Rowling Rambling I might adde Ruffling Scuffling Schambling Muffling Buffling Brangling Shifting Tricking Shambling and many more then these if I had Mr. Mountagu his eloquence and I might put them all as titles to the disputations foregoing in this point and yet should I come farre short of the excellency and worthinesse of his Disputation therefore I hope the Reader will iudge as he find s and supply what I want He will speake but once more and that shall driue the nayle to the head thus he saith Without finall perseuering in obedience they are none of Gods elect these being the appointed instrumentall causes of all their saluation Appeale page 74. This reason must be thus framed If finall perseuering in obedience be the appointed instrumentall cause of mans saluation then finall perseuering in obedience c. is the thing without which no man is of Gods elect But finall perseuering c. is the appointed instrument all cause of mans saluation I answer by instrumentall cause of saluation Mr. Mountagu must meane at least the meritorious cause of heauen which being so his sentence in plaine English is thus much Finall obedience is the meritorious cause of saluation In which sentence he agrees with the Church of Rome for the Councell of Trent hath decreed that Eternall life is propounded as wages vnto such as doe well to the end Ses 6. cap. 16. Good workes doe merit eternall life This Doctrine of the Councell is vrged and defended by Bellarmine in his Booke de lusti lib. 5. as the Reader may see to the full Hereupon wee may conclude against Mr. Mountagu in his owne words written in another case Which follow The Ape discouers himselfe by cracking of nuts Appeale p. 308. So doth this man who what and what side hee is of A Tridentine in faction and engrayned in affection that way howsoeuer pretending conformity by subscription ibid. But it may be Mr. Mountagu will say hee did not know that the Church of Rome taught thus much I answer his owne words will then refute him for thus he writeth If a man continue constant in the course of good workes he is sure of heauen causally in Bellarmines iudgement as procured by them Appeale page 210. To the parts of the Argument I answer first The assumption is denied by our Church which saith By our deeds wee cannot merit heauen nor bring vs to the fauour of God nor winne heauen Homilie of Almes-deedes second part page 326. 327. 329. Vpon this reason because then A man is a Merchant with God and so defaceth and obscureth the price of Christs blood Now our Church hath ouerthrowne his assumption there is no need that I speake further thereunto but yet that the efficacy of truth taught by our Church may fully appeare you shall heare himselfe deny this his owne assumption for thus he writeth Bellarmine saith Heauen is of workes causally wherin I differ from him Appeale page 210. There is a reward for the righteous not for workes or of workes Appeale page 208. Some man perhaps will say hee doth then contradict himselfe I answer that salueth not the wound he giueth vnto his assumption the voyce of truth in his owne mouth against himselfe is of more worth then many witnesses This part of his reason being naught the rest hath no force to inferre the conclusion yet I proceed to the rest The foresaid argument at the best and amongst his best friends is not worthy answering It is no better then the dry bones of a Hackney ridden to death many yeares past I finde it propounded and answered by Bellarmine de grat lib. 2. cap. 13. Quintum c. by Suarez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n o 22. c. by Aluarez de Auxilijs disp 37. n o 3. Tertio Deus c. n o 21. Ad tertium c. To the consequence of the proposition I answer that it is most feeble and false A man may haue euerlasting life in the euent by reason of his finall perseuering and yet not be decreed thereunto by reason of his finall perseuerance foreseene I shew it out of the said Authors thus In Predestination there is Gods will of Intention Execution This distinction I finde in Bellarmine de gratia lib. 2. cap. 14. Respondeo illud In Suarez opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 18. n o 4. De deo part 2. lib. 1. cap. 14. n o 7. And in Aluarez de Auxilijs disput 37. n o 19. If any doubt of the truth of this distinction the Authors alleadged doe bring proofe enough for it and chiefly Suarez in the places alleadged in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 19. n o 4. c. to whom I referre the Reader Supposing then that the distinction is without question I answer Gods action of execution wrought in time doth indeed represent Gods eternall will of execution for the will of execution is no more but a disposition of execution or the execution it selfe preconceiued in the minde of God as the Authors alleadged doe truely speake In this sense Mr. Mountagu saith truely So saued are So ordained by God Whatsoeuer commeth to passe commeth So to passe because God hath sayd So and no otherwise it shall come to passe Gagge page 177. The one is originall of the other and the one is euidence of the other Appeale page 61. But this is not to our purpose for we speake not of Predestination as it containes Gods will of execution but of intention The acts of God done in time doe not represent Gods eternall will of intension which is no more but a decree appointing that the thing shall bee The will of intention medleth not with the manner how the meanes shall produce the effect and how the effect shall flow from the meanes it assigneth not which is the meanes which the end as the said authors haue abundantly proued It is the first act of Gods will touching mans saluation and is not regulated by any former God was wholly free to will it or not to will it to will it vnto this man or vnto another there being nothing in the creature to restraine this liberty and determine the diuine will vnto one so that you must shew vs diuine reuelation that affirmeth the finall perseuerance of Peter was the reason to moue God to appoint him vnto glory It is not an inferēce made from an act of temporall execution that can be a sufficient ground to inioine vs to beleeue it but such reuelation there is none therefore we may conclude there was no such reason leading God to predestinate this or that man vnto glory Here I may enquire of M. Mountagu whether he hath read this answer others like vnto it or not one of thē is certainly true If he hath not read it where is his transcendent reading he so much doth vant of where is that diuine that so often calleth others ignorant poore and scummers vpon the surface and such like termes Now these poore diuines these simple
he vnderstands it not for then he could not distinguish sinne into mortall and veniall for all sinne in this sense is mortall If by veniall he vnderstood no more but sin not deseruing damnation by Gods not-imputing it I will grant that sinne is veniall but hee must not vnderstand it thus for so all the sinnes of the iustified are veniall or to speake in the words of the Church of England first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning Their sinnes are washed in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their damnation It remaineth therefore that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth Which being true that distinction is denyed and so he begs the question and proues it not It is also denyed that a man habitually sanctified can commit any such sinne as the Church of Rome calleth mortall and yet he proues this as he did the former euen by his owne word If you will not beleeue him you must goe look proofe other where but you must not looke it in Bellarmine for if he had brought any Mr. Mountagu would haue giuen it you in English His next branch is this Where mortall sinne is committed God is disobeyed I answer in this sentence he attributeth disobedience vnto mortall sinne adequately denying veniall sinne to be any disobedience vnto Gods law for if he did not so he must say that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sinnes as hee calls veniall for he saith as we shall see anon where God is disobeyed grace cannot consist but must needs be lost But he will not say grace is lost by veniall sinne therefore he conceiueth onely mortall sinne disobeyeth Gods law Iust as Bellarmine doth who teacheth Veniall sinne is sinne by analogy or certaine proportion and imperfectly after a certaine sort but not perfectly and simply neither is it perfectly voluntary nor perfectly against the Law but besides the Law De amiss gra lib. 1. cap. 11. Quintum c. If you aske me how Mr Mountagu proues this I answer with no worse proofe then he hath done the former branches and that is his owne very word which you need not sticke at for he is one of the learnedst in the Church of England His third branch is in these words Where God is disobeyed he will not abide I answer in what sense soeuer the word disobeyed be taken this sentence is false and must goe for such till he hath proued it which yet he hath not done nor attempted to doe let him shew vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon the committing of this or that sinne 2 This actuall sinne is of that nature that of it selfe it doth expell grace If he proue one of these the question is at an end the Diuine Oracle must haue credit If you bring not that you hunt a flea and pursue a shadow It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne till you proue that grace must giue place to sinne by the ordinance and decree of God or the nature of the things themselues There be some other things in this proofe to be examined but I passe them ouer because they depend vpon these branches which I haue answered vnto and doe stand or fall with them To conclude this argument I say It is worthy to be obserued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised vnto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that position but at the vpshot their proofes are for the thing denyed by none and they take for granted the things denyed by all which kind of disputing in it selfe is most vnsound for it is no more but as if they should say it is so because we say it is so and it is most dangerous to the Reader that is not very wary for it is most deceitfull bearing a shew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in question It may be some will vrge these places of Scripture on this sort If he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometimes doth commit such sinnes as for which in in the euent he is cast into hell then a man may lose and some doe lose the habit of sanctity But he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometime doth commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he is cast into hell Therefore c. I answer In this reason I grant the first part or consequence of the proposition because no man hath the habit of sanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell for that leades to another end and is alwayes to be crowned with glory But the assumption or second part which hath two branches is wholly false no one place of Scripture doth affirme or inferre either of these two sentences The habitually sanctified may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell Some habitually sanctified haue committed such sins as for which he is now in hell If any require me to shew that the places alledged doe not proue thus much I answer That is not my office for 1. the question is not at this present purposely disputed 2 It is their place to dispute and mine to answer let them apply the Scriptures to the purpose in an orderly forme and I will make my answer good It is enough for mee to giue them an Issue They must proue the Issue or leaue the cause behind them I will put some of their allegations into forme and answer to them which I doe thus He that may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such actuall sinne as for which hee is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell he may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall be cast into hell But the man habitually sanctified may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such sinne as for which he is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity hee shall dye therein Therefore the man habitually sanctified may commit such sinne as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell I answer although the proposition seemes not to be euidently true because God may so threaten sin to shew vnto man what the desert of sinne is and not what in the euent shall become of such a sinner yet I will not at this present insist thereupon but come to the assumption which is not true neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be so for these three words viz. Righteous Righteousnesse Iniquity may import the act and none of them can signifie the habit as the text it selfe doth euidently shew which doth interpret the word Righteous by the word Righteousnesse and Righteousnesse it calleth an Act
Gagger and subscribe to Bellarmine who maintaine that Peters faith did not faile auoid it if you can I answer and so must your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too auoide you it if you can for I say no more then what I haue learned of her and so must you also auoid it if you can for you professe to beleeue what it beleeueth and teach what it teacheth in whose faith and confession you hope to liue and dye Appeale p. 48. You haue spun a faire threed you haue hunted all this while and couered your nets close to catch your mother and your selfe in the pitfall I will doe you that fauour as to let you and the Church of England loose I will stand by it my selfe and will professe Peter lost not his faith when he denyed Christ But you must giue mee leaue to expresse my selfe which I doe thus The act of faith is either eliciate or imperate The first is the act of the soule onely remaining in it selfe not knowne to man which wee call beleeuing The second is wrought by the body also and commeth to the knowledge of men as when a man doth professe by his tongue to giue credit and trust vnto Christ Peter lost not his faith in the first kind but in the second I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart beleeue that hee was indeed the Christ and trusted vnto and relyed vpon him as such euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him Peters deniall being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distresse hee feared If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus I subscribe to them and that vpon good reason for Peter had long beleeued on Christ and had now no cause to change that beleefe therefore wee may not say he did change it vnlesse the diuine reuelation had said it which hath not a word of any such thing but looke better on your bookes and you shall find Bellarmine saith Peter lost his charity but not his faith because he was Pastor ouer the whole Church and was to teach it the true faith de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more then I say by which it appeareth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perseuerance I maintaine nor my sentence so good Popery as M. Mountagu hath deliuered contrary to his vniust challenge Appeale pag. 18. It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith to establish his owne implyed Gagg pag. 163. which is on this wise Faith is either in the end or the act But this distinction I feare not because end and act are not parts of faith neither as specialls to the generall nor as constitutiue parts making a constituted whole besides what he saith of the end of faith is a riddle which I doubt himselfe vnderstandeth not Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent or position as it lyeth I will now put the disputation into due forme and answer thereunto Thus then it lyeth If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace then you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger who say that Peter lost not his faith But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine c. where he saith Peter lost not his faith for that is Popery Therefore you must not deny that Peter lost his habit of grace I answer This whole argument is a meere caption and no proofe it supposeth that the losse of the habit of grace is denyed to Peter onely which is false and the conclusion nothing to the purpose And so he must be vnderstood for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely But I will take it as it lyeth and answer to it The weaknesse of his cause will the better appeare by my answer which is this I grant the assumption I promise you I am and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popish faith as M. Mountagu and further too For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the office to determine all controuersies in faith Yet you get nothing by it for the consequence of your proposition is naught I may say the first and not the second in the sense wherein they take it for they say he lost not his faith neither in the habit nor act by a speciall prouidence and peculiar dispensation vpon the reason and for the end as is aforesaid n o 25. but I say hee lost it not neither in habit nor act by that prouidence and dispensation which is common to him with all other men that haue receiued the habit of grace who must needs keepe their faith so long as they keepe the habit of grace because the habit of grace consisteth in faith hope and charitie Vnto this sentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary They say all men lose their faith when they lose the habit of grace onely Peter is excepted by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue shewed no 25. Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his snare and we find the snare is broken and the game is escaped and with it his whole disputation in this point of falling from grace is ended Hee tells vs of some that haue whirlegiggs in their heads Appeale pag. 81. Which is true of himselfe if it be true of any but he may bee pardoned that fault his heart was so full of anger and his pen of railing that he had no leasure to attend vpon Art and Diuinitie CHAP. XIII The point of reall presence M. Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England There is there need bee no difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church in the point of Reall presence Gag 253. Appeale 289. Our Lord Iesus Christ true God man is contained truly really substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conc Trent sess 13. c. 1 That is whole Christ body and blood together with the soule diuinity and not in a figure or vertue only can 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacramēt of our redemption by Christs death insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receiue the same the bread which wee breake is a partaking of the body of Christ and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ CHAP. XIV The point of Reall presence is debated THe order obserued hitherto must be obserued here also Three things are sought after 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in the reall presence with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth in the point of Reall presence with the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himselfe Thus he writeth There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in the point of Reall presence Gagg p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Gagg p. 251. If the
shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and â—eaning of his words which is the vâ—ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that sâ—â—ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the mâ—â—ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and fleshâ—â—â— the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could euâ—r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance
be without blame by obiecting against the persons and plea of them that stand against you Of their persons you say They are Puritanes Self-conceited Presumptuous Maligners at States Irregular Louing paritie Factious Turbulent page â— 3. Ouer precise professors p. 4. Malicious p. 5. Hornets ill affected Purer Brethren Great Rabines in Israel whose pens and pulpits be infallible in iudgement page 6. Popular-spirits Singular illuminates Simple ignoranâ—ees Classicall dictators Groners for Parochiall Popes p. 7. Partiaries p. 14. Peremptory resolued conclusiue false slanderers p. 15. Calumniators indirect dealers p. 22. Men of cheuerellised consciences Calumniators neither honest nor plaine hauing presbyterian tricks of Legerdemaine p. 23. Traducers Saint-seeming bible-bearing Hypocriticall Puritans glosers time-seruers Colluders with the State page 43. Closers in shew with our Church but teachers of things contrary to what they haue subscribed crafty pretenders to bring in Popes to euery parish and Anarchies in the State separatists from others singular a part afaction a diuision brethren of Amsterdam p. 44. A faction of nouellizing Puritanes men intractable insociable incompliable with those that will not maintaine dissentions p. 60. Men that haue whirlegiggs in their braines And be far at variance with their owne wits p. 81. Clamorous Promoters That read not ordinary protestaÌ„t writers that braule at the shadow of their owne fancies fight with shaw-fowles of their owne setting vp Talke confidently Traduce virulently mistake ignorantly page 88. Men of new learning that haue little or none old factious furious p. 90. Of the preciser cut zealous Disciples p. 95. Such whose wits be not their owne p. 96. Such as professe themselues senselesse p. 99. Ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits p. 101. Feruent ones violently precise p. 108. Of vncharitable vnchristian fiery Puritanicall zeale Malice Indiscretion Such as run a madding of transported spirits p. 110. Schismaticks conforming for preferment p. 111. Men that hold with the Hare and run with the hound of mouing violent Quicksiluer Gunpowder spirits That run into extreames Furious ones p. 112. Promoters without Christian charitie common wit sense vnderstanding honestie Such whose passions are malignant and possessed with deepe malice Shamelesse slanderes p. 129. Ignorant malicious factious poore diuines p. 138. Franticke good fellowes that are and euer will be I know what p. 139. Halfers in opinions for priuate ends rotten at the core professing conformitie but are opposites p. 142. Men partially addicted maliciously bent to calumniate Honest informers detractors p. 145. Puritanicall opposites p. 146. Men that haue set themselues to calumniate Ignorant of the point they vndertake against That cannot or will not vnderstand p. 168. Fooles opposing common reason confessed diuinity p. 185 Great Masters in Israel Lyars against their owne knowledge p. 191. Ignorant peeuish prophane p. 207. Misdeeming informers wanting sincere and honest dealing p. 209. Malicious peeuish Puritanicall p. 213. Men of poore capacitie without apprehension p. 218. Dissemblers p. 222. Such as vnderstand not the depth of the question scum vpon the surface gibberish they cannot tell for what page 248. Pigmies of this time p. 273. Younglings p. 274. Of vncircumcised lippes p. 275. Of your shorter cut singular in their owne conceits Such as ramble and are ready to grind the teeth p. 279. Furious Puritans p. 281. Ignorant insolent arrogant presumptuous 283. Good brethren seeming holy and precise Tormentors of words malicious detractors 285. Bred and sent abroad by the diuell to maintaine a faction p. 291. Neither discreet nor moderate nor vnderstanding Diuines 293. Foore men that medled beyond their lachet And were out of their element p. 295. Ignaroes intollerable insolent malicious traducers Of Puritanicall quicksiluer spirits p. 304. Such as loue faction and diuision p. 305. Counterfeiting hypocrites p. 308. Of a brasen forehead p. 319. Zealous ones charitable informers franticke fellowes frighted with Pannicke feares of vncharitable conceits p. 320. Of Predominant frensies Ignorant stupiditie p. 321. Against their plea you say It is PRiuate opinions of the Informers Classicall resolutions of the Brethren p. 6. Dismembred passages p. 15. Of pure malice indiscreet zeale Lost-wits p. 17. Mistakings for aduantage p. 20. Shreds cut out from seuerall parts laid together and patched vp for aduantage p. 22. Things broken and dismembred which doe not cohere nor insue nor follow instantly vpon each other laid together out of charitable pure intent p. 24. Passages dismembred mishapen and abused p. 26. Scholasticall points meere speculations of themselues not apt to breed danger That haue beene pursued without all danger but of tongue-tryall p. 42. Priuate imaginations of opiniatiue men ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits p. 101. Idle dreames fancies and furies p. 114. The fruits of angry and idle braines p. 115. Confusednesse p. 116. Sottish malice and ignorance p. 128. Mishapen calumnies false suggestions p. 129. The grunting of swine p. 288. I answer first in the very words of that learned holy and reuerend Bishop Iewell If I should quit him with courtesie of speech I should bee like vnto him but I thought it good to vse such temperance of words not as may best answer your eloquence but as may be most comely for the cause Thus he writeth in his Preface before his Defence against Harding no 1. Although I should grant these imputations wherof I shall speake no 2. yet should you gaine nothing And I shew it in Bishop Iewels words also I beseech you if you haue leisure hearken a little and heare your selfe talke behold your owne words so many so vaine so bitter so fiery so furious altogether in one place These be the figures and flowers of your speech yet must we thinke that you can neither stampe nor rage howbeit I trust no wise man will iudge our cause the wâ—rse for that your tongue can so readily serue to speake ill Defenc. part 2. cap. 1. diuis 1. p. 83. By such discourses he is able to proue whatsoeuer thing shall come to hand when Scriptures faile then discourse of wit must come in place and when wit and discourse will not serue then good plaine round railing must serue the turne then he flingeth now at his Informers now at his Promoters now at the Puritans Thus he iumpeth and courseth this way and that way as a man rouing without a marke thus hee sheweth a mountaine of words without substance and a house full of smoake without fire when all is done we may say of him as the poore man said that shore his Sow Here is great cry and little wooll But truth is plaine and homely and hath no need of these hablements but who so will take vpon him to maintaine vntruth must be forced to leade his Reader from the purpose to feed him with words for want of matter and briefly to doe euen as here you doe In the Preface to the Reader neere to the end To the particular imputations I answer likewise in Bishop Iewels words So terrible are you in