THE Author of the Appeale hath troubled the Church of Eng­land with strange Doctrines in two things especially: First, in the Do­ctrine of Predestination he attempt­eth to bring in a decree Respectiue, which he taketh for granted to bee the Doctrine of our Church: But this will neuer bee granted by vs, nor proued by him. Secondly, he taketh it likewise for granted, that the Doctrine of our Church is, that a man may fall away from grace totally and finally: If his meaning be that such as are called and iustified ac­cording to Gods purpose may so fall away, this was neuer a Doctrine of the Church of England. If his mea­ning bee that others may fall away, which are not called and iustified according to Gods purpose, then hath he troubled the Church with an idle Discourse to no pur­pose: For in this hee hath no Aduersary. For it is ne­cessary [Page 2] in the beginning to agree vppon the state of the question. St. Augustine sets it in these tearmes: They that are called and iustified according to Gods purpose, can­not fall away. Now against this question proposed in these tearmes, the Author of the Appeale disputeth: For pag. 37. scorning and reiecting this Doctrine, he writeth against his informers as hee calleth them, thus. It is your owne Doctrine, God hath appointed them to grace and glory, God according to his purpose hath called and iustified them, therefore it is certaine that they must and shall bee saued in­fallibly.

In the matter of Predestination I haue euer bin feare­full to meddle; it is one of the greatest and deepest of Gods Mysteries: We are with reuerence to wonder, and with Faith and Humility to follow that which God in his Scriptures hath reuealed in this poynt, and there to stay. But it hath beene the vnbridled humour of some to be still prying into Gods secrets, and to runne rashly and irreuerently into these Mysteries. These things were neuer so irreuerently handled by any, as they haue beene of late by the Arminians. The Author of the Appeale, doth complayne of some who [...] do conclude vpon Gods secrets. I would to God, he had beene as carefull to auoyde that fault in himselfe, Tostat. in Genes. cap. 19. as hee was to reprooue it in others: Tostatus Abulensis hath a remarkeable speech. In nulla materia periculosius erra­tur quam in hac de praedestinatione: Eligerem enim magis contra totius fidei veritatem peruerse sentire, & in hac non errare, quam in omnibus rectè iudicanao in hac sola deuiare. The speech is strange, but hee intended to shewe, that er­rour is more dangerous in this point, then in all other: His reason is, Quia ex nulla speculatiua cognitione tantū fi­nis [Page 3] noster statuitur, & operationes diriguntur: And againe: Scientiae de praedestinatione specialiori modo, quam omnes aliae, à Deo est; ex hac enim perditio vel saluatio nostra ex­ordium sumit: Therefore his aduise is, that men should bee very sparing in the handling of such a Mystery: which aduise I am also desirous to follow: yet here I am drawne into it against my will. For when such men as seeme to haue little reuerence to so high a Mystery, run rashly and boldly into it, and as it may seeme without great praeme­ditation of the matter, which they should haue thought on, conceiuing things contrary to that, which we haue receiued from the Scripture, I may not bee silent: For that were, as much as in mee is, to betray the Truth. Yet my care shal bee to say no more heerein, then I shall bee drawne necessarily to speake for the Truth; and to remooue that which hath beene er­roneously presumed by others: For then is a man bound to maintayne the Truth, when it is oppug­ned.

It troubled mee not a little, I confesse, that I am to deale with a Minister of the Church of England; one that hath beene mine ancient Acquaintance, of whom I had greater and better hopes: But in Gods Cause all respects of Friendshippe and Acquaintance, yea if it were of blood and kindred, must giue place to the Truth. Leuy sayde to his Father and to his Mo­ther, I haue not seene him, neither knew hee his Bre­thren, nor knewe his Children: For they obserued thy Word, and kept thy Commandement: Deut. 33.9. And this is the way to do him good: For I am not out of hope of reclaiming of him, seeing hee hath promised, that if the euidence bee cleare against him, or if hee be con­uicted [Page 4] per testes idoneos to haue erred, he wil recall it. The Scriptures, the ancient Fathers, and the Doctrine of the Church of England are testes idonei. I shall deale freely and plainly. For the ordering of the whole: First after a briefe Introduction set downe for the better vnderstan­ding of the controuersie, I will examine his extrauagant opinions concerning the respectiue decree of Predestina­tion, and after of falling away from Grace. Last of all, some particulers in his Booke.

This I doe not vndertake vpon any confidence that I conceiue in my selfe. I know many in our Church more worthy and able then my selfe, and I thanke God for them: But as heeretofore I haue had experience of Gods mercy, and found that the loue of the truth hath in o­ther things enabled me to defend the Truth, and helped me to know the Truth, so I rest vpon the same helpe: I seeke Gods Truth, which will not fayle them that seeke and loue it. And if any man of greater confidence in his wit and learning, will enter vppon the Defence of the Appeale (for I haue heard the whisperings) I shall bee willing to spend the rest of mine old dayes in this, for they cannot bee spent in a better seruice.

THE Church England was reformed by the helpe of our learned and Reuerend Bishops, in the daies of King Edward the sixt, and in the beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth. They who then gaue that forme of reformation to our Church, held consent [Page 5] in Doctrine with Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer, be­ing by authority appoynted Readers in the two Vniuer­sities; and with other then liuing, whom they iudged to bee of best learning and soundnesse in the reformed Churches. And of the Ancients especially with St. Au­gustine. And were carefull to hold this Vnity amongst themselues, and with the reformed Churches. For that these worthy Bishops who were in the first reformation, had this respect vnto P. Martyr, and M. Bucer, it is appa­rent, both because the Doctrine of our Church doth not differ from the Doctrine that these taught, and because that worthy Arch-bishop Cranmer caused our Leiturgy to be Translated into Latin, and craued the consent and iudgement of M. Bucer, who gaue a full consent there­to, as it appeareth in his workes Inter opera Anglicana. And P. Martyr beeing likewise requested, writeth in His epistles touching that matter, his iudgement and consent of the gouernment and discipline of our Church.

This vniformity of Doctrine was held in our Church without disturbance, as long as those worthy Bishops li­ued, who were employed in the reformation.

For albeit the Puritans disquieted our Church about their conceiued Discipline, yet they neuer mooued any quarrell against the Doctrine of our Church, which is well to be obserued. For if they had embraced any Do­ctrine which the Church of England denied, they would assuredly haue quarrelled about that aswell, as they did a­bout the Discipline. But it was then the open confession both of the Bishops and of the Puritanes, that both parts embraced a mutuall consent in Doctrine, onely the diffe­rence was in matter of inconformity: Then hitherto there was no Puritane Doctrine knowne.

[Page 6]The first disturbers of this vniformity in doctrine were Barret and Baro in Cambridge, and after them Thomson. Barret and Baro beganne this breach in the time of that most reuerend Prelate Archbishop Whitgift.

Notwithstanding that these had attempted to disturbe the Doctrine of our Church, yet was the vniformity of Doctrine still maintained.

For when our Church was disquieted by Barret and Baro, the Bishops that then were in our Church, exami­ned the new Doctrine of these men, and vtterly disliked and reiected it: And in the poynt of Predestination con­firmed that which they vnderstood to be the Doctrine of the Church of England against Barret and Baro, who op­pugned that doctrine.

This was fully declared by both the Archbishops, Whitgift of Canterbury, and Hutton of Yorke, with the o­ther Bishops and learned men of both Prouinces, who re­pressed Barret and Baro, refuted their doctrine, and iusti­fied the contrary, as appeareth by that Booke, which both the Archbishops then compiled.

The same Doctrine which the Bishops then maintained, was at diuerse times after approued, as in the Conference at Hampton Court, as will be hereafter confirmed. And againe it was confirmed in Ireland, in the Articles of Re­ligion, in the time of our late Soueraigne, Articulo 38.

The Author of the Appeale pleadeth against the Ar­ticles of Lambeth, and iustifieth the Doctrine of Barret, Baro and Thomson, auerring the same to be the Doctrine of the Church of England.

This hee doth not by naming of those men, whose names he knew would bring no honour to this cause: but by laying downe and iustifying their doctrines, and [Page 7] suggesting that they who maintained the doctrines con­tained in the Articles of Lambeth, are Caluinists and Pu­ritans: So that those Reuerend Archbishops, Whitgift and Hutton, with the Bishops of our Church, who then liued, are in his iudgement to be reiected as Puritans.

The question is whether of these two positions we must now receiue for the doctrines of our Church: that which Barret, Baro and Thomson would haue brought in, which doctrines were then refuted and reiected by our Church: Or that Doctrine which the Bishops of our Church main­tained against these men, which Doctrine hath beene since vpon diuerse occasions approued? If there were no more to be sayd, I dare put it to the Issue before any in­different Iudges.

THe Author of the Appeale, vndertaking to maintaine the Doctrine of the Church of England, refuteth that which hitherto hath bene taken for the Doctrine of our Church; and maintaineth the doctrine of the Pelagi­ans, striuing to make that to be vnderstood the Doctrine of our Church. A bold attempt, whether hee doth it through ignorance, or open malice to trouble the Church with these doctrines, which haue troubled so many Churches: that himselfe knoweth best. But that this he doth, it is apparant, by that which he hath writ­ten, and will be made more apparant by that which must [Page 8] now be sayd in the necessary defence of the truth, and of the doctrines of our Church.

The poysoned doctrines of the Pelagians were neuer well knowne before Saint Augustine discouered that daunger. The summe is to pull downe the power of God, and to set vp the power of Man. This they attempted to do by defacing the grace of God. And because that could not be done, without controlling the Doctrine of Predestination, this they haue likewise attempted. Prede­stination is fashioned into a new mould by these men, who haue made it not to depend vpon God, but vppon Man: That God himselfe and his high and holy pur­pose and will must depend vpon somewhat in man, must expect mans Free will and merits. by this meanes they saw that grace might easily be defaced. So that the Question is, whether that the fountaine of grace be in God, or in Man: For they take it from Gods good wil and purpose, and place it in mans merits. This is the wise­dome of the Pelagians: which the Author of the Ap­peale seemeth to embrace, and, as well as he can, perswa­deth others to doe so: For first he laboreth to corrupt the doctrine of Predestination, and then to deface the doctrine of Grace: First against the doctrine of Prede­stination hee hath brought nothing, but the olde and worne obiections of the Pelagians: Finding no other he was glad to take them, that he might seeme to say som­what against Predestination. Which obiections albeit Saint Augustine and others of the auncient Fathers haue answered, and refuted long agoe; yet that thing moueth not this man: somewhat must be sayd to deceiue the sim­ple, that will be deceiued. First I will examine one sen­tence of his Booke, by which we may vnderstand his [Page 9] meaning in the poynt of Predestination: The sen­tence is this. Pag. 58. speaking of the 17 Article, he sayth.

In all which passage there is not one word, sylla­ble, or apex touching your absolute, necessary, de­termined, irrespectiue, irresistible (in other places he addeth Fatall necessitating) Decree of God, to call, saue and glorifie Saint Peter, for instance, infallibly, without any consideration had or regard to his Faith, O­bedience, Repentance; and to condemne Iudas as ne­cessarily without any respect had at all to his sinne: This (sayth hee) is the priuate fancy of some particu­ler men.

The Author of the Appeale doth often charge some men with a Doctrine, which no man did euer main­tayne. For I say, he is not able to proue, that any haue maintayned the Doctrine of predestination, in those tearmes which hee proposeth. Indeede Pelagius and his Followers, and amongst them this Author, haue made these obiections against the Doctrine of Pre­destination: We vse not th [...]se tearmes we reiect them, we neede them not, we finde them not in Scripture, we haue enough in Gods Word to maintayne this Do­ctrine. Touching that which hee sayth of Iudas, that some should teach, that by the decree of God, Iudas should be condemned, without any respect to his sin; I suppose it will be hard for him to finde any that teacheth so in those tearmes. Caluin I suppose is the man hee meaneth: But Caluin in many places sayth the contrary, and confesseth that wicked men are damned iustly for their sinnes: that Gods mercy appeareth in them that are saued, and his iustice in [Page 10] other. He saith indeed of the reprobate: Principium ruinae & damnationis esse in eo, quod sunt à Deo dere­licti: which this Author will also confesse, because he can say nothing against it.

But to open this point a little further. It must be confessed that whilest some haue strayed too farre on the left hand, touching the respectiue decree, that God for respects in men hath predestinated them: O­thers in zeale to correct this errour, haue gone some­what too farre on the right hand; teaching that Pre­destination is a separation betweene men and men, as they were found euen in the Masse of mankind vncor­rupt, before the Creation, and the fall of Man. It is true that this Counsell of God, was before the Crea­tion and Fall. But here we seeke vpon what ground first presupposed, this counsell of God proceeded. Saint Augustine was cleere in this, that Gods pur­pose of Predestination presupposed the fall of Man­kind, and the corrupt masse of mankinde in sinne. And verily this opinion hath such firme grounds of Scripture, that (so farre as I can iudge) are vnanswera­ble: For the Apostle teacheth that Predestination and Election are in Christ. Ephes. 1.4. As he hath chosen vs in Christ, before the foundations of the World: and v. 5. Who hath predestinate vs to bee adopted through Iesus Christ in himselfe: And verse 11. In whom wee were chosen when we were Predestinate. Now if Predesti­nation be in Christ, it must be acknowledged that this counsell of God had respect to the corrupt masse of mankind: For the benefite that we haue in Christ ap­peared not in the state of innocency. Some haue an­swered that the Angels had that benefit of their stan­ding [Page 11] in Christ. To this I say, granting that the Angels had that blessing from Christ: yet this is a thing with­out doubting, and beyond all contradiction, that the doctrine of Predestination, as the Apostle teacheth it, is not for Angels, but only for men; not for men in the state of innocency, but for sinful men. In declaring the purpose of Predestination the Lord saith, I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy: Then the counsell of Predestination, is the counsell whereby God sheweth mercy where he will: But mercy doth presuppose mi­sery, and a sinfull estate in man: Againe the purpose of God is conducted to his end by such meanes as God hath set, & the Apostle hath opened: that is, by Prede­stination, Vocatiō & Iustificatiō to glorification, that is to the intended end. But vocatiō & iustificatiō cannot be vnderstood of angels, but of men: & not of men with out sin in the estate of innocency, but of sinfull men. For sinners are called to repentance: & sinners they must be that are iustified from their sins. None are called to repentance and iustified from sin, but sinners. And it is also certaine that none are thus called and iustified, but only they that are predestinated: Therfore Predestina­tion doth not looke vpon the masse of mankind vncor­rupt & innocent, but vpon the masse corrupted. These things are set in such euidences of the Scriptures, that for my part I know not what can bee said to impeach them. Vpon these grounds we must confesse, that both Predestination & reprobation do respect that sinful & corrupted masse of mankind.

But between Predestination & reprobation, amongst many other, this is one difference, that all men for sinne haue deserued reprobation, but no man could deserue [Page 12] mercy to be deliuered by predestination: Rom. 3.23. For there is no difference, for all haue sinned, and are depriued of the glory of God. Then in the sinfull estate of corruption all are found once a like, and all depri­ued of the glory of God. And what is this to bee de­priued of the glory of God, but to deserue reproba­tion? So he sayth, Rom. 11.30. God hath shut vp all in Vnbeleefe: So that all that are receiued to mercy by Predestination, Vocation, Iustification, are taken out of the corrupted state of mankinde, the rest are left in their sinnes. These we call men reprobate, that are left in their sinnes; and in the end iustly condemned for sin. But why some are left in their sinnes, other deliuered from their sins by Predestination, Vocation, Iustificati­on, of this no cause can be giuen but the will of God.

But sayth our Author in that Article there is nei­ther word syllable, or apex to proue, &c. Yes sir, there is somewhat, For in that Article Predestination is sayde to be The euerlasting and constant purpose of God. It is sayd in the Article, that They that are predestinated, are called according to Gods purpose: This is enough to proue all which they intend, and to ouerthrow your new Doctrine, that men are called in consideration of their Faith, Obedience and Repentance. The Article saith moreouer, That they are iustified freely. If freely, then without consideration of any thing fore-seene in man. Thus whilst in curiosity you were seeking your apices, you stumbled and are falne into a dangerous pit, out of which God deliuer you. I will doe the best ser­uice I can to make you see these dangers.

Your common Obiection against them, that teach predestination to depend only vpon Gods will, is this. [Page 13] You say, They bring in a decree absolute, necessary, irre­spectiue, irresistible, determined, fatall, necessitating. These Obiections you borrowed from the Arminians, they had them from the Pelagians. But you say that You haue read nothing of the Arminians. It seemeth that you are an excellent Scholler, that can learne your les­son so perfectly without instructors. If they who vse these Obiections take them from the Pelagians, then you see that the Doctrine which the Pelagians oppug­ned, is the same which you oppugne.

S ^t. Augustine had much controuersie with the Pela­gians. Pelagius taught that Grace is giuen to men in re­spect of their merits. S ^t. Augustine refuseth this error of Pelagius, for which he was condemned for an Heretick in three Synodes. Gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra. This was the position which the Pelagians main­tained, and which St. Augustine refuted. St. Augustin referreth the matter, to Gods will and purpose onely. But this Pelagius denied, and sayd, that grace depend­eth not vpon Gods will onely: He denied not the will of God, but sayde that Gods will had respect to merits fore-seene. In this sense he sayth, Gratia Dei datur se­cundum merita nostra. And in this sense the purpose of God was held by the Pelagians to be respectiue, as re­specting somewhat fore-seene in men predestinated. Pe­lagius himselfe said it respected merits: others said, that it respecteth faith fore-seene: others deuised the respect of workes fore-seene, which is all one with Pelagius his merits fore-seene. The Arminians haue added the re­spect of humility fore-seene.

Hence arise two opinions about Predestination. The one the Doctrine of the Church taught by St. Augustine, [Page 14] and Prosper, by St. Hierom, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, St. Bernard, and the rest that herein followed St. Au­gustine: The other is the opinion of the Pelagians who oppugned this Doctrine.

If the question be proposed, why God receiueth one to mercy and not an other? why this man, and not that? to this question all the Orthodoxe that haue taught in the Church after St. Augustine answere, that of this taking one to mercy, and leauing an other, no reason can be giuen but only the will of God. The Pelagians and Arminians say, that Gods will heerein is directed by somewhat fore-seene in men Predestinated. Now that Predestination dependeth only vppon Gods will without respect to any thing fore-seene in men, is as I sayd, the receiued Doctrine of St. Augustin, and of the Church following: For before St. Augustin, this thing came not in question, as himselfe in many places con­fesseth. The same is the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches. And this hath hitherto been receiued the Doctrine of the Church of England. I will adde also, the same is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as Bellarmine deliuereth it. Bellar. lib. 2. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 16. For he concludeth thus, Restat igitur vt huius discretionis causa sit voluntas Dei, quae vnum liberat quia ei placet, alterum non liberat quia non placet. Wherein he followeth the Doctrine of St. Au­gustin and the rest.

Of these two opinions, the Author of the Appeale hath made choyce of that which Pelagius held against the Church, and maintayneth it by the arguments which the Pelagians haue vsed. For thus they obiected against the Doctrine of St. Augustine, that he brought in a decree, absolute, irrespectiue, irresistible, determi­ned, [Page 15] fatall, necessitating, and these be our Authors Ob­iections.

It must bee confessed it is a wrong to lay to mens charge Doctrines in other tearmes then themselues do teach. These tearmes are not vsed by them, whom this man chargeth: We do not deale so with the Pa­pists, or any other: For my part I mislike these tearmes: But if by this word decree there be nothing intended, but the purpose of Gods election, I will not wrangle for words: Onely I thinke that wee may speake most warrantably in the words of the Scripture: For the holy Scripture hath furnished us with words sufficient. We finde it there called the will of God, and [...] the purpose of God, and [...] the Good Pleasure of God. These words suffice to sober mindes to expresse this Doctrine.

Then he chargeth vs to teach that this decree is ab­solute. Because the Pelagians and their Followers in­ferre an absolute decree, they should declare what they meane by this word absolute. If this be the meaning of the word, that Gods purpose of Predestination de­pendeth vpon the onely will of God, and not vppon any thing fore-seene in men Predestinated, which God respected in Predestinating: then I affirme that this is the ancient and Catholike Doctrine of the Church, and the contrary is the Doctrine of the Pe­lagians. If this Author would speake for the Pelagians against the receiued Doctrine of the Church, then must he declare vnto vs what thing did mooue the will of God. And by this meanes he will teach vs a thing which no man euer could speake to, to know the cause of Gods will. Dicat qui potest. I thinke hee [Page 16] knoweth as little in this matter as other men. And yet hee is bound to instruct vs in this Mystery. For hee that sayth, the will of God dependeth vppon something, is bound to shewe what that thing is vpon which the will of God dependeth: But if it bee independing and respecting nothing but it selfe, why then is it not absolute? And why then doth hee with the Pelagians cast this against Gods purpose of Predestination, that it is absolute?

The next accusation is that this decree is necessary: Can any man giue vs a reason, why the purpose of God shold not be necessary? Our Author writeth thus, Pag. 10. The will of God is the necessity of things, say your Maisters out of Saint Augustine misunderstood: He that chargeth others with mis-understanding, should declare the true vnderstanding, that they that misunderstand, may be informed. He doth not this, but we must all be supposed to misunderstand this thing in the vnderstanding wherof he wil not helpe vs.

There must be some cause of the necessitie of those things that are necessary: What cause can this be? It must either be the will of God, or some other thing. The auncient Writers of the Church make it the will of God. If you can find any other cause, you must de­clare it. The will of God may truely be sayd to be the necessity of things, because it is the prime, high and ne­cessary cause of things. If you grant not this, then you must point out vnto vs some superior cause: which be­cause you cannot do, you must be contented with vs to confesse, that the will of God is not only necessary, but the necessity of things.

Bradwardin; that worthy Archbishop of Canterbury, [Page 17] citeth out of Anselme, Brad. lib. 1. cap. 10. his Ancient in the same See, di­uerse things to this purpose: Anselm. 1. cur homo Deus: Si vis omnium quae fecit & passus est seire necessitatem, scito omnia ex necessitate fuisse, quia ipse voluit. And a­gaine, Omnis necessitas aut impossibilitas Dei subiacet vo­luntati: illius autem voluntas nulli subditur necessitati, aut impossibilitati. Nihil enim est necessarium aut impos­sibile, nisi quia ipse ita voluit. And in this respect S. Au­gustin speaking of this powerfull will of God, whereby he doth what he will & suffereth euen euill things, that he may turne thē vnto good, Enchir. cap. 96. saith, Nisi hoc credamus, periclitatur ipsum confessionis nostrae initium; quia in De­um patrem omnipotentem credere confitemur: Ne (que) enim ob aliud veraciter omnipotens diceretur, nisi quia quic­quid vult potest, nec voluntate cuiuspiam creaturae volun­tatis omnipotentis impeditur effectus. And againe, Volun­tas Dei omnium quae sunt ipsa est causa. De Genes. contra Man. lib. 1. c. 2. Si enim habet cau­sam voluntas Dei, est aliquid quod antecedit voluntatem Dei, quod nefas est credere. Vpon these grounds the an­cients conclude, that the wil of God is necessary, that it is the cause of all necessity in things, and therfore may well be sayd to be the necessity of things.

But why is this cast vpon vs as an error, that we teach that the purpose of Gods predestination is necessary. Wil this mā say that it is not necessary, but cōtingent? one of the two he must say. If necessary, then is he idle that obiecteth this against predestination. If contingent, then he runneth blindfold into an high blasphemy, pro­nouncing the purpose of God to be cōtingent. It may be amongst the late Arminians, who neuer care what they speake or write, some may be found to vtter such absurd blasphemies. But these men we leaue to their [Page 18] owne humors, which forsake vnderstanding, godlinesse and piety. The next accusation of this Author and the Pelagians is, Lib. 1 contra Pe­lag & Calest. cap. 6. that this decree is irrespectiue. S. Augustine as before I related, affirmeth in diuerse places, that Pela­gius taught that the grace of God is giuen in respect of merits. In this respect Pelagius and his followers held the decree respectiue, as this man doth. He must tell vs what Gods purpose respected, and he must giue vs a reason why he was so bold, as to make this a doctrine of the Church of England, which was first inuented, and alwayes afterward maintained by the Pelagians a­gainst the Church.

The next accusation is, that the purpose of Predesti­nation is irresistible. This obiection is much vsed by the Arminians taken from the Pelagians. This was first deuised to set forth the glorious power of Freewill. If the question be moued, whether Freewill may resist grace? it is apparant naturally in the vnregenerate, it may resist, it doth daily resist: according to that Act. 7 51. You haue alwayes resisted the holy Ghost. But if the question be moued of them that are called according to Gods purpose, whether they resist the grace of their cal­ling (in which the Apostle teacheth that there is the exceeding greatnes of Gods power: and what is that but Gods omnipotent power? Ephes. 1.18. The eyes of your vnderstan­ding being inlightned, that you may know what the riches of the glory of his inheritance of the Saints, & what is the exceeding greatnes of his power to vs-ward, who beleeue according to the working of his mighty power. Now we beleeue by the power of his calling, therefore this ex­ceeding greatnes of his power is in his calling: For the first grace that is wrought in vs is faith, which is wroght [Page 19] according to this power of his calling.) If therfore the question be of them that are thus called according to his purpose, and according to this great power; then, remouing the humor of contention, the truth wil easily appeare. For this power of God doth so order the will of man, that the will of man cannot but be willing to receiue this grace, when it is thus ordered, framed and wrought vpon; for the power of working is in grace: grace worketh, conuerteth nature and healeth it: na­ture is wrought vpon, conuerted, and healed. So the question is whether nature in this case doth resist the omnipotent power of God? Lib. de corrept. & gratiae ca. 14. S. Augustine saith, Deo vo­lenti salvum facere hominem, nullum hominis resistit arbitrium. But then saith our Author, it must follow that the will of God is irresistible.

I demaund from whence hee had this obiection to dart against Gods Predestination? it is apparant that it cometh out of the same quiuer out of which he had all the rest. I must intreat him to obserue this obiection more exactly: and by this he may finde against whom he disputeth: for the blessed Apostle layeth downe these things in order: First the doctrine, which this Author oppugneth; secondly, this mans obiection against that doctrine: and lastly, the answer to this obiection. Ro. 9.18. &c. The doctrine in this Apostolicall conclusion: Therefore he hath mercy on whom he wil haue mercy, and whom he wil, he hardeneth. The obiection in these words: Then thou wilt say vnto me, why doth he yet complaine, who hath resisted his will? The answer in these words: Nay, but ô man who art thou that repliest against God? shal the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Our Author must consider against [Page 20] whom he maketh this obiectiō, whē he accuseth Gods purpose of predestination to be a decree irresistible: For the Apostle hath met with this obiectiō: Who hath resi­sted his wil? Lib. de Praedest. Sanct. cap. 6. The Apostle saith not that mē may resist this will of God, but he saith that this maner of obiecting is replying against God. S. Augustine obserued thus much. Voluntati eius quis resistit? Numquid responsum est ab Apostolo; ô homo falsum est quod dixisti? non; sed re­sponsum est ô homo quis tu es, qui responsas Deo? And that which the blessed Apostle hath taught in this one obiection we may by good ground and warrant from the Apostle iudge accordingly in all the rest of these accusations and obiections, which are here brought a­gainst the doctrine of Predestination, that all these ob­iections are nothing else but replying against God. How could such a desperate conceit come into the hart of one that professeth the Gospell in our Church? What this Author may thinke hereof I know not: but verily I should tremble, if I were found in such a case, in plaine termes, opposite to the Apostle; obiecting that which the Apostle hath so seuerely repressed.

An other accusation against Predestination is, that it is determined. I thinke the man did not vse much premeditation in these things, but tooke them vpon the credit of some that he trusted. For that the pur­pose of God should be determined, did euer any man doubt? The very word propositum, the purpose of God doth proue a determination. And hee may read that neither Herod, nor Pontius Pilate, nor the Gen­tiles, nor the Iewes, in shewing their greatest malice against Christ and his Apostles, and in exercising their greatest cruelty, Act. 4.28. could go no further, nor doe no other thing, then whatsoeuer the hand and Counsell of God had [Page 21] determined before to be done: This was neuer doubted, no not amongst the Pelagians, that the Counsell and purpose of God is determined. Onely the question is what doth Determine Gods purpose? whether his owne will or mans Freewill? If this mans purpose bee to giue this to mans free will, then he commeth home to the Pelagians. If he confesse this determinating po­wer to be in Gods wil; then to what end doth he obiect this, as a thing absurd, that the decree is determined?

The last accusation is, that they who hold the Do­ctrine of Predestination bring in Fatall necessity. As he vseth this obiection, so the Pelagians vsed it, and vrged it against St. Augustine. St. Augustine complaineth of such accusers of his Doctrine: Lib. de don [...] perseu. Cap. 12. Pelagiani nobis obijciunt, quod fato tribuamus Dei gratiam: Ipsi potius Dei grati­am fato in parvulis tribuunt, qui dicunt fatum esse, vbi meritum non est. And in an other place: Nec sub no­mine gratiae fatum asserimus. Ad Bonif. lib. [...] cap. 5. —Si autem quibusdam omnipotentis Dei voluntatem placet fati nomine nuncu­p [...]ri, profanas quidem verborum nouitates euitamus, sed de verbis concendere nolumus.

This Author taketh his pleasure to vse the same Ob­iections against Predestination, which the Pelagians v­sed. But the indignity is, that whilst he is thus wrang­ling against our Church with the Pelagians, hee must be supposed (forsooth!) to maintaine the Doctrines of our Church; as if our Church had need of such main­tayners. Who did accuse the Doctrine of our Church? For now he hath done with the Gagger, he is turned to others who charge not the Doctrine of our Church. Th [...] Doctrine of our Church hath beene, and will bee maintayned by other men and meanes: We neede no [Page 22] Pelagians to helpe vs heerein. This man hath more dis­honoured our Church; and slandred our Doctrines, then euer did any member of our Church: This is playne dealing without malice. For if hee were not plainly told of his errors, how could he see them and redresse them? as our hope is he will. But to proceed, St. Augustine sporteth himselfe with the folly of such, as charge him to induce fatal necessity vnder the name of grace. Potest enim hinc similiter stultus fati asserto­rem Apostolum putare vel dicere. Ibid. Quum enim propterea nobis calumniantur, dicentes nos gratiae nomine fatum asserere, quia non secundum merita nostra dari dicimus gratiam Dei: proculdubio confitentur quod ipsi secundum merita nostra gratiam dari dicant. And verily wee can say no lesse to this man, then Augustine sayd to the Pe­lagians, that in making these obiections, hee doth se­cretly confesse that the grace of God is giuen accor­ding to our merits. For there was neuer any that vsed these obiections against Predestination, but held withal that conclusion, that the grace of God is giuen in re­spect of merits, and therefore this man sticketh not at this, but commeth home roundly to the same conclu­sion: as presently it shall appeare.

Aduers. calum­niat. August. c. 1 Prosper found himselfe troubled with the same ac­cusations, in that other part, of dereliction. Obijciunt (sayth hee) quod ex praedestinatione Dei, velut fatali ne­cessitate homines in peceata compulsi cogantur ad mortem. Prosper shortly returneth this. Quisquis ex predestina­tione Dei velut fatali necessitate homines in peccata com­pulsos cogi dicit in mortem, non est Catholicus.

That Doctrine of the respective decree, which the Author of the Appeale nourisheth as a Viper in his bo­some, [Page 23] doth indeed respect that conclusion of Pelagius; that Grace is giuen according to merits. For if grace be giuen according to some respects or vertues found or fore-seene in men predestinated, then it must follow as Pelagius taught, that Grace is giuen according to me­rits: for in the end they will close: For this respectiue decree respecteth somewhat in the predestinated: What is that, but some vertue? and what is that but some merit? Thus hee hath brought his respectiue de­cree to a faire issue, to joyne hands with Pelagius. Per­haps hee may seeke an euasion, that by a respectiue de­cree he meaneth not the decree of Predestination, but of Reprobation, which is in respect of sinne. I could wish that hee had beene so aduised, as to haue reserued this refuge for himselfe: But hee speaketh of the decree of Predestination, scornfully calling it our New Doctrine, and sometimes our decree, sometimes the Priuate fancy of some particular men.

But himselfe putteth this matter out of doubt, in those words of his before cited, on the 17. Article. There is not (sayth he) any word, syllable or apex touch­ing your absolute, necessary, determined, irresistible, irre­spectiue decree of God, to cal, saue and glorifie St. Peter, for instance, without any consideration had or regard to his Faith, Obedience and Repentance, and to condemne Iudas as necessarily, without any respect had to his sinne: This, (saith he) is the priuat fancy of some particuler men.

Now are we come to the instance of St. Peter: For to all other things I haue spoken. In this instance hee hath somewhat roundly opened himselfe: This taketh away that refuge, which he might haue reserued, to say, that by his respectiue decree, he might haue meant re­probation: [Page 24] That men that are forsaken are iustly throwne into condemnation in respect of their sins.

For to speake somewhat to this particular. If that be granted which we haue prooued before by euident Scriptures, that both Predestination and Reprobation respect the corrupt masse of mankinde: This I say bee­ing granted: It followeth that Gods iustice did find a iust cause to condemne all men, because all haue sinned and are depriued of the glory of God: But God in his mercy receyueth some to fauour: Of this we can finde no other cause but the meere and onely Will of God: God in his iustice condemneth other; of this beside the Wil of God wee finde a cause, to be the sinne of those men that are condemned. Here riseth a question, whe­ther there be an absolute decree of Reprobation? If we vnderstand an absolute decree to be such as dependeth vpon the onely wil of God, without respect to any o­ther thing; then I confesse I cannot vnderstand any such absolute decree in this: For those things are here vnderstood absolute, which depend vppon no other cause, but only the wil of God. Now heere besides the wil of God, wee find sin to be a iust cause to condemne, and to reprobate. For this ground wee take with Saint Augustine that Predestination and Reprobation doe re­spect sinne. And if besides the wil of God, sinne also be a just cause of condemnation, then, I vnderstand not how any decree herein can be absolute. But if it should be further questioned whether dereliction of some in their sinne be absolute? so far as my knowledge reach­eth, I must yeeld that this may be called absolute; be­cause in this there is no other cause but onely the will of God: For seeing that all men are once found sinners, [Page 25] there may be a cause giuen why all men may iustly de­serue condemnation: The cause is apparant, that is, sinne; but why any man should bee saued no cause ap­peareth, but onely the will of God, and his mercy to them whom hee is well pleased to deliuer from sinne. Vpon these grounds St. Augustine sayth, Obdurationis meritum inuenio, misericordiae meritum non inuenio. But some obiect thus: If sinne be the cause of condem­nation and reprobation, then must all men be condem­ned and reprobate; for all haue sinned. Whereby they would inferre, that sinne is no cause of condemnation and reprobation, but onely the will of God: but I de­ny the consequence; for the true consequence should be this. If sinne be the cause of condemnation and re­probation, then no man can find any cause in himselfe, why he should not be condemned and reprobate. For I suppose that the greatest Saints that euer liued, could finde no cause in themselues why they might not bee condemned and reprobate: I say in themselues: for if they looke out of themselues vpon Christ, then they finde an high and only cause, the will of God in Christ, in whom he hath fully reuealed his will and mercy to saue sinners. For Christ was sent to saue them that were lost, and to call sinners to repentance.

Some may happily say, that these questions and quirkes might be forborne, and not spoken of at all. I answere, I am of the same minde: But when the ene­mies of the Truth, Pelagians and Arminians are euer busie in stirring these questions, these busie heads im­pose a necessity vppon them that loue the Truth to maintaine it, and by plaine writing to walke safely and plainely euen through the middest of Maeandrian [Page 26] crookes and windings of the Aduersaries. The Church (sayth Tertullian) hath a rule, and this rule hath no question, but such as Heresies bring in.

Thus we see there may be a cause of condemnation besides the onely will of God, but concurring with Gods will; but of saluation no cause can be giuen but the onely will of God. Yet our Author here vnderta­keth to find a cause besides the only wil of God, though concurring with Gods will: This hee doth in the in­stance of St. Peter: For he sayth that There is neither word, apex, nor syllable to proue that God did call, saue, and glorifie St. Peter without any consideration had or regard to his faith, obedience and repentance.

The better to vnderstand this, we must cleare some things which hee hath confounded. They that deale not playnely confound many things of purpose, which must be distinguished that the matter may bee clea­red. Hee sayth that Saint Peter was not called, saued and glorified without consideration, or regard of his Faith, Obedience and Repentance. This proposition in Truth containeth three propositions in it: And nei­ther can he conclude three propositions at once, ney­ther can any man answere to three at once. Therefore wee must distinctly separate these three propositions, that his confusion may appeare, and that a cleare an­swere may be framed vnto the poynt in question.

Of these three propositions, the first is, St. Peter was not called without respect to his Faith, Obedience, and Repentance. The second is, Saint Peter was not saued without respect to his Faith, Obedience and Repen­tance. The third is, Saint Peter was not glorified with­out respect to his Faith, Obedience, and Repentance. [Page 27] These three things are not all of one kinde. The two latter propositions we grant; the reason is, because sal­uation and glorification are in the nature of a reward. Now the Scripture witnesseth, that God will reward euery man according to his Workes: And therefore Saint Peters faith, obedience and repentance shall-bee rewarded with saluation, and glorification: And sal­uation and glory may bee sayd to respect these goods workes that went before.

But the first of these propositions is, that Saint Peter was not called without respect to his faith, obedi­ence and repentance. Here we close with him. I must charge with Pelagianisme in that very point of this He­resie, for which Pelagius was condemned for an Here­ticke in the Synode of Palestina, as St. Augustine often relateth. In which Synode the Doctrines of Pelagius were condemned, as they were also in many other Synodes: Concilio Carthag. 7. Concilio Meleuitano: Concilio Arausica: And also condemned by the decrees of the Popes that then were, and the Emperors.

He sayth that St. Peter was not called without respect and consideration had to his faith, obedience and re­pentance: In denying this proposition he affirmeth the contradictory: That St. Peter was called in considera­tion and respect of his faith, obedience, and repentance. This is the same which the Church hath condemned in Pelagius. For Pelagius taught no otherwise but thus, Gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra: In respect or consideration of our merits. This man teacheth that St. Peter was called in consideration or respect of his faith, obedience and repentance. This is euidently Se­cundum merita, as Pelagius vnderstood merita. For [Page 28] those things which Pelagius and the Ancient Fathers, who wrote in his time, called merita, were no other then these which this man calleth faith, obedience, and repentance; Pelagius knew no greater merits then these. If St. Peter was called in consideration and respect of these things, then was that grace of his calling giuen in consideration and respect of these things, and so Gratia datur secundum merita: Secundum merita, whe­ther we Translate, according to merits, or in respect and consideration of merits, all is one. I stand not vppon any curiosity of Words, there is no difference in the matter. It followeth necessarily, that this man teacheth that Doctrine, for which Pelagius was con­demned for an Hereticke: let him shift this as hee can.

Here the Author of the Appeale may consider what wrong he hath done to the Church of England; in obtruding, for Doctrines of our Church, the old rotten Heresies of Pelagius. And let him also consider who doth now [...] trouble and betray the Church of England. Wee teach with the Scriptures, and with the most Orthodoxe Ancient Church, that St. Peter was predestinated and called vnto faith, obe­dience, and repentance. This man runneth with the Arminians into the depth of Pelagius his poysoned Doctrine. And was it not likely that hee should run this way, who being a priuate man without authority, taketh vpon him to impose Doctrines to our Church, to change those that are receiued, and in place there­of to reuiue the Pelagian errours, to beare men in hand that these are the Doctrines of our Church; to scorne men that haue beene reuerenced for their Lear­ning, [Page 29] and will bee reuerenced in the ages following; such as Arch-bishop Whitgift, Arch-bishop Hutton, Doctor Rainolds, Doctor Whittakers, and the other Bishops and Learned men, that joyned with them, whom this man accounteth sometimes Caluinists and Puritanes, sometimes that They were reputed learned, as if himselfe had that in Truth, which they did but seeme to haue: Who being a Priest of the Church of England, accuseth Bishops, his superiours, to be Puri­tanes; as all must be to him, who yeeld not to his foo­lish and erroneous Doctrines: who in commenda­tion of his owne stile calleth it an Exasperating stile: Who in this exasperating humour careth not, and professeth that hee careth not, what any thinke that please not this his humour: Who with such height of disdayne sleighteth the diligence and industry of his brethren gathered at the Synode at Dort. Yet they who were imployed in that seruice, were authorized by his Majesties Commission, directed by his Instru­ctions, and when they returned rendring to his Ma­iesty an account of their imployment, were most gra­ciously approoued of by his Maiesty, onely they can­not get the approbation of this Gentleman. It were good for him to consider these exasperating humors; they proceede from Pride: Here is neyther Humility nor Charity to be found, and therefore not the Spirit of God. And what good can he do in Gods Church, that commeth in Pride, and a spirit exasperating without charity and humility? Sir, I write not this in choller, nor in malice to your person: but I haue told you plainely the censures of those men, with whom I haue spoken in this matter; both of the higher sort in [Page 30] the Church, who are your Fathers; & of inferior ranke, who are your Brethren. I omit the censure of the Layty. I speake of them that are able to iudge of your spirit. And because they haue obserued these things in you, I thought the best seruice I could do you, was plainly to let you know these things that you may amend them.

It were good and necessary for you to vnderstand how you haue bin fetched ouer by those cosening com­panions the Arminians, who haue plunged you in with themselues in the depthes of Pelagius. Their end in de­uising that respectiue decree is, that Predestination should not be ruled by Gods will, and eternall purpose, but by mans free will. And this is the end which you must imbrace, vnlesse God turne your heart, and warne you to auoide these dangerous and pernitious doctrines, wherein you draw the yoake with Pelagius. God make you to see your errour, and to make some satisfaction to the Church of England, whom you haue so much wronged.

We say in this, as Saint Augustine sayd in the like. Promisit Deus, quae ipse facturus erat, non quod homines facturi erant, De praedest. sanct. cap. 10. quum Abrahae promiserat in semine eius fi­dem gentium: quia etsi faciunt homines bona, ipse ta­men facit vt faciant, quae praecepit. Alioquin vt Dei promissa compleantur, non in Deised in hominum est potestate. That which Saint Augustine saith here of the promise of God, is in like manner true in the pur­pose of Gods Predestination. For God doth prede­stinate that which he himselfe will do, not that which men would doe. For albeit men according to Gods purpose are called, doe beleeue, are iustified, walke in obedience & repentance, and other good workes, yet [Page 31] it is God that worketh that which he predestinateth, and worketh according to his owne exceeding great power faith in men, charity, and hope, and maketh them walke in obedience: otherwise, that Predesti­nation should haue his effect, it should not be in Gods power, but in mans power. Now if it be Gods calling that gaue to Saint Peter faith, obedience and repen­tance, how then doth this man say that Saint Peter was called in consideration and respect of his faith, obe­dience and repentance? This is true that God giueth these graces: Now he sayth, that Saint Peter was called in respect of these graces: what can followe but this, that God giueth these graces to Saint Peter, in respect of these graces. Which were to run giddy in a circle.

SOme happily may obiect, that this is not so plaine Pelagianisme: For Pelagius taught that there was somewhat in Na­ture, that did cause God to confer grace, but this man seemeth to say, that God giueth grace not in respect of nature, but in respect of grace: For faith, obedience and repentance are graces: and if in these respects God giue grace, then it is grace that draweth grace, and not nature.

This obiection, as it may proceede from the Pelagi­ans; is of no validity: For Saint Augustine doth wit­nesse that Pelagius himselfe did confesse grace in words, but in truth denied it. I will not thinke that this man [Page 32] doth so collude in this word Grace: But because hee followeth the same course which the Pelagians held, whether wittingly, or as I rather thinke, vnwittingly: We may not suffer the grace of God, whether wit­tingly, or vnwittingly to be defaced. The Pelagians when they speake of faith, and charity, and such like graces, giue but smooth words to colour their mea­ning, and to deceiue the simple: Some of them doe more plainely open themselues. Iohn Scotus who was the greatest Pelagian that liued in his time (for it was he that brought in the doctrine of Meritum ex congruo, which some of the most learned Papists, amongst whō we may account Franciscus Victoria, do confesse to be the true doctrine of Pelagius. Victoria speaking of that doctrine, De merito ex congruo; saith plainly, Haec erat bona pars erroris Pelagianorum, R [...]ect. 1. de po­test. si ego quicquam intelligo. Scotus then teacheth that faith, charity and repentance may be had ex puris naturalibus. Concerning faith he saith: Zib. 3. dist. 23▪ Quest. 1. Fide acquisita ex puris naturalibus potest homo as­sentiri omnibus reuelatis à Deo. And a little after. Hoc igitur tenendum est tanquam certum, quod reuelatorum in Scripturis est nobis acquisita fides generata ex auditu & actionibus nostris, qua eis firmiter adhaeremus. And speaking of faith infused, he saith. De fide infusa quo­modo sit ponenda in nobis, hoc non est ita certum an fit, vel quomodo sit ponenda in nobis. After the same manner he speaketh of charity. Lib. 3. Distinct. 27. Quaest. 1. & dist. 28. Now seeing these be their positions, it is not much materiall what words they giue; when speaking of grace, they intend to giue all to nature in the end. The subtle Doctor saw that they who bring in the respectiue decree, affirming that God in confer­ring [Page 33] of grace respecteth somewhat in man, must needs yeeld that the thing respected in man, must be nature, nothing but nature. And therefore Scotus, beeing a Famous Pelagian, granteth that roundly, because hee perceiued that the respectiue decree cannot stand with­out this ground.

But others are or seeme to bee offended at such grosse proceedings, and therefore they would tem­per this morter, and daube it vp thus: That it is not Nature but Grace that God respecteth. Thus they would in words mollifie the horrour of the other opi­nion, and yet they retayne the same absurdities. The Author of the Appeale is running on with these; but God knoweth which way hee is going, for hee him­selfe knoweth not. Hee sayth, God called Saint Pe­ter in respect of his Faith, Obedience, and Repen­tance, and then hee thinketh, that hee hath well sayd, in laying this respect not vppon nature, but vppon grace, as hee thinketh: But hee doth not vnderstand the absurdity that this draweth after it. For if God called Saint Peter in respect of his Faith, Obedience, and Repentance; then were Saint Peters Faith, Obedience and Repentance some cause why hee was called; and therefore before his calling. But in true Diuinity Saint Peters Faith, Obedience and Re­pentance, are the effects of his calling, not the cause; and come after the calling, but goe not before it. It may well bee sayd that God iustified him in respect of his calling, and God called him in respect of Predesti­nation, and God predestinated him, Secundum pro­positum, in respect of his purpose: For so Saint Au­gustine reasoneth, that for the grace of Predestina­tion, [Page 34] wee haue the grace of Gods calling, that is grace for grace: And for the grace of his Calling, wee haue the grace of Iustification, that is, grace for grace. But the Ancients that reasoned thus, alwayes obserued that the Consequent grace might be giuen for and in respect of the Precedent grace: but that the Precedent grace might bee giuen for or in respect of a Subsequent grace, there was neuer Orthodoxe Writer that taught so: Yet the Pelagians and af­ter them the Arminians, seeming willing to a­uoyde the danger of that Rocke, at which so many haue made Shipwracke, that grace is giuen for some respects in nature, to auoyde this absurdity, they labour to mollifie the matter, but runne still vp­pon the same danger: They change the manner of speaking, and say that a Precedent grace is giuen in respect of subsequent grace, as this man sayth, When hee holdeth, that the grace of calling is giuen in respect of Faith and Obedience, which are subse­quent graces.

But this is nothing else, but for the loue to holde with Pelagius, to say something; Wherein they for­sake Vnderstanding, Reason, Diuinity, and Phi­losophy, and speake Non sence. For that I call Non-sence, that is against Diuinity, Philosophy and Common reason, as this is, which maketh a sub­sequent grace to bee the cause of a Precedent grace; to set the effect before the cause. And because in this manner of speech, there is nothing to satisfie the vnderstanding of a Diuine or a Philosopher, it is ap­parant, that this was deuised for none other end, but onely to dazle the ignorant with Wordes without [Page 35] Vnderstanding: But a matter of this nature will not bee carryed with empty Wordes.

And in so high a poynt of Diuinity, to speake without expresse Scriptures, is a signe that they pre­sume too much, eyther vppon their owne wit, or vppon other mens weaknesse. Their end is, that if thus much might be obtayned, that God giueth the precedent grace for or in respect of the consequent, they might with more ease afterward fall into the playne tearmes of Pelagius. For howsoeuer they may palliate the matter with strange VVordes not vnder­stood, yet the Truth is, as Scotus confesseth, that if Gods grace bee giuen in respect of any thing in man, that can bee nothing but nature. For in man, before he be called, there is nothing but nature.

And therefore the playne Doctrine of Scotus, that a man may merite grace Ex puris naturalibus, standeth more probable in reason, then this opinion which deuiseth a subsequent grace to be the cause of a precedent grace: For as this is against Diuinity, so the reason of the Naturall man refuseth it.

The graces of God are ordered, and they that would disorder them, trouble the whole frame of our saluation. For God hath set the order: From Gods purpose proceedeth Predestination, from Predesti­nation Calling, from Calling Faith and Iustification, from Iustification Obedience and all fruitefull workes. The first grace that wee apprehend is Calling: And therefore before we are called, there is nothing in vs but nature. If then God respect any thing in man, in respect whereof hee calleth him, that can be nothing but nature and free will.

[Page 36]This the Pelagians taught plainely; but some fol­lowing the Pelagians are ashamed to vtter themselues so plainely: They striue to handle the matter more finely, but whilest they seeke finenesse, they haue lost their wits. Surely they haue forsaken reason and vn­derstanding. Now it is not possible that from nature and freewill any grace should rise: because the Lord sayth, Iohn 3.6. That which is borne of the flesh is flesh, and that which is borne of the spirit is spirit. Here be two prin­ciples set, one in Nature, the other in Grace: The principle of grace and all good motions is the Spirit: the highest principle of nature and naturall motions is the Flesh: Therefore no grace of the spirit can pro­ceede from the flesh; but nature and free-will is no­thing but flesh.

Againe, the order, wherin the Blessed Apostle setteth downe these things, the purpose of God, predestinati­on, calling, iustification, glorification, doth prooue that a precedent grace may be some cause to draw after it a subsequent grace; but for a subsequent grace to be any manner of cause to draw a precedent, this is im­possible. The blessed Apostle sayth: All things fall out for the best to them that loue God, to them that are cal­led according to his purpose.

Before I come to that which I intend, I would heere first remooue a scruple, which the Pelagians stumble at, in those words of the Apostle: To them that loue God: From these words they inferre, that God respecteth them that loue him; But the Apostle expoundeth him­selfe in the words following: To them that are called according to his purpose: For these are they who loue God; who vnderstand that Gods loue preuented them [Page 37] and called them according to his purpose. He that hath the knowledge of this loue of God, must needes loue God againe: but this loue beginneth by Gods preuenting loue, as St. Iohn sayth: Herein is loue, not that we loued God, 1 Iohn 4.10. but that he loued vs, and sent his son to be a reconciliation for our sinnes. There be some that begin to loue, but fall away and continue not to the end. Of these St. Bede, in his Expositions collected out of Saint Augustine, Bed. in Rom. 8. expoundeth this place thus. Apostolus cum dixisset: scimus quoniam diligentibus de­um omnia cooperantur in bonum, sciens non nullos dili­gere Deum, & in eo bono vs (que) in finem non permanere; mox addidit; his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt: Hi enim, in eo quod diligunt Deum, permanent vs (que) in fi­nem. Thus much to remooue this scruple, that no oc­casion be left to the Pelagians. Now to proceed. The Apostle sayth, All things fall out to the best, to them that are called according to Gods purpose: Then Gods calling is according to his purpose. If any man should say, that Gods purpose were according to his calling; should hee not inuert the Wordes of the Apostle, and falsifie his Doctrine? Then his calling is according to his purpose; but his purpose may not bee sayd to be ac­cording to his calling: because the calling dependeth vppon his purpose, but not the purpose vppon the calling. The purpose is a cause of the calling, but not the calling a cause of the purpose. Now if wee proceede from Vocation to Iustification, wee shall vnderstand the same. For as Vocation dependeth vppon Gods purpose of Predestination, so doth our Iustification depend vpon Vocation; and as this was to peruert the Apostles words, and to falsifie his doctrine, [Page 38] as before I sayd, to say that Gods purpose was accor­ding to his calling: So if a man should say, as this Au­thor sayth, that Gods calling is according to faith, o­bedience and repentance; this man should in like sort peruert the Apostle his words, and falsifie his do­ctrine. For iustification, faith, obedience and repen­tance, depend vpon Gods calling, but his calling de­pendeth not vpon them: they are giuen according to his calling; but his calling is not according to them: And therefore they are giuen for and in considetation of his calling; but that Gods calling should be for and in consideration, or regard of these things, which Gods calling draweth with it, and after it; is a thing absurde not onely in the iudgements of Orthodoxe Writers, but euen in the iudgement of Pelagius himselfe, and of Scotus, and of the most learned of that side; who thought it more probable and agreeing more with reason to say that the grace of God is giuen accor­ding to merits, then to deuise this strange fancy, that a subsequent grace should be the cause of a precedent grace. This I say is not a priuate fancy of some par­ticuler men, but such a thing as was neuer vttered by any sober or learned writer. And because heresie goeth not without absurdities, it may be called either the Arminian heresie, or the Arminian absurdity. For be­sides Arminians, no man writeth thus.

I may not omit to obserue in the last place, that our Authors words crosse the words of the 17. Article; which hee professeth to maintaine. For the article speaking of Predestination sayth. They which be in­dued with such an excellent benefit of God, be called ac­cording to Gods purpose, by his spirit working in due [Page 39] season, they thorough grace obey their calling, they are iu­stified freely, they be made the sonnes of God by adoption, they be made like the image of his onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ, they walke religiously in good workes, and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to euerlasting feli­city.

These words of the Article containe the true Apo­stolicall doctrine: For the calling of God is here sayd to be according to Gods purpose; and iustification, o­bedience, walking religiously in good workes, these things are declared in the Article to follow the calling as effects thereof.

But this man, the new maintainer of the articles and of the doctrines of our Church, peruerteth this A­postolicall doctrine contained in the article. For he sayth, that the calling is according to faith, obedience and repentance: contrary to that which is contained in the article. The article maketh faith, obedience, and repentance, to be the effects of calling, and to followe it, and proueth consequently that the cal­ling is not according to these effects, or in conside­ration and regard of these effects, but that these ef­fects are according to the calling, and in considera­tion and regard of the calling: By this mans do­ctrine, the calling dependeth vpon faith, obedience and repentance: by the doctrine contayned in the article, these things depend vpon the calling.

Thus hath he cleane peruerted and crossed the doctrine contained in the article, and yet this man is thought fit to expound the Articles, and to de­clare the Doctrines of our Church. Thus much [Page 40] concerning his errours touching the matter of Prede­stination.

THe question as Saint Augustine propo­seth it, is of perseuerance of the Saints in grace: As this man and the Pelagi­ans propose it, of falling away from grace, or of the Apostasie of the Saints. The question is the same though di­uersly proposed: so that if we proue the perseuerance of Saints to the ende, then is that doctrine ouer­throwne, that bringeth in the Apostasie of Saints.

If this question be moued thus: Whether a man may fall away from grace: The proposition, by reason of the ambiguous acception and vse of this word grace, may be both true and false. For this is true; a man may fall from grace both totally and finally. And this like­wise true, a man cannot fall from grace neither totally nor finally. They who haue a purpose to deceiue take the generality of termes; and in vniuersalibus latet do­lits. Therefore before any true proofe can be made in any disputation, the word that is ambiguous must be declared distinctly. In the Scriptures, and in those Writers that ground themselues vpon the Scriptures, there is obserued a double acceptation and vse of this word grace. I am not ignorant that many distinctions [Page 41] are vsed of this word, and that Bellarmine confound­eth himselfe, and his reader with the multitude of di­stinctions of this word; but distinctions were inuen­ted to cleare the poynt in question, and not to con­found things. I rest therefore for our present purpose vpon one distinction, which is playne and grounded in the Scriptures, and this it is. Grace is taken diuersly according to diuers Fountaynes from which it flow­eth: For albeit all grace proceedeth from God, yet it proceedeth diuers wayes from him; one way is, by the way of his eternall purpose: Thus proceedeth the grace of Predestination, and the grace of Gods cal­ling according to his purpose, and the grace of iusti­fication according to his calling, and consequently, ac­cording to his purpose. This grace is primary, con­stant and vnchangeable: This is a free gift proceeding from the purpose of God, and is wrought in vs by Gods calling. Rom. 11.29. Of this the Apostle speaketh. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. This is one way by which grace proceedeth from God: Ano­ther way it proceedeth from God, and com­meth to vs by the way of Preaching. Matthew 13. This way diuers graces come in diuers measures, as hte Lord hath taught in the Parable of the Sower. The Sower sowed the same Seed; but some fell by the Way side, and the Fowles came and deuoured it vp; by this are they de­scribed, who heare the word of the Kingdome and vn­derstand it not: Then commeth the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sowen in their heartes. Other seede fell vpon stony ground, where it had not much earth; and forthwith it sprang vp, because it had not deepness of earth, and when the Sunne was vp it was scorched, and because it had not roote, it [Page 42] withered away. By this are they signified, who heare the word and anone with joy receiue it: Yet hee hath no roote in himselfe, but dureth but for a time; for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by hee is offended. Thirdly, some fell a­mongst Thornes, and the Thornes sprang vp and choa­ked it. By this he is noted, that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulnesse of riches choake the Word, and hee becommeth vnfruitfull. Last is hee that receiued seed into good ground, he that heareth the Word and Vnderstandeth it, which also beareth fruite, and bringeth forth some an hundreth, some sixty, some thirty.

I haue stayed the longer vpon the full recitall of this Parable, because it proueth fully that which I intend to draw out of it. First, it is euident hereby, that by the Preaching of the Word diuerse graces are giuen. And the very Preaching of the Word freely to some Nati­ons, is a great grace. In this respect it is called Verbum gratiae, Acts 20.23. This grace, though so great, yet may be lost: For many Nations haue had it, that haue lost it: Let them that haue it make much of it whilest they haue it: For who knoweth how soone it may bee taken away? And this is one way to loose it, to suffer the Doctrines of our Church to bee corrupted. It is the Spirit of God that setteth vp Preaching, and di­recteth Preachers to one place, and not to another: As we read, Acts 16.6, 7, 9. This then is one great grace to haue the Word of God Preached to a people; but when it is Preached some vnderstand it not: others re­ceiue a greater measure of grace, when they receiue the word with joy. Yet this dureth not in some, but is lost both totally and finally: Others are choaked with the [Page 43] deceitfulnesse of the World, and these fall away also: Others are fruitefull and bring foorth plentifully. All receiue the seede in some measure; and thereby re­ceyue grace in some measure: but three sorts loose it altogether, the fourth onely receiueth it fruitfully. Then all these that receiue some grace and loose it a­gaine, are sayd, and truly sayd, to fall away from grace. These graces that are thus lost are true graces: And men may proceede farre in the practise of these gra­ces, some farther then other, and yet may loose them. Then they that speake in generall words, that a man may fall away from grace, speake at randome. The question is Whether they that are according to Gods pur­pose Predestinated, called and iustified, may loose these graces of their Predestination, Calling, and Iustification. This the Orthodoxe Church hath alwayes denied. The Arminians who admit no other Predestination but conditionall, affirme it; and none but Pelagians and Arminians. The Arminians hold that men may be of­ten predestinated, often elected; and in the end may loose all. They labour to prooue that all grace may be vtterly lost, that the power of free will may bee re­ceiued, which then may shewe her power more fully, when there is no grace.

FIrst I will produce reasons to proue, that perse­uerance in grace to the end is a gift of God giuen to true beleeuers; and then answere his Objections. To prooue this, the Scripture is euident to [Page 44] such as reade it with a single heart and vnblemished eies. First of all, those words of the Apostle proue it. Wee know that all things worke together for the best to them that loue God, euen to them that are called accor­ding to his purpose. For those whom hee knew before, hee Predestinated to be made like to the Image of his Sonne, that hee might bee the first borne amongst many brethren. Moreouer whom hee Predestinated, them also hee called, and whom he called, them also he iustified, and whom he iustified, them also he glorified. The purpose of God is the Spring and Fountaine from which all these graces are deriued: The end is glorification: From the be­ginning to the end are Predestination, Calling and Iusti­fication. The chayne is so linked together, that it can­not be separated. He that God purposed to Predesti­nate, must needes be Predestinated; hee that is Prede­stinated must needes be called; he that is so called must be iustified; hee that is so iustified must be glorified: But no man can come to glory without the grace of perseuerance to the end: Therefore where God giueth these graces, such a calling, such a iustification, hee gi­ueth with all perseuerance, without which no man can come to this end.

The same is prooued from the words of St. Iohn. Whosoeuer is borne of God sinneth not, 1 Iohn 3.9. for his seede abi­deth in him, and hee cannot sinne because he is borne of God. When St. Iohn sayth, that a man, once regene­rate by the Spirit of God, sinneth not, and cannot sinne: We may not vnderstand this of sinnes of infir­mitie: For of such St. Iohn himselfe sayth: If wee say we haue no sinnes, 1 Iohn 1.8. we deceiue our selues, and the Truth is not in vs, if we confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and [Page 45] iust to forgiue vs our sinnes. How then doe these two agree together? First, we are all sinners and wee must confesse our sinnes: Secondly, a regenerate man sin­neth not, yea cannot sinne. These contentions of the Arminian faction, hath taught vs to reconcile these places. For a man that is borne of God may sinne; that is, fall into the sinnes of infirmity; but yet he can not sinne, that is, he cannot fall backe into the ser­uice and dominion of sinne totally and finally. The thing which I especially obserue out of these wordes is, that there is somewhat which is heere called the Seede of God abiding in him that is once borne of God: And this declareth a regeneration which pro­ceedeth from the purpose of God, and from that po­werfull calling which is according to his purpose. What this seede is, let any man declare: This is cer­taine, all is not gone, all is not cut off by intercision; here is a Seede of God abiding: Call it what you will, all is one to our purpose: For whether this Seede of God be Faith, or the Word of God, or the Grace of Gods calling according to his purpose, or the Spirit, or any of these, or all these: It prooueth our purpose, that all is not gone, all is not falne away: If all be not falne away, then this man in whom it abideth can not fall totally. If Faith bee the Seed, the Word of God soweth it, the calling of God rayseth it, and makes it fruitfull, 1 Peter 2.3. the Spirit of God quickneth it: To this purpose St. Peter sayth: Being borne againe, not of cor­ruptible Seede, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which liueth and abideth for euer: The VVord of God is sayd to liue and abide for euer, because of the effect which it worketh, as some learned Interpreters haue [Page 46] obserued: For here he speaketh of the new birth, as Saint Iohn did, of the incorruptible seede (as Saint Iohn called it) the seede of God abiding, of the word of God whereby the grace of regeneration is giuen, which liueth and abideth for euer. This agreeth with that which St. Iohn sayd of the same new birth.

Saint Peter confirmeth this further in those wordes: Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, 1 Peter 1.3. which according to his aboundant mercy hath begotten vs againe to a liuely hope, by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance immortall, and vndefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserued in Heauen for you, which are kept by the power of God through faith vnto saluation. It is hard to deuise more expresse words to deliuer this Doctrine of perseuerance, then Saint Pe­ter vseth here: For he speaketh of them that are rege­nerate according to the purpose of God, when hee sayth, According to his aboundant mercy he hath begotten vs againe; he sayth, to a liuely hope, and inheritance; the inheritance is sayd to be reserued for vs in Heauen, and we are kept by the Power of God through faith vnto it. If we be kept for it by Gods power through faith, and it be kept for vs; then he that denieth perseuerance vnto the end, must breake this power of God by which we are preserued to the end: For what is this power of God that keepeth vs through faith to the end, but the grace of perseuerance to the end?

The same Doctrine of perseuerance, or of our pre­seruation by Gods power to the end, is confirmed vnto vs from the nature of Faith and of Charity. Of Faith the Lord saith: Iohn 5.24. He that heareth my Word and be­leeueth on him that sent me, hath euerlasting life, and [Page 47] shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life. The Lord speaketh of Faith, but this faith is not an Historicall faith, nor a Temporary faith; for these doe fade and haue not this promise which this faith hath of which the Lord speaketh: Then what faith can this bee, but such a iustifying faith that proceedeth from the Calling of God according to his purpose? The Lord sayth, that Hee who thus be­leeueth hath euerlasting Life: If hee hath euerlast­ing Life, then what Arminian or Pelagian can take this from him, that Christ sayth hee hath? Some may answere, that when it is sayd, hee hath it, it may bee vnderstood, hee shall haue it. I stand not much vppon that, for whether the Lord, that gi­ueth euerlasting life, say hee hath it, or hee shall haue, it is not much differing: But yet I cannot but ob­serue the Lords speech, who knew best how to speake. When hee sayth He hath it, his meaning is, that euer­lasting life shall be as firmely and truely giuen to him, as if hee had it already in possession, which yet hee holdeth but in hope.

Now which of all the Pelagians dare say, that perhaps hee may haue it, and perhaps hee may loose it, or that hee may fall totally or finally from it, when the Lord sayth hee hath it? Hee could haue sayd, hee shall haue it, but why doth hee say He hath it, but onely to teach vs that true beleeuers haue such a grace heere, which can not be lost? The Lord sayth also of the man that hath this grace, that He shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to Life. What is that, is passed? but to make this Doctrine sure, that there is such a grace giuen heere [Page 48] which cannot be lost. Let the Pelagians wrangle as they will about losse of grace: this may be sufficient for vs to rest in the plaine and euident words of our Lord and Maister Christ Iesus. Thus we see that a true and liuely faith carrieth with it vndoubtedly the grace of perseuerance vnto the end.

The same may be confirmed from Charity. I meane such charity whereby such a faith worketh, as was last described. Of charity the Apostle hath these words. Charity neuer faileth; though prophecie fayle, and tongues shall cease, and knowledge shall va­nish away.

If any man shall here say, that this is spoken in re­spect of other graces that in this life we haue vse of, and go no farther. I answere, I admit that to be so: but here the Apostle sayth, Charity neuer fayleth. It is true, he numbreth vp some graces that do fayle. I graunt that in the life to come we shall not haue vse of these graces that fayle. The Apostle obser­ueth a difference here betweene graces and graces: some for the vse of this life onely, others for this life and for that to come. Of these that are both for this life, and for that to come, he nameth charitie which fayleth neuer. If charity neuer faile, no not in the life to come; then it must follow that it neuer faileth in this life: because if it should faile in this life, then it must needes faile in the life to come. For no man shall haue the glorious comfort of charitie in that life, who looseth altogether the gracious comfort of it in this life. Charitie neuer faileth; therefore it abi­deth for euer: therefore there are graces wherein true beleeuers perseuere to the end. Heereupon some [Page 49] Schoolemen say that perseuerance is a grace, not really differing from charity: It is true that charity waxeth cold, and the charity of many may faile, and the faith of many may faile: but the purpose of God cannot faile: and those graces that proceede from Gods purpose neuer faile them to whom they are so giuen.

But because these controuersies were not knowne in the Church, before the time of S. Augustine, and by him more diligently handled then by any other. For the an­cient Fathers that liued before him, could not speake to these things which are brought in by Pelagius after they were dead, and therefore could not come to their know­ledge: and indeede spake somewhat securely as fearing no harme and not knowing that their words should af­ter their death bee peruerted by the Pelagians, which made S. Augustine say, Vobis Pelagianis nondum natis se­curius loquebantur Patres Because, I say, before him none could, and after none did so exactly handle these things, as if he had beene raised vp▪ and reserued by God to do this seruice to the Church, (as no doubt hee was.) I pur­pose heere to ser downe S. Augustines doctrines in this particular, not by way of citing some sentences, but by a continued tract. I may sometimes vpon occasions in­termingle some things, but that shall be in a parenthesis. The whole body of this that followeth is S. Augustines. Which I do the more willingly, because I am well as­sured, that the learned Bishops who were in the reforma­tion of our Church, in the beginning of Queene Eliza­beths raigne, did so much honour S. Augustine, that in the collecting of the Articles and Homilyes, and other things in that reformation, they had an especiall respect vnto S. Augustines doctrines.

‘ Lib. de pra­dest. SanctorFIrst this is true, that God by especiall graces hath made a difference betweene Saints and other men. This is euident by those words. Quis te discernit? quid habes quod non accepisti? 1. Cor. 4.7. Who separateth thee? what hast thou that thou hast not receiued? This separation or distinction is not made by naturall guifts. For no man can say that one man is made to differ from another by naturall guifts, which are common to all men: it remai­neth then that this difference is made by especiall gra­ces.’

(It is incredible to heare the folly and pride of the Arminians Greuincouius, one of them, was not afraid to answer these words of the Apostle, quis te discernit? with these words of his owne crackt braine, ego meip­sum discerno. But let S. Augustine proceed.)

1. Petition. Hallowed be thy name. ‘Wee say (saith S. Cyprian) hallowed be thy name. Not that we aske of God, that it may bee hallowed by prayers: but because we desire of him, that his name may be hallowed in no­bis, in our selues. But how is God sanctified by man, whom God himselfe doth sanctifie? Yet because hee hath said, Be you holy because I am holy; this we aske, this we desire, that we, who are sanctified in baptisme, may perseuere in that which we haue begun to be.’

2. Petition, Aduentat regnumtuum. ‘Doe we here aske any other thing, then that his kingdome may come to vs, which we doubt not shall come to all the Saints? Then they that are Saints, what other thing doe they aske here, but that they may perseuere in that sanctitie which is giuen to them? For otherwise the kingdome of God shall not come to them, which assuredly com­meth to none other, but onely to them which perseuere vnto the end.’

3. Petition. Fiat voluntas tua in terra sicut &c. ‘The Saints who do the will of God, saying, thy will be done, pray that it may bee done, when it is already done in them. Why then doe they yet pray that it may be done, but onely that they may perseuere in that which they haue begun to be?’

4. Petition. Giue vs this day our daily bread. ‘S. Cy­prian sheweth how perseuerance is here also prayed for. We desire (saith he) that this bread may be daily giuen [Page 53] vs, least that we, who are in Christ, and daily receiue the Eucharist, as the food of our soules, may be separated from the body of Christ, if by any grieuous crime, or being excommunicate, we be forbidden to come to re­ceiue this heauenly bread. These things (saith S. Augu­stine) shew plainely, that the Saints by prayer aske per­seuerance of the Lord, when in this intention they say, giue vs this day our daily bread, least they bee separate from the body of Christ, they pray that they may per­sist in sanctitie.’

6. Petition. Leade vs not into temptation.

I Was willing to let S. Augustine bee heard the longer in that cause, wherein he was most exer­cised against the Pelagians. The same doctrine as being the publique receiued doctrine of the Church, hath beene likewise taught by others. In Ephes. 1. S. Ambrose saith, quos deus vocare dicitur, perseuerant in fide, hij sunt quos elegit ante mundi constitutionem. He maketh p [...]r­seuerance a grace that dependeth vpon Gods calling: hee meaneth, as himselfe expoundeth it, that calling which is according to Gods purpose. And hee saith againe in the same place, hoc placuit deo, cuius consilium retractari non potest. Exhort. ad virgin. 2 Tim. 4, 7, 8. This he proueth also from those words of the Apostle: I haue fought a good fight, I haue finished my course, I haue kept the faith; from henceforth is laid vp for mee the crowne of righteousnesse, which the Lord the righteous Iudge shall giue at that day: and not to me onely, but to all them also that loue his appearing. Then without perseuerance no man can expect glory. And this grace is giuen not onely to Saint Paul, and such ex­cellent Saints as hee was, but vnto all that loue the Lords appearing. Prosper. lib. de vocat. gen­tium. 1. 1 Cor. 1.8. The same thing is taught by the Au­thor of the booke de vocatione gentium, who citeth that place: Who shall confirme you to the end that you may bee blamelesse in the day of the Lord. And those words; Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ? Rom. 8.35. shall tribuation, or anguish &c. Charitas dei, saith hee, qua eos di­ligit, quos inseparabiles facit, id est, vs (que) in finem perseue­rantes: nam quid aliud est perseuerare, quam tentatione [Page 60] non vinci? Greg. in 1 Reg. cap. 14. lib. 4. The same is taught by Saint Gregory Qui non praedestinati sunt, saith hee, siue audiant doctorum verba, siue non audiant, vocari in dei habitaculum ne­queunt. And againe he saith: Ab eo qui defecit, venire spiritus dicitur, ire ad eum qui perseveraturus est: quia alios in tempore deserit, alios assumit, nec tamen deserit.— in reliquum dirigitur spiritus, qui à gratia quam percipit, nunquam discedit.—quid est ergo qu [...]d dicitur à die illa, et in reliquum? nisi quia spiritus gratia sic recipitur, vt in ea electi vs (que) in finem perseuerare doceantur? And our venerable Bede, Beda in Rom. 8. vpon those words, scimus queniam di­ligentibus deum omnia cooperantur in bonum, saith thus. Sciens nonnullos diligere deum et in eo bono vs (que) in finem non perseuerare, mox addit, his qui serundum propositum vocati sunt: he enim in eo quod diligunt deum, permanent vs (que), in finem: et quid ad tempus inde deuiant, reuertuntur, et vs (que) in finem per durant, quod in bono esse coeperaent. Saint Bernard holdeth the same course. Bern. de modo bene wuendi. serm. 20. Salus perseuerantibus promittitur praemium perseuerantibus datur. Non est bo­nus, qui bonum facit, sed qui incessabiliter facit. And in another place, Lib. de pass. dom. cap. 14. O sol iustitiae, benigne Iesu Christe, lucens in tua virtute, reddens temet ipsum in praemium sempiter­num omnibus qui perseuerauerunt in agone certaminis. Hunc splendorem nemo potest adipisci, nisi qui perseueraue­rit vs (que) in finem. Abulensis followeth the same doctrine for he saith speaking of outward calling by preaching, and of that conuersion which standeth in externall profession. Tostat. in Mat. 22. q. 6 9. Dicuntur vocati quicun (que) per praedicationem conuersi sunt ad fidem, et tamen non sunt omnes electi, quia non perueniunt omnes ad vitam aeternam. Nam licet quibusdam det deus gratiam conuersionis, non dat eis gratiam perseuerandi in fide, vel operibus fidei, [Page 61] et ita pereunt. Eligere autem est dare gratiam istam perseuerandi et perueniendi. He saith; many obtaine diuers graces by hearing the word preached, amongst whom they that are elect receiue the grace of per­seuering to the end, but they that are not elect, though they may attaine to many graces, yet they may and doe fall away, because this grace of perseuering to the end is proper and peculiar to the elect.

From the Schoolemen wee are to looke for no soundnesse in this point. For it is a hard thing for them to speake of grace who haue it not: Many of them speake of grace like meere naturall men. They wanted neither wit nor learning, but many of them wanted grace to speake of grace, as the Iesuites for the most part doe at this day. Therefore I passe them ouer, and come to the time of Reformation. In which time, if I should produce the sentences of them that haue beene most learned and labourious in the reformed Churches, it would bee a long worke, and happily giue no great satisfaction to the Author of the Appeale, and others whom I desire to satisfie. For how can hee receiue satisfaction from the iudge­ment of late men, that seemeth to scorne their ve­rie names? As for Caluin, his name and doctrines are made odious, but why, I know not. If hee hath written somethings amisse, as who writing so much, hath not slipped in many things? yet a cha­ritable construction would helpe in many things: And admit hee hath some things which cannot bee excused; yet, if wee consider the ancient Fathers, how often they haue slipped and erred, wee might [Page 62] be more moderate in censuring of others. In the Fa­thers we take that which they haue done well, and the rest wee pardon for that which they haue done well. And why may we not doe so with others? And what greater pleasure can a man procure to the enemies of the truth, then to speake euill and odiously of those men, whose seruice God hath vsed, and made them excellent instruments to make the truth knowne vnto vs? Some take it for a signe of such as are looking towards Popery, when they offer such a seruice to the Papists, as to speake euill of them, that haue beene the greatest enemies to Popery, the greatest propa­gators of the truth: but I censure none. Then lea­uing other Churches, wee come home to our owne Church.

We haue enough in the articles of Faith and Reli­gion, to confirme the same truth, which hitherto wee have proued. The Author of the Appeale hath gone wrong in two poynts: First, in the respectiue decree; which either he hath deuised, or taken from the Armi­nians. Against this, wee haue heretofore shewed that the 17. Article hath set forth the doctrine of Praedesti­nation in a sound and wholesome manner: that Gods calling followeth the purpose of God, and de­pendeth vpon it: that faith, obedience, and repen­tance follow the calling of God, and depend vpon it: but the calling of God doth not follow faith, obedi­ence, and repentance, nor dependeth vpon them. So did the 17. Article teach against the new deuise of this man. This I haue obserued before.

The second thing wherein this man wandreth, is denying of perseuerance, and scorning it as a Puritan do­ctrine. [Page 63] I must heere againe recite the 17. Article: And I would intreat any man, that hath his eyes set right in his head, to reade and consider the words, the order and soundnesse of them: and th [...]n let him iudge whether perseuerance vnto the end bee not soundly and roundly set downe, and auerred in the Article. The words are:

Predestination to life is the euerlasting purpose of God, whereby before the foundation of the world, he hath constantly decreed by his counsell secret to vs, to deli­uer from curse and damnation those whome hee hath cho­sen in Christ out of man-kinde, to bring them by Christ to euerlasting saluation: wherefore they which bee en­dued with such an excellent benefit of God, be called accor­ding to Gods purpose by his spirit working in ane season. They through grace obey the calling, they be iustified freely, they be made the sonnes of God by adoption, they be made like to the image of his onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ, they walke religiously in good workes, and at length by Gods mercy attaine euerlasting felicity. Thus farre the words of the Article.

Can any man in any words declare perseuerance more fully or plainly frō the beginning by the meanes to the end, then here is done? For what is perseue­rance, but as S. Peter saith, a preseruation or keeping of the Saints by the power of God to saluation? And how can it be better proued, then to draw it from the pur­pose of God, by predestination, by Gods calling, by iu­stification, by the worke of Gods spirit, by adoption, by being fashioned like to the image of Christ, by walking religiously in good workes, and by this meanes to come to life euerlasting? This is done in the Article: And [Page 64] this is the true doctrine of perseuerance. They who are called according to Gods purpose, and iustified and sanctifi [...]d, made the sonnes of God by adoption, walke religiously in good workes and so at last attaine to e­uerlasting life, are they who haue receiued the grace of perseuerance to the end: thus doth that Article set forth this doctrine. But our Authour saith, before they come to this end, they sinne: And what then? Gods calling is powerfull indeed, according to his purpose: But it was not the purpose of God in calling vs, to make vs Angels, or to set vs in such an estate wherein we should neuer sinne any more; but to teach vs humi­lity he suffereth vs to striue with sinne, and teacheth vs to fight against sinne. And if in this battell wee take a blow, yet hee sustaineth our weaknesse, and will haue vs to glory in nothing that is in our selues, but in our infirmities. And still in his mercy preserueth vs from falling backe from the faith, and keepeth vs from presumptuous sinnes, and from that sinne that is vnto death.

This perseuerance you will say, is with great weak­nesse. It is true, wee cannot glory in our perfections, which are none. The Pelagians and Arminians, who glorie in themselues, in the power of their wills, can­not taste this doctrine. But wee glory in God, that through many and manifold imperfections and infir­mities of ours bringeth vs by this grace vnto the end. This worke to bring vs through many infirmities to an happy end, is the worke of God, which no power in the world can defeate.

FOr the better vnderstanding of these men that pleade against the grace of God, We must obserue that one espe­ciall ground of their errour is in this, that they conceiue and vnderstand a­misse of grace. They take it for another thing then the Scriptures haue declared, and the Church of God from the Scriptures haue taken it to be. And there­fore when they define grace, they say it is a morall perswasion. Arminius himselfe saith, it is lenis suasio: they admit no power of God here.

And are not these a strange kinde of men, that will make vnto themselues their owne grounds, and not take their grounds from the Scriptures? If this ground, which they so blindly begge were true, then were it indeed easie for them to proue many of their conclusions: that alike or generall grace is offered vnto all: that quantum ad Deum pertinet, for so much as is in God, one man receiueth as much grace as an other: that the difference is in mans free-will, in accepting or reiecting of grace: that grace may soone bee gotten, and soone lost altogether. But who gaue these men authority to make a definition contrary to that which the holy Scriptures haue de­liuered. [Page 66] These men acknowledge no other power in the Gospell preached, but onely the power of the Minister that preacheth. The Preacher hath not power to giue faith and repentance, to infuse grace, but only vseth morall perswasions to the people: but together with the labour of the Preacher the spirit of God worketh: 1 Cor. 3.9. And therefore we are called [...] helpers with God in that great worke. And be­cause the spirit of God worketh with power in ope­ning mens hearts, humbling them, leading them to an acknowledgement and confession of their sinnes, conuerting their soules, drawing them out of the power of darknesse, out of the power of Sathan and sinne; which worke cannot be done by a gentle per­swasion onely, it cannot be done but by the power of God: therefore the Apostle declaring that grace, which commeth to belieuers by the preaching of the Gospell, Rom. 1.16. calleth it the power of God to saluation. And againe, 1 Cor. 1.18. The preaching of the crosse is to them that pe­rish foolishnesse, but vnto vs that are saued, it is the power of God. And the Apostle speaking of faith, which is the first and one of the greatest graces which we receiue, 1 Cor. 2.3. saith, your faith standeth not in the wisedome of man, but in the power of God. If our faith which is the first, and the chiefest grace whereby we stand, be in the power of God, not in the wisedome of man, then it is no morall perswasion: For morall perswasion reacheth no further then mans wisedome. But this is most perspicuously taught in the Epistle to the Ephesians; Ephes. 1.18. where the Apostle saith, I cease not to giue thankes vnto God, making mention of you in my [Page 67] prayers, — that the eyes of your vnderstanding may be enlightned, that you may know what the hope of his calling, and what the riches of his glorious inheri­tance is in his Saints; 1 [...]. and what is the exceeding great­nesse of his power towards vs which beleeue, according to the working of his mighty power. Then when wee are drawne vnto faith, when we beleeue, this is done by the power of God, by the exceeding greatnesse of his power, by the mighty working of his power. And therefore they that say, that grace is onely a morall perswasion, and quantum ad deum, that sal­uation is alike prepared for all: and that the reason why one receiueth grace, another receiueth it not, is onely in mans free-will: These men and their vaine and weake fancies are cleane ouerthrowne, because grace is found to bee in the power of God. For, if quantum ad deum, as they say, it were prepa­red alike to all, why then doth the Apostle say, that preaching is foolishnesse to them that perish, but the power of God to vs that are saued? If it bee foolish­nesse vnto some, and the power of God to salua­tion to others, then verily it is not alike vnto all. God is able to make his powerfull grace ap­peare vnto them, to whome it is foolishnesse, but hee will not.

Heere wee may finde many things to admire, and to wonder at, and to cry out with the A­postle, O the depth! But still wee finde that the power of God is in his calling, and declared in our faith, which standeth not in mans wisedome, but in the power of God. This doth sufficient­ly [Page 68] prooue, that the grace of God is not as these men affirme, without and against all grounds of Scripture, a morall perswasion: For it is the power of God, the exceeding greatnesse, and the mightie working of his power.

They that would vnderstand this controuer­sie, betweene the Church of God, and th [...]se vn­gratefull and vngracious men, that oppugne the grace of God, may best vnderstand it, if they seeke out with care and diligence the definition of grace. It is of the greatest importance to know, and being knowne, will leade a man (as by a thread) vnto the particulars of this question. We finde plainely, that the loue of God, and the po­wer of God is in it: And wee may be sure, that they who deny the power of God to be in grace, can neuer come to the true knowledge of it. It is true, that if that definition were once granted, that grace is nothing but a morall perswasion, then would all those strange conclusions follow of which I spake before, and others more mad then they; that the purpose of Praedestination is a thing vn­certaine, and of no power: that Gods purpose of Praedestination must bee ruled by man, and not by God.

It is much to bee wondred at, that such men should bee found in the Church, professing Chri­stianitie, that with such boldnesse take such a defini­tion as granted, and with such ignorance draw those conclusions from it.

Let vs but stoppe this principle, and we stop their [Page 69] mouthes. For if grace be the power of God to saluati­on, if Faith and grace stand not in mans wisedome, but in the power of God; if wee bee drawne to beleeue by the exceeding greatnesse of Gods power, by the migh­ty working of his power; then it followeth, that the grace whereby we are called, whereby wee beleeue, and repent, and are iustified, and in the end saued, is the power of God. It was his good will and pur­pose to praedestinate vs, but it is his power to exe­cute that good purpose, to draw sinnefull men out of the power of darkenesse, into the kingdome of light, to worke in our hearts a loue of obedience by his holy Spirit. To worke this, farre surpassed the power al of creatures, and therefore it is done by the power of God. Vpon this ground thus laide, the course of Arminians is stopped. If they tell vs that grace is a gentle perswasion, and goeth no further; Wee answer, that in grace there is the power of God. If they tell vs that grace may bee vtterly lost, wee say it proceedeth from the purpose of God, and is giuen to vs from the power of God. His purpose is im­mutable, his power who can resist? They must ouer­reach the purpose of God, and ouercome the po­wer of God, before they can vndoe this great worke, which God with such wisedome purposeth, and with such power performeth. If it were in the wisedome of man to deuise it, or in the power of man to performe it, then might it be soone vndone: but this worke is Gods, and all men must giue God the glory, who onely hath vndertaken this worke, and onely is able to bring it to an end. [Page 70] When God hath once manifested his will, it is strange that the pride and ignorance of man should deuise wayes to bring that into questions and doubtes which God in his Scriptures hath euident­ly set downe. But there must bee heresies that they which are approued may be knowne. 1 Cor. 11.19.

Now I thinke this long contention may bee brought to a short end: If any of the Pelagians or Arminians, or if all of them be able to proue, that the grace of God, by which wee are called, and iustified, and saued, is nothing but a gentle or morall perswasion, then the Pelagians haue ouercome vs: But if this grace bee wrought in vs by the power of God, then hath the truth ouercome the Pelagi­ans and Arminians. Now I come to take a view of some particuler escapes in his booke.

PAge 17. speaking of Saint Peters fall, hee saith, Christ prayed for Saint Peter that hee might not fall: and Christ was euer heard in that he prayed for: And a little after. If he fell hee must needes fall either totally or finally; for cedo sertium? And againe, auoyde it if you can, you come vp and home to our Gagger, that Saint Peters faith did not faile, and so subscribe to Bellarmine. Petro dominus impetrauit vt non posset cadere, quod ad fidem attinet. Thus writeth the Author.

[Page 71]FIrst this is granted that Saint Peter fell into a great sinne; but euery fall into sinne prooueth not a failing in faith. Christ prayed that his faith should not faile, and hee was heard in that hee prayed for: therefore this is true that his faith fai­led not. If any Papist speake or write this truth consonant to the Scripture, I take not that for Po­pery. This Author saith, that Christ prayed that Saint Peter might not fall, and Christ was euer heard in that hee prayed for; his conclusion should bee that Saint Peter did not fall: Which because hee seeth to bee false; hee would interpret it, that hee fell not finally, though hee fell totally. But the ought to haue interpreted the wordes of the Scripture, and not to make words of his owne, and interpret them. Hee doth strangely confound the thing whereof hee speaketh. Where hee saith, Christ prayed for Saint Peter that hee might not fail: these bee his owne words, they are without warrant, against the euidence of the story: For Saint Peter did fall into a great sinne: But Christ knowing that hee should fall, and giuing him war­ning thereof, prayed that though hee fell, yet his faith should not faile. Hee is intangled with an idle and vnnecessary confusion, as though the fai­ling of Saint Peters faith, and his falling into sinne, were one and the same thing. Distinguish these things that are confounded, and then it is cleere, that Saint Peter did fall into sinne, and yet his faith failed not.

But saith hee, hee fell either totally or finally: for, [Page 72] cedo tertium. The ancient Fathers writing of the sinnes of the Saints, giue to him his tertium, which hee requireth. For when they speake of the falles of the Saints, they vse to note them by this word, Lapsus: which though wee in English ordinarily call a fall: Yet it is a tertium in respect of a totall and finall fall; and so saueth such a fall from beeing either totall or finall: So whether wee call Lapsus, a fall or a slipping, we stand not vpon words: the thing wee seeke is whether euery sinne in the regene­rate cutteth off faith, as Maister Thomson deuised, and this man seconds him. This they affirme, and wee deny: The iust man sinneth often, but who did euer say, that hee looseth his faith as often as hee sinneth? For in the iust and regenerate man, there are two men dwelling together, the old and the new man: and sin that is still dwelling is some­times working.

This is manifested in diuers places of the Scrip­ture, as namely Romanes 7. In which Chapter, what­soeuer some say to the contrary, the Apostle spea­keth in the person of a regenerate man. Saint Paul confesseth that sinne dwelleth in him; that the good which hee would doe, that hee doth not, but the euill which hee would not doe, that hee doth: that hee delighteth in the Law of God after the inward man: (which words are sufficient to prooue against the Pelagians, Arminians, and Papists, that hee spea­keth in the person of a regenerate man; for an vnregenerate man cannot truely vtter those words.) And yet hee confesseth, that he seeth an other Law in [Page 73] his members, bringing him to the captiuity of the law of sin. Then it must be confessed that sin may dwell there where faith dwelleth.

This doctrine is contained in the Articles of faith and religion. Article 9. in these wordes. Although there is no condemnation to them that beleeue and are Baptized, yet the Apostle doth confesse that concupiscence and lust hath of it selfe the nature of sinne. In the same Article it is saide, that this concupiscence deserueth Gods wrath and damnation. So that wee must ad­mit that sinne and faith may dwell together vn­till wee come to an Angelicall state. And there­fore sinne in a regenerate man doth not make a cutting off of faith, according to the new deui­sed cut.

Yet in this is our Author resolute, that Saint Peter fell totally. I answer that cannot be in the regenerate, where there is repugnance, and re­luctation. As long as the warre is maintained, the flesh striuing against the spirit, and the spi­rit against the flesh. so long the fall is not to­tall, neither can it bee, when the spirit is still striuing, and disallowing and recouering the hold againe. And if this warre bee maintained, there must needes bee the Spirit. For the flesh doth not striue against the flesh, and where the Spirit is there is faith. And therefore as the Spi­rit is not totally lost in the regenerate, though many times it may bee and is greeued so faith is not totally lost in them, though they may fall [Page 74] into diuers sinnes, by which sinnes the Spirit is greeued.

Saint Hilary compareth the booke of Psalmes to a bundell of keyes to open the lockes (that is) the difficult places of the Psalmes and of other Scriptures. If the right key bee taken and right­ly applyed, it will open the locke. The Author of the Appeale hath set a locke heere, that is a difficulty, where there was none indeede. I will try if I can [...]ight of the right keyes out of the Psalmes to open this locke, that is, to dissolue this difficulty which he maketh heere of a totall fall from grace.

Psalme 19. verses 12, 13. Who can vnderstand his faultes? cleanse mee from my secret sinnes; and keepe thy seruant also from presumptuous sinnes, and let them not reigne ouer mee: so shall I bee vp­right, and made cleane from the great transgression. Hee prayeth to bee cleansed from other sinnes, but to bee preserued from presumptuous sinnes; that they haue not the dominion ouer him: Whereby wee may collect, that the Saints are freed, and still pray to bee freed from presump­tuous sinnes, such as reigne in the wicked: but for other sinnes, altogether they are not free.

Psalme 25. verse 5. Vnto thee, O Lord, I lift vp my soule, my God I trust in thee. Heere hee [Page 75] professeth his faith: And yet verse 11. hee saith: For thy names sake O Lord hee mercifull to mine ini­quitie, for it is great: then in him there was a true faith, and great iniquity dwelling together. It followeth, that not onely sinne, but sometimes great sinnes may bee in a godly man; but such as are not ioyned with presumption, but with true and sincere repentance.

Psalme 37. verse 24. Though hee fall, hee shall not bee cast downe; for the Lord holdeth him vp with his hand. In this Scripture there is ano­ther instance giuen of that which this Author called for, when hee saide, cedo tertium: For the Prophet saith: Though hee fall, hee shall not bee cast downe. To fall and yet not to bee cast downe, is a tertium in respect of a totall and finall fall. For hee that falleth so, as yet hee is not cast downe, falleth, and yet neither totally nor finally: the reason is giuen which is beyond all answering: For the Lord putteth his hand vnder him to stay him.

Psalme 38. verses 3, 4. There is nothing sound in my flesh, because of thine anger, neither is there rest in my bones, because of my sinne: for mine iniquities are gone ouer my head, and as a weighty burthen too hea­uy for mee. And yet, verse 15. he saith: On thee O Lord do I waite; thou wilt heare mee my Lord my God. Hee feeles the heauy burthen of his sinnes, he doth not conceale the multitude of them, they [Page 76] are so many that they are gone ouer his head, hee confesseth, hee complaineth, hee cryeth to God. What then? where so great and so many sinnes were felt (as a tender conscience must needes feele them) shall we say that this man lost all grace? No. If he had not beene much troubled with his sinnes, hee would not thus haue spoken of them; if hee had not had grace, he would not thus confesse them and call to God for mercy.

Psalme 40 verse 12. My sinnes haue taken such hold vpon mee, that I am not able to looke vp, they are mee in number then the haires of head. Yet verse 17. Though I bee poore and needy, the Lord thinketh of mee. Thou art my helper and my deliuerer my God. Heere wee finde great and many sinnes, and yet a great and a precious faith.

It were too long to rehearse all of this kinde. This may suffice to prooue that grace in the regene­rate, is not totally lost by sinnes; vnlesse they bee presumptuous sinnes which raigne: But from these raigning sinnes, they that are borne of God are pre­serued: according to that of S. Iohn, He that is borne of God sinneth not: Hee that standeth vpon the top of the stayres, may fall and slipp downe a steppe or two, and yet not fall to the bottome. There is danger I grant it. And if we stood by our owne po­wer and strength, as the Pelagians and Arminians would haue it, then might wee fall away altogether. But in a regenerate man, there is power and weak­nesse: the power is Gods, the weaknesse is his owne. When he falleth, this is his weaknesse: but [Page 77] God by his power doth so order that weaknesse and those fals, that hee will haue his great power mani­fested in this great weakenesse. Therefore the Apo­stle had this answer. My grace is sufficient for thee, for my power is made perfect through weaknes: Where­fore the blessed Apostle maketh this vse. Very gladly therefore will I reioyce rather in mine infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

I say further, that sinne is so farre from cutting off faith totally in the regenerate, that it is rather ordained, by the infinite mercy of God, (which is rather to bee adored, and wondred at, then dispu­ted) it is, I say, ordained for the better exercise of faith and repentance▪ For if by falling into sinne, faith were totally lost in the regenerate, then a man so falling could neuer rise againe vnto re­pentance. For hee that hath lost grace totally, hath nothing left in him but flesh, and his owne nature and free-will. Which of it selfe can ne­uer raise a man to repentance, though the Pela­gians and Arminians striue for this, and would haue all grace lost, that they might inferre, that na­ture and free-will may raise vp a man to repen­tance: but this is the poyson of their heresie. Saint Peter fell into sinne, and rose againe by re­pentance, because his faith remained, and failed not, which drew him to repentance. But Iudas fell, and neuer rose againe, because he neuer had true faith.

Now, why doe men striue for this, or what doe they ayme at? When they would haue faith [Page 78] vtterly lost, against the Apostle, who teacheth that the gifts and graces of God are without repen­tance; what haue they gotten that thus striue, or what would they haue? forsooth they would make Praedestination hang vpon vncertainties, vpon mans will; that a man may predestinate himselfe when he will, as often as he will: For they haue no better ends then these.

Pag. 18. Speaking of Bellarmines words, Pe­tro dominus impetrauit, vt [...]on posset eadere, quod [...]d fidem attinet: He addeth these words: Iust your Pu­ritane doctrine for finall perseuerance.

This is the first time that euer I heard of a Pu­ritane doctrine in points dogmaticall, and I haue liued longer in the Church then hee hath done. I thought that Puritanes were onely such as were factious against the Bishops in the poynt of pre­tended Discipline: and so I am sure it hath beene vnderstood hitherto in our Church. A Puritane doctrine is a strange thing, because it hath beene confessed on both sides, that Protestants and Pu­ritanes haue held the same doctrines without va­riance. The discipline varied in England, Scot­land, Geneua, and other where: Yet the doctrine hath beene hitherto held the same, according to the Harmonie of the seuerall Confessions of these Churches. Not one doctrine of the Church of England, another of the Church of Scotland, and so of others.

What is your end in this, but to make diuisions where there were none? and that a rent may bee [Page 79] made in the Church? forsooth! that place may bee giuen to the Pelagian and Arminian doctrines: And then all that are against these must bee called Puritane doctrines. It is true, that Arminian do­ctrines will make a diuision, where none was be­fore. And our Authour of contentions by vertue of that doctrine, hath giuen a desperate attempt to doe the like in our Church.

And that finall perseuerance should bee that Puritan doctrine, is a thing no lesse strange. The Pelagians would haue so called it in Saint Augustines time, if they had had that word then, or any thing that might giue disgrace to the doctrine of perseuerance. For Saint Augustine maintai­ned the doctrine of finall perseuerance against the Pelagians. And doth not this man in reie­cting that doctrine, professe himselfe to stand for the Pelagians against Saint Augustine, and the Orthodox Church? And yet himselfe confesseth finall perseuerance; he had the lesse reason to call it a Puritane doctrine.

But hee is so various in his sayings, as pro­fessing to bee at liberty, not to declare his owne minde, but to relate what others say, that it see­meth hard to hold him stedfast to any thing. But in this particular hee must confesse, that though a regenerate and iustified man fall into sinne, yet there is something that abideth and continueth in him to raise him vp againe to repentance. As the carnall part abideth, so the spirituall part a­bideth, so long as the spirit striueth against the [Page 80] flesh. Math. 24.13. Our Lord saith, Hee that perseuereth to the end shall bee saued. S. Iohn saith, Hee that is borne of God sinneth not, for the seed of God abideth in him. Of this I haue spoken of before.

Briefly, touching finall perseuerance, I would know how any man can truely lay to his heart that article of our faith: I belieue life euerlasting; but that withall hee must belieue finall perseue­rance: for hee that belieueth that hee shall re­ceiue euerlasting life, must also belieue that hee shall perseuere to the end, without which grace no man shall attaine to life euerlasting.

When the Pelagians and Arminians would say somewhat to infringe the doctrine of Praedesti­nation, they shew all their spight against finall perseuerance, that all grace may bee lost. And what will follow then? If all grace be lost, then surely the grace of Praedestination is lost, and the grace of calling is lost; and then must men goe to seeke a new Praedestination, and a new calling: and thus of the greatest mysteries of our saluation they make fables.

I thinke that the Authour of the Appeale is but a young Scholler in the Arminian Schoole, and did not well fore-see these consequences, but from the grounds that hee hath layed, these things must follow: the grace of Praedesti­nation, and the grace of Gods calling must bee lost. For I appeale to his Logicke, doth not he that saith all grace is lost totally, conclude that the grace of Praedestination and calling is lost? if so, [Page 81] then is not this man bound to tell vs how GOD pro­ceedeth to a new predestination, and to a new cal­ling? These be things which the Arminians listen af­ter. How glad would they be to heare that the Church of England should begin to follow them in this course of multiplying predestinations and elec­tions? This is that which they haue long aymed at: And here our learned Author hath well bestirred himselfe to doe them this service. Against these foo­lish and fabulous fancies, the Apostle hath layed this barre. Ephes. 1, 4.11. We are chosen and predestinate in Christ be­fore the beginning of the world, according to the purpose of him, that worketh all things according to the counsell of his owne will. This counsell, by which he hath wrought these things, Esa. 46.10. is constant and vnchangeable. Against this truth the gates of hell shall never prevaile, Heb. 6.17. though the Arminians come with all their tro [...]pes to maintaine the passages of hell gates.

When the auncient Fathers and other godly men speake of predestination, they teach that it is a grace which God giveth, and God preserveth in vs, and by which also he preserveth vs to himselfe. For we can­not keepe & preserue our selues to the end, no more then a silly flocke of sheepe can keepe, preserue, and defend themselues from the Wolues: this is the shep­herd his care. So our great shepherd can and doth keepe and preserue vs to the end: this is his worke, not ours. But this grace is given to them that are cal­led according to his purpose, and are justified, and beleeue in him that is able to bring his promise to his end.

[Page 82]The great mysteries of our salvation are in danger by these poysoned doctrines of Arminians to be sha­ken. If this age should giue libertie to these begin­nings, it is to be feared that in place of Communio sanctorum, in another age may creepe in Apostasia sanctorum.

Pag. 25. and 26. he speaketh variously of fal­ling away from grace and loosing of faith, as if he had not yet determined what to hold. He relateth a speech of his Gagger thus. You meant that faith might be lost both totally and finally in regard of God, who made no such absolute and irrespectiue Decree. If he should be challenged for this speech, he will answere, as his vse is, that he relateth onely, but doth not de­termine dogmatically: but in this place he is put from that answere. For he cannot relate this as the opinion of the Gagger, whom we may number a­mongst those Papistes, that deny the respectiue De­cree: for that they deny it, Bellarmine witnesseth, as before I haue related. Then this must be his owne speech and collection; Faith may be lost totally and finally, in regard of God that made no such absolute Decree, and irrespectiue. His reason standeth thus, If God made no absolute and irrespectiue Decree, then may faith be lost totally and finally. But this is his opinion, that God made no such absolute and irrespectiue Decree, therefore it followeth that in re­spect of the Decree of God, faith may be lost totally and finally. This would proue fine Divinitie, if he would stand to it; he writeth so, as if his greatest care were onely to seeke the approbation of Pelagius; for these things will never get the approbation of any [Page 83] sound Divine in the Church of England. But it is well, that before faith can be totally and finally lost, he must first proue that Gods Decree is respectiue: This he never laboured to proue, and he never heard any man deliver it but Arminians.

SPEAKING of falling away, he layeth all vpon the doctrine of the Homilies. He saith. ‘In the second part of the Homilie of falling from God, we are sent to a con­clusion more adoppositum, not onely of totall lapse for a time, but also of finall separation, and for ever. Which also is according to the doctrine expressed in the Articles. For he that saith a man may fall a­way, and may recover; implyeth withall that some may fall away and not recover.’

This belike he taketh for a solid kinde of proofe, if he doe but in his imagination thinke it implieth so much: When he vrgeth a point, he bringeth no reasons but a conceit of implications: When he is vrged, he doth but relate other mens opinions, but what himselfe thinketh, that he keepeth close. This close-keeping of his opinion, which he so much pro­fesseth, is very suspitious; there is something in it, that he is loath should be knowne: yet he hideth it not so closely▪ but it may be found out. He pleadeth that a man may fall from grace totally and finally: A man may fall away from grace and become no child of God. All this may be truely said, and then [Page 84] who hath any thing to say to him, that saith nothing but that which any other man may avouch? For­sooth, aliquid latet; If he should say plainely, that they that are called, and iustified according to Gods purpose, doe fall away totally and finally: then he seeth that he should contradict the doctrine of the auncient Fathers, and of our Church: but holding himselfe in these generall termes, that men may fall away from faith and grace, he vnderstood that this might be maintained. We must therefore open this matter plainly. This is soone done, by calling to re­membrance, what hath beene said of the respectiue Decree, or irrespectiue. He holdeth the Decree of predestination to be respectiue, that is to respect something in men. If this be so, then it maketh no matter, whether faith & grace be vtterly lost: For all may be repayred againe. But repayred in regard and consideration of that which men doe, and not vpon that which God hath done. But if the Decree respect nothing in man, then the case is altered. We haue before declared the doctrine of the orthodoxe Church, that the purpose of God, which he calleth the Decree, respecteth nothing but Gods will: and therefore they that are called and iustified according to Gods purpose, doe beleeue and obey, repent and walke in good workes, and at last obtaine the end, everlasting life. These graces that proceed from Gods calling according to his purpose, cannot be vtterly lost, because these gifts and this calling are without repentance. They may be troubled and sha­ken, but totally lost they cannot be. This man taketh these things otherwise, that they may be totally lost. [Page 85] To be short, we must bring him to this stand: either plainly to confesse, that the graces that are given ac­cording to Gods calling and purpose may be totally lost: or else to confesse that his writings are idle, and trouble our Church to no purpose: because if he speake of graces which proceed not from Gods pur­pose and calling (as many graces doe, and in which graces men may make fayre and farre proceedings, of which graces the Homilies speake) in this point he hath no adversary, that I know. If he will acknow­ledge plainly that the graces which proceed from Gods calling and purpose may be lost, then should not I trouble him in this point. Provided withall, that he giue ouer his respective Decree, which is the ground & root of all this trouble, wherewith he hath troubled himselfe and others.

Now we come to examine that which he bringeth out of the Homilies, concerning falling from God. The first Homily sayth, that sometimes men goe from God, for lacke of faith, sometimes by neglec­ting his commandements: to be short, all they that may not abide Gods word, but following the per­swasions and stubbornnesse of their owne hearts, goe backward and not forward. And whereas God hath shewed to all them that truely beleeue his Gospell, his face of mercy in Iesus Christ, which doth so lighten their hearts, that ( if they beleeue it as they ought to doe) (this Parenthesis the Author hath left out, which might some way direct the meaning of the Homilie) they be transformed to his image, be made partakers of heavenly light, and of his spirit, be fashioned to him in all goodnes requisite to Gods [Page 86] children: so if they after doe neglect the same, if they be vnthankefull &c: hee will take away from them his kingdome, his holy word, &c. These words that follow the Parenthesis depend vpon those wordes contained in it, which our Author hath left out. It is true that if these men behold this grace and be­leeue as they ought to doe, that then they are so en­lightned, &c. But this is ioyned with that conditi­on expressed in the Parenthesis: if that condition faile, then these other things following, are not well vrged from those words. And what is all this, but if we forsake him, he will forsake vs, as the Scripture teacheth. 2 Chron. 15.2.

It is evident that the Homily speaketh of profane and wicked men, that goe from God, because they never care for comming vnto God: of which profane men, there are (God knoweth) too many in our Land; whereof the Homily complaineth. The Ho­mily speaketh partly of such, & partly of hypocrites. This is evident from the words of the Homily, which are these. For God that promised his mercy to them that be truely penitent, hath not promised to the presump­tuous sinner, either that he shall haue a long life, or that he shall haue true repentance at the last end. Doth not the Homily speake plainly of wicked, profane, and pre­sumptuous sinners? What is this to them that are cal­led according to Gods purpose, and walke with feare and obedience in the workes of their calling?

To the same purpose is that which he hath brought out of the second Homily; Wherein, by his leaue, he hath vndertaken more then he hath proved, or can proue out of the words of the Homily: For he saith, [Page 87] that in that Homily is concluded not onely a totall lapse for a time, but also a finall separation for ever. This conclusion is not prooved out of the words of the Homily: And if they were, they helpe him not: For that Homily is to be expounded by the words of the former Homily, which speaketh in expresse words of presumptuous sinners: that such may fall away altogether, who did every deny?

And because he vrgeth so much the words of the Homilies in this point, I would know of him a rea­son, why in that Homily which is against Worship­ping of Images, he denieth that the Homilies con­taine the publique dogmaticall resolutions of our Church? Why doth he play fast and loose? Why doth he vrge this in one place, which he flatly deni­eth in an other place? Let him giue a reason.

But the 16. Article teacheth the same, sayth hee: the words of the Article are these. ‘After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sinne: and by the grace of God we may rise againe, and amend our lifes: The Ar­ticle speaketh religiously and truely.’ For it is true, and must be confessed that after grace given, we may fall into sinne. The Article attributeth all power of rising againe to the grace of God: This we embrace. What hath this man against this? truely, no reason, but a prety fancy of his owne. ‘For, sayth he, he that saith a man may fall away, and may recover, imply­eth withall, that some may fall away and no reco­ver. Which kinde of speach is a plaine confession, that he hath nothing for himselfe in the wordes of the Article.’

[Page 88]And yet in this weake manner hee cannot pro­ceede, vnlesse he take this libertie to himselfe, to change and controll the words of the Article. For the Article speaketh of departing from grace given, he maketh it speake of falling away. The Article saith, the graunt of repentance is not to be denyed to such as fall into sinne after baptisme; and that we may depart from grace given and fall into sinne, and by the grace of God may rise againe. He will con­fesse, I suppose, that there is no man who liveth long after his baptisme, but may fall into sinne: and that is a kinde of departing from grace giuen, From these words he concludeth, against all Logicke, that a man so falling into sinne falleth away: this is farre from the wordes and meaning of the Article, and sheweth that his purpose is not to satisfie men of iudgment, but by peruerting and intorting of words to a strange, that is, to his owne priuate sense, to de­ceiue the simple.

But Pag: 27. he would proue from Saint Augustin and Prosper, that a regenerate and iustified man may fall away. Our learned Author did never in­tend in writing this to satisfie the learned and iudi­cious, but to deceiue and vndermine the weaker sort of men. Would any man that had his right wits, al­leadg Saint Augustin and Prosper in this particuler, wherein they haue so fully, and soundly declared themselues to the contrary against the Pelagians? But some what must be sayd, and some shew must be made. Herein our Author may see the wretched­nesse of his cause, and how little hope he hath to hold it vp, when he is driven to seeke help at them, [Page 89] who vtterly ouerthrow his cause. Saint Augustines wordes by him cited (though they are not there where he citeth them) are these. Si autem regenitus & iustificatus in malam vitam sua voluntate relabitur, iste non potest dicere, non accepi: quia acceptam gratiam Dei suo in malum libero arbitrio amisit. And againe: Cre­dendum est quosdam de filijs perditionis non accepto dono perseverandi vs (que) in finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur, incipere vivere, & aliquandiu iustè & fideli­ter vivere. That which he citeth out of Prosper is this: Ex regenitis in Christo Iesu, quosdam relicta fide, & pijs moribus Apostatare a Deo, & impiam vitam in sua aversione finire, multis, quod dolendum est, probatur exemplis.

If that Saint Augustin himselfe had not made a full answere to these and such like things, as may be cited from him, this Author might with some pro­bability haue brought these places. But if you will vrge Saint Augustins words, you must giue him leaue to expound his owne words. Saint Augustin sayth, that iust men and regenerate; nay, hee proceedeth farther, that the Children of God; yea, and more then that, that the Elect may fall away: It is true that Saint Augustin sayth all this. But if a man should cite these things from him, & so leaue them, as this learned Authour doth; he should doe great wrong to Saint Augustin. For he expoundeth him­selfe, that these men whom hee calleth iust, regene­rate, the sonnes of God, and elect, which doe fall away, are so esteemed of vs, but that they are not such in the knowledge of God. They are sayd to be such: sed à nescientibus quid futuri sunt. S. Augustin speaketh [Page 90] of them that are so called of vs, but are not such indeede. Lib: de corrept: & gratia. cap: 7. Quis neget eos electos cum credunt & bapti­zantur, & secundum Deum vivunt? planè dicuntur electi, sed à nescientibus quid futur [...] sunt, non ab illo qui [...]os novit non habere perseverantiam, quae ad beatam vi­tam perducit electos, scit (que) illos ita stare, vt praesciret esse casuros. ibid: cap: 9. To the same purpose hee sayth againe. Sunt quidam qui filij Dei propter susceptam vel tempo­raliter gratiam dicuntur à nobis, nec tamen sunt Deo. Now take this declaration of his meaning from himselfe, and then we grant that a iustified man, re­generate, the sonne of God, and Elect, may fall away: because these though by vs according to the iudge­ment of charity, may be esteemed such, yet with God they are not: For they onely stand & hold out to the end, that are knowne to God to be such, whom hee hath called according to his purpose: of which sort none fall away. To Prosper I answere the same: For Prosper doth follow Saint Augu­stin [...], and swarveth not from him, his wordes are as Saint Augustines are, and he vnderstood them as S. Augustin expounded himselfe.

But hee hath here also somewhat out of S. Augustin touching perseverance. Sancti de suo perseveran­tiae proemio certi sunt, de ipsa tamen perseverantiae repe­riuntur incerti. If we grant this, what will he inferre? Saint Augustin teacheth that God to humble vs, and to make vs to seeke him with zeale, doth hide some things from our knowledge, as our finall perseve­rance, and our predestination: but this is for our good to remoue pride and presumption from vs: If wee our selues did either predestinate our selues; or [Page 91] giue the grace of finall perseverance to our selues, then might this obiection be made; for then would things be in vncertainties: but we giue all the glory to God, who knoweth vs better then we know our selues, and we leaue this to him, which onely is able to bring his owne worke to an end. And yet if we search a little more exactly into the meaning of S. Augustins words, it will appeare that S. Augustin spea­keth not simply against the certainty of perseverance, but in some respect.

To be certaine of our perseverance, may be two wayes vnderstood: either to be certaine that we shall never fall into sinne, so to trouble the course of our perseverance. Of this S. Augustin speaking saith tru­ly, we are vncertaine of our perseverance: or else to be certaine of our perseverance, may be vnderstood to be certaine of our faith, whereby we persevere; that our faith shall never vtterly fayle. Of this every man cannot be sure: But he that hath a true faith, beleeveth that his sinnes are forgiven, that he is the child of God: this man walketh in loue and obedience, with­out which his faith is vaine, beleeveth to receiue in the end everlasting life. And therefore S. Augustin saith; Sancti de suo perseverantiae praemio certi sunt. How can a man be sure of the reward of perseverāce, vnlesse he be sure of his perseverance? Everlasting life is the reward of his perseverance, and of this reward he is sure. It must needs follow that in some sort, he is sure of his perseverance. What sort is that? Verily his faith persevereth, as Christ said to S. Peter, though he fell into a great sinne, and therefore did not perse­vere without sinning, yet he had prayed that his faith [Page 92] did not fayle: and so he did persevere in the faith. And S. Iohn saith, that he that is borne of God, cannot sinne, because the seed of God abideth in him. Then he that hath the seed of God abiding in him, doth per­severe according to that grace which abideth in him. Many men speake of grace and faith, but verily none can speake truely thereof, but they that haue these things in them. S. Augustin saith, no man can vnder­stand the truth, Lib. de oper. Monach. cap. 13. but he that liveth a godly life. In cog­nitione cavendus est error, in actione nequitia: Errat au­tem quisquis putat veritatem se posse cognoscere, dum ad­huc nequiter vivat.

Now where S. Augustin saith, that Saints or true beleevers are sure of the reward of perseverance, but not of perseverance it selfe: if we should vnderstand this, as our Author seemeth to take it; S. Augustin hath wrapped himselfe in a contradiction. For if a man should thus reason against these words: Every true beleever is sure of the reward of perseverance: but e­very true beleever is sure that vnlesse he persevere, he cannot be sure of the reward of perseverance: there­fore every true beleever is sure of his perseverance. This, I say, cannot be denyed by any that graunteth with S. Augustin, that true beleevers are sure of the reward of perseverance: For it followeth, that he is as well assured by faith of his perseverance. And vp­on this ground it is inferred, because he is sure of the reward of perseverance.

PAG. 28. He maketh a great shew of all the learned men of the Church of England that composed the Articles; that confirmed them; that iustified them at Hampton Court. He saith, that these were the most learned men of our Church: Who denyeth that? or who called their learning into question? But what doe these here? And why are they troubled? All these, saith he, are such as doe assent to antiquitie. There is no doubt but these learned men did assent to learned Antiquitie. But where is this Antiquitie, or what is it? Parturiunt montes. Truely we haue not hitherto had one word from Antiquity, but onely those places of S. Augustin and Prosper, which are answered and found to be no­thing to the purpose. This is a strange kinde of pro­ceeding, to rayse so great an expectation, and in the end, all to turne into smoake. We expect to heare, whereunto all these learned men haue assented: here is nothing but words in the clouds. You haue made a glorious syllogisme. The maior is, that these men were the most learned men in our Church: it is graunted: The minor you say you will make good; but that is not yet done: you haue said nothing to proue it; you would proue it first out of the 16. Article; but you goe from the words of the Article, and shew vs what in your conceite it implyeth. This will never be taken for proofe▪ That which you vndertake to proue, is a to­tall and finall fall; whereof you haue not as yet offe­red [Page 94] a proofe, either out of the Articles or Homi­lies.

Pag. 30. he saith, The doctrine of the 16. Article was challenged for vnsound in the conference at Hampton Court, by those that were petitioners against the doctrine and discipline established: and being so challenged before his Maiestie, was then and there defended, maintained, a­vowed, averred for true, auncient, iustifiable, good and ca­tholicke, against that absolute, irrespectiue, necessitating, fatall Decree of your new predestination.

A man would thinke that such a man as this, rela­ting things done, should speake truely, especially of such an Act, which every man that list may know. It is more strange that he should report it so, as not to say one word true: For it is not true that it was chal­lenged for vnsound: it is not true that it was then and there defended, maintained, avowed, averred for true: For there could be no vse of this defending, avow­ing, averring, where, on both sides, it was confessed to be true, and where the Article was not challenged for vnsound. The plaine truth is, Doctor Rainolds re­peated the Article, and professed, that the meaning of the Article was sound: besides Doctor Rainolds, no man spake to that particular. How then could our Author say, it was challenged for vnsound? Doth he that saith the meaning of the Article is sound, challenge it for vnsound? The libertie is great that this man gi­veth to himselfe, to thinke that such things would currantly passe, whether his words containe reason or none. Doctor Rainolds onely desired that it might be explained by these words added to the end of the Article thus: after we haue received the holy Ghost, we [Page 95] may depart from grace: to these words of the Article he desired this might be added, yet neither totally nor fi­nally: Against this, no man spake then: but for it, that worthy and learned Deane of Paules then, after Bishop of Norwich, Doctor Overall did speak so much as directly confirmed that which Doctor Rainolds had moved; For Page 42. of that Conference, he professed that it was a Doctrine which himselfe had taught; That whosoever, though before iustified, did commit any grievous sinne, as adultery, murther, treason, or the like, did become ipso facto subiect to Gods wrath, and guiltie of damnation. Adding herevnto, that those which were called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election, howsoever they might and did fall into grievous sinnes, and therefore into the present state of wrath and damnation, yet did never fall either to­tally from all graces of God, to be vtterly destitute of all the parts of seed thereof, nor finally from iustifica­tion. Now when Doctor Overall did in the summe a­gree with Doctor Rainolds; where then was the chal­lenging of the Article for vnsound on the one side, and where was that defending, avowing, averring, on the other side?

Our Authour would proue his assertion out of the Conference at Hampton Court; but out of that confe­rence the contrary is proved. He sayth, that a iusti­fied man may fall away totally and finally; but D. Overall in that Conference affirmeth the contrary, neither totally, nor finally: he should haue vsed some more probability. He seemeth to be much de­stitute of reason, when he vseth reasons, which be­ing at the first examined, proue directly against him. [Page 96] He must therefore obserue, that this doctrine of to­tall and finall falling away, which he pretendeth to be the doctrine of our Church, was a doctrine refu­ted at Hampton Court, by D. Overall, and before that time was never received here: For D Overall would never haue refuted a doctrine received in this Church. Then let him seeke out when his doctrines began to be the Doctrines of our Church.

Page 35. & 36. he saith; Let this be acknowledged the doctrine of our Church, that Children duely baptized, are put into the estate of grace, and salvation: but many chil­dren so baptized, when they come to age, by a wicked life doe fall away from God, and from the estate of grace and salvation wherein he had set them. — if you grant not this, you must hold that all men that are baptized are sa­ved.

If our Authour had bene pleased, to haue observed the iudgement of the Ancients, he would not be thus troubled with novelties. This one poore obiection seemeth to trouble the man. Saint Augustin might easily haue satisfied him: For he observeth a great difference betweene them that are regenerate and iustified onely sacramento tenus, and those that are re­generate and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election. Abraham receiued the sacrament of Circumci­sion, as a seale of the righteousnes of faith. The sacra­ment is good to them to whom it is a seale of the righteousnes of faith, but it is not a seale in all that receiue the Sacrament: For many receiue the signe, which haue not the thing.

Then to proceede: Ismael was circumcised, and so was Isaak: but Ismael was borne according to the flesh, [Page 97] and Isaak according to the spirit. Now hee was not iustified, but onely sacramento tenus, that was borne according to the flesh: but he that was borne accor­ding to the spirit, was iustifyed truely. Saint Au­gustin saith, Cum essent omnibus communia sacramenta, non communis erat omnibus gratia. August: in Psal. 77. And againe. Om­nibus in nomine patris, & filij, & spiritus sancti bapti­zatis, commune est lavacrum regenerationis, sed ipsa gratia cuius ipsa sunt sacramenta, qua membra corporis Christi cum suo capite regenerata sunt, non communis est omnibus.

Israel was called to be a people of God, yet all that were so called, were not so in truth: So all that receiue Baptisme are called the Children of God, re­generate, iustified: for to vs they must be taken for such in charity, vntil they shew themselues other. But the Author affirmeth, that this is not left to mens cha­rity ( as you, sayth he, doe informe the world) because we are taught in the service Booke of our Church, earnestly to beleeue; that Christ hath favorably recei­ved these infants that are baptized, that he hath imbra­ced them with the armes of his mercy, that he hath gi­ven vnto them the blessing of everlasting life: And out of that beleife and perswasion, wee are to giue thankes faithfully and devoutly for it. All this we receiue and make no doubt of: but when wee haue sayd all, wee must come to this, that all this is nothing but the charity of the Church: and what more can you make of it? For where he vrgeth this, that Children bap­tized are put in the state of salvation, and this must be beleived. I make no doubt of it, but because he seemeth to haue a strange vnderstanding of it, and [Page 98] vrgeth it as if forsooth it could not be answered: I aske him this question, whether we must beleeue it as an Article of faith, or ex judicio charitatis? this iudg­ment of charity he vtterly reiecteth. Then he must hold that we beleeue it as an Article of faith: but this is not conteined in any Article of faith, it is not ex­pressed in any Scripture. And the things which a man is bound to beleeue for his salvation, to speake properly, he must beleeue for himselfe onely, not for another man. And therefore this thing which hee vrgeth, that we must beleeue for other men, cannot be called properly faith and beleeving: for no man beleeveth for another: this proveth evidently that this beleeving, whereof our Communion bo [...]ke speak­eth, is nothing else, but to beleeue it ex judicio chari­tatis: and can no further be stretched. Concerning this iudgement of charity, we doe not informe the world any otherwise, then Saint Augustin informed the Church long since against the Pelagians. The Pe­lagians vrged these things as you doe, that they that were baptized were regenerate, and iustified. Saint Augustin answereth they are so, for ought that wee know, and vntill they themselues shew themselues to the contrary. Then so long as we haue no cause to the contrary, wee iudge them in charity to be such as we desire they should be: did we devise this? or did we first informe the world of this? it hath bene of old received thus in the Church. We doe but say that which the ancient Fathers haue sayd before vs: and you follow that which your Fathers the Pelagi­ans haue taught before you. But here is great diffe­rence; wee following the ancient Fathers, follow the [Page 99] Church ▪ and you following the Pelagians, follow the Enemies of the Church.

But here he citeth in the margent, pag. 36. that all Antiquitie taught thus. I pray you what did Antiqui­tie teach? That yong children baptized are delivered from originall sinne: We teach the same, and we doubt not, if they dye before they come to the prac­tise of actuall sinnes, they shall be saved.

But this is not so to be vnderstood, that no chil­dren vnbaptised can be saved: For in this poynt the auncient godly Fathers haue delivered their judge­ments, grounded vpon faire evidences of Scripture. And because this is a thing wherein some may re­quire satisfaction, the Reader will not thinke the time lost, if I somewhat enlarge this point. Baptisme is required as necessary to saluation, so that the con­tempt thereof bringeth damnation; but not the want of it. For where a true faith is, and a sincere desire of Baptisme, though a man should by some inevitable meanes misse of washing by water, yet the Auncients make no doubt of the saluation of such a man. This is the judgement of S. Cyprian, S. Augustin, S. Am­brose, and S. Bernard. Hugo de sancto Victore lived at the same time with S. Bernard. Hugo was troubled with the noveltie of a hot-spirited man, who taught this assertion; That since the time that it was first said by Christ; Vnlesse a man be borne of water and the holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven, since that, no man might by any meanes be saved, without the actuall receiving of the visible Sacra­ment, yea though a man should desire the same with true faith, and contrition of heart, being onely pre­vented [Page 100] by death, that he could not obtaine that which he desired, yet should this man be damned without remedy. Hugo having notice of this asserti­on, wrote to S. Bernard, concealing the name of the Author of that opinion, onely declaring his asserti­on; and craved the judgement of S. Bernard in that poynt. To this S. Bernard answereth. ‘The summe of his answere is this: Bern: epist. 77. First he taketh exception a­gainst the time so precisely set by the Author of this assertion. For he setteth the time to begin pre­sently vpon the speech of those words which Christ spake in secret to Nicodemus, in the night when he came to him. S. Bernard sheweth that the beginning of so great a matter was not advisedly set by this new Author, he therefore would haue the begin­ning to be after the promulgation of the Gospell by the Apostles. For the old Sacraments were in force so long, vntill it was openly and publiquely knowne that they were abrogated; How long af­ter, penes deum est, non meum definire, saith S. Bernard. Then the old Sacraments did stand in force, vntill they were abrogated, that is, publiquely by the A­postles interdicted. And therefore as Baptisme is now a remedy against originall sinne, so was Circum­cision of old. Now if any that are come to yeares and vnderstanding, after the publication of the remedy of Baptisme, shall refuse to be baptised, this man ad­deth another sinne to originall sinne, & so through his owne pride, he beareth the double cause of a most just damnatiō, if he should in that case chance to dye. Yet if before his death he repent, and desire and aske to be baptized, and dye before he can ob­taine [Page 101] his desire, so that a right faith, a godly hope and sincere charity be not wanting; so God be mer­cifull vnto me, saith S. Bernard, as in this case I can­not despayre of this mans salvation for the want of water onely; Neither can I beleeue that this mans faith is voyd, his hope confounded, his charitie fay­led, if that not the contempt, but onely the impossi­bility of having the Sacrament hinder him from be­ing washed with water. And I much maruaile, saith he, Si novus iste novarum inventor assertionum, & as­sertor inventorum; if this new inventer of new asser­tions, and assertor of things invented, can finde a reason in this thing which was hid from the Fa­thers, Ambrose and Augustin; or can finde any au­thoritie before the authoritie of these. For if he know it not, both these judged as we doe herein; let him read S. Ambrose his booke of the death of Valen­tinian, if he hath not read it, or if he hath read it, let him recall it well to memory; if he recall it, let him not dissemble; and there he shall finde that S. Am­brose confidently presumed of the salvation of that man who dyed without Baptisme, and did vndoub­tedly attribute that to his minde, which was wan­ting thorough impossibilitie of performance. Let him also read the fourth booke of S. Augustin of one onely Baptisme against the Donatistes, and he will ei­ther acknowledg himselfe to be imprudently decei­ved, or proue himselfe impudently obstinare. For S. Augustin sayth, that sometimes suffering is in stead of Baptisme, as appeareth in the theefe vpon the Crosse, to whom though vnbaptised, Christ sayd, to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: From which [Page 102] place S. Cyprian tooke an Argument to prooue the same poynt: And S. Augustin addeth; Considering this thing againe and againe, I finde ( saith he) that not onely suffering for the name of Christ may sup­ply the want of Baptisme, but faith also and the con­version of the heart, if happily the straitnesse of time will not suffer a man to celebrate the mystery of Baptisme. And afterward; How much (saith he) even without the visible Sacrament of Baptisme, that avayleth which the Apostle saith: With the heart man beleeveth to righteousnesse, and with the mouth man confesseth to salvation, it is declared in that Theefe. But then is this fulfilled invisibly, when as not contempt of Religion, but necessitie excludeth the mystery of Baptisme. S. Bernard having decla­red thus much out of S. Augustin, proceedeth thus. I confesse, saith he, that S. Augustin retracteth that instance which he put of the Theefe, and thought it not so fit to proue this sentence, because it was vncertaine whether that Theefe was baptized or no: but the sentence it selfe and assertion he confi­dently maintained, and diverse wayes confirmed; neither shall you finde that he did ever retract the opinion, if I be not deceived, saith Bernard: And further he saith, that S. Augustin in another place when he had spoken of some, whom the Scripture restifyeth to be sanctified invisibly, but not visi­bly; He maketh this inference: hence it is collec­ted, that invisible sanctification hath beene had, and hath profited without the visible Sacraments, which are changed according to the diversitie of times, so that others were then, others are now. And a [Page 103] little after; notwithstanding▪ saith S. Augustin, the visible Sacrament is by no meanes to be contem­ned; for he that contemneth it, cannot be invisi­bly sanctified. Whereby he prooveth plainly that a faithfull man, and one converted to the LORD, is not deprived of the fruit of Baptisme, if he can­not hau [...] Baptisme, but if he contemne to be bapti­zed. From these two pillars (I meane S. Ambrose and S. Augustin, saith S. Bernard) I can hardly be drawne to beleeue otherwise. I confesse my selfe either to erre, or to be wise with these. I my selfe also beleeving, saith he, that a man may be saved solâ fide, by faith onely, having a true desire to re­ceiue the Sacrament, though either death antici­pate his holy desire, or some other invincible force hinder it: And consider when our Saviour saith; He that beleeveth and is baptised shall be saved, Mark. 16.16. whe­ther it be not with great warinesse and vigilancy repeated againe, But he that will not beleeue shall be damned? He saith not, he that is not baptized shall be damned; but onely, he that beleeveth not, shall be damned; implying hereby, that sometimes faith alone sufficeth to salvation, and without it nothing. Wherefore albeit we graunt, that Mar­tyrdome may be in stead of Baptisme, yet we must vnderstand that it is not punishment that maketh this, but faith it selfe, for without it what is Martyr­dome but plaine punishment? Now it is against all reason to thinke, that faith which is reputed for Baptisme, where Baptisme is wanting, and which doth make Martyrdome acceptable to God, should be sufficient by it selfe to saue a man when [Page 104] either Baptisme cannot be had, or Martyrdome is not required. S. Bernard vpon these, and such like reasons concludeth, that a man may be saved by faith without Baptisme, where there is a true de­sire, and no contempt of Baptisme. And that In­fants which die without Baptisme are consequent­ly saved, by the faith of their faithfull Parents.’ Thus farre S. Bernard.

Cyprian: de coena Domini.Saint Cyprian, (cited here by Saint Augustin and by Saint Bernard out of Saint Augustin) vpon this point hath these wordes; speaking of the theefe vp­on the crosse: Latr [...]cinium damnationem meruerat & supplicium, sed cor contritum poenam mutavit in mar­tyrium, & sanguinem in baptismum. And this is all that antiquity teacheth, or our Church requireth: that baptisme is not simply necessary, so as without it damnation must follow of necessitie; and that chil­dren baptized are delivered from originall sinne. But this man goeth further. Many that are baptised (saith he) may after their baptisme liue a graceles life: then they loose grace; or else wee must say that all that are bapti­zed are saved. I answere, we neede not say so. Wee say, that, if they fall into a sinfull and wicked life af­ter baptisme, they loose the priviledge of their bap­tisme, and the good that they might haue had by it, so long as they remaine such: And this is sufficient to answere him. But what is this to the grace of pre­destination, which hee would oppugne by these quirkes, drawne onely from the charity of the Church and baptisme? which charity we also hold. Then to proceede, of these who haue received the sacrament of regeneration, and are iudged by vs to be regenerate and iustified, many may proceede and [Page 105] make a great progresse in the Church, to be enlight­ned, to taste of the heavenly gift, Heb. 6. to be made partakers of the holy Ghost (that is of many graces of the holy Ghost) to taste of the good word of God, and of the pow­ers of the world to come: and yet they may fall away totally and finally. But they that are regenerate, iusti­fied and called according to Gods purpose, (aske not me who these are, it is enough that they are knowne to God) they may fall into diverse tempta­tions and sins, which bring men vnder Gods wrath; but these never fall away either totally or finally. This was expressed by D. Overall in the Conference at Hampton Court. By this distinction of men regene­rate, and iustified sacramento tenus onely, and such as are so indeede according to Gods purpose and calling, he might easily and fairely haue satisfied himselfe in all these obiections, which he draweth out of the book of Homilies, and out of our Service booke. For first he hath not proved, that a iustified man may fall away totally and finally; neither doth that follow from any wordes by him produced: And if it were proved in direct termes, how easie is the answere, that it is then meant of such as are regenerate and iustified sa­cramento tenus, and no further: For that such fall a­way it was neuer doubted in the Church, as S. Au­gustin sheweth. And therefore when hee sayth, that children duely baptized, are put into the estate of grace and salvation; I grant they are so to vs, wee must esteeme them so, Lib de bapt: contra Dona­tistas. 5 ca. 24. judicio charitatis. Saint Au­gustin saith, Omnes, qui in Christo baptizantur, Chri­stum induunt: but then he resolveth. Induunt Chri­stum homines aliquando vs (que) nd sacrameti perceptionom, [Page 106] aliquando vs (que) ad vitae sanctificationem: at (que) illud pri­mum & bonis & malis potest esse commune, hoc autem al­terum propnium est bonorum & piorum. By which grounds we may vnderstand how the ancient fathers resolved of them that fell quite away from grace. And wee may learne to rest in their resolution: Were it not better for this Author, with the Ancients to seeke out the truth, and meanes to defend the truth, then with the Arminians to rake vp the Pelagian dunghils for old obiections, that are already answered long a­goe by the ancient Fathers?

PAG. 37. he sayth, I see no reason wherefore I might not be as confident in maintaing fal­ling away from grace, as you & your Divines are vpon weaker grounds in defending the contrary.

If confidence will make your cause good, then there is no doubt of it; you haue enough. You know that he was confident that asked Michaiah this question: When departed the spirit of God from mee to speake in thee?

This Authour hath thought it good, as a thing becomming him, not onely to imitate the confi­dence of the false Prophet, but to answere in those ve­ry wordes of his, Pag: 8. Yet for all this confidence, he should finde much more comfort in imitating the humility of the true Prophets, then the pride and con­fidence of the false Prophets. This humour appea­reth [Page 107] further in comparing himselfe with their Di­vines. What they are whom he describeth in these wordes (your Divines) I know not. If hee meane such as haue maintained this cause against M. Thom­son and such: I am well assured that all the Pelagian and Arminian schooles, haue not afforded such lear­ned Divines as they were. But is not this a raysing of a faction between Divines & Divines in our Church, and over all the reformed Churches in Christen­dome? If his meaning be to note all Divines which hold against the Arminians in this particular; hee will finde the greatest Divines in Christendome in opposition against him; where his confidence will doe him as little good, as it did Zedekiah. But whe­ther haue the weaker grounds, our factious Author may finde in good time, and vpon better advise. For though he may be confident, comming, as he taketh, to the first on-set, as if his groundes had never beene shaken before; yet the truth is, these groundes haue beene long agoe and often examined. Pelagius being confident vpon these grounds, was thrust out of the Church. The Arminians of late resuming the same grounds were driven out of the Netherlandes. After all this he commeth on with a fresh supply: but he must looke for no other successe, then the same cause hath found at other times. For the same God liveth, which hath heretofore raysed vp the spirits of his servants to maintaine the truth against the Pelagians, and will rayse vp others to stand for the same truth, whensoever it is oppugned.

Pag: 40. he saith, If it be an error of Arminius, which was the positiue doctrine of Lutherans, and Luther, be­fore [Page 108] Arminius was borne; why is Arminius intituled to that which is none of his, but Martin Luthers?

In these words he seemeth to say that these late o­pinions of the Lutherans in Germany, were the doc­trines of Martin Luther himselfe. Wherein he is much mistaken. For these opinions were brought in by a­nother: the thing is well knowne. They increased much in Germany after Martin Luthers time; and in many things disagree from his doctrine: they were seditiously amplified by Iohannes Iacobus Andreas, who was a man of a furious and turbulent spirit, and called himselfe the Pope of the Lutherans, which Mar­tin Luther himselfe never did. Why Arminius should be intituled to this, I know no other reason, but the common course that hath intituled Heretickes to those heresies, which either they haue invented, or maintained and increased. It may be, he aff [...]cted that title; sure it is that he increased the heresie, & spread it where it was not before. This is no strange thing in the world, that factious men spreading strange o­piniōs, should get titles of that sect which they main­taine: For if our Author should proceed farre in this course, which he hath so vnadvisedly begun, he might happily purchase to himselfe a title likewise; though thereby he would get no glory.

Page 42. he saith; Surely those very points (of pre­destination, free-will, finall perseverance) being scho­lasticall speculations merely, and as farre from state busi­nesse, as theory is from practise, are not of themselues, ap­tae natae to breed dangers.

These words containe two things: First that the doctrines of predestination, free-will, and finall per­severance [Page 109] are merely scholasticall speculations: But why any doctrine contained in the holy Scripture should be called a meere scholasticall speculation, is a thing I conceiue not. He must giue a reason that calleth it so. Meere scholasticall speculations may well enough be spared without any losse or hinderance to our sal­vation: But will he say that these doctrines of Scrip­ture may so well be spared without any losse or hin­derance to our salvation? It would be an hard taske for Pelagius himselfe to proue that. Another thing in these words is, that these speculations as he calleth them, are not to be feared to breed danger. The Church is quiet, and without danger, vntill some new doc­trines be broached, and contentions raised about the truth: and then the hearts of many are disclosed, and dangers grow. These things that this Author hath moved in our Church, are more apt to breed dan­gers, then any thing that hath beene mooved since the time of Barret, Baro, and Thomson. A desperate man may set an house on fire, and say there is no dan­ger; yet the danger is not the lesse, but the madnesse of the man is the more, that cryes out there is no danger. The ignorance of Gods word, and truth there­in contained, is able not onely to breed danger, but to cause destructions of Churches and states. Hos. 4.6. The Prophet complaineth that the people of the Iewes were de­stroyed, and led into captivitie for want of knowledge. Then, the want of knowledge of God, and of the ho­ly doctrines of Gods word, is a thing apta nata to throw states and Kingdomes into destruction: And the true knowledge thereof is a thing apta nata to keepe states and people from destruction.

[Page 110] Pag. 42. he saith, These classicall proiects, consistoriall practises, conventuall designes, and propheticall speculati­ons of the zealous brethrē in this land (meaning Holland) do [...] ayme at anarchy and popular confusion; dangerous indeed to Prince and people.

He speaketh here of the Ministers of the Low-coun­tryes, between whom and vs in the matter of doctrine there hath beene a care of mutuall consent sought, and by his late Maiestie graciously entertained; and for the publicke good the desire thereof may be con­tinued, though this man should be offended. For though the Church of England be the best Reformed Church, yet is it not the onely Reformed Church. And it might seeme no good providence in vs, to stand so by our selues, as to reiect and disdaine the consent of other Churches, though they doe not agree with vs in the discipline. It is observed by Eusebius, that Po­lycrates and Irenaeus did both reprone Victor, because for matters of ceremonies he was too much offended with other Churches, which otherwise agreed with him in doctrine. Irenaeus doth admonish him, that the auncient Bishops of Rome before Victor, did keepe v­nitie & consent with the Easterne Bishops, though in ceremonies there was difference between them. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. Om­nes isticum in observantia variarent, inter semetipsos et nobiscū semper pacifici fuerunt. He saith there also that the dissonance in ceremonies, did not breake the conso­nance in faith. And why may not we doe the like to keepe the vnitie of faith with those Churches, which doe not agree with vs in ceremonies; if we seeke the peace of the Churches, y ^t professe the same doctrine?

Touching the point of their discipline, I can wit­nesse [Page 111] that they are weary of it, and would gladly be freed if they could. When wee were to yeeld our consent to the Belgicke confession at Dort, I made o­pen protestation in the Synode, that whereas in that confession there was inserted a strange conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ; I de­clared our dissent vtterly in that point. I shewed that by Christ a parity was never instituted in the Church: that hee ordayned 12 Apostles, and also 70 Disciples; that the authority of the 12, was aboue the other: that the Church preserved this order left by our Saviour. And therefore when the extraordi­nary authority of the Apostles ceased, yet their ordi­nary authority continued in Byshops, who succeeded them; who were by the Apostles themselues left in the government of the Church to ordaine Ministers, and to see that they, who were so ordeined, should preach no other doctrine. That in an inferior de­gree the Ministers that were governed by Byshops suc­ceeded the 70. Disciples: That this order hath beene maintained in the Church from the time of the A­postles. And herein I appealed to the judgement of Antiquity, and to the judgement of any learned man now living, and craved herein to be satisfied, if any man of learning could speake to the contrary: My Lord of Salisbury is my witnesse, and so are all the rest of our company, who spake also in the same cause: To this there was no answere made by any. Where­upon we conceived that they yeelded to the truth of the protestation. And somewhat I can say of mine owne knowledge: For I had conference with divers of the best learned in that Synode; I told them that [Page 112] the cause of all their troubles was this, that they had not Byshops amongst them, who by their authoritie might represse turbulent spirits that broached no­velties. Every man had libertie to speake or write what he list; and as long as there were no Ecclesia­sticall men in authoritie to represse and censure such contentious spirits, their Church would never be without trouble. Their answere was, that they did much honour and reverence the good order and disci­pline of the Church of England; & with all their hearts would be glad to haue it established amongst them, but that could not be hoped for in their state. Their hope was, that seing they could not doe what they desired; God would be mercifull to them, if they did what they could. This was their answere; which I thinke is enough to excuse them; that they doe not openly ayme at anarchy and popular confusion. The truth is, they groane vnder that burthen, and would be ea­sed, if they could. This is well knowne to the rest of my Associates there.

Pag. 58. speaking of the 17. Article, he saith: there is not one word, syllable, or apex touching your absolute, necessary, determined, irresistible, irrespectiue Decree of God to call saue and glorifie S. Peter, for instance, without any consideration had or regard to his faith, obedience, and repentance, and to condemne Iudas as necessarily without any respect had at all to his sinne: this is a private fancy of some particular men.

Of this I haue spoken at large before. I haue de­clared that these accusations, which he hath here made against the doctrine of predestination, were the accusations of the Pelagians against Saint [Page 113] Augustines doctrine. Onely here I will answer to a particuler surmise, that may happily fall into the thought of the Reader, or of the Author of the Ap­peale himselfe. Hee saith here, that these things are not contained in the 17. Article: and so after his manner of shifting, he may say, that hee deliuereth not heere his owne opinion, but onely saith that these things are not contained in the Article. To re­moue this answer, he must remember, that in diuers places through his booke, hee deliuereth the same with confidence, not onely as his owne opinion, but as the doctrine of our Church, as page 30. Hee saith (though not truely as hath beene proued be­fore) That the 16. Article was challenged as vnsound; but was there defended, maintained, avowed, auerred, for true, by the greatest Byshops and learnedest of our Diuines, against that absolute, irrespectiue, necessita­ting, and fatall decree of your new predestination. In which words he plainely deliuereth his owne opi­nion, and, as hee taketh it, the doctrine of our Church. Thus much I say here to take him from that starting hole, which he might thinke of, to say that in this, as in some other things, hee deliuered not his owne opinion: his opinion is plaine, that he layeth these accusations against predestination, as the Pelagians did.

Page 71. he saith. That Deodate Minister and professor of the Church of Geneua, professed to him his opinion in some points contrary to the conclusions of Dort.

All the English Diuines which were there do [Page 114] verily beleeue this to bee vntrue, because they hold Deodate for an honest man. And to put this matter out of doubt, Deodate himselfe hath written to a learned and reuerend Bishop of our Church, pro­testing that hee neuer spake any such thing as the Author of the Appeale imposeth vpon him, tou­ching the conclusions of that Synode. Hee, that durst deale so with Deodate, must needes loose cre­dit in other things.

Page 72. he saith At the conference of Hampton Court, the Byshop of London Doctor Bancrofte called the doctrine of praedestination a desperate doctrine without any reproofe or taxation.

I answer, as the Byshop of London did then vn­derstand it a desperate doctrine, so do I call it. The Byshop of London had reason, for speaking against a common abuse of that doctrine: Our Author hath no reason to speake against the doctrine it selfe. The Byshops words were these (which he omit­teth to wrong the Byshop) Many in these times neg­lecting holynesse of life, presume too much of persi­sting in grace, laying all their religion vpon prae­destination: If I shall bee saued, I shall bee saued: which hee termeth a desperate doctrine: and who will deny this as the Byshop deliuereth it? It was not the Byshops meaning to call the doctrine of praedestination, a desperate doctrine, as Saint Paul preacheth it, or as the 17. Article deliue­reth it. The Article affirmeth, that the godly con­sideration of praedestination, and our election in Christ is full of sweete, pleasant, and vnspeakable [Page 115] comfort to godly persons, and such as feele in them­selues the working of the spirit of Christ, morti­fying the workes of the flesh — aswell because it doth greatly establish and confirme their faith of eternall saluation to bee enioyed by Christ, as be­cause it doth feruently kindle their loue towards God.

If the Author had beene but indifferently affected to the doctrine of Praedestination, and to the Article that proueth such comfort to be con­tained in it, and receiued by it; Hee would haue said somewhat of this comfort, which the god­ly receiue from this doctrine: But hee is plea­sed to finde nothing in Praedestination but a despe­rate doctrine. The Article saith also; that for cu­rious and carnall men lacking the spirit of God, to haue continually before their eyes the sentence of Gods Prae­destination, is a most dangerous downefall. The Bishop spake of these last words.

Our learned Authour, the determiner of the doctrines of the Church of England, alloweth that the doctrine Praedestination should bee cal­led a desperate doctrine. (Hee cannot say here, that hee onely relateth the Bishops words, for therein hee hath wronged the Bishop, that hee relateth not his words rightly.) But the do­ctrine of our Church in that Article saith, that it is full of sweet, pleasant, and vnspeakable com­fort to godly persons. He hath handsomely main­tained the doctrine of our Church, saying, that [Page 116] the doctrine of Praedestination is a desperate doctrine, without any mention of the abuse of it; which before him, no Diuine of the Church of Eng­land euer vttered.

Pag. 73. He saith, It is your owne doctrine, God hath appointed them to grace and glory, God accor­ding to his purpose hath called and iustified them; therefore it is certaine, that they must and shall bee sa­ued infallibly: Thus writeth the Authour of the Ap­peale against his accusers.

I know not these men against whom hee wri­teth, but hee doth much honour them, in saying that this is their doctrine. Sir, is not this your do­ctrine also? I am sure it is the Apostles doctrine: Quos insitificauit, glorificauit. Saint Augustine draweth out of these words that doctrine which this man condemneth. Lib. de Fra­dest. sanct. cap. 17. Electi sunt de mundo ea vocatione, quae Deus id quod praedestinauit, imple­vit: Quos enim praedestinavit, ipsos & vocauit, illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositam: Non ergo alios sed quos praedestinauit, ipsos & vocauit: nec alios sed quos ita vocauit, ipsos & iustificauit: nec alios sed quos praedestinauit, vocauit, iustificauit, ipsos & glorificauit. He saith in the same place, Haec est immobilis veritas praedestinationis & gratiae. Then according to these grounds (which Saint Augustine calleth the immoueable truth of Praedestination, and grace) they whom God according to his pur­pose hath called, and iustified, must and shall be sa­ued infallibly. Sir, doe you puffe at this doctrine? [Page 117] Durum est contra stimulos calcitrate. The words are short and plaine; Quos iustificauit, glorifica­uit: They must and shall be glorified, because the word of God must and shall be true. These things are not, as this man in scorne calleth them Scholasticall speculations, they are the Grounds of our saluation.

The chiefe and corner stone, elect and precious, is vnto some a rocke of offence: Men may dash themselues against this rocke, but they cannot shake it, they cannot hurt or remoue it. Againe, these short words, Quos iustificauit, glorificauit: doth vtterly shake in peeces that new doctrine of his, where hee laboureth, but in vaine, to proue, that a man so iustified may fall away totally and finally: Quos iustificauit, glorificauit. If they who are iustified according to Gods purpose shall infallibly be glorified; then can they neuer fall a­way totally, or finally. Yes, saith hee, they may fall away totally, though not finally. It seemeth that this man maketh some account of this conceit; for hee hath spoken of it at other times, that a man may fall away totally, but not finally. If hee, or any man, could proue by euident Scrip­ture, that a man that is predestinated, called, and iustified, according to Gods purpose, may fall a­way totally; then will I yeeld that hee may fall away finally. It is a weake conceit to thinke that hee shall stand finally, that falleth away total­ly. For if all grace be gone, totally lost, then must [Page 118] the man come to another predestination▪ ano­ther calling, another iustification, [...] ­cation another adoption. But then must [...] man set vp another Schoole of Diuinit [...] by that knowledge of Diuinity, [...] receiued amongst vs, and hitherto preserued, these things can­not stand.