you may strongly sent that which is but weak Now who can help this Touching this point I beeleeve because Iusee the experience such as your selves 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 eternall Predestination alone The most ordinarie Theame 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 farre upon and waded deepe 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 SAVOR of Arminianisme who would not have you meddle beyond your Modell but keepe and containe your selves within the bounds of Christian sobriety and moderation and savor of S. PAUL'S counsell Sapere ad sobrietatem He savoreth of Arminianisme but how ARMINIUS savoureth we shall smell it if we can and find it at leasure For having but named Him you fall hote upon Lutheranisme and of M. MOUNTAGU'S consent with Them as if Arminianisme Lutheranisme were two words of one signification or in this point Lutherans and Arminians were divided or as if in your heate you rambled up and downe and could not well resolve what to fasten on Will you have the Imputation runne thus The XXI chap. savoreth strongly of Arminianisme and He declareth himselfe therein to consent with the Lutherans two severall acts upon different objects Or shall it be that He savoreth so of Arminianisme because he declareth himselfe to consent with the Lutherans If Lutheranisme and Arminianisme be distinct heer is an Error committed by these Informers against Error that I am not presented upon point of Lutheranisme in the Title as well as upon point of Arminianisme 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 entituled unto that which is none of his but M. LUTHER'S Why is M. MOUNTAGU accused of Arminianisme said to savor of Arminianisme rather than of Lutheranisme both in this being one and the same thing There lyeth heer a padd in the straw I can ghesse at the cause a tricke 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 Arminianisme hath infested and had brought into great perill the STATES of the Vnited Provinces if the KINGS MAIESTY 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 mankinde Postquam esse in mundo Christiana gens cepit as ARNOBIUS speaketh Blessed bee the PEACE-MAKER amongst men the Generation of that faithfull One shall be ever blessed And blessed be that MAN of PEACE in ISRAEL for ever The reward of the righteous rest upon his Royall Person and Posterity and the faithfull promise of that GRAND-PEACEMAKER betwixt Heaven and Earth be sevenfold returned into his bosome whose Princely care and providence is not confined within the surroundry of the foure Seas but enlarged ultra unto his neighbours those Vnited Provinces primarily and before all But for this particular Sirs Informers can you speake upon knowledge for I must confesse my ignorance and small intelligence in matters of this kinde 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 Finall Perseverance which had so almost indangered the state of those Vnited Provinces Did no craftie Interloper are you sure of that put in his Stocke among those brawling Bankers Did no wiser men or man worke upon perhaps exasperated mindes or exasperate minds to worke upon as it hath hapned elsewhere in points of controverted Divinitie called into question or maintained on foote that Religion may serve for a stalking horse to catch fooles and be pretended to serve turnes Surely those very points being Scholasticall speculations meerly and as farre from State-businesses as Theorie is from Practice are not of themselves aptae natae to breed dangers Those so dangerous opinions in the Netherlands have beene 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 heer Those Classicall projects Consistoriall practices Conventuall designes and Propheticall speculations of the Zealous Brethren in this Land doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aime at Anarchy popular confusion Dangerous indeed to Prince and people State Civill and Ecclesiasticall may well come under this Information as being active in Front and not onely upon the Reare Why informe you not against the Fomenters of them Would you not take it ill if your selves were traduced as Dangerous indeed who do more than upon the Bye incline unto them But I am loth to touch heer or to meddle beyond my slipper The State is not the Subject of my Profession I pray for the prosperitie of Prince and Polity but let their courses alone to whom they concerne I excuse not ARMINIUS or Arminians in any misdemeanor onely let not Innocency in different Opinions bee calumniously traduced without cause M. MOUNTAGU in his owne particular is knowne hee giveth GOD the praise therefore to better than your selves or any of your Sect be they who they will bee to foment neyther Faction in State whereof he is incapable nor Schisme 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 IESUS the breaches and ruines in the CHURCH for which cause it is apparant They cannot endure Him Quibus quietamoveri magna merces and live well fare full and fatt by Fishing in troubled waters There is One GOD One Faith One Hope One Baptisme not dividing but composing Christ in his Members and Profession Comparisons are odious yet sometime necessary Gall and Vineger are corrosive but must sometime bee used There is never a Saint-seeming and Bible-bearing hypocriticall Puritan in the Packe a better Patriot everie way than the man that hath Delivered such dangerous Errors Your goodly glozings and time-serving colludings with the State are but like Water-men upon the Thames looking one way rowing another way Your Holy cause you see will not succeed by opposition therefore you come up and seeme to cloze with the Church of England in her Discipline to use the Crosse and weare the Clothes but for her Doctrine you wave it preach against it teach contrary to that which you have subscribed that so through FORRAINE DOCTRINE being infused secretly
acts thereof The memorable Saying of SCOTUS The power of the Will in things divine CHAP. XI The fourth and last point of ARMINIANISME 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 zeale The Church of Rome not a sound yet a true Church Private opinions disclaimed The Church of England asserted to her owne publick and proper Tenents The cause of all these Imputations CHAP. II. The Church Representative and Points Fundamentall what they are All that Papists say is not Poperie Particular Churches have and may erre The Catholick Vniversall Church hath not cannot erre Of Generall Councels The Author farre from the Iesuites fancy The XXI Article of the Church of England explaned 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 CHAP. IV. Private and publick doctrine differenced In what sense the Church is said to be alwaies visible The Author acquitted from Popery againe by others learned Divines Of the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Touching ANTICHRIST The Pope and Prelacie of Rome Antichristian That he is Magnus ille Antichristus is neither determined by the publick doctrine of the Church nor proved by any good argument of private men Difference among Divines who The Man of sinne should bee The markes of the great Antichrist fit the Turkish Tyrannie every way as well as the Papacy The peace of the Church not to bee disquieted through variety of opinions No finall resolution to be yet had in this point CHAP. VI. Touching IUSTIFICATION The state of a meere naturall man who to please GOD must become a new creature That newnes cannot bee wrought without a reall change of a sinner in his qualities In what sence it may be said that there is an Accesse of Iustification both by daily receiving remission of new sins and by increase of grace injoyning vertuous and good deeds unto faith CHAP. VII A change made in a justified man The Author agreeth in part with the Councell of Trent and therefore maintaineth Popery no necessarie illation The doctrine of the Church of England and of other reformed Churches in this point of Iustification CHAP. VIII Strange Popery GOD onely and properly justifieth CHAP. IX Holinesse of life added unto Iustification and Remission of sinnes GOD justifieth originally and Faith instrumentally CHAP. X. An Accesse declaratory made to the act of Iustification by the works of a lively faith S. PAUL and S. IAMES 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 farre 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 bountie 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 Counsailes Evangelicall Counsailes admitted according to the doctrine of the old Fathers and many learned Divines of our Church Popish doctrine concerning workes 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 c. 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 sinne against their owne consciences CHAP. XVIII Touching LIMBUS PATRUM The dreames of Papists about Limbus Patrum related and rejected The state of mens soules after death The place proportioned to their state The soules of the blessed Fathers before CHRIST'S ascension in heavenly Palaces yet not in the third and highest heavens nor in that fulnesse of ioy which they have now and more of which they shall have heerafter 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 wee are at with our Adversaries Every Novellers Fancie printed and thrust upon us for the generall Tenet of our Church The plain and easie Articles of our CREED disturbed and obscured by the wild dreames of little lesse than blasphemous men by new Models of Divinity by Dry-fatts of severall Catechismes The Beleefe of Antiquity The Author and It far from POPERY CHAP. XIX The seventh point of Popery touching IMAGES The Historicall 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 bee given unto Images They may affect the mindes 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 historicall use of Images The Booke of Homilies containes a general godly doctrine yet is it not in every point the publick dogmaticall resolved doctrine of the Church The Homily that seemeth to condemne all making of Images is to be understood with a restriction of making them to an unlawfull end Many passages therein were fitted to the present times and to the conditions of the people that then were The finall resolution of this controversie CHAP. XXIV Touching signing with the Signe of the CROSSE To signe with the signe of the Crosse out of Baptisme or upon the breast c. no more superstition than to signe in Baptisme 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 wee with Puritans both deriders of the signe of CHRIST'S Crosse 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 efficacie and power of the signe of the Crosse CHAP. XXVII Popery is not the signing with but the adoring of the Crosse Strange effects which GOD hath wrought of old adhibito signo CRUCIS and may doe still by vertue of CHRISTS Death and Passion which that Signe doth represent CHAP. XXVIII The Informers presumption against the current of Antiquity CHAP. XXIX Touching the SACRAMENT of the ALTAR The Informers drawn low
at least what danger consequent unto Error I should thinke it a preservative against danger rather inasmuch as the difficulty and obscurity pretended will in all probabilitie keep men off from meddling in it above their Modell 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 beene in the right The Question of Freewill so canvassed and discoursed of up and downe is indeed a point and so ever hath beene held of very great obscurity fitting rather Schooles than popular eares or auditories If it bee not an obscure Question what then meane 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 naturall morall civill 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 eares Papists at odds amongst themselves and Protestants with Protestants upon no better tearms To my capacity that is obscure which is so much intangled with contradictory disputations upon all hands and so much perplexed with oppositions BELLARMINE a man no disparagement to your worth of as strong a braine and piercing apprehension as eyther of you M. WARD and M. YATES or any new upstart Master in Israel of the pack confesseth that the Concurrence of Grace and Free-will 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 withall 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 Arminianisme is it not CHAP. IX Controversies unnecessarily multiplied the AUTHOR no Favourer of them Questions of obscurity and speculation not fit for Pulpits popular eares Freewill made no such controversie among moderate men either of the Pontifician or Protestant side as people are borne in hand withall INFORMERS BUt M. MOUNTAGU saith It might better have beene omitted and overpassed in silence especially the differences hanging as they doe upon such niceties and the controverted particulars being of no great moment upon due examination CHAP. XVI pag. CVII MOUNTAGU I Must and do confesse I am of that mind and thinke so still that the idle fellow the Gagger had done much better had merited more at GOD and mens hands to speake in his owne 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 bee more sparing in multiplying controversies and disputes and so in disquieting the peace of the Church in points of that nature which doe not so concerne the state of mans soule or his walking in the waies of GOD'S commandement or knowing of Him the onely true GOD and whom he hath sent IESUS CHRIST Now was ARMINIUS also of that opinion If he were not how am I or can I bee an ARMINIAN for this If he were of this opinion then hath hee 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 universall Grace Free-will and losse of Faith And surely M. MOUNTAGU deserved a more moderate and lesse empassioned censure than to bee informed against for moving of sedition which toucheth deep and will beare I trowe 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 feare of offending that way concealed both his owne opinion often and sometime the doctrine of the Church which haply he should not have done Is hee therefore seditious because he refused to dispute discourse or talke 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 hee professeth his dislike of multiplying controversies in those kindes 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 owne 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 selfe-same points blamed for being so temperate for saying no more for not mooving favouring fomenting unnecessary quarrels and disunions in questions of speculation and of obscurity advising rather to reserve them for and referre them to the Schools though your honest simplicity or PURE charity thought it fit to conceale this his moderate wish or advice rather than to thunder and lighten in your Pulpits with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by buzzing them into popular eares 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 farre at variance with their owne 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 free-will 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 spake in another case If OF the defenders of Free-will some beleeved not the necessity of grace which doctrine the IESUITES condemne of PELAGIANISME some denied that GOD can absolutely determine the will and are confuted by the most part some disliked that GOD should bee said by his exciting grace to work physically in man and are gaine-said by BENIUS as therein Adversaries unto Fathers and Councels some hold that GOD doth not morally determine the will and are excepted against by SUAREZ some gave to mans 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 satisfie all doubts concerning the concurrence of grace and will and yet confesse they cannot assoile them as is confessed in these many words by the
Antichrist one eminent above all All and every one that oppugneth or opposeth CHRIST and his Kingdome his Word and Doctrine is an Antichrist So was SIMON MAGUS ELYMAS MENANDER the NICOLAITANS and other Heretickes abroad and risen up in the very Apostles times of whom S. IOHN himselfe said And now are many Antichrists These are all more or lesse Antichrists as their opposition is more or lesse unto CHRIST and his Kingdome 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 SINNE THE SONNE OF PERDITION Concerning him not them there is diversity of judgements discrepancie of opinion among Divines both old and new First some of the antient Fathers and most of the Writers in the present Church of Rome understand the propheticall prediction of and apply it unto one singular individuall man onely and no otherwise and him to bee an Hereticke in opinion extreamly and with all vehemency opposing the saving truth of GOD prodigiously impious and beyond measure who shall by all signes and wonders with maine force and opposition set himself against CHRIST IESUS and his Kingdome towards the later end of the world not long before the day of Doome 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 hereticall wicked tyrannicall State and Polity directly opposing the Kingdome State and Doctrine of CHRIST IESUS But heer is some difference among them For there are that by Antichrist doe understand MAOMET or the Turkish State and Tyranny erected against CHRIST and Christians directly and the Pope and Papacie 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 doe make one conjoyned opposition unto IESUS CHRIST and his truth in Spiritualibus And although that externally and in regard of Civill Policy they differ and doe 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 Gospell his Kingdome 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 onely the Bishop of Rome which is it seemeth the opinion or rather faith and beliefe 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 honor to call CALVINISTS I say not of all for ZANCHIUS ZEGEDINUS GRYNAEUS and FAIUS of Geneva himselfe are not so yet perswaded For my owne private opinion I said and so I say still Though I cannot nor yet will sweare unto either being but probable and conjecturall yet I rather incline unto the more moderate and temperate Tenent and rather of the two embrace that The Turkish and Popish State not severall but conjoyned and opposite unto CHRIST though severall waies doe 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 Turke by much than the Pope rather the MAOMETAN iniquity than the HILDEBRANDINAN impiety at least wise as much every way because the Signes 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 doe the Popes in their State and Government ad oppositum First in Apostasie they are both interessed both are departed away but rather the Turk than the Pope is enteressed For whether we take that Apostasie to bee a departing away from CHRIST and his Kingdome and his Doctrine MAOMET himselfe apostated drew away his Followers and Sectaries sometime CHRISTIANS and so they continue yet unto this day Reprobates Renegadoes Apostataes Deniers of that faith which sometime they did professe The Churches of Asia those seven unto which S. IOHN sometime wrote those which S. PAUL planted and which APOLLOS watered where S. PETER S. ANDREW and the rest preached those manie 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 marke and stampe of the Beast Or whether we understand Apostasie and defection from the Romane Empire the Turke is enteressed as much or more than the Pope both are growne great through the ruines thereof but rather the Turke than the Pope Indeed both from the Scepter of CHRIST and the Romane Empire is this Apostasie and so the signes marks and tokens hold on either side but upon due examination rather upon the Turke than the Pope as yet Then for Deceiving signes and wonders howsoever that cognizance holdeth in the Papacy and Sea of Rome we are assured out of Story that MAOMET tooke that course to beguile the simple to insinuate into the fancies of his deceived Proselites and to make himselfe esteemed a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a false Prophet a Deceiver a teacher of lyes in regard of GOD and CHRIST Such he pretended he desired to be accounted so he was estemed 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 wee 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 Romane Empire was in the sixt Centurie and Ierusalem was taken in by HOMAR successor unto MAOMET neere about the yeare DCLXVI The name of MAOMET written in the Greek that tongue in which S. IOHN wrote and to which he had reference doth make up that Number unto an haire 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 chiefe Prince of Gog and Magog doth signifie the same that doth Apollyon and Abaddon which is a Name ascribed and fastned unto that man of Sinne in holy writ Fiftly the Turkish MAOMETANS of these dayes and so the SARASINS of old are the grand professed enemies of CHRISTIANS Christianity CHRIST quà tales for that Name that Profession that Religion make warre against hate detest persecute Christians with
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 himselfe the Founder had in Church and Common-wealth in both States 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every way equalled priviledges with the elder Rome Senators and one of the yearely 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 Emperiall Citie then when MAOMET that false Prophet and Antichrist arose as well as Rome indeed rather then 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 Emperiall CITY bearing rule over the Kings of the earth is likewise as well as ROME seated upon seven hills at or neere unto the Sea indeed in a Foreland or Landstreight where two Seas meet the only Seat in the world for an Emperiall See For which cause it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by NICETAS The City with seven tops Vrbs septicollis by PAULUS DIACONUS so acknowledged by IANUS DOUZA a Gentleman of the Netherlands in his Iournall 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 seeme 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 Kingdome or State opposite unto the State and Kingdome of CHRIST and Christians which respectu finis may be accounted one in opposition against GOD and CHRIST though the meanes of effecting it be many different and diverse Turcisme one way may oppose CHRIST as it doth vi apertâ by fiery force and Ropery bee ad oppositum another way fraude and insidijs as it is In which respect as DANIEL may well tell us of one horn so S. IOHN remembreth a Beast with two Hornes MAOMET in the East the POPE in the West both Hornes 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 finall consummation of the world who in fradulent colluding malicious craftinesse in impious execrable and transcendent wickednesse through hereticall impostures and lying miracles shall goe beyond all other that ever lived in the world and bee fitted with all signes and markes of Antichrist unto the full so as no exception can bee taken against any in any one point Surely if the Generall of the Iesuites Order should once come to be Pope sit in PETERS chaire as they call it I would vehemently suspect him to bee the party designed for out of what nest that accursed bird should rather come abroad than out of that Seraphicall Society I cannot ghesse and but ghesse For in resolution I say with that IEWELL of England in pag. CCCXCIII I will not say the POPE is ANTICHRIST GOD will reveale him in his time and he shall be knowne yet is it probable hee may be of that rank I will not say the TURKE is Antichrist though it bee probable that Antichrist may come from thence the Turkes power being increased and inlarged by the Popes policy as the same B. IEWELL 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 finall resolutions For my part I desire not to contest with any man about them nor would I willingly have mens mindes or the peace of the Church disquieted with them It is an evill 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 bee of my minde There is a Rule of faith we acknowledge it commend it and have recourse unto it Things that are straight 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 doubtfull standing these need application and are applied confessedly by the perpetuall practice and tradition of the Catholick Church in consent of Fathers Wee apply things doubtfull 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. IOHN'S acceptance There are many Antichrists But whether hee bee THAT Antichrist or not I dare not presume to determine without speciall warrant in such a case If you have any speciall illumination or assurance by divine revelation or rather strong perswasion through affection much good may it do you keepe it to YOUR selves presse it not on others that in such cases desire sapere ad sobrietatem rather than resolve without good warrant CHAP. VI. Touching IUSTIFICATION The state of a meere naturall man who to please GOD must become a new creature That newnes cannot be wrought without a reall change of a sinner in his qualities In what sense it may be said that there is an Accesse of justification both by daily receiving remission of new sins and by increase of grace in joyning vertuous and good deeds unto Faith INFORMERS TOuching Iustification thus hee writeth A sinner is then iustified when hee is made iust 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 forgivenesse of sinnes primarily and grace infused secondarily CHAP. XVIII pag. CXLII MOUNTAGU AND this all this in generall 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 waies as I also have considered him according unto a twofold state The state of nature to which hee was formed and the state of grace to which he is reformed as hee was in ADAM depraved and lost as hee is in CHRIST IESUS sought out found and healed of his maladies In his Being Subsisting and Constitution every man is first a naturall man in that state standing hee pleaseth not GOD. He can doe nothing saith CALVIN that can please him or be accepted of him His
of Salvation In the second Homily there I have read thus Iustification is not the office of man but the office of GOD. and againe Iustification is the office of GOD onely 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 onely merits of his most deerly beloved Sonne our Lord our only Redeemer Saviour and Iustifier IESUS CHRIST And yet it is Popery in M. MOUNTAGU to have said and written Properly to speake GOD only justifieth who alone imputeth not but pardoneth sinne En quo vaecordia caecos For yet moreover is it not your owne Beleefe and Profession for which if he should say otherwise M. MOUNTAGU should be cryed downe Papist that Iustification consisteth in Remission of sinnes 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 againe 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 mo places than ten defining Iustification to be an Act of GOD absolving c. And yet with you M. MOUNTAGU is a Papist for affirming GOD only justifieth properly when your selves confesse that Iustification at least properly consisteth in Remission of sinnes and that none can forgive sinnes properly but GOD. How this should hang together I professe my ignorance I cannot tell For eyther Iustification in your opinions must not consist in forgivenesse of sinnes or else others beside GOD must have power of imputing or of not imputing sinnes And heere it is worth the while to observe how these detracters doe crosse their owne shinnes 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 sinnes and heer he is a Papist for saying GOD only justifieth properly when themselves will have Iustification to bee meerly forgivenesse of Sinnes and yet hold that none doth or can forgive Sinnes but GOD. May I not say well ô vertiginem In sober and not in madde Puritanicall sadnesse dare you say that some other beside GOD some creature over and above GOD can forgive Sinnes This is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England in that Homily which you remember indeed but can produce no testimonie thence Because all men bee sinners saith that Homily and offenders against GOD and breakers of his Lawes and Commandements therefore can no man by his owne acts workes or else deedes seeme they never so good be justified and made righteous before GOD but everie man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousnesse or justification But where shall he find it where is it to bee 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 againe in the second Homily of that argument as is already remembred Iustification 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 Belgick Confession which is the POPERY of M. MOUNTAGU as pleaseth these Great Masters in Israel Lyars against their owne knowledge in saying it contradicteth the Doctrine of the English Church Or if this be not the thing they meane what is it That GOD imputeth not sinnes unto the justified or that Iustification is not in pardoning and not imputing sinnes whereas the Papists doe clamour against us for maintayning that Iustification to be received at GODS hands is forgivenes of sins and trespasses in such things as hee hath beene offended in I confesse I am a Papist if this be Popery or else that which followeth after Remission of sins against which they informe in the next place CHAP. IX Holinesse of life added unto Iustification and Remission of sins GOD justifieth originally and Faith instrumentally INFORMERS AGaine WHO only can and doth translate from death unto life reneweth a right spirit and createth a new hart within us MOUNTAGU WHo can doe this but only GOD most high It is a work of Omnipotencie to create they say it is a greater work to recreate Where sinne 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 sinne is graciously and freely pardoned there holy life and conversation doth est soones ensue This is the divinitie that I have learned in our Protestant Schooles touching this point And to my understanding it is observed and tendred by DAVID in Psal L. X. Hide thy face from my sinnes and put away all mine iniquities which is Remission of sinnes Then followeth to make up a complete worke Create in mee a clean heart O LORD and renew a right spirit within mee which to me seemeth an Infusion of Grace And S. PAUL doth everie where after vocation unto and acceptation of us with GOD urge walking according unto vocation in newnesse and in holinesse 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 mee said to iustifie instrumentally That GOD justifieth causally hath beene suspected of Popery and challenged therefore Now that Faith justifieth instrumentally cannot avoide the same imputation And yet the maine exception of all Papists against the doctrine of our Church is that we hold a man is iustified by Faith which must be originally or instrumentally THAT wee exclude with the forenamed Homilies That we be iustified by Faith in CHRIST only is not That this our owne act to beleeve in CHRIST or this our faith in CHRIST which is within us doth iustifie us for that were to account our selves to be iustified by some act or vertue within our selves For saith S. PAUL Rom. VIII XXXIII It is GOD that iustifieth 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 wee embrace the Promise of GOD'S mercie and of Remission of sinnes which accordeth with the traduced passage of M. MOUNTAGU because GOD was drawne unto it by our Faith which laying hold upon his mercy in CHRIST obtayneth this freedome and newnesse and renewing from Him Faith is therefore said to justifie that is instrumentally or applicatorily And so I am content to passe for a Papist with the CHURCH of England CHAP. X. An Accesse declaratory made to the act of Iustification by the works of a lively Faith S.
can bee invested with it but by commission Priests onely have this commission from CHRIST unto whom hee said As my Father sent me so send I you and Receive you the holy Ghost whose sinnes you remit they are remitted c. This commission as they may doe any those that have it under seale 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 lesse 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 doe fasten the efficacie of forgiving sinnes unto the externall word pronounced by the Priest For saith SUAREZ Sacraments have a PHYSICALL efficacity in conferring grace as CHRIST'S humanity had in working miracles And therefore no marvell if they abate Contrition by acquiring onely as sufficient and enough a kinde of overly desire to serve GOD anew such as the Schoolemen call vellëity no full resolved purpose no matter for it no deep sorrow or Contrition And therefore are they so facile in Absolution so easie and often childish in Satisfaction We professe and beleeve that none can forgive sinnes but GOD by expiating wiping out blotting away and purging that no man can forgive them absolutely authoritatively by primer and originall power that Priests have delegated power from GOD to reconcile unto him by preparing of them by the Word and Sacraments to repentance to bee capable of forgivenesse first to chafe and prepare the wax to receive the Seale then as Officers to set to that Seale to pronounce them absolved in the name of CHRIST and actually to absolve them so farre as Ministeriall Power can extend qui non ponunt obicem by unbeliefe or irrepentance The phrase of the Ancients and even of the elder Roman Schooles 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 dispositivè And that because ea adhibent per quae DEUS dimittit peccata dat gratiam To conclude the Master of their Sentences their ancient Ritualls their formall 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 owne 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 owne 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 doe 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 knowe to be no PURITAN thus wounding their Mother through their Brothers 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 MAIESTIE THus farre 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 farre or wherein Arminianisme Popery taught and delivered by M. MOUNTAGU Much suspected nothing yet proved Great clamors and outcries of I know not what or wherefore as if ANNIBAL were ad Portas and Popery ready to be restated in Church and Common-wealth So the Beacons are fired by certaine franticke fellowes that are frighted with Pannick feares and by them the neighbouring countries are disturbed without cause A field of Thistles seemed once a battell of Pikes unto some Discoverers of the Duke of Burgundy You can apply what I exemplifie I goe no farther but leave you to your selves and if it bee possible unto more charitable conceits of those that deserve no other imputation but THEY ARE NO PURITANS which GOD in goodnes keep out of this Church and State as dangerous as Popery for any thing I am able to discerne the onely difference being POPERY is for Tyranny PURITANISME for Anarchy POPERIE is originall of Superstition PURITANISME the high-way unto Prophanenesse both alike enemies unto Piety Other Accusations there are that walk in corners and fly abroad by Owle-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 owne knowledge another way being but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as TATIANUS would call them but that they professed themselves publike Promoters and exhibited Informations ut de rerum summâ It was my part and duty not to neglect my owne innocencie but to discover and lay open their predominant frensies to view in some part and ignorant stupidity in common Tenents THEM MY SELFE whatsoever I have said or done or shall heereafter doe any way libens merito more Majorum now and ever I have I doe I will referre and submit and in most lowly devoted humble sort prostate upon bended knees unto this CHURCH of England and the true DEFENDER thereof his MOST SACRED MAIESTIE humbly craving that Royall Protection which sometime WILLIAM OCKAM did of LEWES of Baviere the Emperor DOMINE IMPERATOR DEFENDE ME GLADIO ET EGO TE DEFENDAM CALAMO FINIS Enchirid. c. 17. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hym. 2. c Artic. 16. Page 54. of the last Edition Page 57. d Forme of private Baptisme e Catechisme answ 2. f Rubrick before the Catechisme g S. GREG. NYSSEN orat de baptism S. LEO de nat Christ serm 5. OPTAT cont PARM l. 5. TERT. de 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 k S. HIERON cont Iovin l. 2. S. AUO. de cor grat 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 l Cap. de Concionatoribus CALVIN Instit 3. 21. 5. Ibid. CICERO I. de Divin Pag. 151. edit ROB. STEPH Ad MONIMUM TERT. de speetac ca. z. CLEM ALEX. Strom. 5. pa. 261 ECCLES 7. 31. S. GREG. NAZ Orat. 42. pa. 696. S. BASIL Hom. Quòd DEus non est Author malorum 2. TIM 2. 20 21. S. CHRYSOST tom 5. pa. 551. PROSP. de vocat Gent. l. 2. * Harm Synod Belg. cap. 13. can 8. Appeale lib. 2. ca. 1. §. 11. CICERO de Nat. Deor. 1. APPEALE pag. 214. Lib. 2. cap. 18. Disp 1. pa. 1. num 4. Lib. 6. cap. 8. Lib. 4 cap. 7. de Iustif S. AUG de grat libero arbitrio cap. 17. S. AUG de Sp. Lit. tom 3. cap. 33. ROM 13. 10. S. AUG tom 2. epist 89. R. TAPPERUS art 7. de lib. arb THEOD BEZA opusc tom 2. pag. 666. part 1. quaest PROSP. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gent. 1. 3. * This branch of the TRID Councell is taken out of the second ARAUS Councell Can. XXV In 1. Sent. dist 38. De pec orig 2. 3. DAMASCEN lib. 2. de fide orth cap. 27. S. AUG PROSP. de voc Gent. lib. 2. cap. 9. S. LEO ser 5. in Epiph. Lib. de Eccles cap. 17. Page 443. Lib. 2. cap. 27. Lib. 2. cap. 3. Pag. cc1 Page 11. Iesuit pag. 2. Synop. pag. 69. Page 661. Pag. 361. De Eccles 3. 13 INST 3. 148. In 2. ad Gal. 16 Pa. ib. in Def. In 3. Gal. ver 22. Lib. de reform Ecclesiae De pudic c. 19. PERK in Gal. 2 TERT. de pud cap. 20. Epist 1. Hom. 3. of Faith Com. in 3. ad Gal. ver 12. Ad Gal. cap. 2. pag. 209. Lib. 14. de Trin. cap. 17. Psal 103. 2 3. BELLAR de Iustif 5. 17. STAPLETON Prompt Cathol pag. 245. Epist 1. lib. 1. Ad Apol. TORT pa. 196. S. CHRYS to 5. pag. 322. edit SAVIL S. HIER cont IOVIN l. 1. c. 7 De S. Virg. c. 30 Serm. LXI de Temp. S. CHRYSOST To. v. in illud Salutate PRISCILLAM c. pag. 322. Artic. 3. Tractat. contra Graecos edit à P. STEVVARTIO pag. 565. Ad MAGNES TERT. contra MAR. IV. 14. Lib. Canonum edit anno 1571 In 3. sent d. 12. Epist 99. Par. 3. qu. 25. ar 3. To. 1. lib. 9. ca. 6 De Imag. c. 11. n. 1. Pag. 203. ad Apol BEL. Resp ad Apol. BEL. p. 198. Haeres 30. quae est E◠10. Ho. 8. ad Rom. Qu. 79. Deobit THEODOSII IUNIUS Animad c. BEL. de Imag. ca. 29. Prisci illi Patres praesentiā virtutem operationem salutarem CHRISTI implorabāt profitebantur occupabant adhibito SIGNO EXTERNO CRUCIS cujus simplicitate omnia Daemonū Ethnicorumque Ludibria cluderent in DOMINO Contr. BARON in Exerc. ined Pag. 339. To. 3. d. 2. § 2.