bitter scoffe at the practice of our Ecclesiasticall Courts Howsoeuer if the Appealer had onely trod a little awry either in the high path of popery or by-path of puritanisme I for mine owne part would haue borne with it and that in respect of his otherwise commendable parts and profitable paines in the Church but when he halteth downe right betweene two religions none that desireth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to walke with a right foot can endure him And doth he not limpe nay doth he not halt downe-right doth he not weare a Linsie-woolsy garment Answer to Gagg page 13. and 14 Truth is of two sorts amongst men manifest and confessed truth or more obscure and involved truth In his quae apertè posita sunt in Scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem morés que vivendi spem scilicet charitatem Plainly deliuered in Scripture are all those points which belong vnto Faith and Manners Hope and Charity to wit And accordingly I doe know no obscurity vpon these I know none of these controuerted inter partes The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides and held plaine enough The controuerted points are of a larger and inferiour alloy of them a man may bee ignorant without any danger of his soule at all A man may resolue or oppose this way or that way without perill of perishing for euer c. It is most euident in this place that the parties he speaketh of are the Papists and we for there are no other haue any triall in this Chapter or matter of debate By partes in many other places of his booke he vnderstandeth Papists and Protestants and here he cannot meane any other but the Gagger and his complices on the one side and the Protestant Church on the other side as the antecedents and consequents doe manifest Now if the differences betweene the papists and vs are of such an inferiour alloye that little reckoning is to be made of them because they adde nothing to or take nothing from the summe of sauing knowledge how much haue all the reformed Churches in Christendome to answer at the dreadful Tribunall of Christ for making so great a rent in Christs seamlesse coat vpon so small occasion If the controuerted points be like herbe Iohn in the pot that may be in or out without perill at all why haue all our Prophets sithence Luther at least cryed Mors in ollâ mors in ollâ Death in the pot O blessed Martyrs who sithence the beginning of Reformation haue watred the seed of the Gospell with your blood put off your long white robes and garlands and put on sackcloth and ashes for you dyed vpon no good ground you shed not your blood in zeale but spilt it in folly Martyrs you may be of schisme or obstinacy or indiscretion but not of faith if those points you suffered for belonged not at all to faith Diffido oculis meis identidem interrogo an legerim an viderim I suspect mine eyes I question my Copy I demand of my selfe againe and againe Is it possible a Diuine of no inferiour alloy should vtter such an incredible paradoxe wee dissent from the Church of Rome about Christ and his offices the foundation of faith the Scriptures the rule of faith the Church the subiect of faith the Sacraments the seales of faith iustification the proper effect of faith and good workes the fruit of faith nay wee contest about the very nature and essence of faith And are none of these matters of faith doe none of these belong to faith or manners If our debates are de tribus capellis about the fringe not the Spouse coat about the barke and not the body of Religion then hath not the Church of Rome erred in matter of faith and if she hath not then the Church of England hath erred in charging her with error not onely in matter of ceremony and discipline but also in matter of faith Art 19. If the Church of England hath erred in this Article the Appealers false oathes must needs be answerable to his degrees and preferments for so oft hath he sworne to that Article among the rest But he yeeldeth vs a reason The Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides and held plaine enough on both sides hee might say on all sides and hands For the Arrians in Polonia the Antitimitarians in Transiluania the Nestorians in Greece the Anabaptists and Socinians in the Netherlands doe all rehearse the Articles of the Creed and hold them plaine enough Let him peruse al the bedrol of heretikes condemned by the Church of God in all ages drawne by Irenaeus Epiphanius S. Augustine Philastrius Alfonsus a Castro and others and he shall hardly pitch vpon any sort of Heretickes that directly either denyed or articled against the Articles of the Apostles Creed And will he say none of these erred in matter of faith but all were and are in regiâ viâ the high way to heauen If hee answer that the heretickes though they professed the Articles of the Apostles Creed totidem verbis in the very words yet they denyed or depraued the sense and brought in damnable errours by consequence ouerthrowing those foundations of our faith Our reply is at hand As the greater part of ancient heretickes so at this day the Papists confesse the Articles of the Creed and hold them plaine truth but they misinterpret them and by consequence shake if not quite ouerthrow diuers of them Either they or we misinterpret those three articles especially concerning the Catholike Church the Communion of Saints the forgiuenesse of sinnes to which their great Champion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reduceth all the controuersies betweene our Church and theirs And for vndermining the articles of our Creed by consequences and maintaining repugnances to them thâ— Romish Pioners are not farre behind the ancient enemies of our faith Manes and Vorstius doe not directly impugne the article touching God the Almighty Creator nor Marâ—ion Arrius Apollinaris Eutiches Nestorius and Socinus the article concerning Christ the Redeemer nor Macedonius and the Pneumatomachi the article concerning the holy Ghost but they held such doctrine which was not comportable with those articles And how the Romish doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels may stand with the first article rightly expounded I beleeue in God and their doctrine of Iustification by inherent righteousnesse with the second and in Iesus Christ and of transubstantiation with the article of Christ his Incarnation and Ascension and of a Catholick visible Romish Church vnder one visible Head with that I beleeue the holy Catholicke Church and of vncertainty of saluation with those I beleeue the remission of sins and life euerlasting I desire to bee enformed by the Appealer which I could neuer yet bee by any Romanist Vpon this most false and deceiueable ground that the differences inter partes are not in matters de fide hee buildeth two most dangerous assertions that a man may be ignorant
in the Heauens for it implieth a contradiction that his body should be contained in and yet be without the Heauens at the same time If his body may bee in more places then one at once then he might haue been at the instant of his passion in the Sun and Moon vpon the Crosse which S. Augustine concludes to bee absolutely impossible And if Christ in his flesh may be both in heauen and earth at the same instant Vigilius his reason hath no strength at all to wit because he is in heauen therefore he is not vpon earth To conclude if it be impossible that Christ his body should bee at the same instant in heauen and vpon earth as the testimonies of the Angel S. Peter S. Augustine and Vigilius aboue alleadged declare and if all Papists teach that Christs body after words of Consecration is truely really and substantially vpon earth handled with the hands and eaten with the mouthes of Communicants they must needes consequently deny his bodily presence and being at the right hand of his Father in Heauen Fiftly the article of the Catholike Church rightly expounded signifieth the whole company of Gods elect which is the onely Catholike inuisible Church wee beleeue for the visible Church is an obiect of sense and therefore not properly an article of faith This true interpretation of the article the Romanists are so farre from admitting that in the Councell of Constance they condemned Iohn Husse of heresie for maintaining it Whence I thus argue They who make the visible Church to be the catholike Church which wee beleeue misbeleeue the article touching the Catholike Church But the Romanists make the visible Church to be the Catholike Church which wee beleeue Therefore the Romanists misbeleeue the article touching the catholike Church The first proposition or major is proued by the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 7. We walke by faith and not by sight and Heb. 11. 1. Faith is the euidence of things not seene The Church therefore which we beleeue cannot be the visible Church The assumption is the assertion of all Papists who are so farre from beleeuing that they scoffe and laugh at an inuisible Church as a meere phantasme or Platonicall Idaea Sixtly the foure last articles of the Apostles creed the communion of Saints the forgiuenesse of sins the resurrection of the dead and life euerlasting rightly expounded import not only that there is a communion of Saints and remission of sinnes in the Church and a resurrection of the faithfull to eternall life which the Deuills themselues doe and cannot but beleeue but that euery true beleeuer who rehearseth these articles doth and ought to beleeue that hee hath a part in the communion of Saints hath obtained remission of his sinnes and shall at the last day rise to life eternall This interpretation of these articles is condemned by the Papists as hereticall Whence we thus argue against them They who deny that a man is bound to beleeue that he is of the number of the elect or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen him c. ouerthrow the foure articles aboue mentioned according to their true meaning But the Romanists deny that a man is bound to beleeue that he is of the number of the Elect or that his sinnes are vndoubtedly forgiuen him c. Therefore the Romanists ouerthrow the foure articles aboue mentioned according to their true meaning Secondly it is a dangerous errour to affirme that the present Church of Rome holdeth the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient Church Which I proue first They who maintain seuen Sacraments properly so called hold not the same foundation of Sacraments with that church which held but two onely But the present church of Rome maintaines seauen Sacraments properly so called the Ancient church of Rome held but two onely Therefore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with that church The first proposition or major if it bee not euident in it selfe may be thus confirmed The fiue Sacraments which the Romanists adde cannot be built vpon that foundation which beareth but two onely therefore those fiue Sacraments are built vpon another different foundation or vpon no foundation at all The second proposition or assumption is generally proued by all Protestant writers that handle this question with whom the Appealer professeth euery where to hold faire quarter Secondly I proue it thus Whosoeuer maintaineth an error ouerthrowing the nature of a Sacrament holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church But the present church of Rome maintaineth an error ouerthrowing the nature of a Sacrament Therfore the present church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation of Sacraments with the Ancient church The first proposition is euident in it selfe for nothing can be more fundamentall to a Sacrament then that which concernes the nature and essence of a Sacrament nothing more destructiue or euersiue then that which ouerthroweth the very essence and substance of it The second proposition is contained totidem verbis in expresse words in the articles of religion of the Church of England Artic. 28. Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of bread and wine a doctrine de fide in the Church of Rome defined both by the Councell of Lateran and the Councell of Trent in the supper of the Lord cannot be proued by holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions Thirdly it is proued thus Whosoeuer holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance and institution of the Sacraments erreth in the foundation of Sacraments and therein differeth from the ancient Church But the present Church of Rome holdeth an errour concerning Christs ordinance and institution of the Sacraments Therefore the present Church of Rome erreth in the foundation of Sacraments and therein differeth from the ancient Church The first proposition is cleare for Christs order and institution is the foundation of the Sacraments and therefore an error concerning it must needs be fundamentall in point of Sacrament The second proposition or assumption is set downe in Article 30. Both parts of the Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all christian men alike which assertion touching Christs ordinance the present Church of Rome erroneously denieth and defineth the contrary in the Councell of Constance and Trent Thirdly it is a dangerous errour to affirme that the present church of Rome is not diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. Which I proue First thus Whatsoeuer Church hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles from Christ himselfe from the Primitiue and catholike church of God and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ The present church of Rome hath most shamefully gone from the Apostles from Christ himselfe from the primitiue and catholike church of God and hath
omnia atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas rejectas anathematizatas ego pariter damno rejicio anathematizo Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in praesenti sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissimè Deo juvante retineri confiteri atque à meis subditis vel illis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit retineri doceri praedicari quantum in me erit curabo Whence I thus argue First In this forme of oath the twelue new Articles together with the rest of the definitions of the Councell of Trent are made part of the Catholicke faith which except a man beleeue faithfully he cannot be saued but neither these twelue new articles nor any of them were held as true by the ancient Church much lesse as points fundamentall and de fide therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same intire foundation of faith with the ancient Secondly the ancient Church of Rome held the Scriptures to be the onely perfect infallible rule of faith and foundation of sauing doctrine as is plentifully proued by Iuel Rainolds Bilson Kemnisius Morney D. Francis White and diuers others but the present Church of Rome holdeth otherwise making vnwritten traditions part of the foundation of faith which they say is built partly vpon the written and partly vpon the vnwritten word of God Therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same entire foundation of faith with the ancient Thirdly the articles of the Apostles Creed rightly expounded and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost were the foundation of the ancient Churches faith But the present Church of Rome holdeth not the articles of the Apostles Creed rightly expounded and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation with the ancient Church The proposition or major is not denied the assumption may bee euidently proued by instancing in some of the prime Articles The first article I beleeue in God rightly expounded teacheth vs that we ought to repose our confidence in God and him onely not vpon any Creature Saint or Angell and therefore not to call vpon them the consequence is the Apostles Rom. 10. How shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued this Article thus expounded the present Church of Rome beleeueth not Secondly Faith in Iesus Christ rightly vnderstood signifieth affiance in Christ for saluation or a relying vpon Christ with an assured perswasion for remission of sinnes through his merits and satisfaction This interpretation of faith in Christ the present Church of Rome is so farre from admitting that it accurseth all those who teach the nature of justifying faith to consist in this affiance or confidence Thirdly the Incarnation of Christ rightly expounded implyeth that Christ was once and but once made of a pure Virgin a true and perfect man like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted Heb. 2. 17. 4. 15. And the Councell of Calcedon in the fift Act against Eutiches accurseth all those who deny that Christ retaineth still the properties of his humane nature such as the shape of man proportion dimension circumscription c. This article thus expounded is not assented to by the Church of Rome for the Romanists teach that Christ is made in the Sacrament by the Priest The learneder Iesuits are not content with the adducing or bringing of Christ into the Sacrament where he was not before for that say they were onely a translocation not a transubstantiation a locall motion not a substantiall mutation but in expresse words maintaine a new production of Christs body made of bread Againe they teach that Christs body in the Sacrament is whole in the whole and wholy in euery part of the Host which is impossible if according to the definition of the Councell of Calcedon he retaine the properties of his humane nature to wit extension of parts proportion of limmes distinction of members c. Whence I argue They who teach that Christ hath a body inuisible indiuisible insensible impassible ouerthrow the verity of his humane nature and consequently deny the article of his Incarnation But the Church of Rome teacheth that Christ in the Sacrament to wit hath a body inuisible indiuisible insensible c. Therefore the Church of Rome ouerthroweth the verity of Christ his humane nature and consequently denieth the article of his Incarnation Fourthly the article of Christ his Ascension rightly vnderstood importeth that Christ is so ascended from the earth that hee is not now vpon earth but is contained according to his bodily presence and humane nature in the heauens Act. 3. 21. This article is not thus held by the Church of Rome for the Romanists teach that Christ euen according to his humane nature and bodily presence is vpon earth in euery Church on euery Altar where the sacrifice of the Masse is offered besides priuate houses to which the Sacrament is caried so that by this their Doctrine Christ is more vpon earth since his Ascension then before Before his Ascension he was onely in one Country and at one time according to his bodily presence but in one particular place but since his Ascension according to their beliefe he is truely really and substantially in a million of places viz. euery where in their offertory after the words of Consecration whence I argue They who beleeue and teach that Christ God man according to his bodily presence is vpon earth since his Ascension into heauen deny that he is contained in heauen and consequently ouerthrow the article of his Ascension But the Romanists beleeue and teach that Christ God and man according to his bodily presence is vpon earth since his Ascension into heauen Therefore the Romanists deny that hee is contained in heauen and consequently ouerthrow the article of his Ascension The first proposition or major is grounded vpon the Angels Argument Mat. 28. 6. He is not here for he is risen the testimony of S. Peter Acts 3. 21. whom the heauens must containe S. Austins resolution Christ according to his bodily presence cannot be at the same time in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the Crosse the inference of Vigilius when Christ was in the flesh vpon earth he was not in heauen and now because hee is in heauen he is not therefore vpon earth If Christs body could at the same time bee in more places the Angels argument were of no force for his existence in more places then one at the same time being granted he might be risen and in Ierusalem and yet at the same instant be there where the Angell affirmeth he was not to wit in the graue If Christ may be vpon earth in his body and in heauen at the same time then is not he contained
of the Apostasie of Saints Edit Lugduni Anno 1615. pag. 12. Demand the first There is no absolute Election and b pag. 25. Absolute Predestination granted it was necessary to remoue the whole Scripture to settle that head or doctrine Arminius in the forecited Declaration pag. 33. Out of this doctrine to wit of absolute solute Predestination it c followeth that God is the Author of sinne And this may bee proued by a foure-fold Argument 1. Because this Doctrine layeth it downe that God precisely hath decrâ—ed to demonstrate his glory by punishing or punitiue iustice and mercy sauing some men and damning others which but by d Sinne entring into the world neither was nor could be done c. Arminius respons ad Artic. 10. It would be easie for mee to conuince the opinion of some of the brethren of Manichâ—isme and Stoicisme We protest to the whole world that by our aduersaries e Manicheisme and f Stoicisme or fatall necessitie is â—rought into the Church The Embleme of their booke of the Acts of the Synod of Dort hath this triumphant title Destructo fato or the 〈◊〉 of Fate Ex Act. Syn. Dordrac in Peror Bert. epist. Dedic before his booke of the Apostasie of the Saints There are who flie Pelagianisme not seeing that they plainly side with the Manichees Hee citeth these words as out of an Epistle of Casâ—ubon but forged by himselfe Hag Conference set out by Bert. pag. 90. This absolute Decree openeth a gate on this side to a g dissolute life on that side to h desperation APPEALER APPEALE to Caesar pag. 58. In all which passage to wit of the seuenteenth Article there rehearsed both concerning Gods decree and execution of that decree is not one word syllable or apex touching your absolute necessary determined irresistible irrespectiue decree of God to call saue and glorifie Saint Peter for instance infallibly without any consideration had of or regard to his faith obedience and repentance Appeale to Caesar pa. 54. Nothing is by mee ascribed to your side and to your Doctors but an absolute and irrespectiue decree concerning man in vtramque partem I brought no inferences to presse you withall such as are commonly and odiously made against you by opposites whose virulent inuectiues though too true imputations I vsed not I did not charge you with making God the Author of sinne That the reprobate are iâ—cited on and prouoked to sinne by God That God was the Author of Iudas treason and the like Appeale pag. 68. I neuer yet read of any prime preuious determining decree by which men were irrespectiuely denied grace and excluded from glory vnlesse from damned e Heretiques or f Stoâ—call Philosophers Appeale pag. 30. Against that absolute irrespectiue necessitating and fatall decree of your new Predestination Appeale pag. 60. I must confesse my dissent through and sincere from the faction of Noâ—â—lising Puritans c. but in no one point more than in this their h desperate doctrine of Predestination in which as they delight to trouble themselues and others in nothing more so I professe I doe loue to meddle nothing lesse I haue not I did not desire nor intend to declare my opinion in that point a Edit Lugduni Batau ex officina Tho. Basson 1512. b Positâ Praedestinatione illâ absolutâ necessarium fuit totam scripturam loco mouere vt illud caput adsereretur c It no way followeth See Caluines Preface of his booke of Diuine Predestin and first booke of Institut 17. Chap. Beza against Castellio Peter Martyr in his Comment on the 1. Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans Zuinglius in his Sermon of Prouidence Abbot Prelect of the Author of sinne Paraeus Answer to Bellaâ—mine second booke of the state of sinne and losse of grace chap. 4. and diuers others d God decreed the permission and disposing of sinne which he fore-saw vpon his permission would be hee did not decree the effecting or existence of it that it should be Saint Augustine fully answereth these and the like Arguments in his booke de Corrept Grat. cap. 10. We freely confesse that which we most rightly beleeue that the God and Lord of all things who made all things exceeding good and fore-saw that euill things would arise out of good and knew that it more appertained to his most omnipotent goodnesse to draw good out of euil than not to suffer euils to be hath so ordred the life of men and Angels that in it first he might shew the power of their owne free-will and then the benefit of his grace and iudgement of his iustice And in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium cap. 11. God being most exceeding good would not by any meanes suffer any euill to be in his workes but that he is also so omnipotent and good that he can and doth worke good euen out of euill e As Iulian the Pelagian often in his bookes vpbraided Saint Augustine with Manicheisme so doth Arminius and the Appealer following the Pelagians step by step lay the same imputation vpon the orthodox defenders of Predestination But the imputation is most false for the Manichees held two soules in a man one good another bad and ascribed good and euill not to the free-will of man but to those two soules We with the holy Fathers teach but one soule in man and referre good and euill to Free-will but so that the will of it selfe is free to euill but is not neither can sithence the fall of Adam be free vnto good till God hath freed it by his grace according to the words of our Sauiour in Saint Iohns Gospell Chap. 8. 36. But if the Sonne make you free you shall be free indeed And of Saint Paul Rom. 6. 18. Made free from sinne c. f A stale obiection long sithence answered by Saint Augustine in his second booke cap. 5. ad Bonifac. Wee maintaine not Fate or fatall necessity vnder the name of grace but if it please some men to call the omnipotent will of God vnder the name of Fate we seeke indeed to auoid prophane nouelty of word but wee will not contend about words To which answer of Saint Augustine we may further adde that the beleefe of Christians touching the falling out of all things according to the determinate counsell of God Act. 2. differeth from the Stoicke Fate or Fatality in foure things 1. The Stoicks subiected God himselfe to Fate Iupiter though he most desired could not free Sarpedon we subiect Fate that is the necessitie of things to Gods most free-will 2. They vnder the name of Fate vnderstood an eternall fluxe and necessary connexion of naturall causes and effects we teach that all natural and second causes had their beginning in the Creation neither is there such a necessary and absolute depeÌ„dance of effects from their naturall causes but that God can and often doth suspend those effects and miraculously worke beside aboue nay against nature 3. The Stoicks by their Fatality took away all contingencie wee admit
this worke of God Of falling away from Grace ARMINIANS HAGE Conference pag. 355. The Doctrine of our Aduersaries who teach that a man cannot fall away from grace totally nor finally is an q hinderance to godlinesse and also to good manners Theses exhibited to the Synod of Dort concerning the fifth Article All things being fore-laid which are necessarie and sufficient for perseuerance it remaineth still in the power of man to perseuere or not perseuere Bertius in his booke of Apostasie of Saints endeuoureth to proue that his blasphemous Assertion by diuers texts of Scripture Authorities of Fathers and Reasons from whose Armory the Appealer furnisht himselfe as will appeare by comparing their allegations together Bertius Iidit Lugduni Batauorum apud Lodouicum Elzeuirium in the yeare of our Lord 1615. pag. 169. You could not be ignorant that the Confession of the Church of England was cited by mee truly in the Acts at Hampton Court pag. 107. The English Confession set out in the yeare of our Lord 1562. Article 16. After we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may r depart from grace Bertius in his Dedicatory Epistle Doctor Bancroft at the Conference at Hampton Court withstood Doctor Rainolds who to that Article of the English Confession concerning departing from grace would haue those words added but not totally nor finally APPEALER ANswer to Gag pag. 157. That faith once had may be lost may be interpreted and is more wayes than one whether not lost at all whether totally and finally lost Men are diuided in this tenent Some suppose neither totally nor finally some totally but not finally some both totally and finally which is indeed the assertion of antiquitie Ibid. The learnedst of the Church of England assent to antiquity in their tenent which the Protestants of Germany maintain at this day hauing assented therein to the Church of Rome Appeale pag. 36. In my iudgement this is the doctrine of the Church of England not deliuered according to priuate opinions in ordinary Tracts and Lectures but deliuered publiquely positiuely and declaratiuely in Authentick records Appeale pag. 28. They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew composed and agreed the Articles in 52. and 62. that ratified them in 71. that coÌ„firmed them in 604. that iustified and maintained them against the Puritans at Hampton Court but all such doe assent to antiquity in this tenent Ibid. p. 29. The Minor I make good particularly will proue it obsignatis tabulis In the 16. Article we reade and subscribe this After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may r depart away from grace and fall into sinne Appeale pag. 30. This Article was s challenged as vnsound at the Conference at Hampton Court by those that were Petitioners against the Doctrine and Disciplie established in the Church of England and being so challenged before his Sacred Maiestie was there defended and maintained c. namely by Doctor Ouerall pag. 31. q See this obiection answered in the first question of absolute Predestination r The Article hath not the word Alway that is the Appealers addition The words are not After we haue receiued the holy Ghost we may fall into sinne and so fall away from grace but we may depart from grace giuen and fall into sinne that is so farre depart from grace that a man may fall into sinne after grace receiued which is confessed on all parts The Article speaketh not of a totall falling away from grace much lesse finall for the words immediatly following are and by the grace of God to wit before giuen we may rise againe He that falleth finally cannot rise againe he that falleth totally from grace cannot rise againe by the grace he had receiued because he is supposed to haue lost all the grace he receiued and the Article speakes not of new grace but onely of grace before receiued and giuen Besides the words of the Apostle to the Hebrewes 6. 6. beare strongly that way that a man who was once partaker of the holy Ghost if hee fall away that is totally cast away the Spirit of grace cannot possibly be renewed againe by repentance Whence we thus argue None who may after their fall rise againe by repentance fall totally or finally Heb. 6. 6. But all those of whom the Article speakes may after their fall rise againe by repentance Therefore none of whom the Article speaks fall totally or finally s The Appealer vttereth two manifest vntruths in this allegation out of the Conference at Hampton Court The first is That he faith the sense of the Article was there challenged as vnsound for Doctor Rainolds who in the name of the rest desired a fuller explication of the meaning of the Article to preuent that mistaking which is sithence fallen out in M. Montague and others began with this Preface Though the meaning of the Article be sound and good c. The second is That he affirmeth that this tenent a iustified man may fall away from grace and become ipso facto in the state of damnation c. now styled Arminianisme by these Informers was resolued and auowed for true by Doctor Ouerall and that honourable and learned Synod For Doctor Ouerall after he had affirmed That a iustified man committing any grieuous sinne as adultery murther or treason became ipso facto subiect to Gods wrath and was in the state of damnation quoad praesentem statum addeth yet those that are called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election did neuer fall either totally from all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seeds thereof or finally from iustification but were in time renewed by Gods Spirit vnto a liuely faith and repentance and so iustified from those sinnes and the wrath curse and guilt annexed thereunto whereinto they were fallen and wherein they lay so long as they were without true repentance for the same Of Falling away from Grace ARMINIANS BERTIVS pag. 25. De Apostas Sanct. That which we haue proposed we proue first by those formes of Scripture by which Apostasie is diuersly described for this the Scripture calleth to turne away from righteousnesse Ezek. 33. 13. If the righteous commit iniquity all his righteousnesse shall be no more remembred but for his â—niquitie that he hath committed he shall die for the same Ibid. pag. 27. He who can turne away from his righteousnesse can forsake his former righteousnesse but a righteous man can turne away from his righteousnesse Ezek. 18. 24. Therefore the righteous can forsake his former righteousnesse Bert. pag. 41. Hee out of whom the Deuill is cast may become secure and made a Temple in which the former Deuill taking seuen other spirits with him may be lodged and so the latter coÌ„dition of that man made worse than the former Mat. 12. 43. Demonstrat Hee out of whom the Deuill is cast is truly iustified but such a one may by securitie and negligence fall into an estate worse then the