it be said some haue 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 To 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 vnto 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 proposâ—tio c. and cap. 12. Veri effectus c. Mr. Mountagu saith Euery 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 men 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 haue and do assent to falling from grace Therefore 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. 31. 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 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 haue 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 vpon one true one and his face very audatious that durst affirme a falshood for truth against the light of the noone-day He talketh of conscience and honesty and Cheuerell and I know not what Hee must tell vs vnder which of those heads this allegation shall be ranged for he hath best skill in such language the allegation it selfe standeth vnder the censure of the reader and the allegator at the barre of the Almighty therefore I leaue this and passe to the next Hitherto I haue spoken to the matter vrged in the two arguments now must I say a word or two touching the conclusion of them both which saith Some of the learnedst c. Vnto which I haue 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 vpon 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 haue the name of learning but haue 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 Mr 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 The Church of England leaueth the question touching falling from grace at liberty vnto vs 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 vpon 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
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 haue 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 haue spun a faire threed you haue 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 giue 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 onely 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 giue credit and trust vnto Christ 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 vnto and relyed vpon 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 vpon 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 riddle which I doubt himselfe vnderstandeth not Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent or position as it lyeth I will now put the disputation into due 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 onely which is false and the conclusion nothing to the purpose And so he must be vnderstood for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely 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 vpon 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 haue 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 Vnto 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 onely Peter is excepted by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue 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 vs of some that haue 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 vpon Art and Diuinitie CHAP. XIII The point of reall presence M. Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England There is there need bee no difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church in the point of Reall presence Gag 253. Appeale 289. Our Lord Iesus Christ true God man is contained truly really substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conc Trent sess 13. c. 1 That is whole Christ body and blood together with the soule diuinity and not in a figure or vertue only can 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacramēt of our redemption by Christs death insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receiue the same the bread which wee breake is a partaking of the body of Christ and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ CHAP. XIV The point of Reall presence is debated THe order obserued hitherto must be obserued here also Three things are sought after 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in the reall presence with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth in the point of Reall presence with the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himselfe Thus he writeth There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in the point of Reall presence Gagg p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Gagg p. 251. If the
answer This supposeth that he did describe Iustification largely when hee said Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused but proues it not therefore it is nothing to the purpose But let it be supposed he can proue it at some other time and goe on with him to examine what he bringeth I say it is vtterly false the Scripture doth neuer take the Iustification of a sinner any other wayes but one you bring no proofe that it doth your word is not sufficient when your proofs come you shal haue answer for the authority of Caluin c. I need not much weigh in this question because I know your selfe accounts it worth nothing Caluin saith no such thing The last thing he pretendeth is that His intent was to confute the Gagger I answer This hath no force to proue that Therefore I described Iustification as comprehending Sanctification when I said it consisteth in remission of sinnes and grace infused For so to describe it is not the way the confute but to be confuted first because that description is false secondly in it you agree with the Gagger in an Article of his Faith decreed by the Councell of Trent Moreouer your antecedent is false you had no such intent For the thing to be refuted was Faith onely doth not iustifie so saith your aduersary which you might haue refuted without relation to the nature of Iustification for he must proue at least that somthing else besides Faith doth concur to Iustification or confesse he sayd not truely It was not required on your part to proue all other things were excluded therefore there was no need or occasion of making a description of Iustification But suppose there had beene good reason why you should haue made a description of Iustification yet the making of this description doth argue your intent was not to refute the Gagger but to establish and confirme the Gaggers position for if Iustification bee as you haue described it then without all doubt more things are required to Iustification besides Faith and Bellarmine doth dispute iust after the same manner de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Lastly vpon this description of Iustification you proceed and say man is the subiect thereof and that thereunto there are required certaine preparations to the purpose the first wherof you say is knowledge of God and his Law c. that is indeed assent vnto the Law of God which is Faith according to the Councell of Trent for you doe not speake of such a knowledge of the Law which is without an assent to the truth thereof You proceed and teach that Faith is the roote and originall of the rest of the preparations iust as the Councell of Trent doth which proues your intent was to iustifie and not to refute your aduersaries position If notwithstanding all this you will still affirme your meaning to be such as is set downe no. 4. and plead your owne authority for the proofe thereof as best able to declare what you meant then first your meaning is not exprest by your words secondly the whole course of your Doctrine saith one thing and your intent is another thirdly your meaning was without reason to guide it fourthly the Doctrine that caryeth your meaning doth destroy what you meant to build but you will deny all these foure therefore you must confesse you had no such intent After he hath thus declared what his intent was in this description he goeth on pag. 174. to shew what his intent is touching the nature and adequate being of Iustification which hee proclaimeth in these words Be it knowne vnto you that I beleeue Iustification is in strictnesse of termes Not regeneration nor renouation nor sanctification But A certaine action in God applyed vnto vs Or A certaine respect or relation Whereby wee are pardoned and acquitted of our sinnes Esteemed righteous before God And Accepted by him in Christ vnto life euerlasting I answere If this proclamation had been published by an authority sufficient to compell vs to haue assented thereunto then had it beene possible that you had giuen satisfaction but for want of that you must giue vs leaue to touch to handle to search before we take Thus therefore I proceed This great adoe is about nothing you tell vs now what you doe beleeue when you writ your second Booke Wee inquire what beleefe you did expresse by your writing in your first Booke Let this fault be remitted we will rest satisfied with this if there be sufficient cause why but alacke there is no such matter And thus I shew it You did not beleeue that Iustification is as now you pretend for if you had so beleeued you would haue expressed that beleefe because your intent was to refute the Gagger as you professe Appeale page 173. Now this beleefe had been an easie and ready way to haue refuted him seeing that the question there disputed was whether A man is Iustified by Faith onely As is euident by the 18. Chapter of your first Booke and it would necessarily follow That a man is iustified by faith onely if Iustification bee as you now describe it which I take as granted without further proofe and Bellarmine by implicaiton confesseth no lesse de Iusti lib. 1. cap. 18. Adde quod Againe if you had then beleeued Iustification is as you describe it now then your thoughts in all likelihood would haue now beene orderly digested but here is nothing but confusednesse and thus I shew it 1 First you describe by a negatiue which Art forbids 2 Secondly you place the Genus in two things viz. action respect or relation If you would expresse one thing by those distinct termes then you intend a thing impossible for an action is an emâ—nation from a worker Respect and Relation as it is here vsed importeth an adiunct vnto a subiect If your meaning bee to expresse two things distinct in nature by these distinct termes then youâ— description is ridiculous I need not shew how 3 You say it is an action in God which signifieth an action immanent which is false Iustification is an â—ction transient and your selfe confesse it when you say Iustification is by Faith and made in an instant Gâ—gge page 146. which doe import actions wrought vpon the creatures in time You also tell vs this action iâ— applyed vnto vs which signifies an action transient which is contrary to the former and so you say and vnsay with one breath 4 You say pardon of sinnes is by a respect or relation in God Which sentence is wholly without sense For respect or relation hath not any force by which an effect should be produced neither can it bee conceiued what you meane by Respect or Relation or how pardon of sinnes should flow from or depend vpon that Respect or Relation And so much for the Genus 5 You place the speciall nature of Iustification in three things viz. First Remission of sinnes secondly Esteeming righteous thirdly Accepting to eternall
said to the point it selfe will come afterwards when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed no. 31. § But how Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this point which hee harpeth so much vpon which doth also euidently shew that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point Wherefore I leaue it and proceed So confident is he in this fancied victory that from thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputation in these words If they meant no otherwise then thus as I conceiue they did not I see no reason to dissent from them There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereunto then to returne you your owne words Appeale â—ag 184. You cite no words name no place send me to no text page nor particulars by any direction that I may know where to finde what you intend a meere tricke of iugling companions Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent which I dare say will not downe nor digest with you aâ— opposing your conceit or rather dreame or wilfull peruerting the meaning of the Councell the which because I haue a fit time I will not let it alone till another Where you say If they meant your meaning is to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent where It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ Sess 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne into the state of grace cap. 4. That you referre vs hither or vnto no other place in the Councell I take for granted Where you say if they meant no more but thus your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before viz. He that is iustified is also regenerate Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part I let passe the consequence of your proposition and come to your assumption which must bee set downe in these words But the Councell of Trent in these places Sess 6. c. 3. and 4. c. meaneth no more but that a iustified man is also sanctified Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring vs the proofe of it in these words As I conceiue they did not Now all parts of the argument are set right I answer to it The assumption is false yea so odiously false as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese or that had conscience to declare the truth when hee vnderstood it This might be made to appeare by diuers passages in the Councell of Trent but I will content my selfe onely with these three 1 Sanctification is by grace infused Iustification it selfe is sanctification Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent cap. 7. In which 1. it speaketh of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters 2. By Iustification it selfe it meaneth the quidditie essence and being of Iustification both which are manifest of themselues they need no proofe And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused is likewise as certaine 2 The onely formall cause of Iustification is the very being thereof Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iustification Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iustification The proposition is a principle in nature and agreed vpon for truth therefore may not be questioned The assumption is the expresse words of the Councell of Trent in the 7. Chapter 3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification then it is by remission of sins onely excluding grace infused But the being of Iustification is not by remission of sinnes onely excluding grace infused Therfore the being of Iustification is by grace infused The consequence of the proposition is so necessary that it cannot be questioned The assumption is the words of the couÌ„cel c. 7. caÌ„ 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption he will supply by the proofe thereof which forsooth is his owne conceit he conceiued they meant not otherwise than thus therfore you must coÌ„ceiue so to Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 178. Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so nay because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded he said it did not so much as seeme white vnto him Your opinions are your owne you will opine what formerly you haue thought so doe for me and there an end But I cannot so let it passe because you keepe not these conceits at home but so much are you filled with them that you must needs vent them or burst And you cannot bee contented with that but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you and more then so wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome in the point of Iustification that haue dissented for many ages till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world Therefore vnto his conceit I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen that haue liued in the Church of Rome till the Councell of Trent all agreeing in this one sentence Grace infused is essentiall vnto Iustification And shall we thinke the Councell of Trent would determine against theÌ„ Surely no Besides the Councell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order Peter Lombard Richard Altisiodore Albert and Alexander the Predecessors of Thomas not attaining thereunto yet consented with him in this thing Since the Councell of Trent all on that side without exception doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustification in grace infused I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares deliuering their iudgments singly and afterwards decreeing the same in a Councell ioyntly and last of all the same decree so interpreted and defended vniuersally but I leaue it and conclude in his owne words Appeale p. 248. You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the question but scumme vpon the surface and gibberish you cannot tell for what And thus much is enough and too much to haue said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustification In which also I wil content my selfe
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 haue vs beleeue his proposition to be a certaine and vndeniable truth he bestows so much sweat in the proofe 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 haue not dogmaticall positions or doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery 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 vnto 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 vpon the Article neither can the one explicate the 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 yet 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 His 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 vs to seeke for the faith of our Church vnto 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 First 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 vnto our selues if hee should deale with vs 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 vnto 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. in these words 3 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 haue shewed the Article may bee vnderstood otherwise cānot be vnderstood so no 7. Lastly the assumption is
ignaroes must giberish to him he knowes not what If hee hath read them where was his conscience when he vrged an argument so often answered and so much opposed and which is more when he tendered it barely as a thing granted without so much as one word out of the diuine reuelation to confirme it or to take away those answers which are made to it What will he plead Is Suarez Aluarez and Bellarmine some of his poore Diuines meere Gaglers Blunderers Ramblers c. not worth the answering not worth the regarding the naming If his will bee to shew himselfe ridiculous he may thus answer and to say the very truth his deeds doe thus answer though wee haue not his words for it I might goe on with this inquirie but I content my selfe with this leauing it to the iudgement of the vnderstanding reader Thus haue I applyed the answers of these authors vnto the argument which doth abundantly shew the weaknesse thereof and I might content my selfe with that but I will adde somewhat more which the argument it selfe doth lead vnto This argument set downe no 27. speaketh of Predestination and if it were a decree to giue glory onely and thereby it doth beg the question because that is denyed him by the Church of Rome and ours If he say he takes Predestination to be a decree to giue grace also then this argument must be framed thus Finall perseuering in obedience is the instumentall cause that Peter receiued grace in the euent Therefore without finall perseuering in obedience God did not appoint by Predestination to giue Peter grace The antecedent or first part is denyed by all which liue in the Church of Rome yea euen by them that would haue Predestination to glory to bee vpon the foresight of workes and they must so deny because the Councell of Trent hath decreed sess 6. Preuenting grace is giuen by God man hauing no merits cap. 5. Wee are iustified freely because none of those things which precede Iustification whether faith or workes doe merit iustifying grace it selfe cap. 8. The same thing touching the free giuing of the first Grace wee learne from our owne Church which taketh it from S. Augustine and tendreth it vnto vs in the Sermon of Fasting p. 172. In these words No man doth good workes to receiue grace by his good workes Good workes doe not bring forth grace Grace belongeth to God who doth call vs and then hath he good workes whosoeuer receiueth grace Which sentence is so full and plaine and of such authority that I shall not need to say any more to shew the insufficiency of the Argument therefore here I will end my answer therunto which also must put an end to our Disputation touching this point of Predestination because he doth not offer any further occasion By that which is past it doth appeare that he dissenteth from the Church of England in this point of Predestination and that hee hath nothing of any worth to say for himselfe or against our Church Now wee should discouer with whom hee doth consent in the point for with some he doth consent else it is a priuate fancy peculiar to himselfe With the Church of Rome he doth not consent I take that as certaine therefore he must consent with the Lutherans and Arminians I name them both because both haue shares in the businesse The Lutherans doe vrge this doctrine of Predestination but not very strictly nor as a matter vndoubtedly revealed nor doe they presse it in all the particulars brought by M. Mountagu and therefore it must bee ascribed to Arminius by vs because hee is the man whose voyce was nearest vnto vs hee vrged it with more particulars and vpon greater necessitie then the Lutherans doe he chose rather to see the Country that bred him brought him vp and aduanced him come to vtter ruine rather then hee would hold his peace or retract this sentence of Predestination I forbeare to confirme this by the particular passages written by Arminius Vorstius and other of that side because it would be tedious and without all benefit What hath passed is sufficient to shew hee teacheth falshood and vntruth Therefore here I will end the whole Disputation There be also other points of Faith in his two Bookes which oppose the doctrine of the Church of England and which deserue a reproofe but because these are propounded and handled by him in the first place and their opposition is most dangerous therefore haue I contented my selfe with the refutation of these onely reseruing the rest till some other opportunity CHAP. XXI The Conclusion of the whole Disputation claiming M. Mountagues promise ALthough it hath beene his fashion to spend many lines with much bitternesse and ill language very ill beseeming a man of gravity and a Minister yet in the issue hee promiseth fayre if you will beleeue him writing in these words Let him or any other goe honestly sincerely soberly Scholler-like to worke Let him come home to the points controuerted without Rowling Rambling Rauing ioyne issue instantly with the question where it lyeth I am for him no man more ready more willing more submisse more desirous to goe calmly to work for Gods glory the Churches tranquilitie the good and benefit of my selfe and others Thus farre hee in his Epistle to the Readâ—r set before his Answer to the Gagger neer to the end therof I answer I haue accomplished your desire you inuite to the discussion of the things you haue written I hope you will accept it in good part I haue obserued the course of disputation you haue appointed And because I would not trust mine owne Art altogether therefore haue I followed B. Iewel in his answer to Master Harding To shew your selfe a plaine man you professe further in your answer to the Gaggers Preface toward the end 1 Our faith is to be regulated by the Scriptures 2 Bring mee in any one point or all points to this rule Tye me to it try me there I fall downe and adore it I would not I will not swerue from it 3 The present doubts hang in the Church of England I doe appeale to the publike doctrine thereof let that which is against them on Gods name be branded with error and as error be ignominiously spunged out Let the author be censured as he well deserueth by authority If I be so taken with the fact or euidence be cleare against me or I be conuicted by sufficient witnesse to haue erred thus I will recall and recant whatsoeuer is so exorbitant and further will deale so with my owne writing as they did with their curious bookes Acts 19. 19. Appeale p. 9. I answer I haue performed the condition in the iudgement I hope of euery Reader able to iudge of a disputation I looke for the performance of this your promise if you faile the fault must rest vpon your selfe and so I leaue you to your owne choice But you thinke to escape that and yet