The perpetuitie of a regenerate mans estate VVherein it is manifestly proued by sundry arguments, reasons and authorities. That such as are once truly regenerated and ingrafted into Christ by a liuely faith, can neither finally nor totally fall from grace. It is also proued, that this hath beene the receiued and resolued doctrine, of all the ancient fathers, of all the Protestant churches and writers beyond the seas, and of the Church of England. All the principall arguments that are, or may be obiected against it, either from Scripture, or from reason, are here likewise cleared and answered. By William Prynne Gent: Lincolniensis.

The Church of England.

Thirdly, as this hath beene the Doctrine of the ancient [ 1] Fathers, and of the Protestant Churches beyond the seas, so it is the receiued, positiue and resolued Doctrine of the Church of England, and of the learnedst & most iudicious Di∣uines which the Church of England euer bred. Indeed Mr. Mountague, who contradicts himselfe in most things, con∣tradicts both himselfe & me in this particular. For first, he af∣firmes, That the learnedst in the Church of England do affirme, that faith once had may totally & finally be lost, or that men once truly regenerated and ingrafted into Christ, may both totally and finally fall from grace. Secondly, hee affirmeth, that this is the publicke doctrine which is publickely professed and established in the Church of England: not deliuered according to ordinary tracts and lectures: but deliuered publickely, positiuely, and declatorilie in authenticall records, insomuch that none can be ignorant of it. And for proofe of this hee cites the 16 Article: the Conference at Hampton Court, the booke of Homilies: and the booke of Common prayers; in which this doctrine is publickely, positiuely and decla∣ratorily deliuered. Now that I may answer Mr. Mountague, & cleare all that which hee objects, I will first of all proue, that this assertion which I here maintaine, is the receiued, posi∣tiue, and resolued doctrine and position, of all the learnedst and most iudicious Diuines of England. Secondly, I will proue that it is the Doctrine of the Articles of the Church of England, and that the 16. Article makes nothing at all a∣gainst it, but rather for it. Thirdly, that the bookes of Homi∣lies, and of Common prayers, make nothing at all against it. And lastly, I will proue, that it is the publike receiued, establish and resolued doctrine of the Church of England.

For the first of these, that this my present assertion, (to wit) That such as are one truly regenerated and ingrafted into Christ by a liuely faith, can neuer finally nor totally fall from grace,) hath beene the receiued, positiue, and resolued doctrine of all the learnedst, and most judicious Diuines in England, I shall make it good by this argument. If most of the learnedst and judicious Diuines of the Church of England, haue from time to time, not onely in the Schooles and Pulpet, but like∣wise in their learned labours set forth by publike allowance and authority, maintained, propagated, and defended this my present assertion, and there be no Orthodox English Di∣uine that did euer publikely in the Schooles, or in any writ∣ings of his set forth by publike approbation, maintaine the contrary, then it is certaine that this my assertion is the re∣ceiued, positiue and resolued doctrine of all the learnedest and most judicious Diuines in the Church of England. But most of the learnedest and judicious. Diuines of the Church of England, haue from time to time, not only in the Schooles and Pulpit, but likewise in their learned labours set forth by publike authority, maintained, propagated, and defended this my present assertion, and there is not one Orthodox En∣glish Diuine, that did either publikely in the Schooles or in any writings set forth by publike approbation, maintaine the contrary. Therefore this my present assertion, is the re∣ceiued, positiue, and the resolued Doctrine of all the lear∣nedest and most judicious Diuines of the Church of England. For the Major it cannot be denied; the Minor I shall proue by many particular authors. I will not stand to mention those many learned Diuines throughout the Kingdome, who in their seuerall Sermons and Lectures haue maintained and defended this my present assertion; euery man knowes that this assertion is publikely preached throughout the Kingdome for orthodox & •…•…urrent truth, neither was there any one that euer did positiuely deliuer the contrary in any Sermon that euer I heard of with publike approbation, till Master Mountagues Appeale was published. Some three or foure did preach it (as I haue heard) before, but they were

presently conuented for it, and injoyned to recant. How this my assertion hath from time to time beene maintained and defended in the publike Schooles, I neede not for to menti∣on it. Sure I am that the Schooles of the Vniuersity of Ox∣ford haue alwaies defended it, and so haue the Schooles of Cambridge to: and I neuer heard that the contrary was pub∣likely defended and maintained in them. That which I in∣tend mainely to insist vpon, is the learned labours and writ∣ings of the chiefest worthies, and learne dest of our Church in which my present assettion is recorded and defended. Not to make mention of venerable Bede, or of Anselme and Brad∣wardyu, both Arch-bishops of Canterbury, who haue decla∣red their opinions vpon record, in defence and maintenance of this my assertion, I will onely mention such writers of our English Church, as haue beene famous and eminent since the reformation. I will begin with that godly and learned Mar∣tyr William Tindall, who liued in the beginning of the refor∣mation. Who in his Treatises, what the Church is, and whether it may erre: how a member of Christs true Church sinneth and er∣reth, and yet sinneth and erreth not, and how hee is yet a sinner and may erre: and of the manner and order of our election: which you shall finde in his workes: pag: 257: to 261. hath recorded it, That the true regenerate Saints of God can neuer sinne so farre as quite to loose that habit and seede of grace which is within them, nor yet to fall quite from God. These Treatises of his are onely to this effect, that the true regenerate Saints of God can neuer finally nor totally fall from grace. Master Latimer, Tyndalls contemporanie, a man of worth and note in the times where in he liued, in his Sermon on the Gospell the third Sonday in Ad∣uent: which is in his Sermons: pag: 258. hath likewise regi∣stred it. That there was neuer none that belieued in Christ which was lost, but all beleiuers were saued: therefore (saith hee) it is not to be doubted but that if wee will beleiue, wee shall be saued too. Master Greenham, that worthy and experimentall Saint of of God in the 2 part of his workes: cap: 32: sect: 5, 6. in his rea∣dings on Psal: 119. ver: 116. and in other places of his works hath deliuered this our present assertion as a sound ortho∣dox

and experimentall truth. So hath Master Deering in his 27. Lecture on the Hebrewes. But if these men seeme vile and little in your eyes, behold some greater men then these are here, to giue testimonie to vs and our assertion, and that vp∣on record. Mathew late Arch-B. of Yorke in his Commentary of Election Praedestination & reprobation. Edwin Arch-B. of Yorke in his Sermon vpon Luke 1: v: 74, 75. sect: 14. Dr. Babington Bb. of Worcester on the 12: Artic: of the Creede: life euerlasting. In his exposition on the Lords prayer, the sourth vse from the word Father, and on the sixth petition. Lead vs not into temptatien, but deliuer vs from euill. Learned Doctor Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury, and regious professor of Diuinitie in the V∣niuersitie of Oxford, in his Lecture De perseuerantia sanctorum, read publikely in the Diuinitie schooles at Oxford in the Act time, Iulie: 10. 1613. In his Animaduersions vpon Thompsons Diatri∣ba: and in his answere to Bishop: part: 1. cap: 12. & part 2. cap: 3. Ready and learned Doctor Fulke in his answere to the Rhe∣mist Testament on Rom: 8. 16. 39. Incomparable Hooker in his discourse of Iustification, and in his Sermon of the certaintie & perpetuitie of faith in the elect. Profound Doctor Field in his first booke de Ecclesia: cap: 3: 17: & in his pathway to the Church Digress: 42. Profound, iudicious and famous Doctor Reinolds, once regious Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Oxford, a man of incomparable learning, and of as godly, humble, and religious a conuersation (whom yet Master Mountague, (how justly let all men judge) stiles; a Puritan: one of the Tribe: a petitioner against the doctrine & discipline of the Church of England: and a man onely excellent for his reading) in his 6: Theses. Thes: 4. sect: 23, 24. in his Apollog: Thesium. sect: 17, 20. and Conference at Hampton Court: pag: 24. Lear∣ned Doctor Whitakers regious Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge (whom Master Mountague sticks not for to stile, an earnest promoter of nouell opinions) in his Res∣pons: ad 8: Rationes Campiani. De paradoxis: lib: 8. and in other of his workes. Learned Doctor Ouer all Deane of Pauls, and afterwards Bishop of Norwich, (whose memory by Mr. Moun∣tagues owne confession shall euer be pretious with all good and

learned men.) Conference at Hampton Court: pag: 41, 42, 43. Profound, orthodox, and solid Mr. Perkins, in his booke of Praedestination and Grace; in his Commentary on Iude 1: 24. and other of his workes. Learned Mr. Nowell Deane of Pauls in his Catechisme. Reuerend Mr. Phillipps in his Sermons on Rom: 8. ver: 15, 16. Godly Mr. Hireon in his Sermons. pag: 102: 119, 205, 365. Mr. Rogers Chaplaine to Arch-bishop Ban∣croft in his Analysis vpon the 17: Article, Proposition third. La∣borious and learned Doctor Willet in his Synopsis: pag: 63, 64. 548, 546. 923, 924, 925. in his Commentarie on Rom: 5: Con∣tr: 3: on cap: 6. Contr: 7: on cap: 8. Contr: 19, 21. on cap: 9. Contr: 16: & on cap: 11: Contr: 19, 21. Mr. Wilcocks on Psal: 125: 1, 2, and on Rom: 8. Godly painfull and learned Mr. Byfield in his discourse of the promises: cap: 13. Mr. Elton in sundry places of his Sermons on Rom: 8. Learned and laborious Mr. Fox in his Martyriolege, Printed at London, 1610: pag: 1506. and in diuers other places. Mr. Iohn Downham in his Snmme of Diuinity: lib: 2. cap: 7. Mr. Culuerwell in his Treatise of faith: the 6: generall head: pag: 489: to 506: to whom I may adde, Learned King IAMES of blessed memorie, in his Declarati∣on against Vorstius: all these I say, who were vndoubtedly the learnedest in the Church of England in their times, & haue hitherto bin reputed so without controll: haue with one vnanimous and joynt consent in these their seuerall writ∣ings and records (in which they doe and shall for euer liue) defended and maintained the Totall and finall perseuerance of the Saints, as the Orthodox, positiue and undoubted truth and as the receiued and resolued doctrine of the Church of England, opposing, confuting, reiecting and condemning the contrary assertion as haereticall, wicked, blasphemous, and athiesticall, and as quite repugnant and crosse to the recei∣ued and established doctrine of our Church. But now it may be obiected, that it is true, that the learnedest in the Church of England haue heretosore maintained & desended this our present assertion as sound and orthodox, and as the receiued doctrine of our Church: but doe the learned•…•…st in the Church of England, maintaine and defend it now in any

of their workes and writings? I answere, yes Doctor Bene∣felde Lady Margarets Lecturer in the Vniuersitie of Oxford, as learned and profound a Scholler as any in the Church of England, in his two bookes de Perseuerantia sanctorum, being nothing else but two publike Lectures which he read in the Diuinitie Schooles at Oxford. Doctor Prideaux now regious Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Oxford, a man as famous for his learning as any in our Church, in his Lecture. de Perseuerantia sanctorum, and in his Sermon intituled Ephe∣sus backsliding. Doctor Ames a famous and renowned Schol∣ler, now a Professor of Diuinitie in the Netherlands, in his Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem: Article 5. Doctor Francis White (whom some report to be dyed blacke of late) one of the greatest Gamaliels in our Church, in his reply to Fisher: pag: 52, 53, 54, 81, 84, 87, 102, 167, 168, 200. Doctor Carlton the reuerend Bishop of Chichester. Doctor Dauenat, Bishop of Salisbury. Doctor Samuell Ward. Doctor Thomas Goade, and Doctor Balcanquall, in the fifth Article of the Synod of Dort, at which they were present, and to which they haue subscri∣bed their names; and in the Examination of Mr. Mountagues Appeale composed by Bishop Carlton, to which they haue also annexed a Protestation touching the Synod of Dort, & so touching our particular point, which is resolued in the one, and defended in the other. Mr. Wotton in his defence of Mr. Perkins, in the point of the certaintie of saluation. Mr. Bolton in his Discourse of true happinesse, to passe by Mr. Ronse, Mr. Burton, Mr. Yates, and others who haue answered Mr. Mountague, and haue written particularly of this our present controuersie; all these I say, who are the learnedest, at least as learned, as any in our Church, haue defended and main∣tained this our present assertion as sound and orthodox, and as the doctrine of the Church of England, in these their se∣uerall records: neither is there any English Diuine but Mr. Mountague, that did euer publish and record the contrary. This cloude of witnesses which I haue here recorded, toge∣ther with many o•…•…hers which I might haue mentioned, is sufficient for to proue, that the learnedest in the Church of

England, not onely heretofore, but likewise at this present time, concurre and iumpe with vs in this our assertion, that true grace once had can neuer be totally nor finally lost againe. Mr. Mountague himselfe though hee records the contrary, is so ingenious as to con•…•…esse, that many in the Church of England, re∣puted learned, haue concurred in opinion with vs, but yet withall hee auerreth, that those who hold the contrary, are their superi∣ours both in learning & authoritie: so that in his opinion no learned men indeede, no man of place or note in this our Church, but onely some meane obscure men, who are repu∣ted learned, but are in truth illitterate, were euer of his opi∣nion, that true faith once had could not be totally nor finally lost a∣gaine. But whether those men whom I haue formerly menti∣oned were obscure men or no, or whether they were illitte∣rate dunces, & men only reputed learned, or whether they are not more eminent in place, learning, dignity, and piety, then Mr. Mountague or any of his Abettors let all men judge. Ha∣uing now sufficiently proued by many testimo•…•…ies, that the learnedest in the Church of England haue assented to vs, and that they haue maintained this our assertion as the resolued doctrine of the Church of England. I will now in the second place examine, whether there are any learned in the Church of England who either did or do oppose it, as Mr. Mountague hath auerred it. For my owne part I must confesse ingenu∣ously, that I neuer heard or read of any English orthodox & Protestant Diuine that did euer oppose or contradict our present assertion, in any worke or writing of his set forth by publike authoritie. Indeed Mr. Bradwell in his detection. pag. 89. and Mr. Rogers iu his third proposition on the 17. Article re∣cords the doctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace, to bee one of Glouers errors: but whether Glouer were one of the learnedest in the Church of England of which Mr. Mounta∣gue speakes, or whether he hath left this error of his vpō any authenticall and approued records, that I know not; sure I am that this doctrine of his which Mr. Mountagne would fa∣ther vpon the learnedest of our Church, is but a branded er∣ror, and that vpon record. I must confesse that Iohn Breyerly

a Priest, in his reformed Protestant, Printed at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in La•…•…ca∣shire, 1621: pag: 79. hath recorded this, to be the Tenet of Mr. Harsnet, now Bishop of Norwich, and he quotes his sermon at Paules Crosse in the margent, for to proue it, where in this er∣ror of the totall and finall Apostacie of the Saints, together with some other Arminian points were deliuered by him. If the Bishop of Norwich then be one of Mr. Mountagues learnedest number who oppose this our present assertion. I answer, first, that Mr. Harsnet was long since conuented for his Ser∣mon, and forced to recant it as haeriticall and erronious; and therefore since hee hath recanted it as an error heretofore, I doubt not but he doth disclaime it as an error now. Second∣ly, I answer, that vpon this Sermon, & the controuersies that arose vpon it, the Articles of Lambeth which do resolue this for vs, that the true regenerate Saints of God can neither finally nor totally fall from grace were composed, and by the appointment of the whole Vniuersitie of Cambridge Mr. Wotton was ap∣pointed to confute Mr. Harsnets Sermon as haereticall, the next Sunday following; and therefore, by the voyce of the whole Vniuersitie of Cambridge, and by the resolution of the reuerend Bishops and learned Diuines assembled at Lam∣beth (who were farre more learned then Mr. Harsnet,) this totall and finall Apostacy of the Saints was branded for an error, and so not the receiued Tenet of the learnedest in the Church of England. Thirdly, I answere, that this Sermon of Mr. Harsnets was neuer published and Printed by authoritie, it was so farre from this, that it was inioyn•…•…d to be recanted by authoritie, and therefore howsoeuer, it can bee no re∣cord against me. Neuer was there any among vs before Mr. Mountague that published this error of the Apostacie of the Saints in print, but onely Thompson a Dutch-man, fellow of Clare-Hall in Cambridge, a man of an excellent memory, and of great learning, but of little grace, and of a deboist, loose, li∣centious and voluptious life: he being the first who infected Cambridge with Arminianisme, hath published this error of the Apostacie of the Saints in that posthumous Diatraba of his. But was this booke of his printed in England, and allow∣ed

and receiued of our Church as sound and orthodox? no such matter. For when as Thompson himselfe made meanes to publish it, it was stopped at the presse, and it sound no li∣cense or approbation, because it was contrary to the doct∣rine of the Church of England. After his death (because it could finde no license here,) it was transported vnto Lyons by some friends of his, & there was it printed. But no sooner was it come from the presse, and scattred abrode in England, but as it found resistance at the presse at first, so it found a Reuerend and learned Antagonist (euen Abbot Bishop of Salisbury) to incounter it, least our Church should bee dis∣quieted and infected by it. Since therefore this Thompson was no English, but a Dutch-man & a drunken one to: since this his booke was vtterly disalowed of, as contrary to the doct∣rine of our Church, and was printed but by stealth beyond the seas, and not by any publike license and allowance here: and seeing it was no sooner printed, but it was presently re∣felled by a learned Bishop of our Church as haereticall and quite opposite to the established and receiued doctrine of our Church, it makes much for me, not against me: fo that as yet there are no records against me, but all of them are whol∣ly for mee. Let Mr. Mountague now with all his reading (if hee can stoope so lowe, as to cast his eyes vpon the moderne writers of our Church, whose very names he cannot menti∣on without disdaine and scorne) shew mee but one learned Diuine, nay any meane & vnlearned Diuine in the Church of England since the reformation, that did euer openly, and in expresse tearmes oppose, the totall and finall perseuerance of the Saints in grace, in any worke of his set forth by publike allowance and authoritie, and then perchance I shall in part beleiue him, that some of the learned of the Church of Eng∣land haue opposed it, till then I shall account him, but a meerelyer and impostor, as he is. For how is it possible, that all the learnedest in the Church of England should af∣firme, that faith once had might be both totally and finally lost, and that they should oppose and refell the contrary, when as there is not one member of the Church of England to bee

found, from the first reformation of it hitherto, that doth in any publike or approued worke of his record the same. If there bee any records of any learned in our Church to bee found which may make good Mr. Mountagues words, let him doe vs that fauour as to giue vs a Catalogue of their workes and names; but if his learnedest in the Church of England be but a meere notion, abstracted from no Indiuidualls, if they are namelesse and workelesse, then surely Mr. Mountague is much mistaken, and hee must for shame recant this forgery and vntruth of his. Indeed Mr. Mountague hath vouched one by name, and but one, to patronize and make good his words, to wit, Doctor Ouerall Deane of Pauls. But was Doct∣or Ouerall the learnedest in the Church of England? if hee were so, yet he is but one, and what is one to all those wor∣thies and learned Diuines which I haue cited to the contra∣ry? If Doctor Ouerall were of this opinion, where then is this opinion of his recorded? Surely in no printed workes of his set forth by publike authoritie, but only in the Confer∣ence at Hampton Court: pag: 41, 42, 43. And what are his words? they are onely these. Those who are called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election, how euer they might & did fall some∣times into greiuous sinnes, and thereby into the present state of wrath and damnation: yet did they neuer fall totally, from all the graces of God, to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seedes thereof, nor finally from iustification: but were in time renewed by Gods Spirit vnto a liuely faith and repentance, and so iustified from these sins, and from the wrath, curse, and guilt annexed thereunto. Is this the learned man the which you vouch as making for you, who in expresse tearmes concludes againg you? Indeed if this bee your meaning, that those are the learnedest in our Church, who haue maintained this our assertion point∣blanke against you, I willingly acknowledge it; but yet that Doctor Ouerall or any others who are ex diametro against a to∣tall and finall fall from grace should be so punctually for you, I confesse this is a mysterie and ridd•…•…e vnto me: I cannot vn∣derstand it, vnles your ipse dixi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gospell, and their o∣pinions must bee soe, not because they are so, but because

you say it. But it may bee now of late some of the learnedst in the Church of England haue made a defection from their Mother Church, and haue shaken handes and sided with Pa∣pists and Arminians, and this makes Maister Mountague to auerre that the learnedst in the Church of England do assent vnto Antiquity, and to Arminius and the Church of Rome in this; That faith once had may be both finally and totally lost. If this bee so (as I doe not beleeue it) I would to God Mr. Mounta∣gue would disclose their names vnto vs, that so we might in∣deauour to conuert them, or else learne for to auoide them: or at least that wee might iudge of them whether they are the learnedst in the Church of England, yea or noe. Sure I am, whoeuer or whateuer they are, they are neither the greatest, nor yet the learnedest, nor yet the best and honestest in the Church of England: if there bee any such, make the best and vtmost of them that you can, they are but a compa∣ny of carnall, gracelesse, prophane, and dissolute persons, there is no truth nor power of grace in any of them. For our two Arch-bishops, and the learned Arch-bishop of Meth (to whom Mr. Mountague and all his Abettors are much infe∣riour) they are all for vs. For other of our Bishops, and diuers others of our learned Clargie throughout the Kingdome, I know that they haue declared themselues wholly for vs, and for my owne part I know not any man of any learning, worth, or note, (at least of any grace and goodnesse) in our Church, who hath fully declared himselfe against vs in any written or printed records; if there are any against vs (as I professe I know not any particular man) sure I am that they are neither the best, nor greatest, nor yet the learnedest in our Church: and therefore vnlesse that Mr. Mountague will arrogate and monopolize this title, of the learnedest in the Church of England vnto himselfe alone (which hee is very like to doe, because he doth debase the chiefest worthies of our Church, with such vile, scandalous, reproachfull and vnderualuing termes, and checke, correct, reiect, and vse them at his pleasure) though alas good man hee is not wor∣thy for to be their scholler) hee must pardon vs though we

beleeue him not in this, That the learnedest in the Church of England haue alwayes held, that faith once had may bee both to∣tally and finally lost: for you see that I haue proued it to be a meere forgery and vntruth, that was neuer published and recorded by any member of the Church of England but himselfe.

But now Mr. Mountagne tells vs, that they were the lear∣nedest [ 2] in the Church of England that drew, composed, and agreed the Articles in 52. and 62. that ratified them in 71. that confir∣med them againe in 640. Well, what if this be granted, though perchance there might be some question of it? All these (saith hee) haue, and doe assent vnto Antiquity in this Tenent, and subscribe it truly, or in hypocrisie. Well, I grant it: for all Antiquity, as I haue formerly proued, hath concurred with me in this assertion: Yea, but Mr. Mountague saith other∣wise, and therefore I must take his meaning, not his words: to wit that the learnedest in the Church of England, haue agreed, ratified, and confirmed it, that Faith once had may be both totally and finally lost. But how doth this appeare? O saith hee, obsegnatis tabulis, by the expresse words of the 16. Article; so that now the second and the maine thing which I haue to proue is only this; That the Articles of the Church of England, (but specially the 16. Article,) doe not proue Mr. Mountagues assertion of a totall and finall fall from grac•…•….

This will euidently appeare; first, by the very title of the 16. Article, which is only this: of sinne after Baptisme. The Title doubtlesse of euery Article compriseth the very pith, scope, and substance of the Article, as well as the title of our Homilies doth of the Homilies, (else they were very injudi∣cious, and not the learnedest in the Church of England, who imposed it, and you an injudicious and shallow-pated schol∣ler to draw arguments from titles, as you haue done from the Title of an Homily) if therefore this title, and the 16. Article suite together, the 16. Article must needs bee only intended of sinne after Baptisme, and not of a totall or fi∣nall fall from grace. Secondy, as the title of the Article, so the very words, the very scope and end of the Article proue

as much. For the very scope and end of the 16. Article, (as any man that hath his eyes in his head may discerne at first) was but to condemne two sorts of Heretickes. First, such as hold, that after men are once regenerated, they cannot sin, as the Nouatians, Iouinians, and Catharists did, and as some Brownists doe: hauing reference to the 15. Article going im∣mediatly before: which concludes, that all men besides Christ, though regenerate were sinners: Now this appeares by the con∣clusion of the 16. Article: therefore they are to bee condemned, which say they can no more sinne as long as they liue here. Se∣condly, to condemne such as denie place of forgiuenesse and reconciliation to such, as commit any grosse and scandalous sinne after Baptisme, though they are truly penitent for the same, as the Montanists and Nouatians did in the primatiue Church, and as some Anabaptists and Brownists doe now: which appeares by the conclusion of the Article from the former praemises: Therefore they are to be condemned which say, they can no more sinne as long as they liue here, or deny place of forgiuenesse to such as truly repent. This then being the only substance, end & scope of our 16. Article, to condemne these two sorts of heretickes, there is nothing as yet to bee found in it, which makes either for a totall or a finall fall from grace. If then there be any thing in this Article making for it, then it must needs be, these bare words of the Article ab∣stracted, and wrested from their genuine and proper scope and sense, After we haue receiued the holy Ghost, wee may de∣part from grace giuen, and fall into sinne, and by the grace of God wee may rise againe, and amend our liues. But these words torment and racke them to the vtmost, they warrant not this Doctrine of a totall or finall fall from grace, at least they warrant it not in that declaratory and positiue manner, and in plaine and expresse words, as Mr. Mountague affirmes they doe. For first, here is not so much as one word of falling either to∣tally or finally from the state of grace, and justification, into the state of death and damnation; not so much as one word, that faith once had, may either totally or finally bee lost againe. Now they are your ow•…•… words Mr. Mountague, the words

are not direct which are not expresse: so say I, that is not the plaine, positiue, declaratorie and expresse Doctrine of the Articles, which is not deliuered in positiue, plaine, absolute, and expresse tearmes; this Doctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace is not so deliuered in these words in this 16. Ar∣ticle, therefore it is but your bare and wrested collection, and not the expresse doctrine of the Article. Secondly, the very words themselues will not beare that doctrine which you would thrust vpon them in any good grammaticall construction. For what good Grammarian is there that would giue this construction to these words. After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost, we may depart from grace giuen, and fall into sinne, that is, wee may fall quite away from the state of grace, into the state of damnation; as if that euery depar∣ture from grace and euery fall into sinne, were a falling to∣tally from the state of grace. Euery man I hope will grant, that the committing of any sinne, is a departure from grace, in respect of that particular sinne, be it but a sinne of infir∣mity: he that commits the least sinne, departs from grace and falls into sinne, and yet hee doth not presently fall from the state of grace into the state of damnation. A man may depart from the act of grace, aud yet retaine the habit still: a man may fall into finne, and yet not fall from the state of grace into the state of damnation: hee may recedere depart, as our Article affirmes, and yet not excedere fall quite away, from grace giuen: so that the very words will not necessari∣ly, no nor impliedly beare that sense the which you giue them; because a man may depart from grace giuen, and fall into sinne, and yet not fall either totally or finally from the state of grace. Secondly, the words are, that he may fall into sinne, not that he doth cast himselfe into sinne in a voluntary, pre∣sumptuous, and wilfull manner, so that this word fall into sinne, implies, that these sinnes here mentioned, are sinnes of infirmity and incogitancie, not of malice and presump∣tion: now I hope you will grant, that sinnes of infir∣mitie, and incogitancie without any precogitated and resol∣ued malice, doe not cast a man totally from the state of

•…•…ce, (for then euery Saint of God should fall from the state of grace continually) but only sinnes of malice and presumption, committed with an high hand, and with an absolute, full, and deliberate consent: Wherefore the sinne mentioned in the Article, being but a sinne of infirmi∣tie only and not of praecogitated, and resolued malice, it cannot be imagined that this falling into sinne in the Arti∣cle should bee a totall or a finall fall from grace. Thirdly, ob∣serue the order of the words, they doe first depart from grace giuen, and then, fall into sinne: they doe not fall into sinne first, and then depart from grace giuen; if then they depart from grace before they fall into sinne, then this departure from grace cannot be intended of a falling from the state of grace; because our Antagonists will confesse, that the sinne committed, is that which casts men downe from the state of grace, and that men fall not from grace before, but after sinne committed: this departure therefore from grace giuen, being before the sinne committed, cannot be a totall depar∣ture from the habit and state, but from the act of grace. Fourthly, the very coherence and connexion of the words will cleere the sense and meaning of them: For and being a conjunction copulati•…•…e •…•…itting both sentences together, it makes the sense of the Article, After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may depart from grace giuen, and full into sinne, to bee no more but this, after wee haue receiued the holy Ghost, wee may •…•…all into sinne: so that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 departure from grace giuen, is nothing else but to fall into sinne, which a man may doe and yet not fall from grace; so that torture and rack•…•… these words which way you will, they will not warrant this doctrine of a totall or a finall fall from grace. Y•…•…a, but you will object that these subsequent words, By the grace of God wee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rise againe, and amend our liues, doe necessarily imply thus much, that the Saints of God may fall totally and finally from grace. True Mr. Mountague, if you, if Bortius, or the Rhemists bee the interpreters, else there might be some doubt of it. For you must know, that the only reason wherefore these words were added to the

former, was but to meete with the Montanists, N•…•…uations, Anabaptists and Brownists, who denied forgiuenesse and re∣conciliation to such, as sinned after Baptisme; and if you had not beene purblinde when as you reade the Article, you could not but haue seene it: But God in his justice hath gi∣uen you eyes according to your minde, which alwaies looke besides and ouerthwart the truth, but not vpon it. But if you will haue the sense of these words, it is only this; that the Saints of God may rise againe from that sinne into which they were fallen and amend their liues, & not that they rise againe from the state of condemnation. That from which the Saints of God must rise, is only from that into which they were fallen; for falling and rising they are Relatiues; but the thing into which the Saints were fallen, was but in∣to some act of sinne, as appeares by the words of the Article, wee may depart from grace, and fall into sinne, it was not a fall from the state of grace, into the state of damnation, and therefore this is but a rising from some actuall sinne, to amendment of life. Secondly, I say that these words make much against you. For if those that fall doe rise againe; this doth necessarily imply that they were not fallen quite away from the state of grace, into the death of sinne, that all their spirituall life was not extinguished and abolished by their fall; for if they were dead in trespasses and sinnes, they could not rise againe: Hee that is quite dead in sinne, and with∣out the life of grace, is not said to rise againe and amend his life, (for that implies a continuance of the former life) but hee is said to reuiue againe, and to haue a new life put into him: and therefore if the Article had intended, this depar∣ture from grace giuen and falling into sinne, of a totall or finall fall from grace, into the state of death and damnation, the words should haue beene these; Hee may reuiue againe, or God may raise him vp to a new estate of grace againe, and hee may haue a new life of grace infused into him, (which would crosse this rule in Logicke, à priuatione ad habitum non datur regressus) and not that he may rise againe, and amend his life. Take then either the title, or the scope and sub∣stance,

or the very letter and words of the 16. Article, yet neither of them will warrant this doctrine of a totall or a fi∣nall fall from grace. All the argument which any man can raise from this Article, in proofe of this conclusion, is but from the bare words and letter ab•…•…racted from the sense; to wit, Those who haue receiued the holy Ghost, may depart from grace giuen and fall into sinne, and by the grace of God may rise againt and amend their liues. Therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may both finally and totally fall from grace; therefore faith once •…•…ad may be both totally and finally lost; which how w•…•…ll it followes, let all men judge. But to giue M. Mountague and others full satisfaction in the sense and meaning of this Article, I will compare it with some other Articles, which are expresse in point, that the true regenerate Sai•…•…ts of God •…•…an neither finally nor totally fall from grace. The 5. Article of Lambeth concluded and agreed vpon Nouemb. 20. 1595. by diuers reuerend and learned Bishops and Di∣uines of this our Church, for the determining of some con∣trouersies in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, is expressely con∣trarie to Mr. Mountagues collection from our 16 Article for the words of that Article are these: True, liuing, iustifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is not extinguished, it fayles not, it vanisheth not away in the Elect either finally or totally. If the 16. Article had beene expresse to the contrary, I sup∣pose, the reuerend and learned Composers of this Article would not haue varied from it. But Mr. Mountague pleads to this, that the Articles of Lambeth are forbidden by Authority, but when and where, and by what authority, that he sets not downe. Surely for my owne part I neuer yet could learne that these Articles were disallowed by any publike authori∣tie, but only by Mr. Mountagues, who like a Magisteriall Dictator, and Cathedrall moderator ouer all divinitie and Diuines, approues 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 y•…•…t extant, which will auerre

all that I say for truth, and proue Mr. Mountagu•…•… a lyer and Impostor, if not worse: so that if Mr. Mountague had not had his face euen crusted and steeled ouer with more the•…•… audatious impudencie, hee would not haue thus incoura∣ged his readers. See the booke. Againe, the Articles of Ire∣land, Nomber 33. 38. confirmed by King Ia•…•…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 Lam∣beth were neuer repealed by publike authoritie, and that the 16. Article was neuer expound•…•… 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, iu∣stifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is not extingui∣shed, 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 expo•…•…iti∣on 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 certifi∣eth vs; That they which be indued wi•…•…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 Analys•…•… on the 39. Articles, allowed to be publike,

by the lawfull authoritie of the Church of England, and not hi∣therto disallowed or called in, hath raised this third proposi∣tion. 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 regene∣rate 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 pub∣like and lawfull authority Mr. Mountague cannot bee igno∣rant, 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 Collecti∣on 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 sen∣deth vs to the Conference at Hampton Court published by war∣rant, 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. O∣uerall Deane of Pauls informed the King of what had passed be∣tweene him and some other in Cambridge t•…•…ching our present question: and concludes that notwithstanding those who were in∣stified 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, ei∣ther 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 af∣ter 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 expo∣sition 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. Mounta∣gue 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 A∣postatia 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 Armi∣nians) 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 Crowes and Rauens, loues 〈◊〉〈◊〉 better then any other sweet and wholsome flesh, that hee preferres

the Rhemists & Arminians, before all his brethren or his Mo∣ther Church: that hee is quite apostatized and fallen from the doctrine of the Church of England (I say not from the state of true and sauing grace, for that I dare presume he ne∣uer had as yet) into the very mi•…•…e of Poperie and Arminianis∣me, thinking to verefie this his doctrine of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and finall fall from grace, by his owne example for want of better proofes. I hope therefore, that seeing Mr. Mountague had this his exposition and collection from Bertius and the Rhemists, that you will rather hearken and yeeld to the sound and or∣thodox exposition which the Church of England hath here∣tofore made of it, and which Doctor Benefield, Bishop Carl∣ton, Mr. Rouse, Mr. Yates, and Mr. Rogers haue made of it, then vnto Mr. Mountague, who labours only to corrupt, but not to expound the 16. Article.

Hauing thus proued that the Articles of the Church of [ 3] England are vtterly against a totall and finall fall from grace, & that the 16. Article makes rather for me then against me. I come now to the third thing, to proue, that the Homilies of the Church of England, and the Common prayer booke make not against me. As for the homilies, they make not against me. For first, Mr. Mountague himselfe who obiecteth them con∣fesseth that the Homilies are not the dogmaticall & confirmed re∣solutions of the Church of England: that they haue no dogmaticall positions or doctrine in them to be propugned or subscribed in all and euery point, as the bookes of Articles and Common prayer haue: therefore by Mr. Mountagues owne confession, admitting that the Homilies were cleare againg me, yet they proue not, that the dogmaticall resolution and the receiued, setled and established position of the Church of England is against me to: because the dogmaticall & publike resolutions of the Church of England are not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Homilies, neither are they such positiue & current diuinitie, as to be subscribed in all and entry point, if Mr. Monntague may be credited. But now you may wonder well what should be the cause that Mr. Moun∣tague should so magnifie our Homilies in one place: as to stile them, authentis alt and orthodox records, containing the established

positiue and publikely professed doctrine of the Church of England, and in an other place to slight and vilifie them so much, and to contradict that which hee had written of them before 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Surely there is a mysterie in it, and some pretty trick of more then Presbyterian-Legerdemaine. For you may know, that where Mr. Mountague doth presse & magnifie our Homilies, they giue some seeming colour, to the Popish and Arminian doctrine, of a totall and finall fall from grace: but where he vili∣fies & vnderualues them, there they crosse and oppose him in his Popery, in speaking against Images; and therefore here they must not be the positiue doctrine, and the dogmaticall resolution of the Church: or if they be so, yet Mr. Mounta∣gue did not subscribe to them in this particular, and so they containe not the dogmaticall resolutions of the Church of England in this particular case, for want of his subscription. So that in Mr. Mountagues judgement, the Homilies establi∣shed and confirmed by the Church of England, so far as they make for Poperie and Arminianisme, are the dogmaticall reso∣lutions, and the authenticall and orthodox records of the Church of England, and thus far are they to be subscribed to: but as far as they make against Poperie & Arminianisme they are not authenticall, they are not the dogmaticall and posi∣tiue resolutions of the Church of England, and thus farre they are not to be subscribed. Very good, Mr. Mountague, if an honest man should haue said as much as this, I doubt mee hee should haue lost his liuings, his eares, yea, and his life ere this, and that deseruedly too: you can say thus much (which is no more in substance but this, that the Church of England is a meere Popish and Arminian Church) and yet scape scot free: take heede you smart not for it ere be long. And doe you not deserue to vndergoe the sharpest censure that your Mother (if your Mother) can inflict vpon you•…•… I dare auouch it that you doe, and I will proue it to, or else I will suffer in your steede. For you confesse in your Appeale pag: 260. that the Homilies containe in them godly and wholesome exhortations to honour and worship almightie God: and you grant that they containe in them godly and wholesome doctrine

necessary for these times, (and you cite the 33. Article for the 35. Article for to proue it, which shewes that Mr. Mounta∣gue is but an Ignoramus in our Articles to which hee hath so oft subscribed.) and yet you say in the same place, that they containe not in them, the publike dogmaticall and confirmed reso∣lution, positions, and doctrine of the Church of England, neither are they to be subscribed in all and euery point. I pray obserue this passage well, and then judge what Mr. Mountague is, and what hee doth deserue. For first, in these words he affirmes, that the doctrines established & confirmed by the Church of England, and commanded to be diligently and distinctly read in our Churches by the Ministers, by our 35. Article, are not the pub∣like and receiued doctrine of our Church, which as it is a contradiction in it selfe, and a vilification both of our Arti∣cles and Homilies, so it is a great disparagement to our Church, accusing her either of ignorance and dotage, in not knowing what her doctrine is; or of inconstancie, in hauing no setled and positiue doctrine; or at least of grand hypo∣crisie, in commanding such doctrines to bee diligently and distinctly read as godly and wholesome, and as her publike and receiued doctrine, when as it is nothing so. Secondly, in these words Mr. Mountague affirmes, that the Homilies of the Church of England established by authoritie, are not sound and orthodox, which is contrary to the 35 Article to which hee hath so often subscribed: for which very thing many honester men then himselfe haue not onely bin silen∣ced from preaching (which penalty Mr. Mountague needs not vndergoe, for he is to dumme already in that kinde) but haue likewise beene depriued, and quite stripped of all their spirituall liuings and promotions. Thirdly, in these words Mr. Montague judgeth the Church of England, as it is the Church of England, to bee but a wicked, haereticall, and a∣theisticall Church, in as much as there are many godly whole∣some and necessary doctrines, which though they are in the Church of England, yet they are not the receiued established and confirmed doctrines and resolutions of our Church. Fourthly, by these words, Mr. Mountague makes the Church of Eng∣land

but an incompleate and imperfect Church, a Church in which there is no life and power of religion, a Church which is all for faith and speculation, but not for life and workes: in as much as there are many godly, practicall, whole∣some and necessary doctrines, helping men to honour and worship al∣mighty God, which are not the receiued, established, and confirm∣ed doctrines of our Church. Fifthly, in these words, Mr. Moun∣tague, (if you marke the end wherefore he speakes them, to wit, because they are to sharpe, and to precise against Ima∣ges) affirmes that the Church of England, doth gratifie the Church of Rome in points of Poperie, indeauouring tò re∣concile herselfe and to submit to her, in things in which she hath formerly oppugned her. These fiue things are necessa∣rily implied (and I feare me principally intended) in these words and passage of Mr. Mountague touching our Homi∣lies, and their authoritie amongst vs: what censure hee is worthy of for such words and passages as these, I leaue to o∣thers, 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 Homi∣lie, 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 sen∣ces 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 contai∣ned in them, so are they neuer doctrinall, & positiue resolu∣tions 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 s•…•…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 be∣hold it as they ought to doe (which parenthesis you haue omit∣ted) be transformed to his image, be partakers of the heauenly light, and of his holy Spirit, and be fashioned to him in all goodnesse requi∣site 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 accord∣ing to his example and Doctrine, and to the setting forth of his glo∣ry, he will take away from them his kingdome, his holy word, wher∣by he should reigne in them; because they bring not forth the fruite thereof that he to•…•…kes for. The words you cite out of the se∣cond 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 & th•…•…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 o∣uer might haue ini•…•…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 Iud•…•…s, and generally in all such as worke af∣ter 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 affirma∣tion, that faith once had may againe be lost, and that no other con∣struction of these words may be made, then that a man my fall and hap•…•…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 ordina∣ry, 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 in∣ference and collection is nothing to the purpose, and reach∣eth not vnto th•…•…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 Homi∣lies, but your false and forged collection from them. Second∣ly, 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 belee∣ueth 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 obedient∣ly: 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 whol∣ly 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 wor∣thy 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. There∣fore 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 Ho∣milie, 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 in∣tended 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: hypo∣crites 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. Moun∣tague obiects, that those in the first Homilie are such as truly be∣leiue: 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 be∣cause 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 paren∣thesis 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 im∣plies 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 I∣mage 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 power∣full 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. Last∣ly, the conclusion of this Homilie which followes vpon these words, proues that those here spoken of are only such as liue∣ing in the Church become notoriously vitious, selling them∣selues 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 sa∣uing 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 •…•…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, be∣cause they are spoken of the barren and fruitlesse vyneard, of

such, Christians onely as beare noe fruites, now the true re∣generate 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 re∣generate 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 chil∣dren 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 in∣tended to wicked men planted in the visible Church, and to such as were not yet come into •…•…st, nor regenerated by the Gospell; and to no others: •…•…re is no mention of true regenerate men in the Homilie; the substance of the Homi∣lie 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? sur•…•…ly nothing at all. Yea, but saith Mr. Mountague, these were truly justi∣fied, for they w•…•…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; there∣fore 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 proue hereafter. Sixthty, I answere in your owne words, that admit that these places are meant of true rege∣nerate men, yet these Homilies being no dogmaticall decisions, but popular sermons and Godly exhortations, may sometimes hyper∣bolize out of a rhetoricall straine, and stretch some sayings beyond the vse and practise of the Church, and so euery word in these homi∣lies is not strictly & litterally to be insisted on, but we must giue thē a faire & gentle construction. Seuenthly, these words here men∣tioned are but exhortations and preseruatiues to keepe men from falling from God, therefore they doe not necessarily imply that men may fall from God: all they imply ineuita∣blie is but this, that men cannot stand fast in grace & cleaue close to God but by vsing of the meanes, they doe not imply that regenerate men will not vse the meanes, or that they may fall from grace: and the vse of the meanes, doth not im∣ply an incertaintie in obtaining of the end. Lastly, which answeres all that can bee obiected; All the comminations and threates in these Homilies are conditionall, so that take them as they are most aduantagious to you, and as spoken to the true regenerate Saints of God, yet all the argument that you can extract and juggle from them is but this. If the true regenerate Saints of God neglect Gods word and become vn∣fruitefull, they shall bee cast of, and be giuen vp to the power of the diuell. Therefore the true regenerate Saints of God may fi∣nally and totally fall from the state of grace: a learned Nonse∣quitur, following the Antecedent, as much as darknesse doth the Sunne, and all one. And therefore Mr. Mountague and all others if they were not obstinate, (admitting these Homi∣lies to bee dogmaticall decisions, containing in them the doctrines and resolutions of our Church, which Mr. Moun∣tague himselfe denies) must needs acknowledge that these Homilies, and so by consequence the Church of England, makes not against my present assertion, but rather for it then against it.

As for the argument drawne from the Common prayer booke, that infants after baptisme fall from that state of grace

which they haue receiued in their baptisme, therefore true rege∣nerate men which are ingrafted into Christ by faith, may fall from grace. I shall answer it fully in another place. All that I shall say of it here is this; that though you would ground your argument on the words of the common Prayer Booke, to make a flourish of it to the world, as if it were your owne: yet the truth is this, you had it from the Rhe∣mists, from Mr. Thompson, Eckardus, Bertius, Aegidius Hunnius, Zacharias Mathesius and other Arminians or else from Bellar∣mine, who doe presse this argument, and relie vpon it as much as Mr. Mountague doth. Which Argument Mr. Moun∣tague knowes to haue beene oft-times answered both by Byshop Abbot in his Animad. in Thomps. Diatr. cap. 7. by Dr. Benefield in his booke de Persen, Sanctorum, lib. 1. cap. 14. by Dr. Prideaux in his sixth Lecture; by the Whole Synode of Dort in the 5. Article; and by diuers others; and hee knowes it to be but a meere nonsequitur admitting the Antecedent to be true: and yet that he might deceiue the ignorant and the ouer-credulous, hee makes no bones to publish it as an Or∣thodox and inuincible Argument. Alas Mr. Mountague, what is become of your honestie in the meane time, who would thus deceiue both God and Man, yea, and your owne Mo∣ther Church, by charging her with such a damnable and pernicious Tenent, doctrine, and assertion, and that vpon such weake and ridiculous grounds as these.

I haue now sufficiently proued, The totall and finall Apo∣stacy of the Saints from grace, not to be the receiued and re∣solued doctrine of the learnedest in the Church of England, nor yet of the Articles, Homilies, or Common prayer booke of our English Church, and so by consequence I haue ac∣quitted the Church o•…•… England of this pernicious doctrine which Mr. Mountague would scandalously lay vpon it. I will now in the fourth and last place proue the totall and finall perseuerance of the Saints, to be the established, resolued, and receiued Doctrine of the Church of England, and that by this vnanswerable Argument. That assertion doctrine and position which is ratified and confirmed by the 17. Article,

by the Articles of Lambe•…•…h and Ireland, and agreed vpon by the royall Synode of Hampton Court: That assertion Doctrine and position which the learnedest in the Church of Eng∣land haue with one vnanimous consent, not only published and taught in their seuerall parishes & Cures, but likewise publikely maintained and defended in the Schooles in both our Vniuersities from time to time, and in their learned writings set forth by publike authoritie and approbation, as the established and receiued Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land, must needs be the receiued, established, and resolued Doctrine of the Church of England. But this assertion, Doctrine, and position, That such as are once truly regenera∣ted, and ingrafted into Christ by a true and liuely faith, can nei∣ther finally nor totally fall from grace; is ratified and confir∣med by the 17. Article, by the Articles of Lambeth and Ire∣land, and agreed vpon by the royall Synod of Hampton Court: and the learnedest in the Church of England haue with one vnanimous consent, not only published it in their seuerall Parishes and Cures, but likewise publikely main∣tained and defend•…•… it in the Schooles, in both our Vniuer∣sities, from time to time, and in their learned writings set forth by publike authority and approbation, as the establi∣shed and receiued Doctrine of the Church of England, (all which I haue already proued in the premises.) Therefore it must needs be the receiued, established, and resolued Do∣ctrine of the Church of England. Yea, but Mr. Mountague in his Appello Caesarem affirmes the contrary. True, he doth so, but is Mr. Mountague a Pope that he cannot erre or lie? or that our Church of England should bee included in his brest alone? or are Mr. Mountagues words such Gospell, that men must of necessity beleeue them, because hee speakes them? Perhaps they may be so with some: with mee they are not, nay, they shall not bee. But if there are any who are so much deuoted to Mr. Mountague, that they will pinne their faith vpon Mr. Mountagues sleeue, and beleeue none else but he: Let them consider but these three things, which I will not only propound, but proue vnto them. The first

•…•…his, That as Mr. Mountague hath all hee hath (excepting that of our Homilies) touching our present controuersie: out of that arch Arminian Bertius, and that Arch Papist Bel∣larmme, so hee hath this among other things, that this do∣ctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace, is the receiued doctrine of the Church of England. They are Bertius his words in his booke de Apostata sanctorum, pag. 107. In his Preface to the same booke, and in his Letter to the Archbishop of Canter∣bury, as you may see in King IAMES his 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 do∣ctrine of the Church of England, you belieue not Mr. Moun∣tague himselfe, but only the Rhemists and Bertius, from whom he doth transcribe it. The second thing which I will pro∣pound vnto you is this: that Mr. Mountague doth thrice re∣cord 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 con∣•…•…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 can∣not bee: For our Articles, our Homilies, and our Common prayer Booke, were composed long before the Gagge or Mr. Moun∣tague 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 recor∣ded in them, or decided by them before, it is not determi∣ned 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 E•…•…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 diffe∣rent 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 con∣ditions, if not from nature, yet at least from subtilty and craft: for you see hee can speake two contrary things, to two se∣uerall 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 gra∣tifie 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 Puri∣tans and Novellers, the better to conceale his dangerous pro∣jects, 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 Patro•…•…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 coun∣tenance 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 him∣selfe in this and other particulars, that so this false and tre∣cherous 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 con∣demne him for a lyer in the other. Thirdly consider, that for any thing that yet appeares, Mr. Mountague is not tho∣rowly

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 re∣cant 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 ex∣presse 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 established doctrine of our Church, is yet the doctrine of the Church, and I am ready to re∣cant. In which words, as Mr. Mountague hath vsed a pretty sleight, to keepe off men from writing or speaking against him, lest they should come within the compasse of these two hatefull names, Puritan and Papist: so he hath discoue∣red himselfe egregiously vnto the world, and that in these particulars. First, hee hath discouered himselfe to be a meere Roman Catholicke in heart, what euer he professe in words, in hauing his beliefe and faith not grounded on the word of God but on the Church: Hee beleeues only as the Church beleeues, and not otherwise; let come what will, the Chur∣ches faith shall still bee his: If our Church will owne this doctrine of his, then hee will defend it, then hee will teach it: if our Church will not owne it, then hee will disclaime it and recant it; not because that this his doctrine is in it selfe true or false; but meerely because it is the doctrine of the Church. Now for any man thus to tie and pinne his faith vpon the Church, and vpon that only, what is it but to bee a professed Romane Catholicke? Secondly, by these his words hee hath discouered himselfe, to be but a meere tem∣porizer, a meere Proteus and Chamelion, a meere Neuter, and a man of all religions as time and place shall serue, and so a man of no religion or grace at all. Let the Church of Eng∣land not owne this doctrine of a totall and finall fall from grace.

Mr. Mountague will forthwith disclaime it, though hee him∣selfe hath affirmed it to bee the doctrine of the Scriptures, Fathers, and of the learnedest in the Church of England. So that his Tenets and religion shall bee alwayes altered and changed with the times and seasons. And will you (my Bre∣thren) receiue this for a sound and orthodox truth, and as the receiued doctrine of the Church of England, when as Mr. Mountague himselfe, is as ready to disclaime it, as to owne it? will you suspend and pinne your faith, your judgement and religion, vpon Mr. Mountagues sleeue, whose religion is but a meere Weather-cocke, that is altered and turned about with euery blast and change in Church or State? and who hath yet no other positiue or resolued religion in him, but only this: to be of no religion, or of any religion, as the times shall serue? O hazard, hazard not your soules vpon such vncertainties; but rather sticke and cleaue to such who will sooner loose their liues and all they haue, then bee re∣moued from this present truth, which none of our Antago∣nists will dare to doe in defence of these their Errors. And now seeing I haue made it manifest vnto your soules and consciences by vndeniable proofes and testimonies against the forgeries of Mr. Mountague and his Abbettors, that this assertion of the totall and finall perseuerance of the Saints, is not only the positiue, established, and resolued doctrine of the Scriptures, but likewise of the ancient Fathers, of all the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas, and of this our Mo∣ther Church of England; ô then if you tender the glory, honour, and authority, both of the God and word of truth, which shall judge you at the la•…•…t; if you reuerence and re∣spect the authority of the ancient Fathers, and of all the Churches of God; or if you tender the peace, the good, and welsare of this your Mother Church, be willing to submit and yeeld vnto the truth. What if Mr. Monntague, what if men of greater worth and place then hee, oppugne and contradict this truth? what if carnall men of great abilities and parts, (who are no more able to judge of this our pre∣sent assertion, then blinde men are of colours, because it is

a sensible and experimentall, a spirituall and heauenly truth, which is principally testified and reuealed to the soules of men, by the inward operation of Gods Spirit, and is not subject vnto carnall reason) doe publish this as a sound and orthodox truth. That the true regenerate Saints of God may Apostatize, and fall both totally and finally from grace? are not the Scriptures and the word of God: are not the Fath•…•…rs, and the Churches of God; and tho•…•…e many godly, learned, and famous writers which I haue cited (who haue farre tran∣scended them euen in parts & learning) of better credit and repute with you then they? If not; then farwell all religion, let Poperie and Arminianisme, let herisie and Atheisme rule and sway the world. But if the Scriptures, if the Fathers, if all the Churches of God, and all those worthies which they haue produced, haue any estimate or credit with you, then striue, contend, and stirre no more in this our present con∣trouersie, nor yet in any other that depends vpon it, but willingly subscribe to this most orthodox, sound, and com∣fortable assertion of ours (which is the only proppe and pillar of a Christian soule, and the only thing which makes men liue and die with joy and comfort) which they haue all ratified and resolued with one vnanimous and joynt consent. That those who are once truly regenerated and ingrafted into Christ, by a true and liuely faith, can neither finally nor total∣ly fall from grace.

Notes

• The Church of England.
• Gagge. pag. 158. Appea•…•…e, 28.
• Appeale. pag. 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 73.
• Appeale. pag 28. 29.
• Appeale p•…•…g. 32, 33, 34, 35.
• Appeale pag. 28, 30, 123.
• Appeale pag. 71, 27.
• Appeale pag. 31
• Obiect.
• Answ.
• Appeale. 28.
• Appeale, pag. 28.
• Appeale 32.
• App. pag. 36. 37.
• Appeale 259.
• Obiect.
• Answ.
• Appeale, pag. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 56. 71. 72.
• Appeale. 32.
• The tytle of Analysis.
• Appeale 30. 31.
• Pag. 24.
• Pag. 41. 42, 43, 44.
• Appeale. pag. 28.
• Appe pag. 260.
• App pa. 36, 37.
• App. pag. 29.
• App pi 32, 33.
• Appeale, p. 257.
• Appeale 27, 28.
• Answ.
• Obiect.
• Obiect.
• Answ:
• Appa. 260, 261.
• Ob•…•…ct.
• Pag. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 28. to 37. and 73.
• Answ.
• Biblioth: Histor: lib. 2. sect. 56.
• Appeale, pag 2•…•… 28. 36.