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-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 loue 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 Mr Mountagu will deny this the Scripture it selfe will 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 vnto our sanctity may well be resembled vnto and set out by tasting which is the beginning and preparation vnto 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 loue 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 vnto 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 neuer 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 haue 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 giue satisfaction vnto all other places of Scripture which are alledged in this question In fauour of the second branch of their assumption at 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 vpon the disputers word you must beleeue that or rest where you began Other toyes of this kind you may haue enow in the place where I had this but it is loath some to name them One more I will propound and examine that there be 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 haue 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 vpon 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 written 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
thing more fully in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 15. num 20. he writeth thus Mans will cannot haue any connaturall power which by its nature is a worker of a supernaturall act either as a totall or partiall cause but when the creature doth so worke it worketh as an instrument of God although it worketh by his owne entitie yet notwithstanding not out of a force naturall but obedientall This addition I make by his owne authoritie for he doth professe in his Appeal p. 90. that he takes the foresaid explication from Pontificians I answer All this labour might haue beene spared because it helpeth the matter nothing at all It makes it more obscure then before Every man can vnderstand what you meane when you say the will doth worke by the naturall force but when you say the entitie of the will doth worke by a supernaturall force elevation and actuation he will be to seeke of your meaning Moreover this explicatioÌ„ doth take away the free vse of the free facultie which you contend for or leaue mans will to worke by the naturall force of the created facultie which is the thing you would thrust off and I shew it thus This elevation and actuation if by grace is either a morall or a physicall worke if physicall then the will is determined vnto one the free vse of the facultie is abridged and restrained for this worke of grace is previall in nature and causalitie and truely efficient vpon the will before it be applyed vnto operation in the second act If it be morall then the will doth worke of the naturall force therof because the morall worke of grace is no more but a perswasion offered to the vnderstanding and resteth there It hath no influence vnto nor reflection vpon the will which is vncapable of Iudging of truth and falshood onely it cannot will any obiect but that which the vnderstanding sayth is good which connexion between the vnderstanding and the will is naturall no worke of grace To conclude two propositions may be inferred from this explication 1. Man doth not produce supernaturall acts by the force of his created facultie 2. Man hath no free-will in supernaturall acts You are at your choice if you haue the first you haue the second if you take the second you grant the thing in question If you deny the second you must deny the first and thereby you defend a sentence which Molina doth accurse vnto hell de Concor in q. 14. art 13. disp 40. Nostra itaque c. The tenth and last sayth Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of grace I answer to procure may signifie the act of an efficient either morall by the way of merit or physicall by the way of reall influence into the effect In both these senses this tenth proposition is false and the Church of Rome hath decreed sess 6. cap. 8. the grace of Iustification cannot be merited much lesse will any be so voyd of pietie as to say man can compell God to giue him grace but what ever his meaning be here it must be observed mans hand is the next cause of a supernaturall act vnto preventing grace and the putting thereof forth is attributed vnto man himself which is a large doctrine of free-will as I haue shewed in the former part of this Chapter num 4. Far exceeding the limits of the Councell of Trenâ— sess 6. cap. 5. 6. Which joyneth grace and mans will alwayes together in his preparation and assigneth adiuvating grace between preventing and cooperating which sheweth his consent with Arminius in those grosse points which the Church of Rome durst not Patronize CHAP. IX The point of Iustification Mr Mountague Man hath a double estate of sinne wherein he was borne produced in life and action acquisite renewed according to the spirit gagg p. 141. In the first state he is not Iust p. 141. To Iustifie hath a 3. fold extent To make Iust To make more Iust To declare or pronouÌ„ce Iust p. 140 Iustification properly is in the first sence gagg p. 142. 144. A sinner is then Iustified when he is made Iust That is translated from state of nature to state of grace as Colos 1. 13. Who hath delivered vs from the power of darknesse and hath translated vs c. Which is motion as they say betwixt two termes And Consisteth in forgiuenes of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily Both the act of Gods spirit in man p. 142. 143. In the state of Grace a man is Iust when he is changed which must haue concurrence of owâ— things Privation of being to that which was the body of sinne Wherein A new constitution vnto God in another state Of grace whereto In which he that is altered in state changed in condition transformed in mind renued in soule regenerate and borne a new to God by grace is Iust in the state of Iustification p. 141. To speake properly God onely Iustifieth who alone imputeth not sinne and createth a new heart within vs. The soule of man is the subiect of this act In which vnto which are necessarily required certaine preparations and previous dispositions to the purpose As knowledge of God c. feare hope contrition loue desire of purpose for a new life and such like But these are all with and from faith The principall indowment of grace may worthily be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian piâ—tie Faith gagg p. 143. 144. The Church of Rome The Iustification of a sinner is a translation from that state in which man was borne a sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace Concil Trent sess 6. cap. 4. Iustification it selfe is not onely remission of sinnes but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts from whence a man is made Iust of vniust cap. 7. There is required on mans part that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his owne will vnto the obtaining the grace of Iustification can 9. Man is disposed vnto the iustice of Iustification By faith feare hope loue begun some hatred and detestation of sinne a purpose to be baptized to begin a new life and to keepe Gods coÌ„mandements cap. 6. We are sayd therefore to be Iustified by faith because faith is the beginning foundation and roote of every Iustification cap. 8. Cap. 10. It decreeth that Iustification receiud is increased The Church of England That we are Iustified by faith onely is a most wholsome doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homilie of Iustification Arti 11. To be washed from sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin is that IustificatioÌ„ or righteousnes which S. Paul speaketh of when he sayth No man is justified by the workes of the Law The forgiuenesse of sinnes and trespasses is that righteousnesse which is taken accepted and allowed of God for our profit and
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
the second which was neuer denyed de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. for the first he doth onely say it for the third he hath not so much as one place of Scripture to pretend for it onely de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 16. he offereth a proofe from the nature of sinne that is remitted which can proue nothing because it is as doubtfull as the thing in question by which it is manifest the Scripture knoweth it not and consequently it is erroneous If Mr. Mountagu thinketh not thus let him produce the word of God for the proofe of it and he shall haue answer till then it must goe for such CHAP. XI The point of falling from Grace Master Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church â—â— England I See no reason why I may not confidently maintaine falling from grace Appeale page 37. He that is Iustified may lose the grace of iustification which hee haeth receiued Con. Trenâ— sess 6. can 23. After that we haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart from grace giuen therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sinne as long as they liue here Artic 16. In the second part of the Homily of falling from God we are sent vnto a conclusion not onely of totall lapse for a time but also of finall separation and for euer which is also according to the Doctrine expressed in the Articles for he that saith a man may fall away and may recouer implyeth withall that some men may fall away and may not recouer By euery mortall sinne a man doth lose the grace of Iustification which hee hath receued cap. 15.  Which sentence mâ—st now be accounted his owne because he brings it as the Doctrine of our Church he professeth Appeal page 48 what that Church beleeueth I beleeue what it teacheth I teach   Sometime the Elâ—ct Called the Iustified such as Peter was doe fall totally from Gods grace Appeale page 16. By a wicked life men doe fall away from grace Appeale p. 36. By all which places alledged we haue his mind in this point to the full I will set it downe in seuerall propositions for the more ease of memory and vnderstanding and follow his order thus 1 A man may fall away from grace 2 A man may fall away from grace totally and finally 3 The Elect and Iustified doe sometime fall away totally 4 By sinne a man doth fall from grace CHAP. XII The point set downe in the former Chapter is argued THat wee may proceed in this question in the same order that wee haue 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 haue 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 of man and grace as we vse to say a man may lose his life That he doth consent with the Church of Rome so farre as the Councell hath decreed it is plaine and euident now the Councell must bee conceiued to speake of euery 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 Mr. Mountagu saith but because wee haue not these things expresly in the Councell therefore we must haue recourse vnto the Interpreters for the vndoubted minde of the Councell Bellarmine de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. saith We haue 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 haue Mr. 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 vnto them all to speake thus Mr 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 Habemus 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 this losse where he must be vnderstood of those sins which he telleth vs 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 Vpon which I may conclude M. Mountagu agreeth with the Councell of Trent in this point to a word and vpon the reckoning wee find that this his agreemeÌ„t in these foure former propositions doth yeeld vs 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 thus he writeth Appeale p. 16. I haue beene assured that Arminius did hold not onely 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 haue protested his dissent if hee could haue done it with truth It is very probable hee doth consent because being charged
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
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
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 not-imputing 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 Mr. Mountagu would haue 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 vnto mortall sinne adequately denying veniall sinne to be any disobedience vnto 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 onely 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 Mr 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 vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon 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 haue credit If you bring not that you hunt a flea and pursue a shadow It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne till you proue that grace must giue 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 vpon these branches which I haue answered vnto 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 vnto 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 on 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 hath 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 haue 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 giue them an Issue They must proue the Issue or leaue the cause behind them I will put some of their allegations into forme and answer 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 from 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 vnto 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
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
be nothing but grace for can it bee conceiued how our comming to saluation can bee attributed to God as his worke but by reason that hee doth giue grace Lastly it cannot bee conceiued how God should bring to saluation by Christ but by giuing of grace seeing none come to saluation by Christ but such as are members of Christ and none are members of Christ but by the meanes of grace And that it was the meaning of our Church to make finall grace one thing appointed by Predestination to be giuen vnto man it is apparent by that doctrine of the Article which followeth where it maketh Predestination to be the cause or reason wherefore God bestoweth grace and glory vpon man in the euent for thus it saith Wherefore they which bee indued with this excellent benefit viz. of Predestination be called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit they through grace obey the calling and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to saluation BY CHRIST Hereby our Church doth set forth the means appointed by Predestination wherby in course of time man shal enioy the thing appointed by Predestination and that is Iesus Christ vnder whose name all other subordinate meanes are fitly comprehended and that our Church meant so need not be doubted because it addeth other meanes of grace and saluation besides Christ in the doctrine of the Article following TO DELIVER FROM DAMNATIOM By this the nature of Predestination formerly deliuered is set out or made more plaine vnto vs for this being contrary vnto that doth make it the more manifest vnto our vnderstandings and the Scripture taketh the same course also as in many other places so in these He that beleeueth is passed from death vnto life There is no condemnation to him that is in Christ Rom. 8. 1. By damnation is not meant the state of damnation actually for that sense cannot stand with the doctrine of our Church which followeth but by damnation is vnderstood the possibilitie of being in the state of damnation preuented by the decree of Predestination for that sense doth agree very well with the doctrine of the Article which saith This decree is constant as is declared before SOME ELECTED OVT OF MANKINDE The subiect or parties predestinated are here sayd to bee man but not all men vniuersally it restraineth the same vnto some of mankinde by saying that they are elected ones and elected out of mankind 2. The subiect that receiueth Predestinatiō is described by two things The one by the name and vnder the title of man meerly without any addition whereby is signified that man conceiued in himselfe onely as an intellectuall creature without grace or works of grace is obiected vnto and set before the diuine will of Predestination and in that notion onely he receiueth the same Our Church doth not say that God waited till man had grace and then and vpon the intuition thereof he was moued to and did predestinate him That this may be the sense of our Church is cleere because it is a course agreeable and decent vnto the diuine prouidence and man himselfe and that this must be meant by our Church is certaine also for no other sense can be made therof agreeable to these words and those words that went before which say the reason mouing God to predestinate is secret to vs And grace is bestowed by predestination The other thing describing it is the word elect which signifieth an act of Gods will whereby our Church doth giue vs to vnderstand that the reason why this or that man is predestinate ariseth from Gods will and pleasure of which it is that the predestinate are singled out and seuered from the rest of mankind IN CHRIST Our Church referreth these words vnto the word elect thus Those whom hee elected in Christ In this sentence the word elect doth signifie 1. an act of Gods will 2 An act going before predestination 3 A collection of a certaine number of men from others to be predestinated vnto this or that measure of grace and glory for so it speaketh in the 17. arti saying Those whom he chose he decreed to bring to saluation The words in Christ tell vs that Gods eye was extended to the chosen ones in or through Christ Now this act of election may bee done vpon man in the intuition of Christ either as the end intended and aimed at in the act of election or as the meritorious cause thereof In the first sense wee may not take our Church seeing it saith the reason that moued God to predestinate is secret to vs wee must therefore vnderstand our Church to speake in the first sense for that is most agreeable to the course of Scripture to the dignity of Christ and to the operation of grace in man What heart is it that will not rather make it selfe subordinate vnto Christ then Christ subordinate vnto him And that our Church meant thus we haue yet better reason to thinke viz. because this whole description of predestination is takē out of the first chapter to the Ephesians where the Apostle hauing said in the fourth verse He hath chosen vs in him He concludeth in the 12 verse That we should be to the praise of his glory which sheweth that Christs glory was the end intended aimed at in the act of electiō BEFORE THE FOVNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAYD That is before the Creation The world is created either in the reall being thereof or in the decree to create Our Church speaketh not of reall creating for then it should say the decree of Predestination is before actuall Creation This it could not meane or that is as much as if it had said the decree of Predestination is eternall for before that creation there is no duration but eternitie But our Church meant not by these words to say Gods decree was eternall for it had said so in expresse words a little before and this phrase of speech doth not make that more plaine but doth rather more obscure it Our Church then speaketh of Gods decree to create and so it setteth forth the moment wherein in our apprehension man is predestinate by God and is as if it had said Gods decree of Predestination in our apprehension goes before his decree of creation And the rather all men should vnderstand our Church thus because this order is agreeable to the nature of the things themselues Predestination being more worthy of loue then Creation That being supernatural perpetuall and mans last perfection This being naturall temporary and at most but a way vnto that therefore it is more orderly to conceiue the decree of Creation to be subordinate vnto the decree of Predestination then Predestination vnto Creation If any thinke that man cannot be predestinate before he be actually made I answer in Gods will of execution it is true man cannot inioy the being of the thing appointed by Predestination before hee hath actuall being himselfe now the will of execution is not now in
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