Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	bishop_n	church_n	exposition_n	3,560	5	11.1579	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10194	The perpetuitie of a regenerate mans estate VVherein it is manifestly proued by sundry arguments, reasons and authorities. That such as are once truly regenerated and ingrafted into Christ by a liuely faith, can neither finally nor totally fall from grace. It is also proued, that this hath beene the receiued and resolued doctrine, of all the ancient fathers, of all the Protestant churches and writers beyond the seas, and of the Church of England. All the principall arguments that are, or may be obiected against it, either from Scripture, or from reason, are here likewise cleared and answered. By William Prynne Gent: Lincolniensis.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1626 (1626)	STC 20471; ESTC S115319	355,787	462

published and Printed by authoritie it was so farre from this that it was inioyn●…d to be recanted by authoritie and therefore howsoeuer it can bee no record against me Neuer was there any among vs before Mr. Mountague that published this error of the Apostacie of the Saints in print but onely Thompson a Dutch-man fellow of Clare-Hall in Cambridge a man of an excellent memory and of great learning but of little grace and of a deboist loose licentious and voluptious life he being the first who infected Cambridge with Arminianisme hath published this error of the Apostacie of the Saints in that posthumous Diatraba of his But was this booke of his printed in England and allowed and receiued of our Church as sound and orthodox no such matter For when as Thompson himselfe made meanes to publish it it was stopped at the presse and it sound no license or approbation because it was contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England After his death because it could finde no license here it was transported vnto Lyons by some friends of his there was it printed But no sooner was it come from the presse and scattred abrode in England but as it found resistance at the presse at first so it found a Reuerend and learned Antagonist euen Abbot Bishop of Salisbury to incounter it least our Church should bee disquieted and infected by it Since therefore this Thompson was no English but a Dutch-man a drunken one to since this his booke was vtterly disalowed of as contrary to the doctrine of our Church and was printed but by stealth beyond the seas and not by any publike license and allowance here and seeing it was no sooner printed but it was presently refelled by a learned Bishop of our Church as haereticall and quite opposite to the established and receiued doctrine of our Church it makes much for me not against me fo that as yet there are no records against me but all of them are wholly for mee Let Mr. Mountague now with all his reading if hee can stoope so lowe as to cast his eyes vpon the moderne writers of our Church whose very names he cannot mention without disdaine and scorne shew mee but one learned Diuine nay any meane vnlearned Diuine in the Church of England since the reformation that did euer openly and in expresse tearmes oppose the totall and finall perseuerance of the Saints in grace in any worke of his set forth by publike allowance and authoritie and then perchance I shall in part beleiue him that some of the learned of the Church of England haue opposed it till then I shall account him but a meerelyer and impostor as he is For how is it possible that all the learnedest in the Church of England should affirme that faith once had might be both totally and finally lost and that they should oppose and refell the contrary when as there is not one member of the Church of England to bee found from the first reformation of it hitherto that doth in any publike or approued worke of his record the same If there bee any records of any learned in our Church to bee found which may make good Mr. Mountagues words let him doe vs that fauour as to giue vs a Catalogue of their workes and names but if his learnedest in the Church of England be but a meere notion abstracted from no Indiuidualls if they are namelesse and workelesse then surely Mr. Mountague is much mistaken and hee must for shame recant this forgery and vntruth of his Indeed Mr. Mountague hath vouched one by name and but one to patronize and make good his words to wit Doctor Ouerall Deane of Pauls But was Doctor Ouerall the learnedest in the Church of England if hee were so yet he is but one and what is one to all those worthies and learned Diuines which I haue cited to the contrary If Doctor Ouerall were of this opinion where then is this opinion of his recorded Surely in no printed workes of his set forth by publike authoritie but only in the Conference at Hampton Court pag 41 42 43. And what are his words they are onely these Those who are called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election how euer they might did fall sometimes into greiuous sinnes and thereby into the present state of wrath and damnation yet did they neuer fall totally from all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seedes thereof nor finally from iustification but were in time renewed by Gods Spirit vnto a liuely faith and repentance and so iustified from these sins and from the wrath curse and guilt annexed thereunto Is this the learned man the which you vouch as making for you who in expresse tearmes concludes againg you Indeed if this bee your meaning that those are the learnedest in our Church who haue maintained this our assertion point-blanke against you I willingly acknowledge it but yet that Doctor Ouerall or any others who are ex diametro against a totall and finall fall from grace should be so punctually for you I confesse this is a mysterie and ridd●…e vnto me I cannot vnderstand it vnles your ipse dixi 〈◊〉 Gospell and their opinions must bee soe not because they are so but because you say it But it may bee now of late some of the learnedst in the Church of England haue made a defection from their Mother Church and haue shaken handes and sided with Papists and Arminians and this makes Maister Mountague to auerre that the learnedst in the Church of England do assent vnto Antiquity and to Arminius and the Church of Rome in this That faith once had may be both finally and totally lost If this bee so as I doe not beleeue it I would to God Mr. Mountague would disclose their names vnto vs that so we might indeauour to conuert them or else learne for to auoide them or at least that wee might iudge of them whether they are the learnedst in the Church of England yea or noe Sure I am whoeuer or whateuer they are they are neither the greatest nor yet the learnedest nor yet the best and honestest in the Church of England if there bee any such make the best and vtmost of them that you can they are but a company of carnall gracelesse prophane and dissolute persons there is no truth nor power of grace in any of them For our two Arch-bishops and the learned Arch-bishop of Meth to whom Mr. Mountague and all his Abettors are much inferiour they are all for vs. For other of our Bishops and diuers others of our learned Clargie throughout the Kingdome I know that they haue declared themselues wholly for vs and for my owne part I know not any man of any learning worth or note at least of any grace and goodnesse in our Church who hath fully declared himselfe against vs in any written or printed records if there are any against vs as I professe

and disalowes of whom and what he will without controll Sure I am these Articles and the doctrine in them were approued and agreed vpon on all hands at the conference at Hampton Court though Mr. Mountague records the contrary The booke is y●…t extant which will auerre all that I say for truth and proue Mr. Mountagu●… a lyer and Impostor if not worse so that if Mr. Mountague had not had his face euen crusted and steeled ouer with more the●… audatious impudencie hee would not haue thus incouraged his readers See the booke Againe the Articles of Ireland Nomber 33. 38. confirmed by King Ia●…es vnder his broad Seale they are the very same with the Articles of Lambeth and contradictory to Mr. Mountagues collection from the 16. Article which proues that the Articles of Lambeth were neuer repealed by publike authoritie and that the 16. Article was neuer expound●… in Mr. Mountagues sense by any publike authoritie for then King Iames would neuer haue confirmed these Articles vnder his broad Seale hee being such a King as did desire vnitie and peace as much or more in Church as in the Common-wealth The words of the Article of Ireland are these A true liuely iustifying faith and the sanctifying Spirit of God is not extinguished nor vanished away in the regenerate either finally or totally And againe All Gods Elect are in their time inseparablie vnited vnto Christ by the effectuall and vitall influence of the holy Ghost derived from him as from the head into euery true member of his mysticall body So that if you will interpret our 16. Article either by the Articles of Lambeth or Ireland Mr. Mountagues exposition must be false and strained But the best expo●…ition of the 16. Article will bee taken from the 17. Article which was composed by the same men at the same time and if you will expound it by this Article then farewell Mr. Mountagues false glosse vpon it For our 17. Article certifieth vs That they which be indued wi●…h so excellent a benefit as Predestination is are called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit working in due season and that they through grace obey the calling that they are iustified freely that they are made the sonnes of God by adoption that they are made like the Image of his only begotten Sonne Iesus Christ that they walke religiously in good workes and at length by Gods mercy obtaine euerlasting felicitie From which article Mr. Rogers Chaplaine to Archbishop Bancroft in his Analys●… on the 39. Articles allowed to be publike by the lawfull authoritie of the Church of England and not hitherto disallowed or called in hath raised this third proposition They which are predestinated vnto saluation cannot perish and from thence he inferres this Consectarie Wander then doe they from the truth which thinke that the very Elect totally and finally may fall from grace and be damned that the regenerate may fall from the grace of God may destroy the Temple of God and be broken off from the vine Christ Iesus which was one of Glouers errors of which exposition allowed by publike and lawfull authority Mr. Mountague cannot bee ignorant because the more is the pitty hee hath subscribed and read them often as himselfe informes vs. And therefore if you will beleeue the 17. Article or Mr. Rogers his Collection from it allowed by the lawfull authority of the Church of England as the doctrine maintained professed and protected in the Church of England Mr. Mountagues collection from the 16. Article must be false and contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of the Church of England and hee himselfe must in the meane time bee a scismaticall factious and seditious person and one that doth oppose the Articles and Doctrine of our Church in an audatious peremptorie impudent and dangerous manner All now that Mr. Mountague can say for himselfe is this That this exposition and Collection of his from the 16. Article and this doctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace was resolued of and auowed for true Catholicke ancient and orthodoxe by that royall reuerend honourable and learned Synode at Hampton Court and for proofe of it he sendeth vs to the Conference at Hampton Court published by warrant and republished by command But sure Mr. Mountague did neuer reade the booke or else he was purblinde when hee read it for there is no such thing within the booke All that is mentioned and recorded there touching the 16. Article is this Dr. Reynolds moued his Maiestie that the 16. Article the meaning of which was sound might be inlarged and explained with this or the like addition yet neither totally nor finally and that the 9. assertions Orthodoxall might bee inserted into the booke of Articles to which his Maiestie replyed that it was best not to stuffe the booke with all conclusions theologicall Vpon this Dr. Ouerall Deane of Pauls informed the King of what had passed betweene him and some other in Cambridge t●…ching our present question and concludes that notwithstanding those who were instified and called according to the purpose of Gods election might and did sometimes fall into grienous sinnes and thereby into the present state of wrath and damnation yet did they neuer fall either totally from all the graces of God to bee vtterly destitute of all the parts and seeds thereof nor finally from instification to which King Iames replyed that repentance in the elect of God after knowne sinnes committed is so necessary as without it there could not bee remission of these sinnes nor reconciliation vnto God This was all that was spoken either of this point or of the 16 Article and whether Mr. Mountagues glosse and exposition were not here condemned in expresse tearmes let all men judge But will you now know what was the true cause why Mr. Mountague did so grossely mistake I will informe you in a word and it worth your knowledge Mr. Mountague as he hath beene deceiued by that varlet Bertius in other things euen so he hath beene in this For hee transcribed this argument from our 16. Article out of Bertius in his Apostatia Sauctorum pag. 107. and for his Exposition of it and that it was so resolued on at the conference at Hampton Court he had it Verbatim from the Rhemists in their second Conference at Hage recorded by Brandius pag. 364. Alas good Mr. Mountague that you should be ouertaken thus that you should be driuen to such narrow shifts as to flie to Bertius and the Rhemists the very dregges and seumme of all Arminians for corrupt glosses expositions and collections vpon our Articles as if the Church of England did not vnderstand but quite mistake the genuine true and proper sense of her owne Articles or as if that Bertius and the Rhemists who are strangers to them vnderstood them better then the Church yea then the learnedest of the Church of England who composed them What doth this betoken but that Master Mountague like

Crowes and Rauens loues 〈◊〉 better then any other sweet and wholsome flesh that hee preferres the Rhemists Arminians before all his brethren or his Mother Church that hee is quite apostatized and fallen from the doctrine of the Church of England I say not from the state of true and sauing grace for that I dare presume he neuer had as yet into the very mi●…e of Poperie and Arminianisme thinking to verefie this his doctrine of a 〈◊〉 and finall fall from grace by his owne example for want of better proofes I hope therefore that seeing Mr. Mountague had this his exposition and collection from Bertius and the Rhemists that you will rather hearken and yeeld to the sound and orthodox exposition which the Church of England hath heretofore made of it and which Doctor Benefield Bishop Carlton Mr. Rouse Mr. Yates and Mr. Rogers haue made of it then vnto Mr. Mountague who labours only to corrupt but not to expound the 16. Article Hauing thus proued that the Articles of the Church of England are vtterly against a totall and finall fall from grace that the 16. Article makes rather for me then against me I come now to the third thing to proue that the Homilies of the Church of England and the Common prayer booke make not against me As for the homilies they make not against me For first Mr. Mountague himselfe who obiecteth them confesseth that the Homilies are not the dogmaticall confirmed resolutions of the Church of England that they haue no dogmaticall positions or doctrine in them to be propugned or subscribed in all and euery point as the bookes of Articles and Common prayer haue therefore by Mr. Mountagues owne confession admitting that the Homilies were cleare againg me yet they proue not that the dogmaticall resolution and the receiued setled and established position of the Church of England is against me to because the dogmaticall publike resolutions of the Church of England are not 〈◊〉 in the Homilies neither are they such positiue current diuinitie as to be subscribed in all and entry point if Mr. Monntague may be credited But now you may wonder well what should be the cause that Mr. Mountague should so magnifie our Homilies in one place as to stile them authentis alt and orthodox records containing the established positiue and publikely professed doctrine of the Church of England and in an other place to slight and vilifie them so much and to contradict that which hee had written of them before 〈◊〉 Surely there is a mysterie in it and some pretty trick of more then Presbyterian-Legerdemaine For you may know that where Mr. Mountague doth presse magnifie our Homilies they giue some seeming colour to the Popish and Arminian doctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace but where he vilifies vnderualues them there they crosse and oppose him in his Popery in speaking against Images and therefore here they must not be the positiue doctrine and the dogmaticall resolution of the Church or if they be so yet Mr. Mountague did not subscribe to them in this particular and so they containe not the dogmaticall resolutions of the Church of England in this particular case for want of his subscription So that in Mr. Mountagues judgement the Homilies established and confirmed by the Church of England so far as they make for Poperie and Arminianisme are the dogmaticall resolutions and the authenticall and orthodox records of the Church of England and thus far are they to be subscribed to but as far as they make against Poperie Arminianisme they are not authenticall they are not the dogmaticall and positiue resolutions of the Church of England and thus farre they are not to be subscribed Very good Mr. Mountague if an honest man should haue said as much as this I doubt mee hee should haue lost his liuings his eares yea and his life ere this and that deseruedly too you can say thus much which is no more in substance but this that the Church of England is a meere Popish and Arminian Church and yet scape scot free take heede you smart not for it ere be long And doe you not deserue to vndergoe the sharpest censure that your Mother if your Mother can inflict vpon you●… I dare auouch it that you doe and I will proue it to or else I will suffer in your steede For you confesse in your Appeale pag 260. that the Homilies containe in them godly and wholesome exhortations to honour and worship almightie God and you grant that they containe in them godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for these times and you cite the 33. Article for the 35. Article for to proue it which shewes that Mr. Mountague is but an Ignoramus in our Articles to which hee hath so oft subscribed and yet you say in the same place that they containe not in them the publike dogmaticall and confirmed resolution positions and doctrine of the Church of England neither are they to be subscribed in all and euery point I pray obserue this passage well and then judge what Mr. Mountague is and what hee doth deserue For first in these words he affirmes that the doctrines established confirmed by the Church of England and commanded to be diligently and distinctly read in our Churches by the Ministers by our 35. Article are not the publike and receiued doctrine of our Church which as it is a contradiction in it selfe and a vilification both of our Articles and Homilies so it is a great disparagement to our Church accusing her either of ignorance and dotage in not knowing what her doctrine is or of inconstancie in hauing no setled and positiue doctrine or at least of grand hypocrisie in commanding such doctrines to bee diligently and distinctly read as godly and wholesome and as her publike and receiued doctrine when as it is nothing so Secondly in these words Mr. Mountague affirmes that the Homilies of the Church of England established by authoritie are not sound and orthodox which is contrary to the 35 Article to which hee hath so often subscribed for which very thing many honester men then himselfe haue not onely bin silenced from preaching which penalty Mr. Mountague needs not vndergoe for he is to dumme already in that kinde but haue likewise beene depriued and quite stripped of all their spirituall liuings and promotions Thirdly in these words Mr. Montague judgeth the Church of England as it is the Church of England to bee but a wicked haereticall and atheisticall Church in as much as there are many godly wholesome and necessary doctrines which though they are in the Church of England yet they are not the receiued established and confirmed doctrines and resolutions of our Church Fourthly by these words Mr. Mountague makes the Church of England but an incompleate and imperfect Church a Church in which there is no life and power of religion a Church which is all for faith and speculation but not for life and