A Dangerous Plot Discovered, Chapter 12 – Chapter 13

A Dangerous Plot Discovered · Chapter 12 – Chapter 13

p. 38CHAP. XII. The point ſet downe in the former Chapter is argued.

THat wee may proceed in this queſtion, in the ſame order that wee hauehave done in the former, three things muſt be propounded.

1 Whether this propoſition: A man may fall from grace: be true or not.

2 Whether that propoſition conſent with the Church of Rome or not.

3 Whether that propoſition diſſenteth from the Church of England or not.

I hauehave propounded the firſt of his propoſitions to be diſcuſſed, and not any of the reſt: becauſe they doe but explicate, and ſet out the meaning of this. The ſecond, and third, ſheweth who they be that doe loſe grace, and how farre they doe loſe grace. The fourth ſets out the next cauſe that procureth the loſſe of grace. The handling of theſe three will come in (each one) in his ſeuerall place.

By the terme fall away, is ſignified the loſſe of grace, and is as much as if it were ſaid, hee that hath receiued grace, may loſe that grace, and be deſtitute thereof. By grace is meant the habit of holineſſe, or that inward forme, diſpoſition, or qualitie, out of which the workes of piety, in the outward actions of mans life, doe flow, and whereby hee is ordered and ſet into the way of eternall happineſſe. The word may, ſignifieth the poſſibility in the euent of the ſeparation p. 39of man and grace, as we vſe to ſay, a man may loſe his life.

That he doth conſent with the Church of Rome, (ſo 2farre as the Councell hath decreed) it is plaine and euident: now the Councell muſt bee conceiued to ſpeake of eueryevery man that is iuſtified, whether predeſtinate, or not predeſtinate: for it ſpeaketh of man iuſtified without limitation. Secondly, it muſt bee vnderſtood of the loſſe of all grace receiued. For it ſpeaketh of the loſſe of the habit. If a man loſeth the habit, he loſeth all. Thirdly, it muſt bee conceiued that the Councell ſpeakes of a loſſe finall in ſome: becauſe it ſpeaketh not of the recouery againe of any, and that is as much as M^r. Mountagu ſaith: but becauſe wee hauehave not theſe things expreſly in the Councell; therefore we muſt hauehave recourſe vntounto the Interpreters, for the vndoubted minde of the Councell: Bellarmine de Iuſti. lib. 3. cap. 14. ſaith:

We hauehave example in three which loſt their Iuſtice, and did recouer it againe: and of fiue that did ſo loſe their Iuſtice, as that they became reprobates.

Where we hauehave M^r. Mountagu his ſentence fully and plainely. For he ſaith, the Elect doe loſe and recouer: others doe loſe and not recouer. Other Authors of theirs doe ſpeake ſo as Bellarmine doth; but I need not name them, becauſe it is common vntounto them all to ſpeake thus.

M^r Mountagu ſuppoſeth that the reprobate alſo doe ſometimes receiue the habit of holineſſe, and ſo ſaith Bellarmine too, de Iuſti. lib. 3. cap. 14 where hee hath the ſame thing for his title, and concludeth it in the Chapter,

p. 40Habemus igitur, &c. in theſe words:

The Iuſtice of Iuſtification is not proper to the elect, but ſometime common with the reprobate.

Laſtly, M. Mountagu ſaith ſimply, Sinne procures 3this loſſe, where he muſt be vnderſtood, of thoſe ſins which (he telleth vsus, Appeale p. 173.) doe waſt the conſcience: and not of thoſe which he calleth ſinnes of ordinary incurſion; that is, to ſpeake in plaine Engliſh, as himſelfe there ſayes, of mortall; but not of veniall ſinnes: and ſo ſaith the Councell too.

VponUpon which I may conclude, M. Mountagu agreeth with the Councell of Trent in this point to a word: and (vponupon the reckoning) wee find that this his agreemēt in theſe foure former propoſitions doth yeeld vsus his conſent with them in two more, viz.

1 Sinne is mortall and veniall.

2 Grace habituall is common to the elect and reprobate.

Touching the opinion of Arminius in this point, 4thus he writeth Appeale p. 16.

I hauehave beene aſsured, that, Arminius did hold, not onelyonly Interciſion for a time; but alſo abſciſion, and abiection too for euer. That a man called, and iuſtified through the grace of God, might fal away againe from grace totally, and finally, and become a caſt away, as Iudas was, for euer.

He muſt bee vnderſtood to ſpeake this of the predeſtinate, otherwiſe he putteth no diffence betweene Arminius and his owne profeſſed opinion; whether he conſenteth therewith, or diſſenteth therefrom, he ſaith nothing expreſly. That he doth diſſent from Arminius it is not probable; for hee had ſufficient reaſon to hauehave proteſted his diſſent, if hee could hauehave p. 41done it with truth. It is very probable hee doth conſent: becauſe being charged with it hee holds his peace. The old prouerbe is, the ſilence of the accuſed is a confeſsion of guiltineſſe. Which ſeldome times proues vntrue, what hee is of certainty is knowne to God, and himſelfe; hee ſtandeth or falleth to his owne maſter: it is meet I meddle no further but with his poſitions and proofes: wherefore I leaue this and proceed.

We hauehave no reaſon to ſuppoſe, that, the Church of 5England was euer of opinion, that the habit of grace can be loſt: for if it were, then muſt it alſo beleeue, that, 1 Some reprobate is alſo ſanctified. 2 Some ſins are mortall, other ſome veniall. 3. The habit of Iuſtice, and the works thereof be perfect Iuſtice, and adequate vntounto the diuine Law▪ 4. Purgatory, Pardons, Maſſes, Trentals, Dirges, &c. be profitable vntounto ſome that be dead; but we know by perpetuall experience, that our Church abhorreth, and the profeſſors of her faith publikely, and priuately, proteſt their deteſtation, of all theſe Articles of the popiſh faith, therefore we hauehave a cloud of witneſſes, that, do all teſtifie, that, the Church of England maketh the loſing of the habit of grace no part of her faith. Moreouer, in the 22. Article it doth expreſly diſclaime the Romiſh doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons. Laſtly, This point of falling from grace hath beene commonly, and vniuerſally reiected: as well by Miniſters, as priuate men, and no man queſtioned (in the leaſt ſort) for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church: which is a moſt evident proofe, that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued. p. 42If it be anſwered, ſome in our Church hauehave taught falling from grace; I reply, It is true, ſome hauehave ſo done, but they hauehave beene but a few, and cryed down too, by the moſt, and thruſt off with no ſmall ſigne of diſlike from authoritie. I hauehave his owne teſtimonie, three times yeelded, Gag. p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming, that, our Church hath left this queſtion vndecided: which againſt him is a proofe without queſtion, that, his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England. And yet behold: Hee would perſwade, that, his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England; del…uered, not in ordinary tracts, and lectures, but publikely, poſitiuely, and declatorily; and for proofe hereof, he ſaith, he will bring vsus record thereof, Appeale, pag. 28. 36. which he promiſeth ſhall be by the plaine and expreſſe words of our Articles, &c. Appeale, p. 37. Appeale, p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promiſe;

In the 16. Article we read: After wee hauehave receiued 6the holy Ghoſt, wee may depart away from grace, and fall into ſinne.

That the full force of this argument may appeare, and my anſwer may bee directly, and fitly, applyed thereunto, it is needfull that I put it into due forme, and thus it will ſtand.

Whatſoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church.

But that a man may depart from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article.

Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England.

p. 43I anſwer; if he will ſtand to his propoſition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient, and a Champion moſt valiant, vntounto his mother the Church of England. Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, are but faint-hearted cowards in compariſon of him.

The greateſt part of the acts in Councels doe not appertaine vntounto faith: The diſputations that goe before, the reaſons that be added, nor the explications that are brought, doe not appertaine to faith, but, onelyonly the naked decrees, and of them, not all, but onelyonly ſuch as are propounded as matter of faith.

So ſaith Bellarmine de Concil. auct. lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum eſt, &c. and no Papiſt euer durſt giuegive more then thus; yet M^r. Mountagu dares giuegive to the Church of England more then this. EueryEvery ſentence in the Articles (with him) is matter of faith: and ſo he doth equall them vntounto the ſcriptures, to whom it belongeth that eueryevery ſentence be a matter of faith, as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place laſt alleadged.

If he will diſclaime that propoſition, his argument falleth of it ſelfe.

To anſwer more ſpecially, that Article comprehendeth two concluſions, viz.

1 The baptiſed may ſinne.

2 The baptiſed ſinner may receiue forgiueneſſe.

Theſe two hauehave their ſeuerall proofes, to wit:

1 He may depart from grace. Therefore, ſinne.

2 He may repent. Therefore hauehave forgiueneſſe,

EueryEvery one of the concluſions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England. Your propoſition ſo vnderſtood is true; but your aſſumption is p. 44falſe. Departing from grace is not any concluſion in the Article.

But ſuppoſe that eueryevery ſentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England: yet this Article will not profit you: for,

A man may depart from grace

by neglecting to obey it.

by loſing it.

In the firſt ſenſe (I grant) the Article doth teach departing from grace, but in this ſenſe the Article hath nothing in fauour of you, much leſſe hath it your falling from grace, in expreſſe words: for yours is of loſing the habit of grace.

If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that ſenſe. I reioyne, it may bee ſo taken in this place: becauſe he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies firſt neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace, before hee commits ſinne, and this I take as granted; Therefore you muſt proue that the Article doth vnderſtand it otherwiſe then ſo, elſe it can hauehave no ſtroke in your buſineſſe.

Let it be admitted (in courteſie) that, the Article ſpeaketh of the loſse of grace: yet it will come farre ſhort of your purpoſe: for it cannot ſpeake of the loſſe of the habit of grace. I proue it, from the Article it ſelfe, and your owne doctrine, thus;

The habit of grace is loſt by ſin. So ſay you.

Grace in the Article is not loſt by ſinne. But contrary.

Grace is loſt, therefore ſinne committed. So ſaith the Article.

Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace.

p. 45By this it is moſt euident, and paſt doubt, that, there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the loſſe of the habit of grace. But pardon him this miſtake, I will giuegive my word for him, hee neuer ſtudied the Article to find the true ſenſe of it. Doe you thinke his ſtudie ſo meane, as that he would condiſcend ſo low, as to Engliſh Articles? I aſſure you no. I tell you, and he tells it me, Appeale, pag. 11. Hee neuer ſtudied Baſtingius Chatichiſme, Fenners diuinitie, Bucanus, Trelcatius, Polanus, and ſuch like. His learning is all old: The Apoſtles Canons, Polycarpus, Denis, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Annacletus, Amphilochius, and others of their time, are his puefellowes, and hourly companions. And he hath good reaſon for it too; The neerer the fountaine the clearer the ſtreame; the further off the fouler, pag. 12.

His ſecond argument beginneth, Appeale, p. 32. 8and is thus to be framed,

Whatſoeuer is taught in the Homilies, is the authoriſed, and ſubſcribed doctrine of the Church of England, For

The Booke of Homilies was firſt compoſed and publiſhed in King Edwards time, approued, and iuſtified, in Parliament in Queene Elizabeths daies, and authoriſed againe of late to be read in Churches.

But that a man may fall away from grace, is taught in the Homilies.

Therefore falling from grace is the doctrine of the Church of England.

I anſwer; a man would verily thinke hee would hauehave vsus beleeue his propoſition to be a certaine, and vndeniable, truth: he beſtows ſo much ſweat in the p. 46proofe of it: but (good man) hee meant nothing leſſe; or elſe at the turning ouer of a new leafe, he becomes a new man; for he profeſſeth himſelfe of another mind in the 260 pag. following, in theſe words:

I willingly admit the Homilies, as containing certain godly and wholſome exhortations: but not as the publike dogmaticall reſolutions, confirmed of the Church of England. They hauehave not dogmaticall poſitions, or doctrine to bee propugned, and ſubſcribed in all and eueryevery point. They may ſeeme to ſpeake ſomewhat too hardly, and ſtretch ſome ſaying beyond the vſe, and practice of the Church of England. The ancienteſt Fathers ſometimes doe hyperbolize in their popular Sermons, which in dogmaticall deciſions they would not doe, nor auow the doctrine by them ſo deliuered. Now after this inforcing ſort may our Homilie ſpeake, and be ſo interpreted, which are all popular Sermons, fitted vntounto the capacitie of common people.

Well, there is good reaſon why we ſhould take his ſecond thoughts, for the better, and ſo leaue him trāpling his own propoſition into the dirt, by which meanes, his aſſumption doth not deſerue anſwer.

But it may be, he will put new life into his propoſition, by a ſpeciall priuiledge that this homilily hath aboue the reſt, namely that it is for explication of the doctrine contained in the Article.

I anſwer; he ſeemeth ſo to pretend, Appeale, pa. 32. but it is falſe, we find not any direction from the Article to the Homilie, nor any reflection in the homilie vponupon the Article: neither can the one explicate p. 47the other: but are really diſtinct concluſions, and proofes.

The Article ſaith,

He departeth from grace, therefore he ſinneth.

The Homilie ſaith,

He falleth from God by a wicked life, therefore is depriued of grace.

Hee that can make new Articles, can create new expoſitors.

Although this bee ſufficient to ſatisfie the argument: 9yet I will goe on to examine that which followes. In proofe of his aſſumption, he ſaith, p. 32.

The title of the Homilie is of falling away from God, which very title is ſufficient warrant for the Doctrine in this point.

I anſwer; this title hath nothing to doe with the loſſe of grace: falling from God ſignifies turning away from Gods law, and ſo the Homilie it ſelfe (a little after the beginning) doth expound the title, and ſaith,

They that may not abide the Word of God, but following the ſtubbornneſſe of his owne heart, they goe, and turne away from God.

If by falling from God, ſhould bee meant loſing of grace, then the Homilie muſt bee conceiued thus to reaſon;

If you loſe your grace, then God will take his grace from you.

For in that ſort the Homilie doth reaſon from falling from God, as the reading thereof will ſhew: but it were moſt abſurd to thinke that the Homilie would ſo reaſon.

p. 48His ſecond reaſon for the ſame purpoſe, is taken out of the Homilie it ſelfe, and ſtandeth in this forme;

They that are depriued of grace and heauenly life, which they had in Chriſt, and become as without God in the world, giuen into the power of the Deuill, as was Saul and Iudas, they loſe grace totally, and finally. But according to the Homilie, the truely iuſtified are thus depriued. For:

It is ſaid, they were in Chriſt, they continued ſometime in Chriſt.

Therefore, according to the Homilie, the truely iuſtified may loſe their grace totally and finally.

By this argument, hee thinkes the cauſe is his at common law: yee muſt now yeeld, or turne heretike againſt the Doctrine of the Church of England; but he is much miſtaken. The homilie doth affirme thus much by the way of rhetoricall enforcement, to perſwade men to take heed they turne not away from Gods Law. It being ſo vnderſtood, I grant the whole reaſon, but it profits him not. He promiſed, n^o 5. the poſitiue, and declaratory Doctrine of the Church of England; but rhetoricall enforcements are not ſuch.

It may be, ſome will ſay, there is a truth in this enforcement. I anſwer; what truth ſoeuer there is in it, this is certaine, the faith of the Church of England is not contained in it. No man (well aduiſed) will ſend vsus to ſeeke for the faith of our Church vntounto an argument, vrging the practice of a duty, in a popular Sermon. But what that truth is, we may beſt learne from the Author of this Homilie himſelfe, whoſe meaning we finde to be comprehended in theſe two things.

By ſuch threatnings of Gods taking away of grace.

p. 49Firſt, the great danger of ſinne: Secondly, the neceſſity of repentance is declared.

Both which are ſet downe in the firſt Sermon of Repentance, a little from the beginning, in theſe two ſentences;

1 Wee doe daily by our diſobedience, fall away from God, thereby purchaſing vntounto our ſelues (if hee ſhould deale with vsus according to his Iuſtice) eternall damnation.

2 Whereas the Prophet had afore ſet forth the vengeance of God: it is as if he ſhould ſay, although you doe by your ſinne deſerue to bee vtterly deſtroyed, and now you are in a manner on the very edge of the ſword: yet if you will ſpeedily returne vntounto him, he will moſt mercifully receiue you into fauour againe.

By which it is euident, the opinion of the Author of the Homily was not, that, man that had grace, ſhould by ſinning be brought to that condition indeed and in the thing, that, his habit of grace ſhould be taken from him, but, that the vrging of ſuch ſeuerity did fitly ſerue to reſtraine man from ſinning: & to reduce him vntounto repentance. Which being ſo, all the confidence which he put in this argument, doth vaniſh, and come to nothing; and himſelfe may bee aſhamed, that putteth ſo great confidence therein, p. 32. 33. and 34. I might alſo returne him the like amplifications vntounto the ſeuerall parts of my anſwer, as might fit to the ſeuerall amplifications of his argument, but I let ſuch things paſſe.

His third argument, I finde, Appeale, page 33. &c. 10in theſe words,

p. 503 He that ſaith a man may fall away, and may recouer, implyeth withall, that ſome men may fall away, and may not recouer.

But the Article ſaith the firſt.

Therefore it implieth the ſecond.

I anſwer; this argument requires little to bee ſaid to it: becauſe it preſumeth, that, the Article ſpeaketh of loſing the habit of grace; which hee hath not proued, nor can; yea, I hauehave ſhewed the Article may bee vnderſtood otherwiſe, & cānot be vnderſtood ſo, no 7.

Laſtly, the aſſumption is falſe; that 16. Article doth not ſay,

A man may recouer the grace he hath loſt. But,

The expreſſe words of the Article are,

By the grace of God, wee that fall into ſinne may amend our liues.

Which two ſentences doe (moſt really) differ. This man is very willing to abuſe the vnderſtanding, that dareth thus boldly falſify words vponupon record, againſt the ſight of the eye.

His fourth argument is ſet downe, Appeale, page 36. 11and thus he beginneth;

4 In the publike ſeruice of our Church, you ſhall finde alſo as much as falling from grace commeth too.

I anſwer; he promiſed poſitiue, and declaratory Doctrine, and expreſſe words, affirming his falling from grace, and now he paies vsus with conſequences; a fault you reproued very often, and many a faire title you gaue your aduerſary the Gagger for it. Turne backe againe, and take a view how many of them belong to your ſelfe: Was there euer any man ſo ſenſleſſe, as to ſend vsus to ſeeke the faith of our Church in conſequences? p. 51Or does hee thinke to finde any ſo voyd of reaſon, as to beleeue him? Surely no, for that were a worke endleſſe. If the faith of our Church be in this conſequence, why not in ſecond vponupon the firſt, and a third vponupon the ſecond, &c? And this is enough to ſatisfie the whole: but leſt he ſhould hauehave an ill conceit of himſelfe, if I ſhould cut him off thus ſhortly: therefore I will ſet downe what that is, which he telleth vsus, is as much as falling from grace commeth too, and this it is;

EueryEvery Childe duely Baptiſed, is put into the ſtate of grace and ſaluation, by that lauer of regeneration.

Which muſt be acknowledged, and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: being taught, firſt, in the forme of priuate Baptiſme: ſecondly, in the Catechiſme: thirdly, in the rubricke before the Catechiſme.

I anſwer; firſt, this is Bellarmines ſecond reaſon for this point, de Iuſti. lib. 3. cap. 14. ſecondly, theſe are not records of the faith of our Church: no publike act of our Church hath made them ſuch. Beſides, the Bookes themſelues be incompetent for that vſe; the one being a forme of adminiſtration of Prayers, and Sacraments: the other, ſhort precepts for the inſtruction of Infants. Hee was neere driuen, when hee catched at this ſhadow. Moreouer, hee affirmeth (moſt falſly) where he ſaith; this ſentence,

EueryEvery one duely Baptiſed, is by Baptiſme put into the ſtate of grace and ſaluation, is taught in the places quoted.

The words of the places themſelues will ſhew it: neither is there any ſuch thing meant, or intended in p. 52them. It may be, he will reiect this anſwer; becauſe I make it. I reply in his owne words, Appeale, p. 277.

If you will not admit the anſwer, I can name you one who will ſay and approne as much; whom you dare not deny to be of credit, or ſtile, as you doc ſome others: Appeale, page 294. A poore man that doubtleſſe was out of his element, and medled beyond his latchet.

I meane Biſhop Iewell, whoſe words are theſe;

In the Sacrament of Baptiſme (by the ſenſible ſigne of water) the inuiſible grace of God is giuen vntounto vsus, Artic. 5. diuiſ. 8. folio 250.

Little ones being Baptiſed, and ſo the members of Chriſt, Artic. 8. diuiſ. 16. folio 291.

Thus farre Biſhop Iewell is for M^r. Mountagu, but let him interpret himſelfe, and make vp his iudgement full, touching the vſe of the Sacrament, and then wee ſhall finde him directly againſt him, and for that end he ſaith thus;

We confeſſe, that Chriſt by the Sacrament of regeneration, hath made vsus fleſh of his fleſh, and bone of his bones, that we are the members, and hee is the head. This merueilous coniunction and incorporation, is firſt begun and wrought by faith, afterward the ſame incorporation is aſſured vntounto vsus, and increaſed in our Baptiſme: wherein muſt be conſidered, that the holy myſteries doe not begin, but rather continue, and confirme this incorporation, Artic. 1. diuiſ. 13. folio 27.

It may be here demanded; how this iudgement of Biſhop Iewell doth proue againſt M^r. Mountagu. I anſwer, thus, If in his iudgement, the Doctrine of the p. 53Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptiſme no more but the renewing, and confirmation of our incorporation into Chriſt, and grace by Chriſt; then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptiſme, and the Catechiſme, doe not meane to ſay

EueryEvery Child baptiſed is (thereby) put into the ſtate of grace and ſaluation.

For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England, ſet downe in thoſe places, or in any other, neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwiſe then hee did conceiue it to be.

But that hee did ſo conceiue of it, his words doe ſhew, and he addeth, that, our incorporation is begun firſt, and afterwards aſſured, and increaſed in our Baptiſme, which doth not begin it: which is ſo plaine, full, and direct a contradiction vntounto M^r. Mountagu; as the mind can deuiſe, or words expreſſe.

If (yet) this teſtimony will not ſerue, let the Church of England (in the 25. and 27. Articles) tell vsus, what effects it doth giuegive vntounto the Sacraments: where it aſſigneth

To the Sacraments in generall, that they are:

1 Tokens of Chriſtian profeſsion. 2. Signes of Gods good will. 3. He doth by them quicken and confirme our faith.

Of Baptiſme in ſpeciall our Church ſaith,

1 It is a ſigne of regeneration. 2 An inſtrument wherby we are grafted into the Church. 3 By it, the promiſes of forgiueneſſe of ſinne, and adoption are ſealed. 4. Faith is confirmed, and grace increaſed.

p. 54Theſe, & no more but theſe, are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptiſme aſſigned by our Church, it hath not a word of putting the baptiſed into the ſtate of grace and ſalvation by Baptiſme. If it be anſwered: the Liturgie, and Catechiſme is a ſupply to make full the doctrine of the Articles. I reply; ſo to ſay, is wholly without authority, & fondly without ſhew of reaſon. The Articles were made vponupon great deliberation, and of purpoſe to ſettle an vnitie in matter of Religion; therefore it would not omit principall points, and ſet downe others, that are ſubordinate, and not called into queſtion.

If the profeſſors of the faith of our Church (publikely, and priuately, in writing, and by word of mouth) hauehave taught and beleeued of the Sacraments, no otherwiſe then is laid downe in the Articles: and is maintained by Biſhop Iewell; and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is beſtowed in baptiſme, and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome, then may we well ſay that the Church neuer meant to ſet downe any other faith but that: for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith, nor the mother ſo careleſſe of her faith, as to ſuffer it to be corrupted, and her intent to be changed.

Foraſmuch as, ſhe could not be ignorant, what was done, nor wanted power to redreſſe things done amiſſe.

If it be ſaid ſome hauehave taught as M. Mountagu doth: I anſwer; it hath beene in a corner then; He that did ſo Crept in at the window: neither ſhepheard, nor ſheepe knew it. If Mr. Mountagu will be one of them he may be for me. I enuy not his happineſſe, nor will follow his courſe.

p. 55To conclude this argument; M. Mountagu in this point agreeth with the Church of Rome, in another point of their erronious faith.

The Councell of Trent hath decreed thus;

The grace of Iuſtification is beſtowed by the Sacraments, and that vntounto all, &c. ſeſſ. 7. can. 4. 7. & 8.

The Sacrament of baptiſme is the inſtrument all cauſe of Iuſtification, without which no man is iuſtified, ſeſſ. 6. cap. 7.

And this faith of the Church of Rome is explicated and defended by Bellarmine: as in other places, ſo in theſe. 1 Of the Sacraments in generall, lib. 2. cap. 3. 2 Of Baptiſme in ſpeciall. lib. 1. cap. 11. Quarto propoſ… tio, &c. and cap. 12. Veri effectus, &c.

Mr. Mountagu ſaith,

EueryEvery child baptiſed is put thereby into the ſtate of grace and ſaluation. Iuſt as they doe.

And thus much for this argument, and all the reſt which hee pretendeth to take from the authenticall records of the doctrine of the Church of England. He bringeth others from the teſtimonies of ſingular 12men, liuing in our Church, which indeed doe not deſerue anſwer: but becauſe hee hopeth by them to helpe a lame dog ouer the ſtile, and to vphold a cauſe ready to fall: I will propound and examine them.

The firſt whereof is ſet downe, Appeale, pag. 28. in this forme;

They were the learnedſt in the Church of England that drew, compoſed, agreed, ratified, iuſtified, and ſubſcribed the Articles, and penned the Homilies.

But all theſe hauehave and do aſſent, to falling from grace.

p. 56Therefore the learnedſt in the Church of England aſſent therein.

I anſwer; this Sylogiſme is falſe, the middle terme is predicated in the propoſition, and ſubiected in the aſſumption: it ought to be thus framed:

They that compoſed &c. Did aſſent &c.

They that compoſed &c. Were the learnedſt, &c.

Therefore ſome that were the learnedſt &c. Did aſſent.

I anſwer; the aſſumption is a vaunt of his bragging veine, and more then the parties themſelues would aſſume, or he can proue: he knoweth not who compoſed them, &c. they were dead long before he was borne, and there is no record of their names.

The propoſition is falſe: neither the Articles nor Homilie doe teach falling from grace; as my anſwers thereunto doe plentifully witneſſe.

His ſecond argument of this kind is in Appeale, pag. 1331. ſet downe in theſe words.

1 It was the Tenet of Doctor Ouerall, That, a Iuſtified man might fall away from grace, and thereby incurre Gods wrath, and was in ſtate of damnation, vntill he did recouer againe, and was renewed after his fall.

2 Which opinion was reſolued of, and auowed for true, Catholike, ancient, and Oxthodoxe by the Royall, reuerend, honourable, and learned Synode, at the Conference at Hampton Court.

3 The booke of the proceedings is extant, which will auerre all that I ſay for truth againſt you, here, See the

I anſwer; I thinke he would inferre from hence, p. 57(I am ſure hee ſhould inferre.)

Therefore ſome of the learnedſt in the Church of England do maintaine falling from grace.

The antecedent hath three branches, the third is a proofe of the two firſt.

The firſt branch is falſe, I hauehave read the booke which reporteth Doctor Overalls opinion, in pag. 41. and 42, in theſe words:

The called, and iuſtified according to the purpoſe of Gods election, might, and did ſometime fall into grieuous ſinnes, and thereby into the preſent ſtate of wrath: yet

They did neuer fall either totally,

From all the graces of God, to be vtterly deſtitute of all the parts and ſeed thereof,

Nor finally,

From Iuſtification: But were renewed.

You report him to ſay, they fell into the ſtate of damnation, which importeth a falling totally.

The booke reporteth him, denying falling totally, or finally:

The ſecond branch is alſo falſe: the book hath not a word that reporteth any confirmation of the opinion of Doctor Ouerall. His happe was hard, that amongſt ſo many words, he could not light vponupon one true one, and his face very audatious that durſt affirme a falſhood for truth, againſt the light of the nooneday. He talketh of conſcience, and honeſty, and Cheuerell, and I know not what: Hee muſt tell vsus vnderunder which of thoſe heads this allegation ſhall be ranged: for he hath beſt skill in ſuch language; the allegation it ſelfe ſtandeth vnderunder the cenſure of the reader, and the allegator at the barre of the Almighty; therefore p. 58I leaue this and paſſe to the next.

Hitherto I hauehave ſpoken to the matter vrged in the 14two arguments, now muſt I ſay a word, or two, touching the concluſion of them both, which ſaith,

Some of the learnedſt, &c.

VntoUnto which I hauehave theſe two things to ſay, firſt, he getteth nothing though it were granted him. He ought to proue

The Church of England teacheth his falling from grace.

Which will not follow vponupon his concluſion; becauſe thoſe learnedſt he ſpeaketh of, may be a faction prevailing in the Church of England.

Secondly, his intent is to ſay, all the learned in the Church of England doe maintain falling from grace: for he ſaith, Ap. p. 28. Many in the Church of England, reputed learned, are of opinion Grace cannot bee loſt: which is as much as if hee ſaid, they hauehave the name of learning, but hauehave none indeed, all the learned ſay as I ſay. Which ſentence is a moſt vaine, idle, and inſulting brag.

If all were vnlearned that deny falling from grace, then (I hope) M^r Mountagu is learned, that affirmes the loſſe of grace, and that dareth ſentence them all for want of learning, that deny falling from grace: but how learned hee is, let this whole diſputation ſhew, wherein you ſhall finde great plenty of notorious faults againſt learning, as falſe Sylogiſmes, looſe conſequences, notorious falſe premiſſes, impertinent concluſions, falſe allegations, propoſitions contrary in their parts, headleſſe diuiſions, manifeſt contradictions; a noſegay of ſome of them I doe here preſent you. Thus he writeth.

p. 59The Church of England leaueth the queſtion [touching falling from grace] at liberty vntounto vsus, Gagge, page 158.

The queſtion touching [falling from grace] is vndecided in the Church of England, Gagge, p. 171.

The conſented, reſolued, and ſubſcribed Articles of the Church of England, nor yet the Booke of common Prayer, and other diuine offices, doe not put any tye vponupon me to reſolue in this queſtion [touching falling from grace] Appeale, page 26.

Contrary whereunto he writeth as followeth.

That man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England, Appeale, page 31.

That a man may fall from grace, is the Doctrine of the Church of England, deliuered publikely, poſitiuely, and declaratorily, in authenticall records, Appeale, page 36.

The Church of England it ſelfe hath directly and in expreſſe words taught, that, a iuſtified man may fall away from God, and become not the childe of God, Appeale, page 59.

The Church of England holdeth, and teacheth punctually, that, a man may fall from grace, Appeale, page 73.

It is the Doctrine of the Church of England, that a man iuſtified, may fall away from grace, Ap. p. 89.

And when he had belaboured himſelfe almoſt out of breath, to proue, that, falling from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England, the Ancients and the Scriptures, he concludeth in theſe words;

I doe not ſay more then I am vrged to doe, by the plaine and expreſſe words of our Articles, and p. 60Doctrine publikely profeſſed, and eſtabliſhed in our Church, Appeale, page 37.

Other faire flowers that argue him one of the learnedſt in the Church of England, might bee collected hither: but I content my ſelfe with theſe, becauſe the Reader may finde them in their owne places.

His laſt argument in this matter is ſet downe, Appeale, 15page 36. in theſe words;

Your prime leaders hauehave vnderſtood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I hauehave reported it, and accordingly they hauehave complained againſt it.

I anſwer; it is very likely hee would conclude from hence,

Therefore you muſt ſo vnderſtand it alſo.

I let paſſe his bitterneſſe, for that hurteth none that thinke not of it. The Doctrine of the Church of England is vnderſtood according to the primary ſenſe and meaning thereof, and ſometimes alſo in a forced interpretation: ſome hauehave complained of, and obiected againſt this latter: and ſo farre I grant this whole reaſon: and good reaſon they had too for ſo doing. It becommeth the Paſtors & people of the Church of England to diſcouer, & detect the corruptors of their faith. But againſt the firſt, neuer any excepted, neither is there any reaſō why: Take the words of our Church as they lie, force them not to ſerue a turne, and they are familiar to vnderſtanding, and of a manifeſt truth. And thus hauehave I diſpatched all his arguments whereby he thinkes to proue falling from grace, to be the Doctrine of the Church of England.

In the next place commeth his proofes to bee examined, 16which he produceth to proue, that a man may fall from grace.

p. 61Of which he hath no ſmall ſtore in his Gagge, from page 159. to page 165. wherein hee hath followed Bellarmine, de Iuſti. lib. 3. cap. 14. ſtep by ſtep: omitting nothing that is of any force, nor adding any thing that can ſupply any defect in Bellarmine. Hee borroweth of him (ſo much as) his confidence in the plentie, and perſpecuity of diuine teſtimony: Bellarmine ſaith, Quod attinet, &c.

The teſtimonies of Scripture are ſo many, and ſo cleere, that, it is to be admired how it could come into the minde of a man to ſay, Grace could not be loſt.

Mr. Mountagu ſaith.

The Scripture ſpeaketh plaine, that, a man may fall from grace. Gagge, page 161.

Falling from grace is fully cleared, and reſolued in Scripture, Gagge, page 165.

The Scripture is expreſſe for falling from grace, Appeale, page 36.

I will giuegive anſwer to all the allegations produced: let them be Bellarmines, or Mr. Mountagues, or whoſoeuer elſe: Truth may be defended againſt any oppoſer.

The whole multitude of their allegations, may be reduced vntounto two Sylogiſmes: the former (whereof) ſtandeth thus;

If eueryevery righteous man may, and ſome doe, leaue his righteouſneſſe, and commit iniquity, then he that hath grace, may loſe that grace. For,

The moſt righteous man liuing, cōtinually doth, or may, mortally tranſgreſſe. Where mortall ſin is committed, God is diſobeyed. Where God is diſobeyed, he will not abide. p. 62Where he wil not abide, grace cannot conſiſt. Where grace cannot conſiſt, it muſt needs be loſt. Gagge, page 161.

But eueryevery righteous man may, and ſome doe, leaue his righteouſneſſe, and commit iniquity.

Therefore he that hath grace, may loſe that grace.

I anſwer; the words righteous, and righteouſneſſe, in this argument, muſt be taken for the act, not the habit: and he doth ſo vnderſtand it, I take as granted.

This being ſo, the aſſumption is true, and needs no proofe: yet notwithſtanding, hee alleadgeth many places of Scripture, as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. Iohn cap. 15. 2. Matth. cap. 24. 12. Rom. cap. 11. 20. 21. 1 Tim. cap. 6. 20. cap. 1. 18. 19. cap. 4. Gal. cap. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. Heb. cap. 6. 4. and he concludeth, that infinite are the teſtimonies of Scripture to the purpoſe that theſe ſpeake vntounto.

All which may be applyed vntounto the aſſumption of this reaſon, and cannot bee applyed to any other ſentence: neither doe they affirm any more but this: viz. eueryevery righteous man may, and ſome doe, omit holy actions, and commit ſinne in the actuall diſobedience to Gods law.

Then, hee addeth diuers examples of righteous men, that neglected their obedience to Gods law, and committed actuall ſinne. Which muſt be referred vntounto the proofe of the latter part of the aſſumption, and can belong to no other: by which it is manifeſt, that all this goodly ſhew, and bumbaſted brag, of infinite places of Scripture, all teaching falling from grace: at the laſt, commeth to no more but what eueryevery man will grant, and being granted, will profit him nothing, p. 63hee is not thereby one hayre the neerer to this concluſion;

A man may loſe the habit of grace. For,

The conſequence of the propoſition is naught, and the proofe thereof falſe, in many branches thereof, auowed onelyonly vponupon his owne word, without the leaſt ſhew or pretence of proofe. Surely this man meant not ſincerely, when hee vndertooke to proue, that, which no man did euer deny, but takes as granted, and leaues vnproued that which all men doe deny, that ioyne not in faith with the Church of Rome. That it may appeare I ſay true: I will giuegive you an account of ſome faults in the conſequence of the propoſition, and proofe thereof.

The conſequence of the propoſition dependeth vponupon this ſentence;

The habit of grace departeth from him that actually diſobeyeth Gods law.

If this ſentence be true, his conſequence is good: if it be falſe, the conſequence is naught: the latter part doth not follow vponupon the former; but this ſentence, the habit of grace, &c. is moſt falſe, as will appeare.

To make it ſeeme true, in the proofe of his conſequence, 17he doth firſt diſtinguiſh of ſinne, and then telleth vsus what kinde of ſinne it is that maketh grace depart. Laſtly, hee giueth a reaſon why that departeth through this: but how truely this is affirmed, and ſubſtantially proued, we ſhall ſee in the next paſſage.

The firſt branch of his proofe ſaith,

EueryEvery righteous man may, or doth ſinne mortally.

In which ſentence he taketh two things as granted.

1 Some ſinnes are mortall; ſome veniall, and not mortall.

p. 642 A man habituated by ſanctitie, may commit mortall ſinne.

I anſwer, if by mortall, hee meant no more, but ſinne tending, and conducing vntounto damnation, it would not be denyed him, that ſinne is mortall: but thus he vnderſtands it not: for then he could not diſtinguiſh ſinne into mortall and veniall: for all ſinne in this ſenſe is mortall. If by veniall, he vnderſtood no more, but ſin not deſeruing damnation by Gods notimputing it, I will grant, that ſinne is veniall: but hee muſt not vnderſtand it thus: for ſo, all the ſinnes of the iuſtified are veniall or (to ſpeake in the words of the Church of England, firſt Homilie of ſaluation, a little after the beginning:)

Their ſinnes are waſhed in ſuch ſort, that there remaineth not any ſpot of ſinne that ſhall bee imputed to their damnation.

It remaineth therefore, that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the ſame ſenſe that the Church of Rome doth. Which being true, that diſtinction is denyed: and ſo he begs the queſtion, and proues it not. It is alſo denyed, that, a man habitually ſanctified, can commit any ſuch ſinne as the Church of Rome calleth mortall; and yet he proues this as he did the former, euen by his owne word. If you will not beleeue him, you muſt goe look proofe other where, but you muſt not looke it in Bellarmine, for if he had brought any, M^r. Mountagu would hauehave giuen it you in Engliſh.

His next branch is this;

Where mortall ſinne is committed, God is diſobeyed.

I anſwer; in this ſentence, he attributeth diſobedience vntounto mortall ſinne adequately, denying veniall p. 65ſinne to be any diſobedience vntounto Gods law: for if he did not ſo, he muſt ſay, that the habit of grace is loſt by the committing of ſuch ſinnes as hee calls veniall: for he ſaith, (as we ſhall ſee anon) where God is diſobeyed, grace cannot conſiſt, but muſt needs be loſt. But he will not ſay grace is loſt by veniall ſinne; therefore he conceiueth onelyonly mortall ſinne diſobeyeth Gods law. Iuſt as Bellarmine doth: who teacheth,

Veniall ſinne is ſinne, by analogy, or certaine proportion, and imperfectly, after a certaine ſort; but not perfectly, and ſimply: neither is it perfectly voluntary, nor perfectly againſt the Law: but beſides the Law. De amiſſ. gra. lib. 1. cap. 11. Quintum, &c.

If you aske me, how M^r Mountagu proues this? I anſwer, with no worſe proofe then he hath done the former branches: and that is his owne very word, which you need not ſticke at, for he is one of the learnedſt in the Church of England.

His third branch is in theſe words:

Where God is diſobeyed he will not abide.

I anſwer, in what ſenſe ſoeuer the word diſobeyed be taken, this ſentence is falſe, and muſt goe for ſuch, till he hath proued it; which yet he hath not done, nor attempted to doe, let him ſhew vsus in the diuine Reuelation one of theſe two things:

1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vponupon the committing of this or that ſinne.

2 This actuall ſinne, is of that nature, that of it ſelfe, it doth expell grace.

If he proue one of theſe, the queſtion is at an end, the Diuine Oracle muſt hauehave credit. If you bring not p. 66that, you hunt a flea, and purſue a ſhadow. It is in vaine for you to tell vsus a Iuſt man may ſinne, till you proue, that grace muſt giuegive place to ſinne, by the ordinance and decree of God, or the nature of the things themſelues.

There be ſome other things in this proofe to be examined: but I paſſe them ouer, becauſe they depend vponupon theſe branches which I hauehave anſwered vntounto, and doe ſtand or fall with them. To conclude this argument, I ſay, It is worthy to be obſerued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raiſed vntounto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that poſition: but at the vpſhot, their proofes are for the thing denyed by none, and they take for granted the things denyed by all; which kind of diſputing, in it ſelfe is moſt vnſound; for it is no more, but as if they ſhould ſay, it is ſo, becauſe we ſay it is ſo, and it is moſt dangerous to the Reader that is not very wary: for it is moſt deceitfull, bearing a ſhew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture, which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in queſtion.

It may be, ſome will vrge theſe places of Scripture 19on this ſort.

If he that is habitually ſanctified, alwayes may, and ſometimes doth commit ſuch ſinnes, as for which (in in the euent) he is caſt into hell, then a man may loſe, and ſome doe loſe the habit of ſanctity.

But he that is habitually ſanctified, alwayes may, and ſometime doth, commit ſuch ſinnes, as for which, in the euent, he is caſt into hell.

Therefore, &c.

I anſwer: In this reaſon, I grant the firſt part, or conſequence of the propoſition: becauſe no man p. 67hath the habit of ſanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell; for that leades to another end, and is alwayes to be crowned with glory.

But the aſſumption, or ſecond part, which hath two branches, is wholly falſe: no one place of Scripture doth affirme, or inferre either of theſe two ſentences.

The habitually ſanctified may commit ſuch ſinnes as for which (in the euent) he ſhall goe to hell.

Some habitually ſanctified hauehave committed ſuch ſins, as for which he is now in hell.

If any require me to ſhew, that, the places alledged doe not proue thus much. I anſwer, That is not my office: for, 1. the queſtion is not (at this preſent) purpoſely diſputed. 2, It is their place to diſpute, and mine to anſwer: let them apply the Scriptures to the purpoſe in an orderly forme, and I will make my anſwer good. It is enough for mee to giuegive them an Iſſue. They muſt proue the Iſſue, or leaue the cauſe behind them.

I will put ſome of their allegations into forme, and 20anſwer to them, which I doe thus,

He that may leaue his actuall righteouſneſſe, and commit ſuch actuall ſinne, as for which hee is threatned by God, in the euent, to be caſt into hell, he may commit ſuch ſinnes, as for which, in the euent, he ſhall be caſt into hell.

But the man habitually ſanctified may leaue his actuall righteouſneſſe, and commit ſuch ſinne, as for which he is threatned by God, in the euent, to be caſt into hell.

So ſaith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne p. 68from his righteouſneſſe, and commit iniquity, hee ſhall dye therein.

Therefore the man habitually ſanctified, may commit ſuch ſinne, as for which, in the euent, he ſhall goe to hell.

I anſwer: although the propoſition ſeemes not to be euidently true: becauſe, God may ſo threaten ſin, to ſhew vntounto man what the deſert of ſinne is, and not what in the euent ſhall become of ſuch a ſinner: yet I will not at this preſent inſiſt thereupon: but come to the aſſumption, which is not true: neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be ſo: for theſe three words, viz. Righteous, Righteouſneſſe, Iniquity, may import the act, and none of them can ſignifie the habit: as the text it ſelfe doth euidently ſhew, which doth interpret the word Righteous, by the word Righteouſneſſe, and Righteouſneſſe it calleth an Act, ſaying, all his righteouſneſſe that he hath done, &c.

If it be replyed, actuall righteouſneſſe, doth ſuppoſe the habituall, as the fountaine, from whence it proceedeth, & without which actuall righteouſneſſe cannot be. I anſwer: Actuall righteouſneſſe may proceed from actuall grace, becauſe actuall grace doth make mans will a ſufficient root or beginning, and an able-next-cauſe of ſupernaturall actions, as Suarez teacheth, Opuſc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no 1. and the Councell of Trent hath decreed, Seſſ. 6. cap. 6. where it ſaith, a man doth beleeue, feare, hope, truſt, louelove, deteſt ſinne, deſire a new life, &c. (all which are ſupernaturall actions, or actuall righteouſneſſe) by grace exciting and adjuvating, which is actuall, not habituall grace.

If M^r Mountagu will deny this, the Scripture it ſelfe p. 69will avow it, which ſpeaketh of ſome that fall away: which argueth they did righteouſly before time, but now commit ſinne. Of them that fall away it ſaith alſo, they had taſted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the life to come; which two things ſignifie actuall grace. They cannot ſignifie habituall grace, becauſe the beginning of, and preparation vntounto our ſanctity, may well be reſembled vntounto, and ſet out by taſting: which is the beginning and preparation, vntounto that feeding which is for ſatisfying of hunger, and nouriſhment of the body. But the habit of grace, which is the higheſt degree and meaſure of our ſanctity, cannot be ſet out by the metaphor of taſting. For the habit is no leſſe then meat receiued into, and remaining in the body of man, ſuſtaining his being, and giuing him power to doe the actions of life, chearfully and readily.

If it be demanded further: what holy actions doe proceed from the habit of ſanctity? I anſwer, They are ſuch as are done, 1. out of the louelove of God, and his Law: 2. out of an intention of, and a delight in obedience to God. 3. They be ſuch holy actions wherin a man doth continue, either alwayes without intermiſſion, or returne from actuall ſinning by repentance. And the reaſon hereof is good: for (in the confeſſiō of all men) the habit doth diſpoſe a manvnto doing with willingneſſe, readineſſe, and delight: and the habit of ſanctity doth determine the ſoule of man vntounto doing the workes of righteouſneſſe, as may be proued againſt ſuch as deny it, with Suarez Opuſc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no 1. So as although a man doe the works of righteouſneſs neuer ſo faire in outward appearance, p. 70neuer ſo many, for number, and continuance: yet, they proceed not from any habit or ſetled inward quality of holineſſe, if they be done for priuate ends, and be wholly diſcontinued at laſt.

And thus I hauehave (as I hope) plainly, and truly opened, and reſolued, the whole difficulty in this argument: and thereby ſhewed it inſufficient to vphold their falling from grace. Which being well obſerued, will giuegive ſatisfaction vntounto all other places of Scripture, which are alledged in this queſtion.

In fauour of the ſecond branch of their aſſumption 21at no 19. They diſpute thus, Gagg p. 164.

Iudas had the habit of grace.

Iudas committed ſinne for which he is in hell.

Therefore ſome that had the habit of grace committed ſin for which he is in hell.

I anſwer: Hee hath proofes for his propoſition, and aſſumption. This I grant as a thing euident. That I deny as a thing manifeſtly falſe. His proofe for his propoſition is in theſe words.

Iudas was numbred with the twelue Apoſtles, had all the prerogatiues which they enioyed, God gaue him to Chriſt, as well as Peter, or Iohn.

I anſwer; this proofe is childiſh, the reading of it refuteth him: all theſe things alledged were outward priuiledges, no inward habit of grace. If he conceiue them otherwiſe, he muſt proue it: his word will not make articles of faith: a goodly diſputation, that in concluſion (alwaies) reſteth vponupon the diſputers word: you muſt beleeue that, or reſt where you began.

Other toyes of this kind you may hauehave enow, in the place where I had this, but it is loath ſome to name them.

p. 71One more I will propound and examine, that there 22be no doubt remaining. This it is,

Peter had the habit of grace.

Peter committed ſuch a ſinne as for which he was in the preſent ſtate of damnation.

Therefore ſome that hauehave the habit of grace did commit ſuch ſinne as for which he was in the preſent ſtate of damnation.

I anſwer: The whole doubt of this argument, lyeth in the words ſtate of damnation. The ſenſe of that being truly knowne, the argument will bee found good or bad. A man is then in the ſtate of damnation,

1 When hee wanteth that inward quality that muſt order, or ſet him in the way vntounto holineſſe in this life, and happineſſe in the life to come.

And ſecondly, when hee ſtandeth actually bound ouer (by God as he is a Iudge) vntounto hell fire, for the ſinne committed.

If it be his intent to ſay, that Peter was thus in the ſtate of damnation, his aſſumption is falſe, and a miſerable begging of the queſtion, by affirming vponupon his bare authority, a principall thing in queſtion. But if by ſtate of damnation, he meant; the deſert of ſin only, then I grant the whole: but the concluſion is nothing to purpoſe; we ſpeake not of the deſert of ſinne in it ſelfe, but of damnation it ſelfe actually in the euent. To conclude my anſwer to all the arguments of this kinde: Now we ſee he beateth the buſh, and maketh offer to take the game: but hee wanteth all meanes for the purpoſe, the fowle muſt come into his fiſt, or he muſt goe without her.

His other argument for the maine queſtion I finde p. 7223written, Gagge, page 161. which is to this effect,

If Adam and Lucifer did loſe their originall ſtate, then man may loſe his habit of grace: for the one was in the ſtate of innocency in Paradiſe: the other in heauen in glory: to whom man in grace (at moſt) is but equall, not ſuperiour.

But Adam and Lucifer did loſe their originall ſtate.

Therefore man may loſe his habit of grace.

I anſwer; this argument is as ſhallow and ſhuttle, as any of the former; the weakeneſſe of the conſequence is ſeene by a peece of an eye: All men will grant, the prouidence of GOD in this or that act, is not regulated by the former act of his prouidence. What if he did ſo to Adam and Lucifer, could he not doe otherwiſe with other men? what is there in the nature of the things themſelues, or of GOD, that ſhould tye him to doe in this as he did in that? ſurely nothing. His actions towards the creatures were all free, and hee at liberty to doe, or not doe, this waies, or that waies, as he pleaſed; vntill hee had decreed what, and how he would doe. He doth all things according to the counſell of his owne will; that is, according as Suarez doth truely interpret it, opuſc. 4. diſp. 1. ſect. 1. no 9. God worketh all things according to that counſell which is accepted by the good pleaſure of his will: this is ſure, God did ſo by them, and wee beleeue it, becauſe he hath ſaid it; that he doth ſo by other men, we beleeue not, becauſe God hath not ſaid it. Wee know ſome men are in the poſſeſſion of the habit of grace; if you will hauehave vsus beleeue this poſſeſſion to be caſuall, ſhew vsus where God hath ſaid, hee will take it p. 73away, elſe wee dare not beleeue you: for it is plaine, none can take it away but God: and he will not take it away, vnleſſe hee hath reuealed ſo much vntounto vsus, which he hath not done: and ſo much for all his arguments taken from Scripture.

He vrgeth Fathers, with no leſſe confidence of plenty, 24and plainneſſe, for him: pretending alſo, the authority of our Church commanding all men to receiue their teſtimony, Appeale, page 36. and 37. He bringeth ſome by name, Gagge, page 165. &c. But this is a very bubble, and comes from that foyſting fountaine, that the reſt of his brags hauehave done. Bellarmine hath no ſuch confidence in the Fathers: hee nameth but two, and out of each of them, one ſentence, and ſo ſitteth him downe; which Bellarmine would neuer hauehave done, if he could hauehave found more. If M^r. Mountagu will ſay, Bellarmine is a poore Ignaro, and hath no old learning, himſelfe hath read more Fathers then Bellarmine euer heard of, which is his owne language in another caſe; all the world would laugh at him: but not beleeue him. The concluſion is, Bellarmine neither brags nor brings, therefore M^r. Mountagu doth both in vaine.

I will finiſh my anſwer to his Fathers by his owne direction, Gagge, page 165.

There needs no proofe by Fathers, where holy Scripture is ſilent: Fathers may be pretended by falſe play, but none (indeed and in truth according to their words and meaning) can be produced. Let him try when he will, in a Logicall forme, and he ſhall finde it. Thus hauehave I concluded my anſwers to all his arguments brought to proue his falling from grace, taken from the Scriptures, p. 74and Fathers.

His laſt argument for the ſame purpoſe, I finde, 25Appeale, page 17. which he beginneth thus,

If you deny falling from grace, you are a Papiſt.

I anſwer; this ſentence beginneth an argument, which is continued by diuers other parts which follow. It is called a delemma, in plaine Engliſh, a Net, a Snare, a Toyle, to catch the old one; the battell is before and behinde, turne you which waies you will, it will catch you. But ſoft and faire, old Birds will not be caught with chaffe, if the ſtuffe of your Net be vnſound, your game will eſcape.

This ſentence doth neither affirme nor deny, put it into a lawfull forme; and it ſpeaketh thus;

He that denyeth falling from grace, is a Papiſt.

This ſentence is falſe: for falling from grace is an Article of the Popiſh faith, as himſelfe confeſſeth, Gagge, page 158. and I hauehave proued by the Councell of Trent: cap. 11. The denyall of the Popiſh faith cannot argue a man to be a Papiſt, in the iudgement of any man liuing. Hee is a ſtrange Papiſt, that treads the faith of Papiſts vnderunder his feete; but more ſtrange that a man ſhould be a Papiſt for denying the Popiſh faith. Well, but he will proue it by the words which follow, viz.

For I demand, did Peter fall, or did he not fall, when he denyed Chriſt?

I anſwer; eueryevery interrogation hath the force of an affirmation; now this is referred as a proofe vntounto the precedent ſentence, by the word for: which doth immediately follow the ſame; thus then hee doth diſpute;

p. 75Peter did either fall, or not fall.

Therefore hee that denieth falling from grace, is a Papiſt.

I know you laugh at this naughtie conſequence: but you muſt not doe ſo. Homer may take a …p▪ well, let that paſſe, Peter did fall or not fall; what of that? wee ſta…d now betweene two, you muſt tell vsus which wee ſhall chuſe, for that end, theſe words follow;

If abnegation, and abiuration, and execration will inforce a fall, he did.

I anſwer; this leaueth the matter no leſſe doubtfull, then it was: this giueth vsus leaue to ſay,

But it did not inforce a fall.

Therefore Peter did not fall.

Or thus.

But it did inforce a fall.

Therefore he did fall.

When you hauehave ſaid all, you hauehave ſaid nothing. It may be the next will diſpatch the matter. You ſay,

If he fall, he needes muſt fall totally, or finally: for ſhew me a third?

I anſwer; this is faire, but farre off; whither this tendeth, none but your ſelfe knowes, if your ſelfe doe know, you ſhall be crowned for a choyce one. You diuide a totall fall from a finall: and that is abſurd. EueryEvery finall is a totall, and ſome totall is alſo finall, your ſelfe being Iudge. There may be a fall, neither totall nor finall; as when Gods concurſe or actuall grace is with-held: but the habit remaineth. And this is poſſible, ſeeing there is actuall grace, and habituall, as Suares does proue plenteouſly, de grat. pro…egom, 3. cap. 6. and 3 parte, lib. 1. no 4. &c. yea, actuall and habituall p. 76grace alſo, doe differ in their vſe. This, ſeruing to make mans will fit to eliciate ſupernaturall actions after a connaturall and perfect manner, by an inrrinſicall and connaturall faculty (as Suarez teacheth, opuſc. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no. 1.) That, tending to diſpoſe vntounto this, (as the Councell of Trent, ſeſſ. 6. cap. 5. and 6. decreeth, and Suarez conſenteth in the place alleadged) and to moue the habit vntounto working being obtained, as Aluarez proueth, de Auxilijs diſp. 88. and the thing it ſelfe by perpetuall experience doth ſhew; ſee Alua. diſp. 24. no 37. and Bellar. de grat. lib. 1. cap. 4. Quatuor dona: hauehave patience, it may be, it will come anone, in the meane time he proceeds thus;

Now then in ſuch denyall, St. Peter, did he fall, or did he not fall?

I anſwer; the word Then, importeth an inference, ſo that this ſentence is inferred vponupon another; but what that other is, wee ſhall not finde in any part of this argument: for they are all either diſiunctiue, or connext propoſitions. Before we had heads without a tayle, now we hauehave a tayle without a head: this demand came once before, it ſeemeth it will abide a ſecond ſeething: well, let that be, what will become of it, wee ſhall ſee anone: and that is well (no doubt) for the ſecond ſeething hath made it wholſome food; thus you goe on;

You muſt anſwer he did not fall.

I anſwer; and ſo muſt you too; or be a rebell againſt your Mother the Church of England, which in the firſt Sermon of Repentance, a little before the end: where (after it had reckoned vp Peters denyall of his Maſter, and diſſimulation at Antioch) it concludeth:

p. 77After this grieuous offence, hee was not vtterly excluded, and ſhut out from the grace of God.

With whom I alſo ſay: Peter did not loſe the habit of grace by the denyall of Chriſt: but what of all this; he will now tell you, in theſe words;

So that you ioyne with the Gagger, and ſubſcribe to Bellarmine, who maintaine, that Peters faith did not faile: auoid it if you can.

I anſwer; and ſo muſt your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too; auoide (you) it if you can: for I ſay no more then what I hauehave learned of her, and ſo muſt you alſo (auoid it if you can,) for you profeſſe to beleeue what it beleeueth, and teach what it teacheth, in whoſe faith and confeſsion you hope to liue, and dye▪ Appeale, p. 48. You hauehave ſpun a faire threed, you hauehave hunted all this while, and couered your nets cloſe, to catch your mother, and your ſelfe in the pitfall.

I will doe you that fauour, as to let you and the Church of England looſe, I will ſtand by it my ſelfe, and will profeſſe,

Peter loſt not his faith when he denyed Chriſt.

But you muſt giuegive mee leaue to expreſſe my ſelfe, which I doe thus;

The act of faith is

either eliciate,

or imperate.

The firſt is the act of the ſoule onelyonly, remaining in it ſelfe not knowne to man, which wee call beleeuing. The ſecond is wrought by the body alſo, and commeth to the knowledge of men, as when a man doth profeſſe by his tongue, to giuegive credit, and truſt vntounto p. 78Chriſt. Peter loſt not his faith in the firſt kind; but in the ſecond. I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart, beleeue that hee was indeed the Chriſt; and truſted vntounto, and relyed vponupon him, as ſuch: euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him. Peters deniall being but a diſſimulation to thruſt by the preſent diſtreſſe hee feared. If Bellarmine and the Gagger ſay thus, I ſubſcribe to them, and that vponupon good reaſon: for Peter had long beleeued on Chriſt, and had now no cauſe to change that beleefe, therefore wee may not ſay he did change it; vnleſſe the diuine reuelation had ſaid it, which hath not a word of any ſuch thing, but looke better on your bookes, and you ſhall find Bellarmine ſaith; Peter loſt his charity, but not his faith, becauſe he was Paſtor ouer the whole Church, and was to teach it the true faith, de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which ſentence is much more then I ſay: by which it appeareth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perſeuerance I maintaine: nor my ſentence ſo good Popery, as M. Mountagu hath deliuered, contrary to his vniuſt challenge, Appeale pag. 18.

It may be he will deny my diſtinction of the act of faith; to eſtabliſh his owne implyed, Gagg. pag. 163. which is on this wiſe.

Faith is

either in the end,

or the act.

But this diſtinction I feare not; becauſe end and act are not parts of faith; neither as ſpecialls, to the generall, nor as conſtitutiue parts, making a conſtituted whole: beſides, what he ſaith, of the end of faith, is a p. 79riddle which (I doubt) himſelfe vnderſtandeth not: Thus farre hauehave I anſwered to the conſequent, or poſition as it lyeth; I will now put the diſputation into 26due forme, and anſwer thereunto.

Thus then it lyeth;

If you ſay Peter loſt not his habit of grace, then you ſubſcribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger: who ſay, that, Peter loſt not his faith.

But you will not ſubſcribe to Bellarmine, &c. where he ſaith, Peter loſt not his faith: for that is Popery.

Therefore you muſt not deny, that Peter loſt his habit of grace.

I anſwer; This whole argument is a meere caption, and no proofe: it ſuppoſeth, that, the loſſe of the habit of grace, is denyed to Peter onelyonly; which is falſe: and the concluſion nothing to the purpoſe. And ſo he muſt be vnderſtood, for the Papiſts deny the loſſe of faith vntounto Peter onelyonly.

But I will take it as it lyeth, and anſwer to it. The weakneſſe of his cauſe will the better appeare by my anſwer, which is this;

I grant the aſſumption, I promiſe you, I am, and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popiſh faith, as M. Mountagu, and further too. For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the office to determine all controuerſies in faith.

Yet you get nothing by it; for the conſequence of your propoſition is naught, I may ſay the firſt and not the ſecond, in the ſenſe wherein they take it; for they ſay he loſt not his faith, neither in the habit, nor act, by a ſpeciall prouidence, and peculiar diſpenſation: p. 80vponupon the reaſon, and for the end, as is aforeſaid, n^o 25. but, I ſay, hee loſt it not, neither in habit, nor act, by that prouidence and diſpenſation, which is common to him with all other men that hauehave receiued the habit of grace; who muſt needs keepe their faith ſo long as they keepe the habit of grace; becauſe the habit of grace conſiſteth in faith, hope and charitie. VntoUnto this ſentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary. They ſay, all men loſe their faith, when they loſe the habit of grace, (onelyonly Peter is excepted, by a peculiar priuiledge as I hauehave ſhewed, no 25.

Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his ſnare, and we find the ſnare is broken, and the game is eſcaped, and with it, his whole diſputation in this point of falling from grace is ended. Hee tells vsus of ſome that hauehave whirlegiggs in their heads, Appeale, pag. 81. Which is true of himſelfe, if it be true of any, but he may bee pardoned that fault, his heart was ſo full of anger, and his pen of railing, that he had no leaſure to attend vponupon Art and Diuinitie.

p. 81CHAP. XIII. The point of reall preſence.