works done upon counsel 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 fancy, or misunderstanding, or misapplying, is not the Doctrine of Antiquity, which with universal consent held Evangelicall Counsels; 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 Appeal saith (if he do not say true, inform against him for it) that we allow the distinction of PRECEPTS and COUNSELS, lib. V. cap. IV. sect. 3. For his sake excuse me from Popery, who write no more than he did before me: what in GOD'S indulgence is a matter of Counsel; in regard of strict justice, may come under Precept. Cap. IU. Sect. V.    

CHAP. XVI.  
Saint GREG. Nazianzen defended from the touch of uncircumcised lips.  

INFORMERS.  
SO he citeth & approveth to this purpose the saying of Nazianzen: We have Laws that do bind 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 fear of punishment or of danger is to be undergone therefore. cap. XV. pa. 103.   

MOUNTAGU.  
GRave crimen CAIE CAESAR, to cite and approve the saying of Nazianzen, one of the four Doctors of the Greek Church; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in S. BASIL'S opinion; viri per omniae incomparabilis, as he is styled by RUFFINUS; viri valdè eloquentis, & in Scripture 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 worthy to carry, is phillipped off slightly by these our new Masters, as if his saying were not worth the hearing, nor the man to be made any more account of than jack hold my staff, by these Rabbis. 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 spoke S. AUGUSTINE of old in his commendation, against JULIAN the Pelagian Heretic, who slighted him then as much touching original sin, as you do now touching Evangelicall Counsels. And so speak I at present in S. AUGUSTINE'S phrase. I might have added unto that unskilful Clerk Nazianzen, that great Papist S. chrysostom in this point for company, who Hom. VIII. de Poen. saith, a man may do more than is commanded: who yet was indeed no Papist, though the poor 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 brains: as in case of Counsels, so I say, Qui potest capere, capiat: and who is he that cannot, but he that will not, understand? This I will avow; If this be Popery, or I a Papist, all antiquity held Popery, and were Papists. For name but one Writer of a contrary mind to this, There are Evangelicall Counsels.    

CHAP. XVII.  
The exposition of the saying of our SAVIOUR, If thou wilt be perfect, etc. S. chrysostom, S. AUGUSTINE, S. HIEROME, S. AMBROSE, make it no imperious precept. If it be, the Informers are the least observers of it, and sin against their own consciences.  

INFORMERS.  
ANd a little after, speaking of that place, MATH. XIX. XXI. If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, etc. he hath these words. A counsel it is, I grant, no imperious form of precept: left to choice and liberty, to do or not to do. CHRIST tieth no man, but leaveth him to do or not to do. CHAP. XV. pa. 105.   

MOUNTAGU.  
IT is so, I have those words. It is true; I do grant it a counsel, and no imperious precept, at least to all men. For I cannot conceive the meaning to be otherwise, where the words are so full, complete, evident, and convincing. If thou wilt; left unto choice: not, Hoc fac & vives; upon price of thy head, pain of thy salvation, do thus: which is stilus Curiae, the style and tenor of those imperious Laws of the Lord of Hosts, that require exact Obedience. If it were a Law and a Commandment (saith S. chrysostom) he should 
S. CHRYS. to. 5. pag. 322. edit. SAVIL.  not have brought it in by way of counsel and of advice. For this very cause, he saith not in plain terms, Go sell that thou hast, lest he might suppose it a binding Law: but he saith, If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast; to let us understand, it is in our choice to do or not to do it. Thus S. chrysostom; not so you. Pardon me if I prefer S. chrysostom before you, or your betters: I mean, your Master, whose Disciples you profess 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, etc. So S. HIEROME: 
S. HIER. cont. JOVIN. l. 1. c. 7  and can you give better reasons? S. GREGORY Nazianzen 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 Counsel; and expoundeth that very place of Counsel, thus: Et ut intelligas distantiam Praecepti, atque 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 cum se Praecepta Legis memorâsset implêsse, Consilium ei datur, ut vendat emnia, & sequatur DOMINUM. Haec enim non Praecepto imperantur, sed Consilio deferuntur. Duplex namque forma mandati est: una praeceptiva, altera voluntaria. Vndè & DOMINUS in aliâ dicit, Non occides, ubi in aliâ praecepit, SI vis esse perfectus, vend omnia tua. Ergo hic liber est à Praecepto, cujus defertur arbitrio. Which Testimony of S. AMBROSE, together with that out of S. chrysostom, do withal insinuate in what sense TERTULLIAN in his book de Monogamiâ, contrary unto the ordinary phrase, doth term it Praeceptum substantiae dividendae egenis, a Commandment 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 do so, or so: but only Counsel and Advice; leaving it free unto his choice to do it or not to do it. For every Counsel and Advice, is a kind of mandate; though not properly, yet with condition. But my good Informers, if you will needs have it Popery to hold with any Evangelicall Counsels, you will be found worse by far than Papists, that are convicted in your consciences, to break that willingly which you hold a Precept obligatory, and no Counsel. For do any of You all, the precisest in the pack, obey CHRIST'S words in this his absolute command, and going, selleth all that he hath, and giveth it to the poor? I cannot yet name any one so observant. I believe I never shall see any so charitable; rather breaking that negative commandment of the highest, Thou shalt not covet that which is thy neighbours. and that other, Thou shalt not steal from thy neighbour. And yet howsoever other men are not obliged to go sell what they have, and give it to the Poor, you are tied to do it, upon that high Commanding form, Do this and live. It is sin to you, whatsoever it is to other men, not to do it: for you are so persuaded 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 tendered. But you neither obey it, nor will suffer others to obey it that would. For you would account and style him a Papist, that should do it. You would beg him that should put it in use and practice. For such opinion you hold of the ancient Monks and Ascetae, as S. ANTHONY and others, that did practise it. Until I may perceive that you show forth your faith by your works, and manifest your Belief by real practice, you must give me leave to think you dissemble in the point, and would persuade men of a case of Necessity, that yourselves may feed fat upon their folly, and in vacuum veniatis. Till then, whatsoever your opinion be, give me leave to be of S. AUGUSTINE'S mind: Aliud est Consilium, saith he, aliud Praeceptum. Consilium datur, ut Virginitas 
Serm. LXI. de Temp.  conservetur, ut à vino & carnibus abstineatur, ut vendantur omnia, & pauperibus erogentur. Praeceptum verò datur ut justitia custodiatur; ut omnis homo divertat à malo, & faciat bonum. Denique 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 deny this constant resolution of Antiquity. Change therefore your manners, or your minds. Be Papists with me, or Rebels without me. As for me, you are like to be alone. I hold it no obligation: you do. therefore you are tied to obey. That commandment. Matth. v. you will not deny: 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 poor; it is a part of that perfection, being named in either place. But I leave you to bethink yourselves better. I conclude with S. chrysostom: 
S. CHRYSOST. To. v. in illud, Salutate PRISCILLAM, etc. pag. 322.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Had this been a Law and Commandment, it should have been tendered unto him at the first: it ought to have been digested in form of a commandment and law, and not have been brought in, as it is, by way of counsel and advice. For where he saith, Possess nor Silver nor Gold; this speech runneth in commanding form. But when he saith, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell; he speaketh it as counselling and advising only. Now, to Counsel, 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 do or not do it; maketh him Lord and Ruler of his own actions. Thus, and much more to purpose, S. chrysostom 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 mean to be a Papist with them, rather than a Noveller with you. And so I proceed.    

CHAP. XVIII. Touching LIMBUS PATRUM.  
The Dreams of Papists about Limbus Patrum, related and rejected. The state of men's souls after death. The Place proportioned to their state. The souls of the blessed Fathers before CHRIST'S ascension, in heavenly Palaces, yet not in the third and highest heavens, nor in that fullness of joy which they have now, and more of which they shall have hereafter. The opinion of old and new Writers. Our Canons not to be transgressed. The Doctrine and Faith of the Church of England concerning the Article of CHRIST'S descent into Hell. The disadvantage we are at with our Adversaries. Every Novellers' Fancy printed, and thrust upon us for the general Tenet of our Church. The plain and easy Articles of our CREED disturbed and obscured by the wild dreams of little less than blasphemous men; by new Models of Divinity; by Dry-fats of several Catechisms. The Belief of Antiquity. The Author and It far from POPERY.  

INFORMERS.  
HOwsoever in words he denyeth Limbus Patrum, yet thus he writeth: The Patriarches, Prophets, and Fathers that lived 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 he writeth. And what if he write so? Why then he upholdeth Limbus Patrum. His Words and Opinion are far asunder. So said your LIMBOMASTIX concerning the Descent into Hell. As CHRIST was buried; so also it is to be believed, that CHRIST went into Hell, saith 
Artic. 3.  the Church of England. Therefore he went thither, saith that Ignoránte, according to this opinion, to fetch up the souls of the Fathers that were not there. Just as you will have it, with M. MOUNTAGU in his opinion. But good Master Informers, bethink yourselves: 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 (dream you what you will otherwise, and what you please) absolutely of the mind of all Antiquity, that the souls of the Blessed Dead, separated from their bodies, and Gathered (as the Scriptures speak) unto their Fathers, before CHRIST'S Resurrection from Death to Life, and his Ascension into Heaven; that departed hence in the hope and assurance of GOD'S 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 company of all the holy Angels, with the glorified body of our SAVIOUR, far 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, believe, or conceit any such Limbus Patrum, as the Church of Rome hath fancied unto herself, and tendered unto her Profelites, drawn and derived out of that negative opinion of Antiquity, ill understood, and ill applied. 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 do imagine to be the uppermost Fringe, as the word signifieth, or the Verge of Hell. For, as if some of their Masters had been sent thither to take a survey thereof, they do quarter out that infernal Clime into four Regions; all agreeing in the particulars, though with some difference about the quartering and confining. That the Regions are four, 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, eternal loss of happiness in exclusion from GOD, as also most insufferable eternal pain. In Purgatory, there is some question, whether the loss be partial or not: for they are conceited to have, at least sometimes, 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 be equal unto Hell torments. Unto the Limbus Infantum, they have fastened eternal loss and deprivation of GOD, without sensible pain: in Limbus patrum, temporary loss, but no pain. 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 souls, they are resolved: but what is become of it, or how employed, they are not resolved. Some imagine it now all one with that Limbus Infantum. And peradventure there was need to have the room enlarged, the inhabitants increasing and growing on so fast, more than they did in the days 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. STEWARTIO, pag. 565.  eò. Nunc verò pueri qui absque Baptismo discedunt, sine poenâ sensibili detinentur. Others do conceive of it as inane vacuum: and this is the commonly received opinion of the Roman Schools. 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 pain; 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 infer they were thus in Hell.  
Now to come to the point; The question is concerning their souls only: for their bodies, it is confessed, in ordinary dispensation, do sleep in the dust. It is confessed on both sides, which is most material, concerning them, That being immortal 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 soul 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 speak; that is, they have not, nor can have, an ubique-subsistence, but a determined and defined. Being here, at that instant they are not there: for omnipresence is the absolute Peculiar of the ALMIGHTY. Truly then, and indeed, they must and do subsist in place, or rather ubi; though where, and how, who can tell? For, the Scripture, content with their state and being, 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 been curious nor resolved for it. So here is a main 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 did they also perform 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, Labours, giveth species unto, and determineth the former word, Rest. For all manner rest is not predicated of them; not such as that rest of the body in the grave. They rest not, as in a sleep, out of mind, without motion, as not in action at all; as the frame of Nature did in the days of JOSUA; or as ADAM in that deep sleep, wherein EVA was framed out of his side. Thus to rest, is contrary to their nature and condition intellectual; though it hath been 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 body, they live, move, exercise, perform and put in practice, acts natural and coïncident unto their proper kinds; understanding, conceiving, willing, judging, loving, rejoicing, and such like proper acts of natural, rational, intellectual creatures. Next, inasmuch as there are, and have been always in this life, two sorts amongst the sons of men; Believers in CHRIST, for their profession; Holy in course, for their life and conversation: then Misbelievers and faithless in regard of GOD; Wicked mis-agents in respect of living: so proportionably there are, and have been ever, two states and conditions of the souls of men, in their separation after death; some rewarded with happiness, in their being for ever with GOD; some condemned unto woe and wretchedness, for ever estranged from GOD. All men when they die (as, sooner or later, all do and shall) in regard of that unchangeable Law of kind, Thou shalt Die the Death, are said in SCRIPTURE To go the way of all flesh, or of All the Earth: for never man had a privilege of absolute or total exemption. And in regard of their being or subsisting after their death, are said To sleep with their Fathers, touching their bodies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and to be gathered to their Fathers, or, their People, in respective of their souls, were they good or bad. For all are a society, a collective people; either in happy or in a miserable state. The good go to enjoying of happiness without end, the wicked to enduring of torments everlasting. Thus is their state diversified to their deserving. and herein the Scripture speaketh plain and evident. But now for Place, we are not resolved so particularly. Certain it is in common course of kind, Place is ever fitted, disposed, proportioned to state and condition of the therein placed. And therefore, when this mortal shall have put on immortality: when those that have won many unto righteousness, shall shine as the Sun, and be clothed with glory and immortality, in the day of the resurrection of the just; then we read of a fitted Place, a new heaven and a new earth. Now, fitting unto this twofold state and condition of souls after death, I believe and profess, that evermore there was, is, and shall be two several, different, distinct, proportionable Places or Vbies for them, known ever commonly by that general name of Hell and Heaven. I believe also, and profess, that the souls of the Fathers, Kings, Prophets, Priests, Patriarches, righteous and good men, that lived and died 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 wretchedness in regard of state. They went to Heaven locally, as to their proper Vbi: they went to Heaven figuratively, that is, into happiness and health, into joy in heavenly palaces; unto GOD, into the presence of GOD, the Tabernacles of peace; into Paradise, ABRAHAM'S bosom. 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 do hope. They lived by that faith as well as we, though not in that evidence and fullness as we. They died 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 infer that Place to have received them then, wherein now with us they be, 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, enlarged in their Endowments or Achievements, are likewise enhansed and ennobled in their Accruments, Temporal or Eternal, Personal or Original. Their bodies are not as yet reunited unto their souls, yet shall they be raised up out of the dust, and be made conformable in their Resurrection unto life, to the now-glorified body of CHRIST our Saviour. Their souls, then departing and at Rest, in Peace, in Happiness, and Bliss, in the hands of GOD, yet were not in that degree of state as now they be in; had not that fullness of joy which now they have, nor have as yet that measure and proportion that they shall have hereafter. 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 Limbus Patrum in the Roman Church: which is conceived and dreamt to have been 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 been so narrowed or straightened in roomth, that there cannot be divers Designations, Regions, Habitations, Mansions or Quartering there, to speak after the phrase and language of men, remote, near, different, distinct one from or to another; fitted, applied, disposed, proportioned and accommodated unto the several states, measures, times, qualities, habitudes and endowments of men, that were to be carried and translated thither before and since the coming of CHRIST; in the time of Promise, and of accomplishment and performance of Promise; in the time of veils, types, shadows; and that other of Substance, Revealing, and Consummation. They were in happiness, 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 happiness. I absolutely subscribe unto TERTULLIAN; Aliud Inferi, aliud sinus ABRAHAE. 
TERT. contra MAR. IU. 14.  and that which S. AUGUSTINE, Tom. 11. Epist. LVII. spoke somewhat doubtingly; Non facilè alicubi Scripturarum Inferorum nomen positum reperitur in bono: that which Tom. III. de Gen ad literam, lib. XII. cap. XXXII. he is peremptory in; Nondum inveni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi occurrit, Inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam duntaxat Canonicam. The Fathers than 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 cometh, or ever yet came within the fringe and confines of Hell (except the humane soul of our SAVIOUR, who finished all sufferings and penalties upon his cross) came thither to suffer torment and pain: whosoever came thither, except him alone, who only was liber inter mortuos, returned not out any more from thence; but sedet, aeternumque sedebit infelix. Between LAZARUS in ABRAHAM'S bosom, which was the Rest of the Righteous before CHRIST, and DIVES in Hell, a place of woe and torment, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a vast, void gulf, immeasurable; and that also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as saith the holy Text, so seated, fixed, fastened for ever, that it was not removable 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 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 accrueing to them. Such a royal habitation, the None-such of GOD, did not befit their then inferior states and conditions. But than you will ask 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 general terms 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 bosom with LAZARUS, with ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JACOB, in the Kingdom of Heaven, and of GOD. Why then they were in Heaven at least. Doubtless yes, in a more general 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, happy and blessed, as then was convenient. In regard of ubi also, they were in Heaven, in a more general and enlarged sense; in some part of Heaven, where GOD disposed them. You will ask in particular, Where was that? I must and do answer negatively, I cannot tell: I dare not define: I have no warrant for resolution. I answer positively, You should not ask nor curiously inquire, but be content to be ignorant of that which GOD hath not revealed. And then farther, It is not profitable to know: for GOD else would not have concealed it. So that to inquire 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 only with the state in special of joy and rest; with the ubi in general to be Heaven: but presume not to descend unto particular where, seeing GOD hath not been pleased to discover it. It is enough to know they were not in Hell as the Papists mean it: and it is more than probable they were not in Heaven as you conceit it.  
For, first, no Scripture affirmeth it expressly, that the Rest of those Righteous was there where now it is. Secondly, it is not, that I could ever read or understand, collected out of any place of Scripture, by any one Orthodox Writer, for fifteen hundred years 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 tendereth it to be conceived and embraced: and therefore whatsoever my private opinion otherwise might be, I am tied 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 transgress the CANONS. What your ignorance may plead 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 souls of the Fathers that died before CHRIST, were not there whereas now they be; as, S. JOHN 111. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven. JOHN XIV. 3. I go 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 Psalm, all Antiquity, from JUSTINE MARTYR downward, do expound of Heaven opened at the Ascension of our SAVIOUR: according unto that which we daily profess in our English LITURGY, out of and with Saint AMBROSE; When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst OPEN the Kingdom of HEAVEN to all Believers. 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  
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 souls 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 entered into Paradise. Upon M. CALVIN it is imposed by many, though injuriously, that he thought no righteous soul did, doth, or can go into Heaven before the general resurrection: but indeed he declineth the question of the place; and for the state, against the Popish LIMBUS, averreth, that in respect of generical happiness, they before CHRIST enjoyed the same that they do now: but for accidental beatitude and degrees of happiness, he putteth a difference; and resolveth, that even now they are in profectu until the day of Doom: until which time, they expect in atrijs the consummation of their beatitude. CHRISTUS, Sanctuarium Coeli ingressus, ad consummationem usque saeculorum, solus populi eminùs in atrio residentis, vota ad DEUM defert. Instit. 111. 20. 10. If a man should press his words as they will bear, the souls of the Righteous, and those now that dye in the LORD, nedum of the Fathers before CHRIST, are not yet in Heaven: but I do it not. This is all; he favoureth the opinion of all Antiquity, that the souls of the FATHERS before CHRIST, were not in COELO SUMMO ET GLORIOSO: and yet I hope CALVIN did not maintain Limbus Patrum.  
ALL this groweth for crossing your newly invented Puritanical 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 angered the generation of your fellow-brethrens. The Popish Gagger objected unto the Church of England this TENET, that JESUS 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 profess it in plain and express words; that propose it in Baptism interrogatorily unto Godfathers and Godmothers, to be answered unto, avowed, and publicly believed; that teach it in our Catechism unto children; that subscribe it in our Articles thus, THAT as CHRIST died for us, and was BURIED: so ALSO it is to be believed, that HEWENT DOWN INTO HELL, Artic. 111; that have publicly defended it against Puritanical opposition; and lastly, that with us more, more really and to purpose, do believe it, than the Church of ROME doth, and those that accuse us of sacrilege for violating an Article of our CREED? For they profess, that CHRIST only descended into the uppermost Region of Hell, LIMBUS PATRUM, really; into the other parts and continents virtually only, or effectually, in the power of his GODHEAD, 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 greediness of gain) may write and print almost what he will, especially if it savour of the Lemannian Lake: so every private fancy, every wilful 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 general Tenent of all Protestants, and more specially upon the Church of England: though that Church, in the general and approved Doctrine thereof, do detest it more than the Church of Rome doth. In this very point, the manifold dreams of new refined spirits are made ours; their little less than blasphemies, made ours; the tergiversations, qualifications, disturbing of senses from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, anima, Shéol, Hádes, Inferi, Infernus, and what not, made ours; the toys, trash, fables of Pagans, Poets, Philosophers, Magicians, and who not, of what not, brought in, to trouble and disturb our belief, by some that fain would be, and yet are loath to be Puritans, made ours. The much urging of this Article not to be found in ancient Creeds; not to have been taught or believed 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 either are or may be so serupulized, all made ours, laid unto our charge by our adversary, and made the public Doctrine of OUR Church? So the blasphemy of CHRISTOPHER CARLISLE, that made this Article an Error and a Fable, pag. XXVIII. & 77 against D. SMITH, is made ours. That horrible blasphemy, that CHRIST endured 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 soul INFERNI TREMENDA TORMENTA, not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as the Greek Liturgies discreetly call them) but even desperation and the second death, as it is in HUMES Rejoinder unto D. HILL, in deering's Catechism, in your new fangled Model of Divinity, M. YATES (was it 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 Catechism, such Pamphlets, whereof we have abroad so good store, as I think would fraught a Dry-fat to the Mart: every man making and using, and printing a Catechism, a New Model of his own, according to his own private motion, contrary to Order and Injunction, by which we are tied 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 confess these are disadvantages for us against the Papists; as it were so many thorns in our sides: but yet they choke us not. For the Doctrine of the Church is plain, direct, affirmative, as it should be; without figures, allegories, farfetched, obscure interpretations, which never were intended to be inserted into, must not be tolerated in Articles of our CREED, easy, plain, 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 soul of CHRIST should have been, or might be, or was, in triduo mortis & separationis suae, really, truly, properly in Hell; that land of darkness, abode and habitation of the damned. Not improbable, against Scripture, religion, piety, reason. No inconveniency, incompetency, absurdity, much less impiety: No compulsion drew Him thither. It was no needless thing. I have given reasons of it more than one. He went not to deliver, to stay, to suffer; for all was finished upon the Cross, 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 JOEL 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 down to free those that were bound there, as intended by losing the sorrows of Death, of which though it were impossible himself 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 grown wiser, or more adventurous to resolve. The truth is, he that will believe no more than he seeth, nor embrace 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 seen. Antiquity believed CHRIST went into Hell: they believed, when he ascended into Heaven, he went a way nullius ante trita solo, and had the prerogative royal, as he well deserved it, to be the first, that, removing the Cherubin at the gates of Paradise, made a way for himself 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 Royal Pass: yet they were not brought forth from Limbus Patrum of the Papists. The Fathers of old heard no news thereof; the Protestants detest it as much as you: and be it known unto you, so do I, as much as any Puritan in the Kingdom. 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 entered Heaven. The souls of the Righteous were not there before Him, taking Heaven for that supreme and highest Heaven; though otherwise, in a more general sense and acceptance, they were in Heaven, enjoied Happiness, did see good, though not visione plenâ faciei. Many questions peradventure may arise heerabout; but fitter for Schools, than popular cognisance. I conclude all as I began: You understand not the state of Limbus Patrum, nor the depth of the Question, but scum upon the surface, and gibberish you cannot tell for what.    

CHAP. XXXIV. The seventh point of Popery touching IMAGES.  
The Historical use of Jmages maketh nothing for the adoring of them. Popish extravagancies.  

INFORMERS.  
TOuching Images, thus he writeth: IMAGES have these uses assigned by your Schools: stay there, go 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 affirm, I deny: prove your assertion if you can. Though that Church, for their enormities, deserve no defence: yet is it, they say, a shame to belly the Devil. I do not, I cannot, I will not deny, that Idolatry is grossly committed in the Church of Rome. The ruder sort, at least, are not excusable, who go to it with downright Idolatry, without any Relative adoration; worshipping that which they behold with their eyes, the Image of the B. VIRGIN, S. PETER, S. PAUL, the CRUCIFIX; as if CHRIST JESUS were present. This Idolatry is ancient in their Schools. THOMAS AQUINAS doth directly vouch it, Quòd eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini CHRISTI, & ipsi 
Par. 3. qu. 25. ar. 3.  CHRISTO. cum ergo CHRISTUS adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens est, quòd ejus IMAGO sit adoratione LATRIAE adoranda. which is now an Article of Faith in the Roman Church, and the opposite Doctrine flat Heresy: for so CABRERA upon that place of THOMAS writeth; who allegeth, for his purpose and opinion, many old and later Divines of their School. And AZORIUS the jesuit 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 gross Idolatry in THOMAS and his Scholars, he is censured to deliver Doctrine, dangerous, rash, relishing Heresies, nay plainly Heretical, say they. But what hath Historical use of Images to do with this so great extravagancy? I know none, beside yourselves, that censure or condemn the Historical use of Images, for Idolatry.    

CHAP. XX.  
S. GREGORY'S Doctrine concerning Images, far from Popery.  

INFORMERS.  
ANd again: Images in GREGORY'S time were very much improved, to be books for the simple and ignorant people. Hold you there, and we blame you not.   

MOUNTAGU.  
NOT for Idolaters against the First and Second Commandment: for, to be Books 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. GREGORY is of later date than S. AUGUSTINE, and of less credit by much in controverted points of Divinity. Images in his time were much improved; and yet not unto honour or adoration. Reverence and respect was given unto them; to be books 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. GREGORY'S time; wherein Images, from no use in the most ancient times, were improved unto an Historical use in S. GREGORY'S time: whose time, as himself, I undervalue unto S. AUGUSTINE. These men seem to take improved, through ignorance of the phrase, for approved: which is also true. Before S. GREGORY, I know no such confessed employment for them. He was the first that gave such public approbation unto them declaratorily, though it was true doctrine in itself, before he ever professed it such. who yet did ever vehemently disclaim 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 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 me what Popery is in that historical use of them, and then I will be of another opinion.    

CHAP. XXI.  
No religious honour or worship to be given unto Images. They may affect the minds of religious men, by representing unto them the actions of CHRIST and his Saints. In which regard, all reverence simply cannot be abstracted from them.  

INFORMERS.  
ANd a little after, IMAGES are not utterly unlawful unto Christians in all manner of religious employment. The Pictures of CHRIST, the blessed VIRGIN, and SAINTS, may be made, and had in houses, set up in Churches. The Protestants have them, they despite them not. Respect and honour may be given unto them The Protestants do it, and use them for helps of piety.   

MOUNTAGU.  
BUt how, and how far, you have very honestly left out. For he hath added, In rememoration, and for more effectual representment of the Prototype: which is no more but the bare historical use of them. And you, by leaving that out, would make men believe, that he intended a religious respect and pious honour to be due unto them; and so to draw on unto a downright worship of them. But this was not his meaning. He is in that case as jealous of God's honour, as any gloyting Puritan in the Pack. In our Churches, for aught that I know, it is not forbidden to have them: for if so, than all Tombs Monuments, Statues, Pictures, Paintings, are to be demolished and defaced. Nor are they utterly and absolutely unlawful for any religious employment. Our strictest Writers do not condemn or censure S. GREGORY for putting upon them that historical use of suggesting unto, moving or affecting the mind even in pious and religious affections. For instance; in remembering more feelingly, and so being empassioned more effectually with the Death, Bloodshed, and bitter Passion of our SAVIOUR, when we see that story fully and lively represented unto us in colours or work by a skilful hand. And I know not the man that is made of humane mould, but when he readeth on this Book his tragical endurances for man, will reflect upon himself, and his own soul and conscience, with a lively apprehension of man's sin, GOD'S love, CHRIST'S endeared charity 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 days of S. GREGORY (saith he) as their learned CASSANDER witnesseth, as S. GREGORY'S own writings do show, did allow of such Pictures, as historical Monuments, whereby the unlearned might be 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 own learned Cardinal may witness, saying even of M. CALVIN, that he doth not simply condemn the having of Images, but admitteth of them for an historical 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 Appeal.  
But it hath distasted some, that respect and honour should be given unto them. Strange, it should displease any that can approve of any, be it but a civil use of them. I cannot tell; unless men would instantly have them pulled down 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 memory, of affection, of rememoration, cannot be abstracted, to my understanding, from reverence and honour simply, in due kind. Can a man have the true representation of his Prince, Parents, Patrons, etc. without awe, respect, regard, love, reverence, moved by aspect, and wrought in him? I profess 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; unless the very having and preserving of them, do in some sort imply respect, regard, and honour done unto them, without offence justly given, without scandal, or inclination to impiety. JUNIUS was no Papist; 
De Imag. c. 11. n. 1.  not in your opinion, I hope. He, 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 cum torum cultu intelligatur, quorum sunt Imagines. M. MOUNTAGU scarce saith so much, and yet he is a Papist.    

CHAP. XXII.  
Popish doctrine and practice both about adoration of Images, rejected.  

INFORMERS.  
BUt he concludeth with the Papists thus: Let your practice and doctrine go together, we agree.   

MOUNTAGU.  
NO, my good Informers, he doth not so conclude. You misinform against him for concluding with the Papists. You find it not in him, Let YOUR Practice, and YOUR Doctrine: but, Let practice and Doctrine. Can you find no difference betwixt these two? I can let men see a very main difference, and the not malignant eye will soon discern it. YOUR Practice, and YOUR Doctrine, fetcheth in all, and runneth out into the extravagant, Idolatrous, blasphemous doctrine of religious adoration, either primary or secondary, absolute or respective; to that of THOMAS, CABRERA, VASQUEZ, the Devil and all. For with a trick of relative worship, VASQUEZ empaleth the very Devil 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 do put men in mind 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 back unto no other but the precedently remembered 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 qualify 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 do not we. Let practice and doctrine go together, and we agree, that is, give them no LATRIA, formal or interpretative, and we agree.    

CHAP. XXIII.  
The Church of Engl. condemneth not the historical use of Images. The Book of Homilies contains a general godly doctrine; yet is not in every point the public, dogmatic, resolved doctrine of the Church. The Homily that seemeth to condemn all making of Images, is to be understood with a restriction of making them to an unlawful end. Many passages therein were fitted to the present times, and to the conditions of the people that then were. The final resolution of this controversy.  

INFORMERS.  
ALL directly contradicteth the doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies.   

MOUNTAGU.  
YOu enlarge too much for all. For, in your opinion, doth the English Church condemn the Historical or civil 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. Show me that, & ponam manum meam super os. Men as learned as any of your Side, no disparagement to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-conceit, are, I do assure you, of a contrary mind. I have named Bishop MORTON already unto you. And yet, were it not so, you show no great wisdom in that Limitation which yourselves put unto my contradicting the Church of England; namely, in saying that I do it directly. For where can you find, in any writings of mine, express 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 express. Thirdly, to come unto the issue, you name the Homilies, and mean, I take it, the second Tome of Homilies, in the Sermon against the peril of Idolatry. If you had vouchsafed us any proofs of your assertions, we should have gone directly to work with your allegations: but because you take a rounder course, to tender every thing in Magisteriall Dictates, we must shoot 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 certain godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honour and worship Almighty GOD; but not as the public dogmatic, resolutions confirmed of the Church of England. The XXXIII. Article giveth them to contain godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times: which they may do, though they have not dogmatic 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 seem, secondly, to speak 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 speak, may receive a fair, 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 speak, and how they hyperbolise sometimes in some points in their popular Sermons: which in dogmatic Decisions they would not do, nor avow the doctrine by them so delivered resolutiuè. as in case of freewill, of Invocation of Saints, and others. S. chrysostom especially speaketh strangely of the Blessed Eucharist: as good Popery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as ever Papist conceived of Transubstantiation or oral manducation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To. VI pa. 407. Then Angels assist the Priest at the Altar: the whole troops 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 stony heart, to think 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 unless GOD'S grace assisted powerfully, men could not endure, but should be consumed with the violent heat 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 all of them possibly be true in the literal 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. chrysostom himself. Now, after this enforcing sort may our Homilies speak, and be 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 diverse occasion, spoken after one and the same way. In very Scripture there are many Hyperbolical sayings, that being literally taken, will not hold weight at the balance of the Sanctuary. In the writings of the Fathers (as appeareth by that of S. chrysostom) there are dogmatic conclusions for resolution in points, and retoricall enforcements to edify affections, disposed for and according to the Auditory. Now our Homilies are all popular Sermons, fitted unto the capacity and conditions of the common people, to edify them, to work upon them, ever strong in passion, but weak in understanding. The will is more in them to be 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 piece of knowledge. and that also disposed accordingly, as fitted for times, for persons, and different occasions, as they do or may happen.  
As the ancient Fathers of the primitive times, had very few or no Churches at all, at least of note, dignity, or of receipt, because they lived in times of fierce persecution, and were seldom, or few of them, stationarie, but compelled subindè mutare sedes; so had they very few, I grant, or no pictures at all in public 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 Paganism unto CHRIST; that were bred in, brought up in, enured to, and fast settled unto Idolatry in Image-worship. Therefore they spoke against them with some tartness, and inveighing sort, least happily by conversing with, or neighbouring upon Pagans, or through former use of being misled by those Pagans (which was the case of the Israelites in Egypt, and the bordering Nations upon Canaan) the novel and tender shoots of Christianity might receive hurt, and learn to worship Idols, as those Pagans did. In like sort, peradventure, OUR Predecessors and Fathers coming late out of Popery, living near unto Papists and Popish times, conversing with them, having been 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 mind of their former practice, induce them to do as they had sometime done, at least in heart to worship and adore them; therefore in a godly zeal, such as moved EZECHIAS to destroy the braesen serpent, they spoke thus vehemently, and indeed hyperbolically against them. For the people, with whom they then dealt, were by all means to be preserved from the taint and tincture of their superstitious practices. And for this cause I say (it may seem) the Church-governors of those times in their popular Sermons took 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 dogmatic resolutions, and doctrinal positions, they are more reserved, and go not so far. We may do well then to consider why, wherefore, when, and to what manner men these popular Sermons were made, and do speak; and not press every 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 contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, necessary for THESE times: the times in which and for which, this Homily against Images and the peril 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 be made at all, and no Image is to be 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 be made for such ends, no law of GOD forbiddeth, saith our GAMALIEL. 
Pag. 203. ad Apol. BEL.     

CHAP. XXIV. Touching signing with the SIGN of the CROSS.  
To sign with the sign of the Cross out of Baptism, or upon the breast, etc. no more superstition, than to sign in Baptism, or upon the forehead. The practice of the ancient Church. The reasons that moved them, that might move us to use often signing. They lived with Pagans, and we with Puritans; both deriders of the sign of CHRIST'S Cross.  

INFORMERS.  
OF signing ourselves, not children only in Baptism, with the sign of the Cross, he speaketh very superstitiously: We use signing with the sign of the Cross, both in the forehead and elsewhere. Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur, said TERTULLIAN: and so we.   

MOUNTAGU.  
NOT only in Baptism? Tell me then, are ye come so far home unto the Church of England, as to allow signing with the Cross in Baptism? that Popish Ceremony, as your Forefathers and patriarchs of the schism were wont to exclaim 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 sign of the CROSS in the forehead, and elsewhere. If it be not superstitious to sign in the forehead, why is it to sign any other part of the body? why more out of Baptism, than in Baptism? Is one part of the body more subject and liable to superstition, than another? the breast, or belly, or arms, 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 wherefore 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, civil, or ordinary actions be; nay, all superstition whatsoever reflecteth upon religion. It is not but in such acts as be of themselves, or appliedly, acts of religion and piety. Therefore, in all probability, if it be superstitious to sign the forehead without Baptism, it is more superstitious to do it in Baptism. Nor can the Injunction of the Church give any privilege of immunity unto a superstitious action of itself, to be used in point of piety without superstition: for, if to sign with the sign of the Cross be superstitious in itself, as by your opinion it seemeth to be; then cannot the Church command it to be used on the forehead in Baptism, because no act of the Church can acquit and discharge the action of that natural and inherent property. If it be not superstitious absolutely, originally, and in itself, eat your words of superstition, and elsewhere; or give us some reason why extra Baptismum it should be superstition to use it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to sign the breast, forehead, legs, head, or any one part, or all the body, and not so in Baptism for the forehead.  
The ancient Church used it in Baptism as we do. TERTULLIAN spoke of Baptism the words remembered; Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur: which he learned not of MARTION nor MONTANUS, as some have fabled; but of the practice of the Church before they were born. And you shall find, if you overlook the place again, that I remembered the words for Baptism, and not otherwise: you have chopped off the vinculum that tied my words together, and relate them as if I cited TERTULLIAN in general terms for any signing with the Cross, in any place, at any time. For which action, though lawful, I do not allege him. I say, though lawful: for where is it forbidden? What hindereth, but that I may sign myself with the sign of the Cross in any part of my body, at any time; at night when I go to bed, in the morning when I rise, at my going out, at my returning home? The ancient Church so used it out of Baptism ordinarily: and so may we, for aught I know, without just scandal and superstition. The practice of Antiquity you will not deny: you cannot, if you know any thing in Antiquity. Therefore I will not trouble you with testimonies: you shall only have some reasons for their practice. First, out of CYRIL against JULIAN, remembered in the Apology against Cardinal 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 SIGN OF THE CROSS, as it was anciently used by the prime Christians to these ends; I. To profess, 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 jews and Gentiles despised: our Divines acknowledge to be lawful. What saith M. MOUNTAGU more in his So do we? and then, remembering 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 sign of the Cross, as was in former Ages: nevertheless we condemn not the same sign in regard of itself. You do: I do not. And heerin you see I am not alone. JUNIUS, 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 praesument mereri ex opere operato. Nos in rebus sacris non improbaremus planè SIGNUM CRUCIS, si abesset superstitio, etc. Rem non adeò fugeremus, si abessent vitia indignè rem illam fermentantia. Tolle errorem superstitionemque, nemo vestrum aut illorum factum improbaturus est. M. PERKINS in his Problem, though he fain would puritanize it, and so goeth on, heawing hoof against hoof, yet confesseth, that the Fathers used to arm themselves against the Devil with the sign of the Cross; but addeth, They did not ascribe unto the outward sign any power, or to opus operatum any efficacy. As if we imagined so, we say with himself, that it is an idle and foolish forgery. And one day you may read if you will what M. MOUNTAGU hath written against ROSW. the jesuit to that very purpose. But setting this superstition aside, neither can any moderate Protestant disallow the use of the Cross, as the Fathers used it; nor can Master PERKINS refel it. You are of THO. CARTWRIGHT'S mind, I make no question, that great Apostle of Puritanical Schism; That that reason which moved the Fathers to use, should move us not to use the sign of the Cross. They lived with Heathens, who had the CROSS of CHRIST in contempt; we, with such as ADORE the CROSS. Where first I answer with that incomparable HOOKER, You err, not knowing the Father's reasons. This was one; but this reason was not all, because they lived with Pagans that did despite it. Secondly, we live not so with Papists, as they did with Pagans. For the State, 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 enjoined, more ordinarily than we do. For we live with Puritans, and opposite Factionists, that have the Cross of CHRIST in as great contempt and despite, as ever had JULIAN or any Pagan. But as the Fathers, when the CROSS 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 manner, if we find the Cross to have that honour which is due to CHRIST, is it not as lawful for us to retain it in that estimation which it ought to have, and in that use which it had of old, without offence; as by taking it clean away, to seem followers of their example, who do cure wilfully by abscission, that which they might both preserve and heal? So that worthy HOOKER, most learnedly and rightly. For your resolution; I am enjoined to use it in Baptism: and so are you. I do so use it: do you? I scarce believe you do it willingly. I am not enjoined to use it in other actions, places or times. But am I inhibited to use it so? Show where, how, by whom. I see reasons to myself peradventure, to use it so, or so; and thus do, or may other as well as I. It is superstition you say: pardon me if I take not your words for Gospel. Prove it superstition, and I yield. 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 yourself: let me alone with mine, in things indifferent, that are not prohibited by lawful authority any way. For, saith the XXX. Canon, and I embrace it, Things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate, and may not be omitted at every man's pleasure, contrary to the law, when they be commanded; nor ùsed when they are prohibited, Till then, at least, I may use the sign of the Cross. You say it is Popery; but you must remember, that all your words are not Gospel, nor all Popery that displeaseth a Puritan.    

CHAP. XXV.  
The practice of the primitive Church approved. unadvised Informers. Novellers rejected.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
IT Is true, he mentioneth that practice of Antiquity; it is false, that he 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 he thought thereof, yet seeing you put him to it to discover himself, 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 control the practice of those Ancient Heroes of former ages, and to do it so with an high-hand: wherein unadvisedly they run upon that rock, which of all they cannot endure to fall upon. For they confess therein, that Popery is ancient: which, M. MOUNTAGU saith, all the Papists in the world cannot prove. For they say in direct terms, M. MOUNTAGU approveth the practice of the Ancients: and that which he approveth, is by themselves censured for Popery. Nay more, they profess themselves therein Papists, that give so much credit unto Popery, as to confess it so directly to be ancient. Out of this ground, è lege ●alionis, because they have now more than once informed against me for Popery, I might as well pay them in their own coin. Howsoever, let all Novellers know, I had rather venture to approve 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 Council of Niee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    

CHAP. XXVI.  
The testimony of S. ATHANASIUS vilified by the Informers. The testimonies of other Fathers concerning the efficacy & power of the sign of the Cross.  

INFORMERS.  
HE citeth and approveth the testimony of one of them. By the sign of the CROSS of CHRIST, all Magic spells are disappointed, sorcery and Witchcraft cometh to nothing, all Idols are abandoned and forsaken.   

MOUNTAGU.  
QVàm contemptim! One of them? And was not that One worth the naming? Deserved he no respect from your Great Selves? Your uncircumcised lips might well be sweetened with the name of that certain quidam, as you call him out of contempt. Go to it roundly, quid haesitatis? and with those profane ones, call him without more ado, 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 be forged, because it was forgotten to name the place; it is in his Book de Incarnatione verbi, pag. 61. and was formerly remembered by him in the Tract against the Gentiles, pa 1. If you call the truth of the Relation into question, ATHANASIUS Word will pass where your Bond will not go currant. But you shall have more witnesses to speak to the same purpose. EPIPHANIUS relateth of a Christian young Gentlewoman, 
Haeres. 30. quae est E● 10.  that was quitted from the wanton assaults of a young man, by signing herself with the sign of the Cross; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that in it GOD might remonstrate his wondrous power. And again the same Father saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Magicians and Sorcerers prevailed not: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the woman found help in the SIGN of CHRIST, and through faith in him. which is gladius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Puritan and Papist: against him, for the bare sign; against you, for the sign. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. where the name of CHRIST was invocated, and the sign of the CROSS 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 Nazianzen hath of JULIAN the Apostata, in his first Invective. which THEODORET hath of a certain jew, lib. 3. cap. 3. which EPIPHANIUS of another 
Ho. 8. ad Rom.  jew, JOSEPHUS by name. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith chrysostom, we have also spiritual conjurations, the Name of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the power of the CROSS. Nec mirum est quòd haec signa valent, cum à bonis Christianis adhibentur; quando etiam, cum 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.  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 approve as much, whom you dare not deny to be of credit, or style a certain one of them. The SIGN of the CROSS, saith B. JEWEL, was had in great regard among Christians; and the more, both for the public 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 offered upon it. Therefore the faithful which believed in CHRIST, in all their talk, in their whole life and conversation, used so much the more to extol and magnify 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 CROSS. The which, as chrysostom saith, they were not ashamed to set as a Posy to any thing that they did, and to any thing that they possessed. Likewise GOD, that the world might more deeply think of the death of CHRIST, wrought oftentimes strange miracles by the same. Now is not this as good Popery as M. MOUNTAGU'S alleging and approving ONE of them? See more, if you be so disposed, in his XIV. Article against HARDING.    

CHAP. XXVII.  
Popery is not the signing with, but the adoring of the Cross. Strange effects which GOD hath wrought of old adhibito signo CRUCIS; & may do still by the virtue of CHRIST'S - Death and Passion, which that Sign doth represent.  

INFORMERS.  
He professeth, that he knoweth no cause of such distraction and disaffection betwixt us and the Papists, for the reverend use of signing with the sign of the Cross, etc.   

MOUNTAGU.  
FOR this use, betwixt any, not alone, nay not at all, Us and Papists. For he nameth no Papists, no more than Puritans. It is a Gloss of your own, none of my Text: and yet I will not desire to have it expunged, though I might put it off unto that frantic Puritan PARKER and his furious Followers, that indite the poor Cross of felony, murder, adultery, and all the sins against both the Tables. I know no reason why they should charge us: marry those of your shorter Cut they may both charge and challenge, for being singular in their own conceit, against consent of Antiquity. For, the reverend, pious and religious use of signing, ad omnem omtum, gestum, habitum, with the sign of the Cross, is no Popery; which is a grand abuse and a sacrilege committed by them, in adoring the Cross, and giving unto it divine worship, and ascribing effects unto the bare sign ex opere operato: which Antiquity never did, not then when GOD showed 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 grind the teeth at it. HELEN adored the KING of 
Deobit. THEODOSII.  heaven, and not the wooden CROSS, saith S. AMBROSE. In regard of that great and profane abuse of it in the Roman Church, we do abstain from the more frequent, ordinary, public use of the sign; which otherwise is lawful: and we might practise it much more than we do, were it not for scandal.  
But I add in the conclusion, I could tell some experimented effects thereof. You mean, in my own experience, by myself, or some other of my acquaintance. What I mean, 
JUNIUS, Animad. c. BEL. de Imag. ca 29. Prisci illi Patres praesentiam, virtutem, operationem salutarem CHRISTI implorabant, profitebantur, occupabant, adhibito SIGNO EXTERNO CRUCIS: cujus simplicitate, omnia Daemonum Ethnicorumque Ludibria cluderent in DOMINO.  you have no authority to examine me. Whatsoever you have given out amongst the Brethren in this point, I may by all Law, in terms of ambiguity expound myself. 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 sign of the Cross; and some I have formerly made you acquainted withal out of EPIPHANIUS, Nazianzen, chrysostom, 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, he having recited none: so here I may be 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 own knowledge? What then? Can you control or convince me? I am not bound to confess myself to you: but what if upon divers extremities I have found ease and remedy by using that ejaculatory prayer of our Litany, PER CRUCEM, etc. By thy CROSS (and when I said it, what if, to testify my faith, I made the sign of the Cross?) 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 be rightly informed (Master-Informers), it is not by the bare sign of the Cross that any such effect cometh, but by the virtue and force of CHRIST'S death and passion then remembered, and at that time represented by the sign of the Cross. 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 days? chrysostom saith they were ceased in his time, To. 5. pa. 605. yet he elsewhere relateth many miracles done even in his days. His meaning was, they were ceased from the frequent and ordinary use: some extraordinary use of them might then, and yet may be, for ought you know, or are able to prove the contrary. The Cross of our SAVIOUR, in the external sign thereof, being as much vilified and despised by furious Puritans in these days, as ever it was by frantic Pagans in those; why may not GOD, to teach men better manners, and to check this exorbitancy against the sign of our dear REDEEMER'S death, antiquum obtinere, do now as he hath done in the days of old, and show some sign and token, to magnify the thing so much despised? Sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You have enough. Take it which way you will, all is one to me. It cometh next in the Rear, which also formerly did advance in Front. Hear an argument of my Informers presumption against almost the current of Antiquity, out of ignorance at least, if not folly extreme.    

CHAP. XXVIII. The Informers presumption against the Current of Antiquity.  

INFORMERS.  
IN another place he saith, JOSUAH in fight prevailed against AMALEC, through the sign of the CROSS, 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. JUSTIN MARTYR against TRYPHO, pag. 95. and 99 edit. Graec. ROB. STEPHANI. TERTULLIAN, contr. judaeos, pag. 102. and lib. 3. against MARTION in the same words; and in other places. CYPRIAN, lib. 2. cap. 21. Testimon. adv. jud. 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 remarkable Verses of his,  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
which was also intended by ATHANASIUS the Great, Tom. 1. pag. 406. in this close couched manner: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. who by his people ISRAEL, working by his secret and mystical 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 mean time, you may blush for your ignorance and presumption.    

CHAP. XXIX. Touching the SACRAMENT of the ALTAR.  
The Informers drawn low, when they leave matter, and take offence at words and phrases. The Antiquity of Altars. A Sacrifice representative and spiritual, acknowledged by all. The Author herein farther from Popery, than the Informers from Puritanisme.  

INFORMERS.  
OF the Sacrament of the LORDS Supper he writeth very Popishly.   

MOUNTAGU.  
I Verily doth he, indeed lo. Our dear Brethren are here clean out of Patience. Hitherto their progress hath been from savouring 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 express terms, not as using their phrase, but his own, The Sacrament of the Altar. Very Popish, forsooth, to use a word, no stranger in the world. And my good Brethren, have not yourselves, as holy and precise as you would seem, used the like phrase? Have you not named the Mass, and Purgatory, and Transubstantiation, and the like, without any adjection of, As they call it, or so? more times than you have fingers and toes, I doubt not. Then sure, out of your own mouths, you speak very Popishly; and, which must follow in your inferences against Mast. MOUNTAGU, are very Papists, in suffering such profane 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 choose to speak in our B. MORTON'S words, apologizing for Protestants against Papists. It may be I have taken licence in use of terms; but no error in doctrine can you find: for, to put off your imputation from farther fastening, I believe no such Sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth. I fancy no such Altars as they employ, though I profess a Sacrifice and an Altar. In the same reverend Bishop's words: The LORDS Table, being called improperly an Altar, can no more conclude a Sacrifice understood properly, than when as S. PAUL call TITUS his son according to the Faith, which is improperly, a man may contend, S. PAUL was his natural father according to the flesh.  
So it is, The LORDS Table hath been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning; not, as some falsely teach, by succeeding Fathers. S. PAUL himself may seem to have given authority and warrant to the phrase, Heb. 13. 10. IGNATIUS, S. JOHN'S Disciple, useth the word in the Christian use and Liturgy 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 do DEO & ALTARI deservire. These Altars were not of Stone at first, until the days of CONSTANTINE, that the Church came to have rest and peace; nor then frequently and in ordinary Churches, but in Cathedral only, or in great Cities. But of Stone they were, it is certain; 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 itself. But the name of Altars was given unto them when they were of Wood; as is plain out of OPTATUS and others, as I have there collected. Now though you may stumble and break your shins at the Altar, yet I hope you will not overthrow the Sacrifice. I have so good opinion of your understanding, though weak, that you will confess 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 external, visible, true, and proper Sacrifice, but only representative, rememorative, and spiritual 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 mutual relation and dependence one upon the other. The name of Priests is given not only unto all Christians in general, 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 royal 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 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 truly Altars) TABLES: and why may not we 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 Devils. Nor will I abstain, notwithstanding your oggannition, to follow the steps and practice of Antiquity, in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also, and yet be farther from Popery in that practice, than you from Puritanisme, or any Puritan is indeed from true Popery; being two birds of one feather.    

CHAP. XXX.  
A real presence maintained by us. The difference betwixt us and popish writers is only about the modus, the manner of CHRIST'S presence in the blessed Sacrament. Agreement likely to be made, but for the factious and unquiet spirits on both sides. Beati Pacifici.  

INFORMERS.  
AFterwards he expresseth himself 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 Real Presence. pag. 253.   

MOUNTAGU.  
MORE fully (you mean, to be a Papist) than before; and that in the point of Real presence: which Real presence, in your Divinity, is flat Popery; but not in the Divinity 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 repeat again here: The disagreement is only in the modo praesentiae: the thing is yielded to on either side, that there is in the holy Eucharist a Real presence. God forbid, saith Bishop BILSON, we should deny that the flesh and blood of CHRIST are TRULY PRESENT, and truly received of the faithful at the LORDS Table. It is the doctrine that we teach others, and comfort ourselves withal. Pag. 779. of True subject. And the reverend and learned Answerer unto BELLARMINE'S Apology, cometh home to the Faith, or Popery if you will, condemned in M. MOUNTAGU, who learned it of him and such as he is. Nobis vobiscum de OBIECTO convenit, de modo lis omnis est. You understand not objectum and modum here: take his own application, to the purpose. PRAESENTIAM, inquam, credimus non minus quam vos VERAM. De MODO PRAESENTIAE nil temerè definimus. And to them agreeth Bishop MORTON, pag. 93. The question is not concerning a Real Presence, which Protestants, as their own jesuits witness, do also profess. FORTUNATUS a Protestant, holding that CHRIST is in the Sacrament, MOST REALLY: verissimè, realissimeque are his words. CALVIN, teaching that the presence of CHRIST'S Body, in respect of the souls of the faithful, is TRLUY in this Sacrament, and SUBSTANTIALLY received. with whom BEZA and SADAEL do 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 look unto you. Yea but it is inexpiable that I say, We need not so descent from Papists. As if it were a sacrilege, not to jar and jingle infinitely without cause. I may, I see, turn my speech to you, and you will not refuse to take it to yourselves, which I uttered touching the jesuit Faction: But that the Devil 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 confess that which is enough, This is my body; and contend merely 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 several opinions which have been held, they are grown, for aught I can see, on all sides at the length to a general agreement concerning that which alone is material, namely, the real participation of CHRIST, and of life in his body and blood by means of this Sacrament, wherefore should the world continue still distracted (yes, to please the humours, and serve the turns of Jesuits and Puritans) and rend with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy, saving only about the subject, Where CHRIST is? yea, even in this point neither side denyeth, but that the soul of man is the receptacle of CHRIST'S presence. It was no blessed speech, in my opinion; but unworthy to be heard in an open Pulpit, and Published in Print, MALEDICTI PACIFICI; those that endeavour 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 JAMES of most happy memory.    

CHAP. XXXI.  
The Author's acknowledgement of his error. Consecration of the elements causeth a change; yet infers no Popish Transubstantiation. The Informers out of their element. Antiquity maintained. Figurists & Novellers condemned.  

INFORMERS.  
ANd again, No man denieth a change, an alteration, a transmutation, a transelementation, as they speak.   

MOUNTAGU.  
NO MAN denyeth: you do. 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 me this fault, I will commit it no more. If I have any occasion hereafter to speak of learned and moderate men, I will ever except and exempt you and yours. I must confess my error and simplicity: for I would have thought, that in the Sacrament every man would have confessed a change; that the consecrated Elements had been somewhat more than mere ordinary Bread and Wine. For I did conceive a sacramental Being of them, and not only a natural, in their use and designment. Vbi accesserit CONSECRATIO, de pane fit caro CHRISTI. And S. AUGUSTINE'S Saying is common and well known, Accedat Verbum ad elementum, & fiet Sacramentum. And CYRIL of jerusalem, 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 Liturgy: and who is not of the same mind? Speaketh he not unto the self 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 chrysostom, 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, than that Popish Minion, as Bish. MORTON calleth it, were not, as it is, a Babe of yesterday birth, never heard of in the world for MCC. years after CHRIST. but, a change of the elements, that is, Transmutation and Transelementation, do not infer, you must know, Transubstantiation. For in the other two the matter remaineth; but in this the matter is destroyed: the quantity and accidents only remain. There is a Conversion Sacramental, that is, of signification, and of operation and use; as also in the Water of Baptism. And in Conversions that are substantial, 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 substantial change. Many be the differences that might be insisted upon: but I pass them over. The poor men that tendered this for Popery, were doubtless out of their element, and meddled beyond their latchet, or else they may go to their books afresh, study somewhat more strongly; and then perhaps they will begin to sent it, that Change, Transmutation, Transelementation, do not conclude, as they simply believe, Transubstantiation. Then that speech of S. CYPRIAN will not relish of any Popery; 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 becometh the FLESH OF CHRIST, because then the Sacrament is consummate. Which did not seem Popery unto Bishop MORTON, pag. 106. The Fathers, saith he, do note in Baptism a certain change. AMBROSE, speaking of the water in Baptism, saith: The nature thereof is by Benediction changed. And he is produced in the like case for proof 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 me recited out of Lib. IU. cap. 4. de Sacram. Is this Popery in M. MOUNTAGU? Is it good Catholic Doctrine in Bish. MORTON? He approveth it, and explaineth 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 own 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 Puritanical, to traduce me for Popery so publicly, which in that learned Bishop they approve for good Divinity. In conclusion, you manifest yourselves mere Sacramentaries, or worse, that deny CHRIST'S Body and his Blood to be in the Sacrament (I dare call it so in despite of detraction) of the Altar. For you inform against these words as Popish. Be contented with, That it is the Body of CHRIST, and do not seek nor define how it is so, and we shall not contest nor contend. Which GOD forbid the Church of ENGLAND should maintain, said Bishop BILSON. The Figurists, Significatists, Symbolists, taught you this Doctrine, who acknowledge nothing, receive nothing, but naked and bare signs 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 be proved by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plain 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 SPIRITUAL manner; and the means whereby the BODY of CHRIST is received and eaten in the SUPPER, is Faith. ARTIC. XXVIII.    

CHAP. XXXII. Touching CONFESSION.  
Information against the express direction and practice of the Church of England. No new Popish custom, but the ancient and pious manner of Confession for the help and furtherance of men's true repentance, and for the continuing of them in amendment of life, is, may be, and aught to be urged. How Confession of sins to a Priest is required by the Church before the Receiving of the LORDS Supper.  

INFORMERS.  
WE require men, saith he, to make special confession of their sins unto a Priest, if they find their consciences troubled with any weighty matter, either 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 wilderness: nor these men to cast on me particular calumnies, but per satyram congested and conjected at a mass upon the Church of England, in pretence of me. 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 persuade it in extremis: we require it in case of perplexity, for the quieting of men disturbed, and their consciences. This is my Popery per parts. For warrant whereof, I bring my witness and authority, 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 city them truly and faithfully, but they have erred into Popery, speak 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 maintain, according to their duty 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 Appeal, lib. 2. cap. 14. saith thus: It is not questioned between us, whether it be convenient for a man burdened with sin, to lay open his conscience in private unto the Minister of GOD, and to seek at his hands both counsel of instruction, and the comforts of GOD'S pardon: But whether there be, as from CHRIST'S institution, such an absolute necessity of this private Confession, both for all sorts of men, and for every particular sin known, and ordinary transgression, so, as that without it there can be no remission or pardon to be 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 sins, with all circumstances: which is a tyranny, and impossible, and a torture to the conscience. The PROTESTANTS do acknowledge, saith he, the use of private Confession, but with a double limitation and restraint: the first is the foresaid freedom 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 Council of TRENT, that Popish Cynosura, hath decreed Auricular Confession to be of absolute Necessity, from Ordinance divine. and so we must take it, or incur their Anathema, if we care for it. The Master of Sentences saith, Without it there is no way to heaven. In IV. dist. 17. INNOCENTIUS 111. denieth Christian burial unto the not confessed, when they die. In Concil. Lateranensi. C. XXI. HUGO, de potestate Ecclesiae, is bold, he saith, to speak it. Whosoever cometh to Communion unconfessed, be he never so repentant and sorry for his sins, doth, without doubt, receive to judgement. More bold than wise in saying so, I wis: for it is oftentimes a matter of impossibility to do it; ever impossible to do it with particular enumeration of each sin, and special circumstance in each sin. Nor was it so rigidly practised of old, as appeareth by LYRA in XVI. XXI. of Levit. nor is there such necessity of absolute use, nor any such original imposition. The learned Bishop of MEATH setteth down, in his Answer unto the Jesuits Challenge, the state of Confession in the doctrine of OUR Church, thus. We tell him again, that by the PUBLIC 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 own conscience, but requireth further comfort or counsel, he should come to him, or some other discreet and learned Minister of GOD'S Word, and open his grief, that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, as his conscience may be relieved; and that by the ministry of GOD'S Word he may receive comfort, and the benefit of ABSOLUTION, to the quieting of his conscience. Whereby it appeareth (saith that learned Bishop) that the exhorting of the people to CONFESS their sins unto their GHOSTLY FATHERS, maketh no such wall of separation betwixt the ANCIENT Doctors and Us. And again, Be it therefore known unto him, that no kind of Confession, either public or private, is disallowed by us, that is any way requisite for the due execution of the ancient power of the Keys, which CHRIST bestowed upon his Church. The thing which we reject, is, that new picklock of Sacramental Confession, obtruded upon men's 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, we may, as we do, advise, and urge the use thereof. And lest this phrase should be excepted against, Urging doth not ever employ constraint or imperium; it reflecteth as often upon argument, persuasion, and inducement. Therefore, you that are Informers against the Church and me, remember to be more temperate hereafter, at least for some men's sakes, whom you dare not, cannot, will not censure for Popish errors, as you do M. MOUNTAGU.    

CHAP. XXXIII. Touching the Sacrament of ORDERS.  
The new religion full of exceptions, though but against words only. Ordination acknowledged to be a Sacrament by M. CALVIN himself. A Sacrament in lato sensu. What our Church meaneth, in saying there are but TWO Sacraments.  

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 express words of our own Bibles; he taketh no exception to him for calling it, The SACRAMENT of holy Orders.   

MOUNTAGU.  
THis is no positive, but negative Popery; a sin, not of commission, but omission. Not to take exception, no Peccadillo, but a capital crime with Puritanical quicksilver Spirits, whose service unto GOD is performed by taking exception against all things that suit not with their fancy. Else, what maketh it so heinous an offence with them, to take no exception at a term, 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 needless, and to no purpose oftentimes. You foment this humour 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 we are not so contentious nor brabbling as you would have us. For here what need you quarrel the not excepting against the term 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. Just as not long since you sought a knot in a rush for using the like phrase of sacrament of the Altar: So, if being to say somewhat against Transubstantiation, I do not quarrel 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 maintain it.  
But I can otherwise excuse myself, and I believe shall not find them in the excepting humour for it. Know then, Sirs Informers, I durst not except against the phrase, for fear of drawing more fists about my ears than my own, viz. of all YOUR DIVINES (and they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) whom you call CALVINISTS. For have you not read it? or do 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. IU. ca 19 sect. 31. Superest Impositio manuum: quam ut in veris legitimisque ordinationibus Sacramentum esse concedo, ita nego locum habere in hâc fabulâ, etc. How that is, and in what sort, he expresseth himself, lib. IU. 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 ordinary 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 in that short, small, but perfect Catechism in our Communion Book: where the Question being asked, How many SACRAMENTS are there? the Answer is made, TWO only as generally necessary unto salvation; not excluding others from that name and designation, though from the prerogative and degree. For, touching sacramental unction, it is observed out of M. HOOKER, that in the Writings of the ancient Fathers, all Articles peculiar unto Christian faith, all Duties of Religion containing that which sense or natural reason cannot of itself discern, are commonly called Sacraments. And this is not denied by B. MORTON. For if we should speak of improper Sacraments, 
Pag. 339.  saith he, which are mentioned by the ancient Fathers, our Adversaries would not deny, that not only seven, but seventy times seven Sacraments might be named. Therefore, for the Church of England's sake, be good to Master MOUNTAGU in this sin of omission; and unto the Church of England, for the ancient Father's 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 be called Holy?) goeth as far as may be, both for force, and for form of administration: as if Ordination did, in his opinion, consist in relation unto some such gift or grace supernatural, as only GOD can bestow; being the powerful means of GOD, though in different degrees, unto eternal life. It followeth.    

CHAP. XXXIV.  
Information against the Church-book of Ordination; which acknowledgeth the giving and receiving of the HOLY GHOST in sacred Orders: so that Priests have that interior grace & power conferred upon them for the dispensation of Divine mysteries, which others have not.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
Counterfeiting at length will be dismasked, and Hypocrisy appear in the true comportment. For here, Sorex suo se indicio. The Ape discovers himself to be so, by cracking of nuts: so do these men, who, what, and what Side they are of; Puritan in Faction, and engrayned in their affection that way, howsoever pretending conformity by subscription. For what is that, trow 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, internal Grace is conferred. Now this these good Informers have presented to be a Popish error, namely, the public and by Parliament established and authorised doctrine of our Church. So said their grand patriarchs and Fathers before them; the Puritan Undertakers, and maintainers unto Parliament also, against the doctrine and discipline of the CHURCH. Papisticus quidam ritus, are their own 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, We cannot give the HOLY GHOST, and therefore we do 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 entered into Priesthood, their profession was then amongst other things acknowledged and subscribed, that the book of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth nothing contrary unto the Word of GOD: and yet now it containeth. For this is expressly contained 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. The Canon is, Whosoever shall hereafter affirm or teach, that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth any thing in it contrary to the Word of GOD, let him be excommunicate IPSO FACTO. These men have affirmed it in most public manner: 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 refer it to Them unto whom it belongeth, whether they stand not therefore excommunicate; not to be restored until they repent, and publicly revoke such their wicked rerors: the Censure of the Canon. But I proceed from Ordination to Execution of Priesthood; from the Original denied, unto the Ministerial part rejected also by them: and so I shall have done with them.    

CHAP. XXXV. Touching power of Priesthood to forgive Sins.  
Priests have power to forgive sins, not originally, but ministerially. The Doctrine of the Ordination and Communion Book for public and private Absolution. The Informers to lose the profits of their livings, and to be imprisoned without bail, for declaring against it.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
FIRST be pleased, whosoever shalt view or read this Apology, 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 sins, or retain them. It was answered by me, that in some sense it was true, None else can do it, viz. by authority and right original, because all sin is properly committed against GOD; Tibi soli peccavi: and that in some sense also it was not true. For by delegation others also might do it ministerially. GOD doth forgive them by the ministry of men. The Priest, to do 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 witness 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 sins. Which seemeth to be the doctrine of the COMMUNION BOOK in the visitation of the sick. where the PRIEST saith, AND BY HIS AUTHORITY COMMITTED UNTO ME, I ABSOLVE THEE FROM ALL THY SINS. This is my relation hitherto, of what I find. So that here is committed crimen falsi by these Informers. I relate what one of that Side saith; I say it not myself, 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 he relateth it. So that were it not justifiable which is here reported, these honest, faithful Brethren had put a trick upon me, namely, an Assertion for a bare Relation; as if I had justified what I do but report. But it is justifiable: it is the doctrine and practice of the Church of England. The Bishop of Meath was of that opinion, Pag. 109. against a Jesuits challenge; HE hath done us open wrong in charging us to deny, that PRIESTS HAVE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. And he giveth a reason irrefragable; Whereas the very formal words which our Church requireth to be used in the Ordination of a Minister, are these: WHOSE SINS THOU DOST FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN; AND WHOSE SINS THOU DOST RETAIN, 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 Appeal, Pag. 270. And indeed the POWER OF ABSOLUTION, whether it be GENERAL or PARTICULAR, whether in PUBLIC or in PRIVATE, it is professed in OUR CHURCH; where both in our PUBLIC 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 speak against some part of the Communion-Booke, in the Visitation of the sick, for Absolution in remission of sins; and that they stand convicted thereof per evidentiam facti, by statute of 1. of Elizab. they are to lose the profits of all their spiritual promotions and benefices for one year, unto the KING; and without bail or maineprise, to suffer imprisonment for half a year. If they are not beneficed, their endurance is the longer: the punishment allotted, is, one whole years imprisonment. which it were not amiss, that Authority would deservedly inflict upon them, to teach them better manners hereafter, than to call that a point of Popery, which is apparent, and confessed to be the express and avowed doctrine and discipline of the Church, confirmed for performance by Act of Parliament. I leave the censure of their deserts unto Authority, whom it toucheth; and proceed to the next Information upon the same point, though with some addition.    

CHAP. XXXVI.  
Priests only, and none other, have commission from CHRIST to forgive sins. The extravagancies of Puritans and Papists both in this point.  

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

MOUNTAGU.  
ANd is it not so confessed, when by public warrant in Ordination, that power is given unto all Priests to do so, in those solemn words of Ordination, WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN? and unto none but Priests, because none have else such Ordination? If this be not confessed, I will put myself to you to school, to learn and to know what is confessed. The fact is apparent, you cannot say nay: haply you will, nay, certainly you do question, Quo jure, quam 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 here you infer necessarily, that Priests have no more power to do this, than Laymen have. For what else can you mean by, And none but Priests, but either, that neither one nor other have that power; or else, that one 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 Layman may hear it as well as a Priest: and therefore it is probable, you will not be very precise for Absolution, to confer it on a Layman, as well as on a Priest. So the power of the keys are to both alike in equal assize. But Sirs, Absolution is a part of that Priestly power, which could not be given by Men or Angels, but only and immediately by Almighty GOD himself; a part of that paramount power which the GOD of glory hath invested mortal men withal. In which respect, and not otherwise, as some claim, it hath been said, The head of the EMPEROR hath been subjected unto the PRIEST'S hands. In which regard, no earthly power is of equal value and assize unto it; as not only 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 be invested with it, but by commission. Priests only have this commission from CHRIST; unto whom he said, As my Father sent me, so send I you; and, Receive you the holy Ghost: whose sins you remit, they are remitted, etc. This commission (as they may do any) those that have it under seal 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 less 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 do fasten the efficacy of forgiving sins, unto the external word pronounced by the Priest. For, saith SUAREZ, Sacraments have 
To. 3. d. 2. § 2.  a PHYSICAL efficacity in conferring grace, as CHRIST'S humanity had in working miracles. And therefore no marvel if they abate Contrition, by acquiring only, as sufficient and enough, a kind of overly desire to serve GOD anew; such as the Schoolmen call vellëity: no full resolved purpose, no matter for it; no deep sorrow or Contrition. And therefore are they so facile in Absolution, so easy and often childish in Satisfaction.  
We profess and believe, that none can forgive sins but GOD, by expiating, wiping out, blotting away, and purging; that no man can forgive them absolutely, authoritatively, by primer and original power; that Priests have delegated power from GOD to reconcile unto him, by preparing of them by the Word and Sacraments to repentance, to be capable of forgiveness; first, to chafe and prepare the wax to receive the Seal; then, as Officers, to set to that Seal, to pronounce them absolved in the name of CHRIST, and actually to absolve them, so far as Ministerial Power can extend, qui non ponunt obicem by unbelief or irrepentance. The phrase of the Ancients, and even of the elder Roman Schools, 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 dispositiuè. And that because ea adhibent per quae DEUS dimittit peccata, & dat gratiam. To conclude; the Master of their Sentences, their ancient rituals, their formal 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 own making, and yet in all 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 own 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 do 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 know to be no PURITAN. thus wounding their Mother through their Brother's sides.    

CHAP. XXXVII. THE CONCLUSION.  
The issue of YATES and his FELLOW-Jnformers fond Accusations. Other flying reports and defamations neglected. The Author's humble submission unto the Church of England, and to HIS most sacred MAJESTY.  
THus far these Zealous Ones have uncharitably informed; and have made a great noise and hubbub in the Church and State, of Errors, Dangerous Errors, GOD knoweth how far, or wherein; Arminianism, Popery, taught and delivered by M. MOUNTAGU. Much suspected, nothing yet proved. Great clamours and outcries of I know not what, or wherefore: as if ANNIBAL were add Portas, and Popery ready to be restated in Church and Commonwealth. So the Beacons are fired by certain frantic fellows that are frighted with Panic fears, and by them the neighbouring countries are disturbed without cause. A field of Thistles seemed once a battle of Pikes, unto some Discoverers of the Duke of Burgundy. You can apply what I exemplify. I go no farther, but leave you to yourselves; and if it be possible, unto more charitable conceits of those that deserve no other imputation, but, THEY ARE NO PURITANS: which GOD in goodness keep out of this Church and State, as dangerous as Popery, for any thing I am able to discern: the only difference being, POPERY is for Tyranny, PURITANISME for Anarchy: POPERY is original of Superstition; PURITANISME, the highway unto Profaneness; both alike enemies unto Piety.  
Other Accusations there are that walk in corners, and fly abroad by Owl-light, as Bats or Beetles do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor would I have regarded those idle ARTICLERS, those that in their Informations have carried themselves so magisterially, upon Ignorance and Malice one way, but Presumption and Opinion of their own knowledge another way, being but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as TATIANUS would call them; but that they professed themselves public Promoters, and exhibited Informations, ut de rerum summâ. It was my part and duty, not to neglect my own innocence, but to discover and lay open their predominant frenzies to view in some part, and ignorant stupidity in common Tenants.  
THEM, MYSELF; whatsoever I have said, or done, or shall hereafter do any way; libens, merito, more Majorum, now and ever I have, I do, I will refer and submit, and in most lowly devoted, humble sort, prostrate upon bended knees, unto this CHURCH of England, and the true DEFENDER thereof, his MOST SACRED MAJESTY; humbly craving that Royal Protection which sometime WILLIAM OCKAM did of LEWES of Baviere the Emperor; DOMINE IMPERATOR, DEFEND ME GLADIO, ET EGO TE DEFENDAM CALAMO.  
FINIS.