7. Psal. 66. 9. Ps. 121. 3. to the end Psal. 125. 1 2. Isai. 26. 3. Ier 32. 40. Iohn 10. 28 29. 〈◊〉 17. 11. 2. 〈◊〉 4. 7. 13. 19. Col. 2. 10. 19. c. 3. 3 4. Phil. 1. 6. 1 Thes. 5. 23 24. 2. Tim. 4. 18. 1 Pet. 4. 19. Iude 1. 24. and Ier. 31. 9 10. all comfortable and excellent places worth your reading therefore they cannot fall from the state of grace though Adam and the Angels did whose graces and persons were kept and preserued only by themselues and not by God Secondly that grace which Adam and the Angels had it was their owne they had free will and libertie to dispose of it at their pleasure they were Lords ouer that grace the which they had their grace had no Lordship and kingdome ouer them It is now farre otherwise in the graces of the Saints for their graces they are not their owne nor yet their persons but their graces and their persons they are Christs their graces they all flow and spring from Christ and they are but stewards not owners of them Yea their graces they are aboue their wills they haue a Lordship and kingdome in their soules they are not Lords but subiects to their graces Grace doth rule and dispose of them not they of grace see Gal. 5. 16. 17. 18 25. Rom. 8. 5. 14. Ezech. 36. 27. 1 Cor. 3. 23. cap. 6. 19 20. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. cap. 10. 4. 5. cap. 13. 8. Acts 4. 20. and Col. 3 15. all expresse to this purpose therefore they cannot lose nor yet cast out their graces as Adam and the Angels did Thirdly that grace which Adam and the Angels had it had no promise of perpetuitie and perseuerance annexed to it and therefore it is no great wonder though they fell from grace but the graces which the Saints of God haue now they haue the promises of perseuerance and perpetuitie annexed to them as you may see by all those gratious promises which I haue formerly mentioned therefore their graces cannot faile therefore they cannot fall from grace though Adam and the Angels did Fourthly that grace which Adam and the Angells had it had neuer the benefit of Christs intercession Christ neuer prayed for it that it might not faile but the graces which the Saints now haue they had the benefit of Christs prayer whiles he was on earth and they haue the benefit of his euerlasting intercession now he is in heauen Luke 22. 32 Iohn 14. 16. cap. 16. 26. cap. 17. 11. 15. 21 23. 24. Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 2. 17. cap. 4. 14 15 16. cap. 7. 25. and cap. 9. 24. therefore they cannot faile though Adam and the Angels did Fiftly that grace which Adaâ—… and the Angels had they had it not by Gods immutable decree and purpose they had it only out of his prouidence and fore-sight and not from his eternall election and predestination and therefore they might fall from it But the regenerate Saints of God they haue their graces from Gods immutable and eternall purpose and decree and by vertue of their eternall election and predestination Rom. 8. 29. 30 cap. 11. 7. Acts 13. 48. Eph. 1. 4 5. cap. 2. 10. 1 Thes. 5. 9 10. 2 Thes. 2. 13 14. 1 Tim. 6. 12. 2 Tim. 1. 9. cap. 2. 19. 21. Titus 1. 1. 2 Cor. 2. 5. and 1 Pet. 1. 2. therefore they cannot fall from grace though Adam and the Angells did Sixtly that grace which Adam and the Angells had they had it of meere free gift it was not merited and purchased for them by Christ and therefore they might lose it But the graces of the Saints they are a purchased possession they are purchased by Christ himselfe at the hands of his Father that so they might be sure to all the seed Christ who hath purchased them for them will preserue them in them and therefore they cannot fall from grace though Adam and the Angells did Lastly that grace which Adam and the Angells had it was no grace but nature it had its rise and being from themselues and was incident vnto their natures therefore they might lose it and fall from it as they did But the graces which the Saints of God haue now they are transcendent and aboue nature they stand not in the wisdome or nature of men but in the power of God 2 Cor. 2. 5. 2 Pet. 1 4. they haue their rise from heauen and from the mightie power of God Ephes. 1. 19 20. cap. 3. 20. and Rom. 15. 13. not from humane nature they are part of the diâ—…ine nature and they flow from Iesus Christ and the holy Ghost the spring and fountaine of all grace Iohn 1. 16. cap. 4. 14. cap. 7. 38 39. Gal. 5. 22. Ephes. 1. 23. and Col. 2. 9. 19. These graces which the Saints haue now are of a more diuine heauenly permanent and spirituall nature then that naturall grace which Adam and the Angells had and they flow from such a head and spring of grace which neuer failes which is neuer drawne drie And therefore though Adam and the Angells fell from grace yet you see for all these reasons that it followes not that therefore the regenerate Saints of God should fall as well as they How euer the question is not of naturall grace or of that grace which Adam and the Angells had whether that may be lost for that was no more but common nature and nog grace but whether true justifying and sauing grace may be lost and so this Argument is nothing to the purpose or the thing in question The second sort of examples are of whole Churches which haue fallen from grace from which this argument is framed If whole Churches haue fallen totally and finally from grace then much more may priuate and particular Saints fall so too But whole Churches haue fallen totally and finally from grace Therefore priuate and particular Saints may fall so too For answer to this argument I must first distinguish of this word Church first it is taken in a large and generall sense for all such as make an outward profession of Christ whether they are good or bad secondly it is taken properly and strictly for the whole company of the elect and chosen Saints of God and for them onely in which sense it is vsed in our Creed Secondly I must distinguish of this word whole Church for sometimes it is taken vniuersally for all and euery one that is included and comprised within the Church other times it is taken for the Major and the greater part only and not for euery indiuiduall and particular member If you take now the whole Church in the largest sense for euery visible and particular member of the Church both good and bad or if you take the whole Church in the stricter and more proper sense for the company of the elect and chosen Saints of God then the Minor proposition is false because none of the elect and chosen Saints oâ—… God
can either totally or finally fall from grace But if you take a whole Church for the greater part of a visible Church for those who are members of a visible Church and yet are but goates tares and chaffe and no members of the true and holy Church of Christ then the sequell of the Major proposition is false and no more in substance then this If hypocrites and wicked men may fall from the shew and shadow of grace then the true regenerate Saints of God may fall from the very habits and seed of true and sauing grace which is but a meere Nonsequitur True then it is that all those of a whole Church which are notregenerated which are farre the greatest number may Apostatize and fall from the doctrine of grace but yet the true regenerate Saints of God in such a Church doe neuer fall from the habit and state of true and sauing grace and therefore both the Major and the Minor proposition in that sense as they are propounded are false and vnsound Thus much for the generall The first example of any particular Church that is objected against me is the Church of the Iewes The Iewes who were partakers of the fatnesse of the roote and Oliue tree Christ Iesus were broken off and fell from grace Rom. 11. 16. to 25. therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may fall from grace I answer first that the Antecedent is false for the roote and Oliue tree which the Apostle speakes of is not Christ but Abraham and the Patriarkes So Chrisostome Bede Anselme Theodoret Haymo Caluin Peter Martyr Beza Pareus Willet Hyperius and most of those that coment on this place and therefore it followes not that because the Iewes might be broken off from Abraham and be depriued of the promises and couenant made to him and to his seed that therefore the true beleeuers may be broken off from Christ. Secondly admit that Christ himselfe and not Abraham is the roote and Oliue tree here mentioned and that some of the Iewes were broken off from him yet I answer that those Iewes and branches which were broken off were such as were neuer truly ingrafted into Christ but only in common reputation ond in outward shew which is euident by the same chapter First because it is said ver 7. that such as were blinded and broken off were such as were neuer elected Secondly because it is said vâ—… 〈◊〉 that they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through vnbeleefe if then those that were thus broken oâ—… were not elected if they were vnbeleeuers it is certaine then that they were neuer truly ingrafted into Christ because they neuer had any true and liuely faith Thirdly though the greatest part of the Iewes did Apostatize and so were broken off yet the 2. 5. 7. and 17. verses of this chapter certifie vs that all the elect and chosen Saints of God that were among them all the true Israell of God belonging to the election of grace did still continue in the stocke and roote and were not broken off they did not fall from grace none but the counterfeite and superficiall branches were broken off the true and liuing branches did still continue So that this example makes wholly for vs not against vs. The second example is taken from the Galathians The Galathians they were true beleeuers and the true regenerate Saints of God For they receiued the Spirit of God they began in the spirit and suffered many things for Christ Gal. 3. 2 3 4. yea they were all the sonnes of God by faith in Christ Iesus and they all had put on Christ ver 26. 27. But yet they fell from grace they ended in the flesh they disobeyed the truth and turned from the Gospell to the law and so made Christ of no effect vnto them Gal. 1. 6. cap. 3. 1. 3. cap. 4. 9. and cap. 5. 2. 4. 7. Therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may fall from grace For answer to this example I say sirst that all the Galathians to whom Paul wrote were not regenerated because there was neuer yet any Church on earth I meane any visible Church neither shall there euer be any where all the members of it are regenerated for Christ himsele hath certified vs that there shall be chaffe as well as wheate goates as well as sheepe good fish mixed with bad continually in his Church euen to the end of the world Math. 13. therefore it must needs bee so in these Churches of Galatia to whom Paul wrote If you object that Paul saith that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ Iesus Gal. 3. 26. therefore they were all regenerated I answer that the meaning of these words of Paul is not to shew vnto vs that all the 〈◊〉 were then in the 〈◊〉 of regeâ—…eration and justification and if it were so it would make quite against you not for you for if they were in this estate when as Pâ—…l wrote vnto them then they were not fallen from grace as you pretend but Pauls meaning there is onely this That all such as are the regenerate and adopted sonnes of God in Christ they are so onely in regard of faith it is faith onely that makes them so and not the workes of the law which is euident by the very scope of the place so that this place proues not that all the Galathians were truly regenerated And so the Major proposition that all the Galathians were regenerated iâ—… false Secondly I answer that all those Galathians who were regenerated did perseuere in grace and did not turne away from the Gospell to the Law and that such as did Apostatize vnto another Gospell were such onely as had receiued the Gospell but not the grace of Faith and such as neuer were regenerated I would aske but this question of our Antâ—…gonists whether all the Galathians or onely the greater part of them fell from grace If all then they were no Church when as Paul did write vnto them for there cannot be a Church but where there are some faithfull ones continuing in the state of grace If all of them did not fall from grace then who were those which did fall away Who were they which did continue did the true regenerate Saints of God fall away and the hypocrites onely continue or did the hypocrites fall away and the true regenerate Saints of God continue If any fell away they were certainly the hypocrites and such as had no truth of grace within them for the true regenerate Saints of God they cannot bee seduced they cannot depart from God and they goe not out from the fold and flocke of Christ. Math. 24. 24. Ier. 32. 40 1 Iohn 2 19. and Reu. 3. 12. If any did continue they were certainly the faithfull Saints of God for hypocrites and wicked men they hold not out but as the chaffe before the winde they are blowne away Psal. 1. 4. and Math. 3. 12. Therefore if that the outward face only of the Church
and disalowes of whom and what he will without controll Sure I am these Articles and the doctrine in them were approued and agreed vpon on all hands at the conference at Hampton Court though Mr. Mountague records the contrary The booke is yâ—…t extant which will auerre all that I say for truth and proue Mr. Mountaguâ—… a lyer and Impostor if not worse so that if Mr. Mountague had not had his face euen crusted and steeled ouer with more theâ—… audatious impudencie hee would not haue thus incouraged his readers See the booke Againe the Articles of Ireland Nomber 33. 38. confirmed by King Iaâ—…es vnder his broad Seale they are the very same with the Articles of Lambeth and contradictory to Mr. Mountagues collection from the 16. Article which proues that the Articles of Lambeth were neuer repealed by publike authoritie and that the 16. Article was neuer expoundâ—… in Mr. Mountagues sense by any publike authoritie for then King Iames would neuer haue confirmed these Articles vnder his broad Seale hee being such a King as did desire vnitie and peace as much or more in Church as in the Common-wealth The words of the Article of Ireland are these A true liuely iustifying faith and the sanctifying Spirit of God is not extinguished nor vanished away in the regenerate either finally or totally And againe All Gods Elect are in their time inseparablie vnited vnto Christ by the effectuall and vitall influence of the holy Ghost derived from him as from the head into euery true member of his mysticall body So that if you will interpret our 16. Article either by the Articles of Lambeth or Ireland Mr. Mountagues exposition must be false and strained But the best expoâ—…ition of the 16. Article will bee taken from the 17. Article which was composed by the same men at the same time and if you will expound it by this Article then farewell Mr. Mountagues false glosse vpon it For our 17. Article certifieth vs That they which be indued wiâ—…h so excellent a benefit as Predestination is are called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit working in due season and that they through grace obey the calling that they are iustified freely that they are made the sonnes of God by adoption that they are made like the Image of his only begotten Sonne Iesus Christ that they walke religiously in good workes and at length by Gods mercy obtaine euerlasting felicitie From which article Mr. Rogers Chaplaine to Archbishop Bancroft in his Analysâ—… on the 39. Articles allowed to be publike by the lawfull authoritie of the Church of England and not hitherto disallowed or called in hath raised this third proposition They which are predestinated vnto saluation cannot perish and from thence he inferres this Consectarie Wander then doe they from the truth which thinke that the very Elect totally and finally may fall from grace and be damned that the regenerate may fall from the grace of God may destroy the Temple of God and be broken off from the vine Christ Iesus which was one of Glouers errors of which exposition allowed by publike and lawfull authority Mr. Mountague cannot bee ignorant because the more is the pitty hee hath subscribed and read them often as himselfe informes vs. And therefore if you will beleeue the 17. Article or Mr. Rogers his Collection from it allowed by the lawfull authority of the Church of England as the doctrine maintained professed and protected in the Church of England Mr. Mountagues collection from the 16. Article must be false and contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of the Church of England and hee himselfe must in the meane time bee a scismaticall factious and seditious person and one that doth oppose the Articles and Doctrine of our Church in an audatious peremptorie impudent and dangerous manner All now that Mr. Mountague can say for himselfe is this That this exposition and Collection of his from the 16. Article and this doctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace was resolued of and auowed for true Catholicke ancient and orthodoxe by that royall reuerend honourable and learned Synode at Hampton Court and for proofe of it he sendeth vs to the Conference at Hampton Court published by warrant and republished by command But sure Mr. Mountague did neuer reade the booke or else he was purblinde when hee read it for there is no such thing within the booke All that is mentioned and recorded there touching the 16. Article is this Dr. Reynolds moued his Maiestie that the 16. Article the meaning of which was sound might be inlarged and explained with this or the like addition yet neither totally nor finally and that the 9. assertions Orthodoxall might bee inserted into the booke of Articles to which his Maiestie replyed that it was best not to stuffe the booke with all conclusions theologicall Vpon this Dr. Ouerall Deane of Pauls informed the King of what had passed betweene him and some other in Cambridge tâ—…ching our present question and concludes that notwithstanding those who were instified and called according to the purpose of Gods election might and did sometimes fall into grienous sinnes and thereby into the present state of wrath and damnation yet did they neuer fall either totally from all the graces of God to bee vtterly destitute of all the parts and seeds thereof nor finally from instification to which King Iames replyed that repentance in the elect of God after knowne sinnes committed is so necessary as without it there could not bee remission of these sinnes nor reconciliation vnto God This was all that was spoken either of this point or of the 16 Article and whether Mr. Mountagues glosse and exposition were not here condemned in expresse tearmes let all men judge But will you now know what was the true cause why Mr. Mountague did so grossely mistake I will informe you in a word and it worth your knowledge Mr. Mountague as he hath beene deceiued by that varlet Bertius in other things euen so he hath beene in this For hee transcribed this argument from our 16. Article out of Bertius in his Apostatia Sauctorum pag. 107. and for his Exposition of it and that it was so resolued on at the conference at Hampton Court he had it Verbatim from the Rhemists in their second Conference at Hage recorded by Brandius pag. 364. Alas good Mr. Mountague that you should be ouertaken thus that you should be driuen to such narrow shifts as to flie to Bertius and the Rhemists the very dregges and seumme of all Arminians for corrupt glosses expositions and collections vpon our Articles as if the Church of England did not vnderstand but quite mistake the genuine true and proper sense of her owne Articles or as if that Bertius and the Rhemists who are strangers to them vnderstood them better then the Church yea then the learnedest of the Church of England who composed them What doth this betoken but that Master Mountague like
workes in as much as there are many godly practicall wholesome and necessary doctrines helping men to honour and worship almighty God which are not the receiued established and confirmed doctrines of our Church Fifthly in these words Mr. Mountague if you marke the end wherefore he speakes them to wit because they are to sharpe and to precise against Images affirmes that the Church of England doth gratifie the Church of Rome in points of Poperie indeauouring tò reconcile herselfe and to submit to her in things in which she hath formerly oppugned her These fiue things are necessarily implied and I feare me principally intended in these words and passage of Mr. Mountague touching our Homilies and their authoritie amongst vs what censure hee is worthy of for such words and passages as these I leaue to others I judge him not From the authoritie of our Homilies and Mr. Mountagues abusing of them I come to examine the words which hee obiected out of them against my present assertion His first obiection is from the title of the Homilie There is an Homilie saith he allowed and established in our Church intituled Of falling he addes away from God Therefore it is the receiued and established doctrine of the Church of England that true regenerate men may both totally and finally fall from grace Was there euer such a ridiculous and simple argument propounded by any learned man that had his wits and sences about him as if the doctrine of the Church of England were meerely titular depending on the very titles of bookes which as they are not alwaies sutable to the doctrine contained in them so are they neuer doctrinall positiue resolutions in themselues therefore Mr. Mountague if you had not a brazen forhead or a crazie braine you could not chuse but blush at this your agument From the title of the homilies I descend vnto the words the which you cite The words out of the first Homilie are these For where as God hath sâ—…ewed to all them that truly beleiue his Gospell his face of mercy in Christ Iesus which doth so inlighten their hearts that they if they behold it as they ought to doe which parenthesis you haue omitted be transformed to his image be partakers of the heauenly light and of his holy Spirit and be fashioned to him in all goodnesse requisite to the children of God so if they after doe neglect the same if they be vnthankefull vnto him if they order not their liues according to his example and Doctrine and to the setting forth of his glory he will take away from them his kingdome his holy word wherby he should reigne in them because they bring not forth the fruite thereof that he toâ—…kes for The words you cite out of the second Homilie are these The place of Esay 〈◊〉 before sheweth that God at length will so forsake his vnfruitfull 〈◊〉 that he will not only suffer it to bring forth wilde bryers thâ—…rnes but also further to punish the vnfruitefullnesse of it Hee saith hee will not cut it he will not delue it and he will command the cloudes that they shall not raine vpon it meaning that hee will take away the teaching of his holy word from them which words Master Mountague hath passed ouer so that they shall be no longer of his kingdome they shall bee no longer gouerned by his holy Spirit they shall be put from the grace and benefits which they had and ouer might haue iniâ—…yed through Christ they shall be depriued of the heauenly life and light which they had in Christ whiles they abode in him And to be shart they shall bee giuen into the power of the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 rule in all them that he cast away from God as he did in Saul and Iudâ—…s and generally in all such as worke after their owne wills the children of mistrust and vnbeleife You say Master Mountagne that these two Homilies but principally the words here cited doe thoroughly and wholly insist vpon the affirmation that faith once had may againe be lost and that no other construction of these words may be made then that a man my fall and hapâ—…e from grace both totally and finally But I pray what faith and what grace doe you intend Mr. Mountague a true liuing and justifying faith and sanctifying sauing and habituall grace or onely an historicall and common faith or ordinary common and hypocriticall grace If you intend these latter for you leaue them indefinite and ambigious that so you may euade the better when you are questioned for abusing our Church and Homilies then I say that your inference and collection is nothing to the purpose and reacheth not vnto thâ—…t faith and grace which is now in question If you intend and meane the former I answere then that these words of the Homilie doe not warrant yours For first they are your owne words That words are not direct which are not expresse Now here there is not so much as one word that faith once had may be lost that a true regenerate man may fall finally and totally from the state of grace your eyes Mr. Mountagne are better then all other mens if you can finde these words or any like vnto them in these Homilies they are but your priuate fancie conceite and therefore this is not the direct positiue and declatorie doctrine of these Homilies but your false and forged collection from them Secondly that I may instruct you a little in the Homilies in which I feare me you are truly or wilfully ignorant you may please to obserue Mr. Mountague that in the second and third part of the Homilie of faith It is said expresly That hee that beleeueth in Christ hath euerlasting life and therefore it must needs consequently follow that he that hath this faith must also haue good workes and be studious to obserue Gods Commandements obediently so that neither the world the diuill 〈◊〉 all the power of them shall preuaile against him That they that haue a liuely faith doe make their calling and election certaine sure and stable by good workes Therefore it is the expresse doctrine of the Homilies that true faith once had cannot be vtterly lost againe these words then which you alledge cannot imply the contrary vnlesse you will haue them to repeale and contradict the former Thirdly Mr. Mountague these two Homilies and the words you cite out of them doe not thoroughly and wholly insist vpon this that faith once had may be lost againe but if it please you to reade them ouer once againe you shall see that their principall and onely end is to exhort men to obey the Gospell and the word of God and to bring forth fruits worthy of them for feare least God depriue them of them What then will you inferre from hence All men are exhorted to obey Gods word for feare of being depriued of it Therefore the true beleiuers and Saints of God may fall totally and finally from grace
a worthy argument I promise you Fourthly these words are spoken indefinitely to all but principally to such as were not yet conuerted and ingrafted into Christ as appeares by the conclusion of the second Homilie and they are but an exhortation to moue men to come in and obey God therefore they proue nothing against vs. Fifthly I say that these words which are cited by you are intended onely of hypocrites and barren Christians and such as haue but a dead faith which as the first Homilie of faith saith is no faith neither is it properly called faith For they are spoken of the vnfruitefull vyneard and of such as are barren in good workes of such as wholly neglect Gods seruice and order not their liues according to his example and doctrine in the number of which such as haue a true justifying and liuing faith doe neuer come as wee may see by the three Homilies of faith So that your argument from hence can bee but this hypocrites and barren Christians may fall finally and totally from grace therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may doe so too which is a grosse Nonsequitur Yea but Mr. Mountague obiects that those in the first Homilie are such as truly beleiue and such as beholding the face of Gods mercy in Iesus Christ are transformed into the same image c. I answere that it is true that they are called true beleeuers not because they haue any true justifying and sauing faith within them but because they are visible members of a true visible Church and haue a true historicall faith beleeuing the Scriptures to bee true they are such as beleiue the Gospell to be true which if they behold it as they ought to doe I pray marke this parenthesis which you haue purposely and cunningly omitted will transforme them into his image and make them partakers of his heauenly light and of his holy Spirit c which parenthesis implies that those true beleiuers so stiled here did not behold the Gospell and the face of Gods mercy in Iesus Christ and so they were not true beleeuers nor yet partakers of the Image of Christ and of the holy Ghost as they might haue beene had they beheld them as they ought So that the genuine sence of the words is onely this All those that are planted in the visible Church of God and haue the powerfull offer of Christ vnto them in the Gospell which is able to regenerate them and to make them partakers of the holy Ghost if they make a good vse of it if they neglect this Gospell and walke vnworthy of it God will surely depriue them of it What is this to true beleeuers to true regenerate men which haue bin transformed into the image of Christ by the Gospell what is this to a totall and finall fall from the true and sauing state of grace Secondly it is euident that these words are not spoken of such as are truly regenerated and made the sonnes of God for it is said of them that if they behold the face of God in Iesus Christ in the Gospell as they ought to doe it will fashion them in all goodnesse requisite to the children of God which words proue that these here meant are such as had not that goodnesse which is requisite to the children of God and therefore they are not the children of God Lastly the conclusion of this Homilie which followes vpon these words proues that those here spoken of are only such as liueing in the Church become notoriously vitious selling themselues ouer vnto sinne and that they were such as neuer were truly regenerated Lastly admit that those here meant were true beleeuers and such as had the grace of true and sauing faith within them yet the Homilie saith not that these do finally or totally fall from grace all it saith of them is this That God will beginne to forsake them and that â—…ee will take his word from them if they doe neglect it this God may doe he may beginne to forsake them and yet not vtterly forsake them hee may take away his word and yet not take away their faith and other sauing and habituall graces from them and therefore racke these words to the vtmost they will not proue that the true regenerate Saints of God do either finally or totally fall from grace As for the words of the second Homilie they are only spoken of hypocrites and wicked men not of the true regenerate Saints of God which appeares First because they are spoken of the barren and fruitlesse vyneard of such Christians onely as beare noe fruites now the true regenerate Saints and such as haue a true and liuing faith are alwaies fruitfull in good workes Ps 1 3. Ps 92 12 13 14. Ier 17 8. Math 3 8 cap 7 17 18 2 Cor 8 7. Ephes 3 18 19. Iohn 15 3 5. Phil 〈◊〉 17. Iames 2 14 18 22 26. this the three Homilies of faith doe likewise teach and those that are barren and vnfruitfull vnder the meanes of grace they are such as haue no true and sauing grace no liuing faith at all as the Scriptures and the Homilies forecited doe declare therefore those in the second Homilie are no true regenerate Saints of God Secondly they are compared vnto Saul aud Iudas aud to all the children of mistrust aud vnbeliefe now Saul and Iudas as I shall proue hereafter and the children of mistrust and vnbeleife were neuer truly sanctified and regenerated therefore neither were these in the Homilie Lastly the whole Homilie proues it which is purposely intended to wicked men planted in the visible Church and to such as were not yet come into â—…st nor regenerated by the Gospell and to no others â—…re is no mention of true regenerate men in the Homilie the substance of the Homilie and the whole summe of it is but this Brethren if you will not now obey the Gospell which is preached vnto you and come into Christ and bring forth fruites worthy of it you shall bee depriued of it and bee cast out of the Church Christ and his spirit shall neuer rule and raigne within you what makes all this to our present purpose surâ—…ly nothing at all Yea but saith Mr. Mountague these were truly justified for they wâ—…re in Christ and continued in him for a time I answere that they were so in outward shew to the eyes of men they were visible members of the visible Church and men could not discouer so farre as to see their hearts therefore in the judgement of men they were in Christ for a time but yet they were neuer truly ingrafted into Christ they had neuer any true life in him they were but like the Church of Sardis Reu 3 1. they had a name they liued and yet were dead they were alwayes dead and barren trees that neuer brought forth liuing and wholesome fruites they were but as Saul and Iudas who were neuer truly sanctified and regenerated as I shall
Declaration against Vorstius Mr. Mountague cannot shew mee in any of our owne Writers or in any other Protestant and Orthodoxe Writer that this was euer the receiued Doctrine of the Church of England only Bertius and the Rhemists in their Conference at the Hage Recorded by Brandius pag. 364. are the men that auerred this to be the Doctrine of our English Church and from them Mr. Mountague among other things transcribed it so that if you beleeue this to bee the doctrine of the Church of England you belieue not Mr. Mountague himselfe but only the Rhemists and Bertius from whom he doth transcribe it The second thing which I will propound vnto you is this that Mr. Mountague doth thrice record it in his Gagge cap. 20. that this our present Controuersie is vndecided and vndetermined in our Church and that the Church of England leaueth it at libertie vnto vs though in his Appeale he auoucheth the Totall and finall Apostacy of the Saints to be the publike receiued and established doctrine of our Church deliuered in authenticall plaine and Orthodoxe records in such a manner that no man can bee ignorant of it Behold here you haue Mr. Mountague against himselfe you haue one of his bookes against another which of them is it that you will beleeue If you beleeue him in his Appeale then you must make him as hee hath made himselfe a notable dissembler and Impostor in recording that to be vndecided and vndetermined by our Church which hee himselfe conâ—…th to be resolued established and determined by the common 〈◊〉 and orthodoxe records of our Church and that in such a palpable manner that no man can bee ignorant of it Or else you must make the Church of England to haue resolued this our Controuersie since the Gagge was written which cannot bee For our Articles our Homilies and our Common prayer Booke were composed long before the Gagge or Mr. Mountague himselfe were hatched and I am sure they are the same as they were before the Gagge was penned The Church of England though Mr. Mountague like a Lordly Pope hath done it hath neither altered the words or sense of any of them wherefore if this our Controuersie were not recorded in them or decided by them before it is not determined or resolued by them now as Mr. Mountague records it But how comes it to passe that so great a Scholler as Master Mountague should so much contradict himselfe It is a saying of Eâ—…ripedes in his Hyppolitus Coronatus that all men haue two tongues the one true the other what you will Mr. Mountague hath the latter of these two tongues but the first he wants or at least hee wants the vse of it and this makes him for contradict himselfe It is storied by Diodorus Siculus of certaine Ilanders who had such a double clouen and deuided tongue partly from nature partly from subtilitie and craft that they could counterfeite and resemble any voyce and that which was most admirable they could speake to two men of different things at once the one part of their tongue speaking distinctly of one thing the other part of their tongue speaking distinctly of another I know not whether Mr. Mountague bee of these mens race or no I am sure hee hath their qualities and conditions if not from nature yet at least from subtilty and craft for you see hee can speake two contrary things to two seuerall men at once And indeed if you will know the mysterie of it the difference of the men against whom hee writes doth cause this difference in his words His Gagge you know was written against a Papist and therefore to gratifie him in deeds though hee curries him with inuectiue and vnciuill words this Controuersie must be vndeeided by the Church of England only the learnedest in the Church of England consent with Rome in this which is as much to say that the Church of England is so farre from varying from the Church of Rome in this particular point which shee hath defended against her heretofore that now shee hath almost yeelded if not consented to her if there be any difference betweene them it is only a few Dunces among vs who are not to be reckoned of that make the difference but all the learnedest which are in substance the whole Church of England consent to Rome in this and so wee both agree Now his Appeale is purposely written against Protestants whom hee bedawbes with the reproachfull names of Puritans and Novellers the better to conceale his dangerous projects and to countenance his Arminian and Popish doctrines as if no Protestants but only Nouellers and Puritans did euer contradict them and therefore here that hee might secretly gratifie both Papists Arminians he will make the Church of England the Patroâ—…esse of their doctrines and to giue her content withall and so to please both sides at once hee beares her in hand that all hee doth is but to vindicate her positiue and receiued doctrines from the deprauation and corruption of Puritans and Nouellers who are alwayes thrusting out their owne priuate fancies and conceites as the publike and resolued doctrine of the Church of England and not to countenance either Poperie or Arminianisme which hee abhorres in words as much as any man though hee doth reuerence and adore them in his heart This is the whole scope and Mysterie of Mr. Mountagues juggling he labours to please the Church of England in words that so hee may couertly bring in Arminianisme and Popery into her in deeds and this is the cause why hee doth so contradict and varie from himselfe in this and other particulars that so this false and trecherous practice of his might be the better concealed This therefore being Mr. Mountagues ayme his words being so contradictory and repugnant to themselues either beleeue him not at all or beleeue him in both and so in neither else if you beleeue him in the one and not in the other whiles you take him for a true man in the one you condemne him for a lyer in the other Thirdly consider that for any thing that yet appeares Mr. Mountague is not thorowly resolued in this point himselfe For as farre as I can yet collect from any of his writings hee is a Neuter at least a man vnsettled in it ready to change his tune and to recant his words vpon all occasions For hee certifieth vs in his Appeale pag. 37. In my answer to the Gagger I suspended mine owne iudgement and lay off aloofe in a kinde of neutrality Neither doe I now say more then I am vrged to doe by the expresse words of our Articles c. So that as yet Mr. Mountague hath not declared himselfe so fully in this point as to giue you his owne resolution in it But admit he hath declared himselfe yet hee informeth vs in the same Appeale pag. 107. That if any Puritan or Papist make it plaine that any thing by mee disclaimed for being the publike
Rom. 14. 13. verse 20. is no more in substance and sense but this That stronger Christians must so much respect the weaker as that they must not giue them any just occasion of scandall or offence to wound and vexe their consciences to breed any sâ—…rupels or doubts in them to weaken their loue to God to discourage them in the practise of religion or to prouoke them vnto any sinne and not that scandals can make weake Christians in whom there is any truth of grace begun to Apostatize or to renounce the faith or to fall finally or totally from grace for this these scandals cannot do they cannot cause any of the true sheepe of Christ any that truly feare the Lord or belong vnto the â—…old of Christ to fall from grace or to depart from God and perish Iohn 10. 28. Ier. 32. 40. and 1 Iohn 2. 19. To answer this obiection in a word I answer that there is a double perishing the one in respect of such as giue the scandall and offence the other in respect of such as doe receiue it A weake brother may vtterly perish in respect of those that giue the scandall and offence that is they may doe as much as in them lies to cause him for to perish and to renounce the faith and therefore God will take it as ill at their hands as if hee had actually perished for it is onely Gods mercie which supports him and not their scandall that offends him that keepes him from Apostacie therefore God is as much offended with them as if they had perished in good earnest But yet such a brother doth neuer actually perish in respect of himselfe he doth neuer actually Apostatize and fall from grace This place proues on ely that hee may perish in respect of him that giues the offence but yet not actually in respect of himselfe and therefore it makes not against me The fifteenth obiection is that of the 1 Tim. 5. 11 12. The yonger widowes refuse for when they haue begun to waxe wanton they will marry hauing damnation because they haue cast off their first faith From whence this argument may be framed Regenerate men may cast off their first faith and so bee damned for it therfore they may fall away from the state of grace To this I answer first that the Antecedent is false and is not warranted by this text For Paul speakes not here of true regenerate men and of such as were really ingrafted into Christ but of young petulant and wanton widowes whose light and vnchast behauiour doth euidently proue that they had no grace or faith at all within them So that your argument hence can be no more but this Young petulant and wanton widowes may fall from grace therefore such as are once truly regenerated may doe so to which is no good consequent Secondly I answer that faith in this place doth not signifie the grace of true justifying and sauing faith but that vow of chastitie and perpetuall widdowhood which widdowes vsed for to make in former times when as they had their vse and place in thâ—… Church of God as appeares by the very sense and scope of the place Againe damnation in his place signifies only blame or reproofe or an Ecclesiasticall censure or punishment as excommunication or the like which was vsed to be inflicted vpon delinquents in this kinde and not eternall condemnation of soule and body in hell or the state of damnation So that the true and proper sense of the place is no more but this Widdowes that breake the vow of chastity either by marrying againe or by incontinency are to bee blamed and censured by the Church for breach of this their vow because they are an occasion of scandall and reproach vnto the Church What maket this to a totall or finall fall from grace Surely nothing at all and therefore I passe it ouer without any further answer The sixteenth objection is this A man man receiue the grace of God in vaine and beleeue in vaine as appeares by the 2 Cor. 6. 1. and 1 Cor. 15. 2. Therefore hee may fall from the state of grace I answer first that if you take the grace of God for the habituall graces of Gods Spirit and beleife for true and sauing faith then the Antecedent is false and is not warranted by these places of Scripture which are quoted but if you take grace for the word of grace and the offer of Christ to men in the Gospell and beliefe for an historicall and common faith as they are taken here by the Apostle then the argument is false and followes not Now that this place of Paul is meant onely of the word of grace and of the offer of grace to men in the Gospell and not of the habituall graces of Gods Spirit it appeares by the coherence and dependancie of the 2 Cor. 6. 1. vpon the 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God hath committed vnto vs the word of reconciliation Now then wee are ambassadors for Christ as though God did bee seech you by vs wee pray you in Christs steed bee yee reconciled to God wee then as workers together with him befeech you also that yee receiue not the grace of God in vaine which proues that this is onely meant of the offer of grace and Christ to men and not of the habit and seed of grace it selfe So that your argument from hence can bee no more but this Men may heare the word of God in vaine therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may fall from the state of grace a strange in consequent For that of the 1 Cor. 15. 2. vnlesse yee haue beleeued in vaine it is not meant of a true liuing sauing and justifying faith but of an historicoll fruitlesse dead and in-effectuall faith or beliefe which did neuer truly regenerate transforme the heart and soule of those who did injoy it This doth fully appeareby the opposition Antithesis in the samâ—… verse By which yee are saued vnlesse yee haue beleeued in vaine so that sauing faith is here put in opposition to this vaine beliefe which proues that this vaine beliefe was no true and ustifying faith So that your argument from hence must be this Men may loose a vaine and ineffectuall faith therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may fall from the seeds and habit of true justifying faith Secondly I answer that these two places proue nothing for your conclusion admitting that they were meant of true habituall grace and faith for the one of them is but a meere exhortation the other a bare exception and condition neither of them is absolute and positiue So that your argument from them can bee but this The Saints of God are exhorted not to receiue the grace of God in vaine and they shall bee saued vnlesse they beleeue in vaine therefore they may fall away from grace which is but an idle consequence and rather deserues to be derided then answered So that this objection doth