« PreviousContinue »
CONF. quality inherento.” The bishop replied, “ that though he
fell from the act of justification, yet he fell not from the grace of justification, and though there were no justification ex parte subjecti, yet there was ex parte Dei, Who cannot alter His election.” “Your lordship might know," quoth the dean, “that St. Thomas says, predestinatio nihil ponit in prædestinato; and if in a man there be no justification ex parte subjecti, then the subject is not justified at allP. Predestination is an immanent act of God; justification is a transient act, which can have no existence until it be terminated upon the creature; for was St. Paul justified when he was consenting to St. Stephen's death ?”
When the bishop was driven to this strait, and all the lords expected some clearer answer, my Lord Say called upon Dr. Preston, and desired that he might be heard about this point. “Why," quoth Dr. Preston, "if I may have leave to speak, I shall make this matter as plain and clear as may be. Dr. White must consider that there is a difference between children and strangers: the children of God when they commit any sin, God, their Father, is angry with them, they are sub ira Patris, but yet they are not turned out of His family ; and as a father cannot make an ill son to be none of his child, no more can God; if they be once His children, they cannot cease to be filii, they must be His children for ever?" My lord of Lichfield also asked the dean whether the prodigal ceased to be a son when he was departed from his father ? The dean answered, “The prodigal was a natural son, and this filiation ceased not; but we dispute of a son by grace." The lord chamberlain then demanded of the bishop whether, if the prodigal had died in his distance from his father,
whether he had not deceased in the state of misery, and • represen- whether that state of misery was not a represent of eternal tation.'
misery? “They cannot cease to be His creatures," quoth my lord of Rochester; and added, “natural children may lose their right of inheritance; as often, through disorder and ill living, it happens among men."
• [The conversation between the bishop and the dean is here corrected by the latter.]
[The remainder of the paragraph
is in the dean's writing.]
9 [From this point to the eighth line of the following page, the writing is that of the dean.]
Dr. Preston was then demanded, whether a justified man sinning in manner aforesaid, was not in the state of eternal guiltiness until he did forsake his sin ? His answer was negative, and that he was only guilty of some temporal mulct and chastisement. The dean replied, that temporal punishments, being common to good and bad men, were not proper effects of mortal sin; also the Apostle, speaking to justified persons, saith, “ They that do such things shall have no inheritance in the kingdom of God; and if you which are justified, walk after the flesh, you shall die.” “Yea, but," quoth Dr. Preston, they were never sons, nor never had any (Eph. 5. right of inheritance ?” “No?” says the dean ; " at least we 'Rom. 8. see in Baptism they were made the children of God and heirs 13.) of everlasting life, as we are taught in our Catechism, and the whole series of the administration of Baptism.” “That's but a conceit of charity," quoth the bishop of Lichfield," for though it be said, 'ye must not doubt but earnestly believe,' yet the words following are, that God will, not that He doth make every one His son or child by Baptism." "Dr. White replied, that it was Catholic faith that all infants baptized were regenerated, and received remission of original sin. He alleged St. Aug. Ep. 90. reporting the decrees of the Council of Carthage. “Quicunque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi a perditione liberari, et salutem percipere æternam, anathema sits."
The dean said farther, that it was a part of the Catholic faith maintained against heretics in all ages, that the Sacrament of Baptism was an effectual instrument of grace, and that the bishop was evil advised in opposing it, and that this tenet of his was a greater error than he could prove any to be in Mr. Mountague's book.
“ Teach you such doctrine ?” quoth the duke; “why live you then in this Church that hath ever taught otherwise, and why baptize you any children ?” And here much was said of all hands, till at last the bishop gave it over.
Dr. Preston being asked what state they were in, that, being the children of God, lived in deadly sins, and whether he thought they
r [The dean of Carlisle has added the passage commencing at this point and extending as far as · Mr. Mounta
s [Ep. clxxv.; Opp., ii. 471, edit. fol. Ant. 1700.]
CONF. incurred the danger of hell for the time, or no,-he answered
that they did not, and that God did only punish them with a temporal punishment for any sin which they committed, and no more. “All these matters would be quieted," quoth Secretary Cook and my Lord Say, “ if the synod of Dort might be established here in England.” “Now I beseech your lordship," replied the dean, "let us have none of that, for neither our Church nor state may bear it.” “No, no,” quoth the duke," away with it; we have nothing to do with that synod.” And hereupon Dr. White produced divers reasons against the admission and establishing of it in our Church'; amongst which reasons one was, that the said synod either apertly or covertly denied the universality of man's redemption per pretii solutionem pro omnibus, nemine excepto, pro mortem Christi.
This,” said the dean, “opposeth the Church of England, and taketh away all preaching to such as are not absolutely elected; for preachers exhort all their hearers to ...."
The last motion was made by the bishop of Lichfield, that Mr. Mountague's book might be kept from further sale unti it were explained. Whereat my lord of Buckingham rose up in haste, and with somewhat an angry countenance told him, his lordship was not called hither to make any such motions ; and presently, after a few other speeches, the lords departed, with purpose to return the Tuesday after.
The sum and substance of the Conferences lately had at York House concerning Mr. Mountague's books; which it pleased the duke of Buckingham to appoint, and with divers other honourable persons to hear, at the special and earnest request of the earl of Warwick and the Lord Say.
The first day's meeting was without any conference. Feb. 9th, 1625.
The day first appointed by the lord duke of Buckingham
· [The passage which here com- all their hearers to is added in mences and which terminates abruptly, the inargin by the dean.]
was Thursday the 9th of Feb., on which the dean of Carlisle and Mr. Mountague were suddenly sent for, came and attended at York House, and, after two or three hours' expectation, it pleased the duke's Grace to signify unto them, that the lords who desired the conference, and the opposers, (who were hereafter to be brought forth, but as yet concealed even from himself,) being either not ready with their objections, or not at leisure for other occasions, hath failed both himself and them for that day; and so wishing them to attend no more until further and more certain notice was given unto them, they went their way.
The First Conference. Feb. 11. All the day following Mr. Mountague still attended in London, expecting when he shall be called, but as yet no message came; and therefore he resolved to go and dispatch some serious business the next day at Windsor, and to return upon the Monday morning after; which, as he thought, would be the soonest time that was now likely to be assigned for any conference. Yet upon the next day, which was Saturday the 11th of Feb. (when Mr. Mountague was but newly gone out of the town), were both he and the dean sent for again, and wished to be ready at York House by two of the clock in the afternoon. The dean of Carlisle (finding Mr. Mountague gone) was desirous, as he came along by Durham House, to have Mr. Cosin with him to the conference; and together they went at the time assigned.
Immediately upon their coming to York House was my lord bishop of Rochester sent for by the duke, and requested to the conference.
When his lordship was come, we all entered into the chamber, where we found the lord duke of Buckingham, the earl of Pembroke, and the earl of Carlisle, together with the earl of Warwick, the Lord Say, Mr. Secretary Cook, and the bishop of Lichfield, who was now perceived to be one of those that should accuse and appear against Mr. Mountague.
After a few salutations passed, the doors being commanded to be shut, and the lords desired to order and place themselves at the table, it pleased the bishop of Lichfield to prevent all others, and to begin his speech and say,
“ That he should in all humble wise crave of his Grace and the rest of the honourable assembly to conceive rightly of his appearing that day against Mr. Mountague, which was not other than what he was forced unto for the discharge of his conscience, of a true and sincere love which he and many others bore to the profession of the Gospel and the truth of God; protesting withal that he came not out of any spleen or malice against Mr. Mountague's person, as intending to destroy him, but with a true and upright meaning to lay forth his errors, and intending to reform him ; for that in books of his lately published, the one called the Gag, the other the Appeal, there were such gross errors, such heresies and blasphemies contained, as were not to be endured in a Christian commonwealth.
“And by their lordships' honourable patience he should make it appear how, by the publishing of these books,-1. Authority had been abused. 2. That the Articles and religion of the Church of England had been opposed. 3. That no less than treason had been uttered, and both the oath of allegiance and supremacy condemned. 4. That apparent heresy had been maintained. 5. That the learned and worthy writings of our late sovereign lord King James had been rejected and vilified. 6. That the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ had been by some passages overthrown. And, 7. and lastly, that a great gap had been opened for popery to be brought in or get increase among us; besides many scandalous and profane passages, which should likewise be observed and offered unto consideration."
When his lordship had said and made an end of this his general accusation, the duke of Buckingham desired him to respite a little, having been all this while prevented and hindered by him from telling the occasion of this meeting together.
Which his Grace then declared to have risen from some private speeches that had lately passed between my lord of Warwick and him concerning sundry matters that were said to be erroneous and dangerous in Mr. Mountague's books; wherein, because he was not so well versed himself as to judge or censure matters of so high a nature, he was willing to yield to their request who had so earnestly desired a conference for