Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Article 6
Article 6.
Papist.
That faith once had may be lost.
Proteſtant.
This point, it ſhould ſeeme, ſtickes in this mans ſtomack, he is ſo much troubled with it. Art. 5 in the extrauagant ſyllogiſme; Art, 4. the third point; and here it makes a whole article.
The principall ſyllogiſme is thus to be framed.
If Dauid l…ſt his faith, then faith once had may be loſt.
But Dauid loſt his faith.
Therefore faith once had may be loſt.
The aſſumption of this ſyllogiſme he offers to proue, in this maner.
Papist:
Whoſoeuer leeſeth his charitie, leeſeth his faith.A.
But Dauid when he killed Vrias, lost his charitie.
Ergo, Dauid, when he killed Vrias, lost his faith.
The Maior is a principle vndoubted of, in the Schooles of Proteſtants. For they peremptorily affirme, that true faith, ſuch as was in Dauid one of Gods elected, can no more be ſeuered from charitie, then heate from fire, or light from the Sunne; and therefore if Dauid, killing Ʋrias, loſt his charitie, no doubt but therewithall he loſt his faith.
The Minor I proue: for whoſoeuer remaineth in death,B. is without charitie. But Dauid, when he killed Ʋrias, remained in death. Ergo, Dauid, when he killed Ʋrias, was without charitie. If he was without that, which once he had, no doubt but then he loſt it: for he was depriued thereof, for his ſinne.
The Maior Propoſition of this laſt Syllogiſme, thus I prooue. For charity is the life of the ſoule, and it is as impoſſible, for a man to hauehave charity, and remaine in death, as it is impoſſible, for a man to be dead in body, and yet indewed with a reaſonable ſoule.
The Minor cannot be denied; to wit, that Dauid, by killing Vrias, remained in death. For it is the expreſſe word of God. Qui non diligit, manet in morte. He that lo…eth not his neighbour remaineth in death▪ but certaine it is that Dauid loued not Vrias, when he killed him. Ergo likewiſe certaine it is, that Dauid remained in death.
The ſame poſition might eaſily be proued out of Ezekiel.Ezech. c. 18. ver. 24. Si autem a…erterit ſe iuſtus a iuſticia ſua &c.
Proteſtant.
Whoſoeuer looſeth his Charity, looſeth his faith: If by Charity A. Rom. 13. 10.you vnderſtand an abſolute being without ſanctification, which is ſignified by Charity, becauſe LoueLove is the fullfilling of the Law, your propoſition is true, but your aſſumption is falſe. If thereby you meane, not performing ſome act of Charity, or doing the contrary, your propoſition is falſe. For not eueryevery one, that failes in the performance of ſome duties of louelove, or doth ſome thing contrary to the rule of LoueLove, by ſuch omiſſion of good, or committing of euill, looſeth, nor in deed may truely bee ſaid to looſe his Charity: though he ſinne againſt the lawe of Charity, in ſo doing,
Your proofe, being grounded vponupon a miſconceauing of the Proteſtants principle, which I expounded in the 4. Article, is of no force. True faith, ſuch as wee confeſſe Dauids was, alwaies after his calling, can no more be without louelove, then the ſunne without light, or the fire without heat.
But …et he, that hath this faith, and louelove, may ſometimes neglect ſome duties of this louelove, and do ſome works of hatred. Becauſe his ſanctification being vnperfect his obedience alſo muſt needs be ſo. But it neither falls out, that ſuch a man becomes againe wholy vnregenerate: by which meanes onelyonly, and by none other, ſanctification, or louelove, can bee altogeather loſt.
But Dauid, when he killed Vrias, loſt his Charity. Nay rather, if Charity can be loſt, he then loſt it, when he committed…. Adultery▪ vnles we ſhall ſay, that either Adultery is not againſt Charity or that murther only, & not Adultery procures a d…priuation of Charitie. But Dauid did not looſe his Charitie by either, or both of them; though in each he greuouſly ſinned againſt the louelove of his neighbour. Which for murder this man grants: for Adultery that parable, that Nathan brings, prooues vndoubtedly.
Whoſoeuer remaines in death is without Charity. Namely2. Sam. 12. 1. 2. ſo farre, as he is in death. If he be altogeather in death, he is wholy without Charity. But a man may, in reſpect of ſome ſinnefull action, be in death: and yet, for all that, bee truely ſanctified, though not throughly. In regard whereof he may & muſt be takē for a ſanctified man, as in truth he is, howſoeuer hee doe ſome thing contrary to the grace of ſanctification according to the luſts of his naturall corruption. He, that hath ſome of his members dead, as his hands, or his feete, in reſpect of theſe parts is dead; and yet may be aliue in all the other. How much more may he then be truely ſaid to hauehave liuing charity in him, which failing in ſome one duty, and that but of one part, for a time, brings forth notwithſtanding many fruits of louelove, euen of the ſame kind, of which that ſinne againſt louelove is. What needs any further anſwere to your proofe, then hath already bin geuen? For in deed it is of no force. Vnles that be granted, which is the queſtion, that eueryevery act contrary to louelove; drawes louelove out of the ſoule, ſo that a man thereby ceaſſes to hauehave any part of regeneration in h…m. And this anſwere were ſufficient, though Charity were in deed the life of the ſoule. Which is but an Idle popiſh fancy, or rather a ſudden conceipt of this quick diſputer.Rom. 1. 17. If there be any other life of the ſoule then God, ſurely it is faith, rather then louelove. by which the righteous man liueth. Is it not inough for our Papiſts to make LoueLove the forme of faith, but that they muſt hauehave it alſo, the life of the ſoule?
Dauid, when he killed Ʋrias, remained in death. In reſpect of that ſinne, yet was hee tranſlated from death to life, by beleeuing in the Meſſias to come, and accordingly brought forth the f…its of ſanctification, in obeying both the other commaundements, and that alſo o… not kil…ing, which, by the murther o… Ʋrias, he brake. So tha… the proofe, which followes, is vnſufficient. Becauſe that Dauid could not be charged ſimply with the want of louelove, though he did not louelove Vrias, in that action. Which yet proceeded not ſomuch from the ha…red of his perſon, as from Dauids feare to hauehave his former ſinne of adultery diſcouered, If by Vrias death it were not otherwiſe prouided for. And, that the place of Scripture by him alleaged, is not to be wreſted according to his fancy, it may appeare by the 3. chap. 17. verſe, where it is ſaid, that he, which ſhuts vp his bowells of compaſſion from his brother, that hath …eed, hath not the louelove of God abiding in him. Yet, I think, this Papiſt will not condemne eueryevery man as void of the louelove of God, vponupon the refuſall at ſome one time, to giuegive almes to him, that ſtands in neede? Though it can not be denied, but ſuch a refuſall is a breach of the lawe of God. So then, by this reaſon it is not proued, that Dauid loſt his faith, or that faith may be loſt. Yf it could as eaſely hauehave bin proued out of Ezechiel, 18. as ſaid, no doubt we ſhould hauehave had it to the full. But you ſhall giuegive vsus leaue to beleeue it, when wee ſee it done. In the meane while it is inough to ſtop your mouth, that your proofe may as eaſely be anſwered▪ as you Imagine it may be made. Eſpecially if you remember, that Ez…chiels ſpeach is conditionall, & Conditionalis …ihil poni… in eſſe, A thing is not proued to be, becauſe if it be ſuch or ſuch an euent ſhall follow therevpon.