assertions as to professe that Turks and Turcisme is to be preferred before and rather embraced than Papists and Popery with whom the Puritan-Papist the IESUITE is quit For they teach the like concerning Turkes and Heretickes 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 bee shrowded under the covert of the CHURCH of ENGLAND and to vent publish and tender their many idle dreames 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 MAIESTY and the CHURCH hath disbanded them from their shelter taken them off from colluding under the CHURCHES protection and sent them to their owne home to shrowd 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 owne true Tenents naturall and proper unto that doctrine which is publickly determined and authorized in her authentick 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 ARMINIANISME 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 copie that came unto my hands in which they are digested without any good method or due order as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of angry and idle braines POINTS OF POPERY IN PARTICVLAR CHAP. II. The Church Representative and Points Fundamentall what they are All that Papists say is not Popery Particular Churches have and may erre The Catholick universall Church hath not cannot erre Of Generall Councels The Author farre from the Iesuits fancy The XXI Article of the Church of England explaned INFORMERS HE saith that the Church Representative true and lawfull never yet erred in Fundamentals and therefore that hee seeth no cause but to avouch The Church Representative cannot ERRE pag. XLV MOUNTAGU IN this Accusation are two Propositions distinct though connexed and dependent First The Church Representative true and lawfull did never erre in Fundamentals Secondly The Church Representative so true and lawfull cannot erre in Fundamentals Now whether Proposition of these two is Poperie or are both these Propositions jointly or severally taken Popery To explicate the tearms and draw up to anatomize your confusednes The Church Representative is a GENERALL COUNCELL not titularly so as the Conventicle of Trent but plenarily true generall and lawfull Points Fundamentall bee such as are immediate unto faith for instance the ARTICLES of our CREED which only be those Tenents and Points of faith that have indeed and so must have Universality Antiquity Consent Knowledge No man can be saved that beleeveth them not no man can be saved that knoweth them not which must bee understood de viâ ordinariâ except that GOD himselfe have disposed otherwise who may dispense with his owne Ordinances as he will as in case of Infants Naturals frantick persons which through invincible disability are extra Censure Ordinariorum Otherwise the knowledge and beleeving of them is absolutely necessary and required necessitate medij unto salvation To say they are Fundamentals to propose them for Fundamentals that are thus required and must bee knowne and acknowledged upon so great and dangerous an exigence is no Popery as I conceive no not in your opinion The Papists rather are ad oppositum For they enlarge their Tenour make their dignity and degree too common abusing that honour peculiarly due to them by promiscuously communicating it unto other points of inferiour rank and reckoning especially those XII new ARTICLES of the Tridentine CREED Thus upon explication of the tearms we come unto the assertion It is belike Popery to say that in them in these Fundamentall Points A true and lawfull generall Councell never erred de facto because forsooth Papists say that a generall Councell cannot erre If this were right and regular yet first Bate me an ace For all is not Popery that Papists say but what they say as Papists as a Faction divided as in particular by themselves that haply is Popery All is not Heresie that Hereticks hold nor is all Puritanisme that PURITANS beleeve or maintaine They hold many things right with the Church of England but what they hold as PURITANS that is as a schismaticall Party divided from and opposed against the doctrine or discipline or both of the Church of England that wee may be bold to call so Semblably wee are to judge of Papists and so what is said of Papists is not presently and indistinctly Popery but may be said in terminis by Protestants and they be never a whit the more any Papists for so saying Againe to say that this Proposition A true and lawfull Generall Councell never did Erre is Popery cannot sinke into my understanding For I demand Quo warranto hath any Classis or Consistory of Lay-elders or others concluded it so It may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a misreport an error in Storie which goeth no farther than unto the thing done or not done Historicall mistakings mis-relatings who made them Poperie though I professe I neyther know nor acknowledge any mis-report or error in point of Story in so saying Let any Puritan living shew me where when in what any Generall Councell according to true acception or Church representative hath so erred in the resolution and decisions of that Councell for in the debating of doubts questions propositions the case is otherwise and not the same I conceive and acknowledge but foure Councels of this kinde that of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon Shew me in what Fundamentall point of Faith any of these Generall Councells have erred But it is Popery peradventure to say It never was therefore in all probability it cannot be If so then inconsequences and Non sequiturs in Logick are in your opinion to be ranged under Points of Popery and so by this your assignement Popery will extend it selfe very farre indeed farther than ever any POPE or Papist did pretend or claime And if you will grant the POPE this so universall and transcendent jurisdiction yet M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery cometh not up so high as unto generality illimited It cannot bee at all it insisteth but upon some points onely and that not by or with a generall vouchee neither but thus only I see no cause Now there may be cause though I see it not It may be though I
Nice it was an Error in debating though not fundamentall 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 prevaile as ever hitherto in such Councels in those cases they have prevailed against the greater part formerly resolved otherwise Againe the Article speaketh of Generall Councels indefinitely without precisely determining which are Generall which not what is a Generall Councell what not and so may and doth conclude reputed or pretended GENERALL Councels univocè GENERALL though not exactly and truely indeed such as was the Councell of Ariminum whereof I did not so much as intend to speak my speech being limitted with true and lawfull of which sort are not many to be found Lastly the Article speaketh of things that are controversae fidei and contentiosi juris I speak of things plainely delivered in HOLY SCRIPTURE for such are the Fundamentall points of our Faith And that it is so the ensuing words of the Article doe insinuate Things necessary unto Salvation must bee taken out of SCRIPTURE alone COUNCELS have no such over-awing power and authority as to tye men to Beleeve upon paine of Damnation without expresse warrant of GOD'S Word as is rightly resolved in the Article They are but Interpreters of the Law they are not absolute to make such a Law Interpretation is required but in things of doubtfull issue our Fundamentals are no such COUNCELS are supposed not to exceed their commission which warranteth them to debate and determine questions and things litigiosi status If they doe not hoc agere sincerely if they shall presume to make lawes without warrant and new articles of Faith who have no farther authority than to interprete them lawes without GOD'S word that shall binde the conscience and require obedience upon life and death our Church will not justifie their proceedings nor doe I. Non debet se Ecclesia CHRISTO praeponere cùm ille semper veraciter judicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerunque fallantur saith S. AUGUSTINE against CRESCONIUS the Donatist but he speaketh not there of Fundamentals indeed not of the Church representative as I explaine my selfe Nor doth that principall place of all make against me which is in him contra Donatistas concerning the erring of Generall Councells Et ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones provincias fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati quae siunt ex universo Christiano orbe cedunt ipsaque plenaria saepè priora à posterioribus emendantur cùm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum er at cognoscitur quod latebat For he taketh Councells in a generall acception as it is plaine by him and hee speaketh not of Fundamentall points of Faith as both the cause it selfe argueth and his assigning of better information in tract of time to direct consequent Councells in determining contrary to precedent who for any thing he saith to the contrary might have truely determined as things then stood To conclude this Information is a meer cavill De tali Concilio saniori parte conclusionibus in fide probabile est No more CHAP. III. Strange accusations Antiquity reverenced not Deified Fathers accused of some error by Iesuites The occasion of their enlarged speeches concerning Free-will The Author acquitted of Popery INFORMERS AGaine speaking of the Fathers in generall hee professeth his opinion to bee that Those worthy Lights did not any way faile nor did darkenesse possesse their cleere understandings CHAP. XVI pag. CXIII The which is a saying more Popish than learned Papists durst ever affirme MOUNTAGU NAy more sottish than any Puritan but your selves would ever quarrell Malice and Ignorance whither wilt thou As if M. MOUNTAGU had affirmed that no Father ever Erred in any point whatsoever Masters Informers you may goe range this calumny under some other head for Popery will not admit nor entertaine it No ignorant Papist lesse learned than your selves nedum LEARNED Papist either taught or thought that no Father ever Erred And as for M. MOUNTAGU he utterly disclaimeth it Though no man living carrieth a more awfull regard and reverent respect unto Antiquity than hee doth yet never did hee so doate upon them It is more than ever entred into the compasse of his thoughts so to overlavish transcendently in their commendation as to give them prerogative of not erring at all and so to advance them unto their MAKERS seate It belongeth not to these Ancients but to the Ancient of Dayes not to Erre And so much M. MOUNTAGU had expressed in that former passage of his penne Take them at large and they lavish so farre sometimes that the greatest Patrons of the power and efficacy of Free-will dare not joine issue with some of them Then followeth that calumniated piece by those Pure Ones Not as if those worthy Lights had at any time failed or darkenesse possessed their cleer understanding Now you Promoters could your Christian charity be so defective or your common wit sense or understanding at so low an ebbe or your honesty so little or none at all as out of these premises so laid together to inferre so mishapen a calumny that M. MOUNTAGU Delivered and Published this Error that the Fathers none of them eyther did or could Erre at all as if he had erected to himselfe a new frame and fabrick of Popery never heard of in the world Whatsoever became of their Lights and Understandings deep Malice possessed your malignant Passions thus shamelesly to slander him with indeed more than the grossest Popery Thus it is M. MOUNTAGU speaketh not of all the Fathers in generall nor of their opinions in any one point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely of their opinion in and concerning Free-will who have meddled with and written about Free-will This then is the first untruth by false suggestion fastned on him Secondly he professeth plainly that in and concerning this point of Free-will those Fathers did so farre outlavish and speak sso inlargedly that the very IESUITES post mot a certamina PELAGIANA for feare of seeming to Pelagianise dare not say so much as they have said at least wise some of them for which I have the warrant of Bishop MORTON in his Appeale to bee according to the confession of most learned Papists SIXTUS Senensis MALDONATE TOLET and PERERIUS His words are that In the roote of the doctrine of Free-will CHRYSOSTOME CYRILL THEOPHYLACT EUTHYMIUS OECUMENIUS AMMONIUS and most of others especially in the Greeke Church did yeeld too much unto the power of Nature in the Free-will of man These tearmes are farre from acquitting and discharging the Fathers of all Error in
onely supposed related and no more It may bee a custome amongst the Informers and others of that Tribe to dictate to their Popular Auditories out of their Pulpits tanquam de tripode though it be quicquid in buccam and the same to be received upon their bare words as divine Oracles whereupon they need not make any suppositions put no cases to bee demurred on seeing they are ubique and in omnibus peremptory resolved and conclusive But with us it is not so we are not so happy to have our bare words passe we must prove what wee speake and well is it if so and then we finde credence They and the Iesuites are rare men to leade mens Faith and Beleefe so in a string In this passage against me it being ad oppositum and they like enough to bee demanded Proofes for what they say all their accusations of Arminianisme and of Popery though they bee false and slanderous yet are they Magisteriall You cannot finde so much as any one proofe annexed unto any of the imputed Errors or brought in to manifest Ideò this or that is an Error Their Stile runneth These are his words or Thus he writeth c. supposing all men will at least should take it upon their words That what hee so writeth is an Error Such Illuminates are our Classicall Brethren May they be intreated a little to descend from this their Chaire of Infallibility and yeeld somewhat according unto reason by producing that Rule against which touching Finall Perseverance the words produced if so be they are mine every way to all intents and purposes doe offend and for which they may justly bee stiled Errors The Rule produced upon tryall and application M. MOUNTAGU must eyther stand or fall Till then he appealeth to all indifferent censures for suspension of their judgements concerning Errors thus by him Delivered and Published by Authority In the Interim to come somewhat neerer unto the Error heer informed against Doth ARMINIUS maintaine touching finall Perseverance you must tell mee my good Informers for I have not read him that sometime the Called and Elect of God the Chosen ones and Iustified by Faith such as S. PETER was though they doe fall totally for a Time shall yet recover necessarily againe and not fall away finally or for ever If this be Arminianisme and so his conclusion then therein He holdeth with ARMINIUS But I have bin assured that ARMINIUS did hold as the Lutherans in Germany doe not only Intercision for a Time but also Abscission and Abjection too for ever That a man Called and Iustified freely through the grace of GOD in CHRIST might fall away again from Grace Totally finally and become a cast-away as IUDAS was for ever For S. PETER upon admission of this Passage as your selves have related it in your calumniatory Information by M. MOUNTAGU'S conclusion did not could not fall finally for CHRIST prayed for him that he might not fall and CHRIST was ever heard in that hee prayed for So that out of your owne mouthes M. MOUNTAGU is acquitted of Arminianisme for if He say any thing to the point it is that S. PETER could not fall finally from Faith nor lose it for ever irrecoverably For say you These are his words Though S. PETER fell totally he fell not eternally that is hee recovered and persevered unto the end and so touching finall Perseverance at least He teacheth in your own confession no otherwise than your selves do Thus Pure malice and indiscreet zeale make men many times lose their witts they know not where I adde if M. MOUNTAGU be an Arminian you are rather Papists for I demand In denying and forswearing CHRIST did S. PETER fall or did he not fall If abnegation and abjuration and execration will inforce a fall he did Now if he fell he needs must fall totally or finally for Cedo tertium a man falleth not who is not off or down from the Place Grace Multi dantur ad gratiam recessus hee that falleth to day may rise againe to morrow hold out unto the end receive the reward of Righteousnesse in finall Perseverance bee crowned with glory and immortalitie I say no more than you have subscribed if you look unto it After we have received the HOLY GHOST wee may DEPART FROM GRACE given and FALL into Sinne and by the grace of GOD wee may arise againe and amend our lives Artic. XVI Nec beatum dixeris quenquam ante mortem quamdiu enim vivimus in certamine sumus quamdiu sumus in certamine nulla est certa victoria was Catholick Doctrine of old But heer also as in the former passage these Informers mistake me for their owne advantage for I speak but only representatively according to the opinion and Tenent of the Roman Schooles I appeale unto their Honesty at least wise Knowledge are not my wordes laid downe directly thus For in YOUR opinion Iustifying faith may diminish and may be abolished and lost Now Iustification being in an instant c. If in their opinion it may be lost namely faith which justifieth then Iustification which is an Effect of faith may also bee lost and may bee recovered after such losse For things transitory are in a like habitude unto being and not being may cease to be and be againe After such losse of Faith and Love transitory in their opinion they againe may revert and finde a being but yet still in their opinion So all heer Delivered Errors or not Errors so or so is still in their opinion not the iudgement specified of M. MOUNTAGU My goodly Brethren this is no faire play to fasten that on me as my Assertion which precisely I relate from anothers mouth which I remember not but as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and upon that their Doctrine by Them maintained by Him related doe inferre against a Papist a plaine Non sequitur from his owne Tenents unto an inconsequent Argument by Them inferred and opposed against the true and Catholick doctrine of the Church of England touching Iustification by Faith alone CHAP. IV. 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 publick Liturgie INFORMERS ANd againe Some hold that Faith may be lost totally and finally which is indeed the Assertion of Antiquity The Learnedst in the Church of ENGLAND assent unto Antiquitie in that Tenet which the Protestants in GERMANIE maintaine at this day having assented unto the Church of ROME MOUNTAGU A Ntiquum obtinent These men are still the same Calumniators and runne still along with all one indirect dealing Their Information in direct tearms standeth thus To make report and no more but to make report of Arminianisme if yet it be Arminianisme which is reported is in point of opinion to bee an ARMINIAN in point of Arianisme with these men to be an ARIAN for M. MOUNTAGU in this case hath done no
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 owne doctrine in the Romane Schooles and so farre the Protestants for these conditions do go along with you MOUNTAGU THis doctrine And what doctrine is this that there is merit of condignity that it is so farre forth due unto good works as that through and for the worke it selfe wrought and performed we may deserve and challenge upon desert or else GOD should wrong us grace goodnesse heaven happinesse at GOD'S hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I never said it never thought it doe detest it from my heart That doctrine which is to be found in the specified place is touching the quality not the validity concerning the condition not the imputation or account of a good worke which conditions specified and remembred by me are 1. That it be morally good not simply evill 2. Freely wrought and not out of compulsion 3. By man yet in this life not after death 4. In the state of grace and not by any naturall man without GOD. Of these conditions which doe not exclude other what Protestants doe not allow I adde and may adde many more Faith is necessarily required in the person before that any thing hee doth can please GOD. For whatsoever is not of faith is sinne These Informers it seemeth are otherwise minded for they traduce and calumniate me for a Papist who require as necessary these conditions unto a good worke which were never to my knowledge denied untill now And these are the conditions concerning which only I write So far the Protestants go along with you Concerning which consent in these particulars I confesse I thought it was reall and I think so still I never could finde I never did imagine I doe not beleeve any Protestant living setting your selves aside so ignorant peevish or prophane as to deny those conditions specified Now it being as I conceived agreed upon on all sides concerning the necessity of them I did make this conclusion unto the GAGGER If your texts doe contradict this either expressely or obliquely look you unto it it concerneth you as much as us And why might I not make it when they oppose a Position in the Protestants hands in which themselves are as deeply interessed as Protestants are But the men proceed to a specification of my consent more particularly 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 wee contradict it not And this is the Merit you plead for MOUNTAGU ANd so it is For all the Gagger's Texts of Scripture plead for that Merit I speak of and no other And that Merit is no more but this Verily there is a REWARD for the righteous doubtlesse there is a GOD that judgeth the earth A point of Popery put into my mouth by the Prophet DAVID and that totidem verbis And so King DAVID is become a Papist as well as I. For my words upon which that inference is made are REWARD in heaven no man denyeth REVVARD appointed for our good workes all doe confesse If this be your MERIT we contradict it not Doe you Dare you doe it that there is no REWARD for the righteous Cast the lye then into the Psalmists throate Psal XIX XI In keeping of them GOD'S Commandements there is GREAT REVVARD and unto him that said GOD REVVARDETH everie man according to his worke not onely according to the Qualitie of the worke that he that soweth of the flesh shall of the flesh reape Corruption and he that soweth in the spirit shall of the spirit reape glory and honour and immortality but according to the degree and proportion of his worke He that soweth sparingly shall reape sparingly and he that soweth liberally shall reape liberally Not of works or for works but according unto works rather For there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alia est merces liberalitatis gratiae aliud virtutis stipendium aliae laboris remuneratio saith S. AMBR. specially in the intercourse betwixt GOD and man where Non debendo sed promittendo DEUS se fecit debitorem S. AUGUST And from this no Protestant I know dissenteth I am sure a speciall man in your bookes though I hold him of another spirit and Sect than you better by farre precisely setteth downe the same in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Galathians See then Reader the sincere and honest dealing of these misdeeming Informers that accuse me of Popery for positive Scripture by a trick of concealement in saying GOD REWARDETH GOOD WORKES CHAP. XIV The Church of England holdeth no such absolute certainty of salvation in just persons as they have of other objects of Faith expressely 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 ioine issue the difference will not be much CHAP. XXII pag. 186. MOUNTAGU ET quid haec ad IPHICLI Boves what hath this to doe with merit of good workes whereto by the Informers it is consigned Neither in my opinion nor yet in BELLARMINE'S judgement doth Certaintie or Incertainty of salvation depend so necessarily upon Merit or Demerit of good workes If a man continue constant in the course of good workes he is sure and certaine of salvation in BELLARMINE'S judgement and in my opinion also though differently Causally in his as procured by them Consequently in mine as following of them But whether hee that doth good workes be certaine of Salvation that is shall continue to the end faithfull constant in doing good workes and so obtaine Salvation the promise of GOD behighted unto those that doe good is another Question of a different and disparate Nature But to leave these Extravagancies and come to the point unto assurance of which they speake It being by the Gagger fastned unto our Church ignorantly or maliciously verie absurdly as almost everie particular in that Pamphlet is That everie one ought infallibly to assure himselfe of his Salvation and to hold that he is of the number of the Elect and predestinate unto eternall life I tooke him short for such his conclusion so generall that everie one ought singuli generum so the words intend to assure himselfe whereas that assurance upon which the poore fellow grounded his imputation resting upon the infallible purpose and decree of GOD'S predestination of the Elect was by the So perswaded in the Church of England for the Church of England it selfe was not of that opinion restrained unto some only and not enlarged unto all as the man hath it Every one ought Secondly that concerning even those some the Church