RICHARD BAXTER's ACCOUNT OF His present Thoughts CONCERNING the Controversies about THE Perseverance of the SAINTS.  
Occasioned by the gross misreports of some passages in his Book, called, The Right Method for Peace of Conscience, &c; which are left out in the last Impression to avoid offence, and this here substituted, for the fuller explication of the same Points.  LUTHERUS, referent Hopffnero Saxon. Evangel. p. 110. Nihil pestilentius in Ecclesia doceri potest, quam si●ea, quae Necessaria non sunt, Necessaria fiant: Hâc enim tyrannide conscientiae illaqueantur, & libertas fidei extinguitur; mendacium pro veritate, Idolum pro Deo, abominatio pro sanctitate, colitur. 
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Underhill at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard, and F. Ty●on at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet M. D C. LVIII.   

OF THE SAINTS PERSEVERANCE.  
HAving let fall some passages concerning Perseverance, in a Book entitled The Right Method for Peace of Conscience in 32. Directions, &c. agreeable to the state and experience of my own soul: no sooner were they published, but many suspicious Brethren gave out, that I had wrote against the certain Perseverance of the Saints. How little reason they had for their report, I manifested in the next Edition by an Apology. But the case is come to that at last, even with pious Brethren, that they know my Belief much better than I know my own: and therefore to tell them my judgement, is in vain. But because I cannot think that all are so sagacious or censorious, and because I think it meetest to the utmost of my power to avoid offence, and to leave out controversy as much as may be in such practical Writings, I have, in the last Edition of the Book, left out all those passages that occasioned mens mistake, and withall the additional Apology,( as being then needless:) But lest any think that hereby I betray any truth of God for the pleasing of men▪ I have thought meet, in these few Pages, to declare what my judgement is in that point, more largely and more seasonably than in the aforesaid Writing. And it is not my design to stand upon the maintenance of the Opinion which I own, or the confutation of the contrary: but only, to give to my mistaken, offended, censorious Brethren a true account of my mind.  
There are many Opinions concerning this Point among the Professors of the Christian faith; which I think meet to set down, that I may the better declare my own thoughts of the whole. And I shall begin at the utmost extreme on one side, and proceed on to that on the other side, taking the middle Opinions in the way.  
1. The first Opinion which I shall mention, is that of the Papists, who do not only hold the Doctrine of actual apostasy of Saints, but also that every mortal sin, as they call them, doth excuss the Spirit of grace, and put a sinner not only under an actual guilt, but also into an unjustified estate, and so into a state of death and damnation: so that a state of grace( according to them) is frequently lost with many, and frequently recovered. If any would see this Point opened and debated judiciously, let them red Rob. Baronius his small Tractate de Peccato Mortali & Veniali.  
2. The second Opinion is, that the truly Regenerate and justified( indefinitely) may and do( some of them) fall totally and finally from a state of grace or justification, into a state of death and condemnation; and perish everlasting●●. This Opinion excepteth not the Elect themselves considered Antecedently; but only considered consequently: because it is a contradiction to be Elect and yet not to persevere: For the maintainers of it hold that God doth Elect men only upon foresight of faith and perseverance, and not to perseverance and faith itself; For they deny any Antecedent absolute election to the first differencing grace: and deny any such grace itself, as by an insuperable operation shall infallibly convert. This Opinion was too common among both Greek and latin Fathers, that wrote before the daies of Augustine, as appeareth both by express passages in many of their Writings; and by their Doctrine of free-will, and predestination upon foresight of the good use thereof, and other Points that infer it: which Scultetus and many other of the reformed Divines do inter naevos Patrum recite. And though they saw that this would not consist with a certainty of salvation, yet they choose rather to deny that certainty, than to assert the Perseverance of all the Regenerate; and to say, as Origen, and after him Eusebius pmparat. Evangel. lib. 6. pag. 289. 290.[ 〈◇〉,— i.e. Immo p●gnarent ista secum ut idem & probus evaderet, & certo probum se futurum esse praenosset.] And Augustine himself( as afterward) hath the like or more 
* Bernard himself Serm. 1. ● de septuages. saith, Qui● potest dicere, Ego de electis sum? Ego de praedestinatis sum ad vitam aeternam? Ego de numero sum filiorum Dei: Quis haec inquam dicere potest? reclamant nimirum scripturâ: Nescit homo si amore dignus sit, an odio. Certitudinem igitur non habemus; said spei fiducia consolatur nos, &c. .  
Yea, when they saw that this was liable to be assaulted with the absurd consequence of inferring a change in God, some did not stick upon it: as tertul. contr. martion. lib 2. cap. 23, 24. Per tot si vero etiam circa personas levem vultis intelligi, quum reprobat aliquando probatos, aut improvidum, quum probat quandoque reprobandos, quasi judicia sua aut damnet praeterita, aut ignoret futura: at qui nihil tam bono & judici convenit quam pro presentibus meritis & rejicere, & adlègere, &c.  
This Opinion possesseth the far greatest part of the Christian world at this day, but in Europe the chief friends of it are those that are called Arminians and Lutherans, and abundance of the jesuits and their followers, who also take in the first Opinion.  
3. The third Opinion is, That no certainty of Perseverance doth arise from Election, nor can be concluded from our mere justification and adoption and sanctification: for they think that there is no such thing as Antecedent Election of persons individually, to faith and salvation: and they think that many of the truly justified and Regenerate, do fall away and perish for ever. But yet they say, that there is a certain height of holiness, which is attainable in this life, which whosoever attaineth shall never fall away. If you ask what is that height or state: I answer, They are obscure teachers who hold this, that shun the clear disclosure of their minds, and therefore I cannot fully answer you: only thus much I can say, that I have met with those of them that express themselves these several ways. Some of them say, that there is a state of sinless perfection attainable in this life: and that those that are thus perfect shall not fall away. Some of them make new descriptions of the Covenants, and say, that those that are under the first Covenant may fall away, but not those that are under the second: I confess I do not fully understand their describing and differencing the Covenants. And some affirm, that there is in this life, a state of confirmation, consistent with Peccability and venial sins, which whosoever attaineth shall never fall away. They think that the Angels themselves were first made righteous without confirming grace: and then confirmed as a reward for their adhering to God, when the rest fell. And so, that Adam should have been confirmed as a reward, if he had conquered the first temptation and adhered unto God. And so, that Christ doth first set men in an unconfirmed state of Justification and life, and will confirm them and put them beyond the peril of falling away, upon certain terms or conditions,( whose punctum or discernible state, they do not tell us.) The persons holding this third Opinion are the Paracelsians( under whom I comprehend the Weigelians and the rest of the Enthusiasts) and many newly risen in England. And it seems by Hom. 26. that holy Macarius 
* This seems also Origens Opinion, as may be seen in Rom. 8. Fol.( edit Ascens.) 193. Col. 2. 194. c. 2.  inclined that way. And it is the Opinion of some later Papists: Of which more under the fifth.  
4. The fourth Opinion is, That God hath not only decreed that all that will believe and persevere shall be saved; but also that such and such persons by Name, shall by his differencing, free, effectual grace, be infallibly brought to faith and perseverance; and therefore none of the Elect shall ever totally and finally fall away or perish: But yet that some are effectually called, Regenerated, Justified and Sanctified, besides the Elect: and these will all fall away and perish.] This was the opinion of Augustine, who rose up against Pelagius and his followers in defence of differencing free grace, and first plainly and fully vindicated that Grace against the exalters of Nature and free will: whom the contrary minded do now unjustly accuse of running too far, even into a contrary extreme in the heat of his disputations against Pelagius. Because some are so immodest as to deny this to be Augustines Doctrine, I shall add this much: 1. I asked the reverend Bishop Usher in the hearing of Dr kendal, Whether this were not plainly the judgement of Austin? who answered, that without doubt it was. And he was as likely to know as any man that I am capable of consulting with. 2. If any be in doubt, these passages following, among many other, may end his doubts.  
August. de bono persever. c. 8, & 9.[ Ex duobus autem piis, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi autem non donetur; inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei. Illud tamen fidelibus debet esse certissimum; hunc esse ex praedestinatis, illum non esse. Nam si fuissent ex nobis, ait unus ex praedestinatorum, qui de pectore domini bibebat hoc secretum, mansissent utique nobiscum. Quid est quaeso, non erant ex nobis, &c. nonne utrique vocati fuerant & vocantem secuti? utrique ex impiis justificati & c? Quaenam est tandem ista discretio? Patent libri Dei: non avertamus aspectum. Clamat Scriptura divina: adhibeamus auditum: Non erant ex nobis, quia non erant secundum propositum vocati: Non erant in Christo electi ante constitutionem mundi, &c. Nam si hoc essent, ex illis essent, & cum illis sine dubitatione man sissent.  
Idem Lib. de corrept. & gratiâ. cap. 8, & 9.[ De his enim disserimus, qui perseverantiam bonitatis non habent; said ex bono in malum deficiente bona voluntate moriuntur. Respondeant si possunt, cur illes Deus cum fideliter & piè viverent, non tunc de vitae hujus periculis rapuit ne malitia mutaret intellectum corum▪ & ne fictio deciperet animas corum? Utrum hoc in potestate non habuit? An ●orum mala futura nescivit? Nempe nihil horum nisi perversissimè atque insanissimè dicitur cur ergo non fecit? &c. Quia, inscrutabilia judicia ejus, &c.— 9. Nec vos moveat quod filiis suis quibusdam Deus non dat istam perseverantiam. Absit enim ut ita esset, si de illis praedestinatis essent, & secundum propositum vocatis, qui verè sunt filii promissionis. Nam isti cum piè vivant, dicuntur filii Dei: said quoniam victuri sunt impie, & in eadem impietate morituri, non illos dicit filios Dei praescientia Dei.— Non quia justitiam simulaverunt, said quia in ea non permanserunt: Nam si fuissent ex nobis, veram, non fictam justitiam tenuissent utique nobiscum, &c.] vid. ult.  
Idem de corrept. & grat. cap. 8. Hic si a me quaeratur cur eis Deus perseverantiam non dederit, qui eam qua Christianè viverent dilectionem dedit? Me ignorare respondeo: Non enim arrogantèr, said agnoscens modulum meum audio dicentem Apostolum, O homo tu quis es, &c.]  
Ibid cap. 12. Quamvis ergo de omnibus regeneratis & pie viventibus loqueretur Apostolus dicens, Tu quis es qui, judicas servum alienum? suo domino stat aut cadit. Continuo tamen respexit ad praedestinatos, & ait: stabit autem.]  
Idem de dono persever. cap. 22. avoiding the harsher expressions that might offend, he teacheth them to substitute such as these:[ Si qui autem obediunt, said in regnum ejus & gloriam praedestinati non sunt, temporales sunt, nec usque in finem in eadem obedientia perman●bunt.] The same he hath before and there frequently.  
Idem de correp. & grat. cap. 8. Mirandum est quidem, multumque mirandum, quod filiis suis Deus quibusdam, quos regeneravit in Christo, quibus fidem, spem, dilectionem dedit, non dat perseverantiam &c.] Ib. cap. 9.[ Propter hoc Apostolus, cum dixisset, Scimus quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum: sciens, nonnullos diligere Deum, & in eo bono usque in finem non permanere, mox addidit; his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt: hi enim in eo quod diligunt Deum, permanent usque in finem, &c.— Ibid. cap. 6. Si autem jam regeneratus & justificatus in malam vitam sua voluntate rel●bitur, certè is non potest dicere, non accepi; quia acceptam gratiam Dei suo in malum libero amisit arbitrio]  
Ibid. cap. 12. Dicit Johannes Apostolus, Est peccatum ad mortem, non pro illo dico, ut roget quis: de quo peccato quoniam non expressum est, possunt multa & diversa sentiri: Ego autem dico id esse peccatum, fidem quae perdilectionem operatur deserer● usque ad mortem.]  
Abundance of such passages makes Aust●ns mind, as plain as his Pen could express it.  
Nor did he stick at the utter overthrowing of all certainty of salvation hereby( except conditional.) As appeareth de cor. & grat. c. 13. pag. 539.( Saris.) Quis enim ex multitudine fidelium quamdiu in hac mortalitat● vivitur, in numero praedestinatorum se esse praesumat? quia id occultari opus est in hoc loco; ubi sic cavendae est elatio, ut etiam per Satanae Angelum ne extolleretur tantus collophizaretur Apostolus— Nam propter hujus utilitatem secreti, ne fort quis extollatur, said omnes etiam qui benè currunt, timeant, dum occultum est qui perveniant. Propter hujus ergo utilitatem secreti credendum est quosdam de filiis perditionis, non accepto dono perseverandi usque in finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipe vivere, ac aliquandiu, fidelitèr ac just vivere, & postea cadere, neque de hac vita priusquam hoc eis contingat, auferri. Quorum si nemini contigisset, tamdiu haberent homines istum saluberrimum timorem, quo vitium elationis opprimitur, donec ad Christi gratiam, qua piè vivitur, pervenirent; deinceps jam securi, nunquam se ab illo esse casuros. Quae presumptio in isto tentationum loco non expedit, ubi tanta est infirmitas, ut superbiam posset generare securitas.  
Idem Epist. 101. ad Vitalem.[ Utile est quip omnibus, vel pene omnibus propter humilitatem saluberrimam, ut quails futuri sint scire non possint.]  
Et in Lib. 11. de Civitate Dei cap. 12. pag. 670.[ Quis enim primos illos homines in Paradiso negare audeat beatos fuisse ante peccatum? quamvis d● sua beatitudine quam diuturna, vel utrum aeterna esset incertos? esset autem aeterna nisi peccassent. Cum bodiè non impudenter beatos vocemu;, quos videmus just ac piè cum spe futurae immortalitatis hanc vitam ducere sine crimine vastante conscientiam, facile impetrantes peccatis hujus infirmitatis divinam misericordiam? Qui licet de suae perseverantiae praemio certi sint, de ipsa tamen perseverantia sua reperiantur incerti? Quis enim hominum se in actione profectuque justitiae perseveraturum usque in finem se sciat, nisi aliquae revelatione ab illo fiat certus qui de hac re justo latentique judicio, non omnes instruit said neminem fallit.  
Of the same mind with Austin, were Prosper, Fulg●ntius and the rest of the highest defenders of free grace, that the Church for many ages did enjoy: as appeareth in Prosperi Respons. ad gull. Sentent 2. & supper Sent. 7. & 12. & ad object. Vincent. object. 12. & passim. Ita & Fulgentius. I forbear to recite the words, as having been too long on that already.  
The same doctrine of Augustine, Prosper, &c. do the Dominicans maintain against the Jesuits; as may be seen in Alvarez Disput. 107. and commonly in others: as also in Jansenius, Augustine 
Pererius and some few of the jesuits join in the main with the Dominicans. Vid. Perer. Disp. 28. in 8. Rom & Disp. 6, 7, 8.  de Grat Christi, lib. 9. c. 7. p. 392, 393. & sequent. & lib. 3. c. 20. p. 163, 164. who is more exact than most other Dominicans, especially in the point of predestination, and the nature of Grace.] The same opinion also some of the Reformed Protestant Divines maintain: as Musculus Loc. come. de Remission. § 6. pag.( mihi) 620, 621, 622. and Dr Overall in the short addition to Davenants Dissertations( wrongfully fathered on Davenant, as by Usher  told me.)  
5. The fifth Opinion is; That God Electeth all that he will save, to Faith and perseverance, and that some are confirmed in this life in a state of Justification, and so are past the danger of apostasy: so that either Election or confirming Grace, will necessary infer the certainty of perseverance: for neither the Elect nor the confirmed shall finally fall away. And they suppose that many are elect which are not confirmed; and none confirmed but those that are elect. But yet they add, that there are many truly regenerate, justified, sanctified, adopted, and live in love and obedience to God, who are yet neither elected nor confirmed: and that all these will certainly fall away.  
This Opinion is the same with that of Augustine last mentioned, but that it addeth, the non-apostatizing of the confirmed, to the non-apostatizing of the Elect. And Vossius supposeth that Augustine himself was of this mind, and joined this point with the former. Of which I am not able to determine: For though I am as sure as words can make me, that Austin, Prosper and Fulgentius, are of the last mentioned opinion; yet I cannot say so of this, because the footsteps of it in their writings are so few and dark, that to me they are uncertain.  
Most of the Domincians go this way, and some jesuits part of it, but then they scarcewell agree about the nature of this confirming Grace. Viguerius( a Collector out of Thomas) and others say, that it is nothing but the gift of Perseverance itself. Others admit a real distinction between the grace of confirmation and perseverance, who yet agree not in the nature or effects. For some think that Habitual infused Grace, and special assisting Grace, are enough to perseverance, but not to confirmation: some say a third sort is necessary to perseverance also, and that a Reprobate may have the two former. Some Papists think, that confirming Grace doth take away Free-will in obedience, and cause such a determination of the will to good, that they do necessary obey, and so they are not freely but necessary saved: These Papists hold this, it seems, because their definition of free▪ will is so far inconsistent with the Dominicans, that when they yield that Confirmation doth so effectually determine the will, they must needs say that it takes away its liberty, as they think Heaven itself doth, viz. by perfecting the will, and raising it to a higher pitch than liberty. But another part of the Papists( of whom it is that Alvarez speaks, lib. 10. Disput. 104. pag. 419. §. 1.) do hold, that the Grace of Confirmation and Perseverance, are distinguished only accidentally, by a greater or less intention of the same Helps, but not Really. The fuller explication of their opinion and their reasons, you may find in the forecited Disputation.  
But the Opinion which Ferrariensis, Alvarez, and others of that Classis do maintain, as the common opinion of the Thomists, is, that the Gift of Confirmation and Perseverance is not the same: that all the Elect persevere, but all are not here Confirmed: And for the point of Impeccability, they agree with the jesuits, that the Confirmati are Impeccabiles as to mortal sin; but not as to venial( to which they annumerate, the remnants of ignorance, inconsiderateness, the foams peccati, &c. Vid. Alvarez Disput. 104. §. 4.) This Impeccability as to Mortal sin, is the perfection, or fulfilling of all Gods Commandements, which the Papists mean and say, we may attain. But then some of them say, that this Immpeccability is only to be ascribed to intrinsic Grace: others with Durandus( in 3. d. 3. q. 4) do ascribe it only to extrinsic removal of the occasions of sin: some think that it is partly from intrinsic Grace, and partly from extrinsic; that is, ex perfectione Gratiae habitualis & virtutum, & ex custodia, protectione & directione Dei( as Alvarez.) Of these, the Dominicans ascribe it to a Physical Determining Grace( which Physical determination the most of them make necessary to every act of every creature; but Jansenius denieth that, and makes it specially necessary to saving good) and the jesuits as is said, do most of them ascribe to a special sort of moral help leaving the will free: and others to a Necessitating determination. It is ordinarily judged( as Alvarez out of Thom. maintaineth) that this Impeccability is not simplo, as not being ab intrinseco totaliter, but only secundum quid, as being partim ab extrinseco; quod contingit quando alicui datur aliquod munus gratiae quo inclinatur in bonum, ita ut ab illo non posset de facili deflecti; non tamen per hoc ita retrahitur a malo, ut omnino peccare non posset, nisi divinâ providentia protegatur & custodiatur.  
And itis very observable wherein Alvarez placeth this Confirming Perfection, ibid §. 4, viz. in a certain participation of Charitas Patriae, which is distinct secundum modum a Charitate violaris non Confirmante: His words are[ Resp. non consistere in majori intensione ejusdem gratiae Habitualis. Etenim gratia non Confirmans, aliquando est magis intensa, quam gratia in bono Confirmans, quod ex eo patet: nam multi sun● in via non Confirmati in gratia qui habent gratiam & charitatem magis intensam, quam aliqui existentes in patria:( Believe this that can:) Dicendum est ergo quod haec perfectio attenditur secundum quandam participationem gratiae & Charitatis Patriae, quae secundum modum est alterius rationis a gratia vel charitate non confirmante ut ait S. Thom 22. q. 24, art. 7. ad 3.  
As I account it more gross, according to the first opinion to say that every sin which they call mortal destroyeth Justification, than to say only, that it is lost by some; and grosser to say, that All may fall away, than that All, save the Confirmed may fall away( which is the second opinion:) and that yet it is less culpable to say, that all the Elect shall persevere, though not all the Justified( which is the fourth:) so I take this last recited to be less culpable than the fourth; because it alloweth a double ground of certain perseverance, that is, both Election and Confirmation, when the former alloweth but one.  
6. The sixth Opinion is, That an Adult state of saving grace or Justification is never lost, but a state of Infant Justification may, because it is but a change of his Relation upon the condition of the Parents being a Believer.] Yet some of them deny not, but Elect Infants may some of them moreover have some secret seed of grace which is never lost.) Of this mind were the British Divines in the synod of Dort; and Davenant and Ward have particularly wrote for it: and many more at home and abroad are of the same mind: And it should seem, so was the synod of Dort itself, by those words Artic. 1. Can 17. pag. 244. Quandoquidem de volunta●e Dei ex verbo ipsius nobis est judicandum, quod testatur liberos fidelium esse sanctos, non quidem natura, said beneficio faederis gratuiti, in quo illi cum parentibus comprehenduntur, pij parentes de Electione & salute svorum liberorum quos Deus in infantia ex haec vita evocat, dubitare non debent.] Yet they that are of this Opinion think it more fit to call this a cessation of their former Title to salvation, than a falling from grace as in their explications may be seen.  
7. The seventh Opinion is, That no one that is truly Justified and Sanctified, doth ever totally fall away or lose the estate of grace; but yet it is possible for them to fall away and lose it, though it shall never come to pass.] For it is not the Impossibility but the non-futurity that God decreeth. Of this Opinion are many of the Reformed Divines, called Calvinists.  
8. The eighth Opinion is, That for a Justified person Infant or Aged to lose that estate, is not only a thing that never shall come to pass, but that it is impossible for them to lose it: This is the Judgmenr also of very many Reformed Divines.  
9. The ninth Opinion is, that because it is impossible to fall away from grace, therefore it is unlawful for any Believer to fear it, or, to persuade other believers to fear it; or to pray against it, or to think that any sin can endanger it; And though a Beliver did fall into Adultery and murder with David, or into Incest and Drunkenness with Lot, he ought not to fear the loss of his Justification, nor to be humbled with such considerations, nor to rise from the sin with such a Motive. This is the judgement of the Antinomians commonly maintained in their Writings.  
10. Another Opinion is, that, Though some degrees of saving grace may be lost, which by increase were supreadded to the first grace which we received; yet no degree of the first habitual grace can be after lost by any sin.  
11. Another Opinion is, That though the Acts of grace may be sinfully omitted, and so grace may act weaklier than it did before, yet the internal root or stock, whether you call it a habit or a power, or a new nature is never diminished, or lost in any degree, either which was at first infused, or is afterward infused by way of Augmentation.  
The two last Opinions are only dropped in by some few of the Reformed Divines, who are over-bold in their determinations: The last is by most dis-owned; and the former by few of ours meddled with in their Writings; but usually past over in silence.  
12. Another Opinion about Perseverance is, That no sin of a Believer, small or great, doth so much as contract on the person a guilt of death or any punishment; that is, an Obligation to punishment: and that in Gods account we are neither sinners, nor deserve damnation: for God seeth no sin in his people: the guilt falls all on Christ; and the punishment is all born by him alone; and no such thing as true punishment suffered by any Believer: And therefore that they may not confess the guilt of any sin to be on themselves, nor pray for the pardon of it, but only when th●y mean by[ pardon] the feeling of pardon, or assurance or knowledge of it, or some new effect of it, in renewed mercies. This also is the known Opinion of the Antinomians, and the most extreme on this hand that is worthy our present Observation.  
Having thus shewed you the differing Opinions among Christians about Perseverance, I shall nex● lay down so much of my own judgement as I think needful for the present purpose, in certain Propositions, before I speak of the offence which do occasion it.  
Prop. 1. It is a gross Error to think that every sin which they call mortal or we call gross, doth excuss all Charity, or put a man out of a state of Justification. There are indeed sins that may be called mortal, eminently, which will prove a man out of the state of Grace, though they cannot be said to put him out of it, because he was never in it. I mean the sin unto death, or the dominion of sin, or any one sin so aggravated as will prove that dominion, and so is inconsistent with saving grace. But it is not every act of a gross sin that makes or proves a man to be unjustified. David was an adopted son, an Heir of life, a Member of Christ, even a living Member, as soon as he had committed those heinous sins: though he contracted such a guilt, as anon we shall describe, yet his former guilt returned not on him( as many Schoolmen themselves maintain) nor was he cut off from Christ, nor his state and Relation to him overthrown.  
Object. Adam by one act did lose his habitual state of grace, and Relation to God, becoming unholy and unjustified: therefore so may we.  
Ans. 1. I deny the Antecedent: For it was not by one Act, but by many that Adam so far fell: 2. And I deny the consequence: First, Because Adams sin was such, as no regenerate man doth commit( for ought ever I have yet heard proved.) Secondly, At least, the difference of the Laws that he and we were under, would make this difference. For according to the Law that Adam was under, one sin, yea any one sin, did make him liable to death, and consequently to be forsaken by the grace or Spirit of God, and to be under the curse: But it is not so with a Believer according to the gentler Law of grace: The cause therefore of the difference is principally extrinsic in God and Christ and the Covenant of Grace: Whether there were any Internal, in the nature of the grace that Adam had, and that we have, I shall not now inquire.  
Prop. 2. The Opinion of those Ancients, and of the jesuits, Arminians and Lutherans, who deny an absolute personal Election of men to faith and Perseverance, and so maintain indefinitely a total and final falling from a state of justification, without excepting such Elect themselves, is an Eerror of dangerous consequence, against the grace and fidelity of God, if not against his wisdom and his power, and against the peace of the Saints: and therefore is to be carefully avoided and resisted, by those that would not wound their faith: as Augustine, and his followers, and since them the Dominicans and Reformed Divines have voluminously evinced.  
Yet note, that the jesuits themselves may confess that the Elect shall none of them finally fall away, but shall all Persevere. But that is, because they hold that Election is upon the foresight of perseverance, and so that these Propositions are inconsistent as to their truth[ This man is Elected] and[ This man shall not Persevere:] But they do not make Election, or differencing grace, the Cause of Faith and Perseverance.  
Prop. 3. The third Opinion hath three Parts: Of which, I take one to be true, and the other two to be false. That which is true is, That the confirmed in grace, shall certainly Persevere. The Parts that I take to be false, are, First, That some of the truly justified, and sanctified are not Elect to salvation( which is common to them with Augustine.) Secondly, That Perseverance is no fruit of Election, but only of mans good use of his grace, and of Gods remunerative Justice and Mercy: For they think that there is no Election of Individuals, but upon supposition of foreseen faith and repentance: so that this Opinion differeth not from the second, save only in that it addeth a state of confirmation, which none shall lose: and so maketh some in this life to be certainly past the danger of falling away: Of which more under the fifth Opinion.  
Prop. 4. The fourth Opinion, viz. of Austin, with Prosper, Fulgentius and the rest of his followers that resisted the Pelagians, and of the Dominicans, and Musculus, &c. who maintain personal absolute Election, and free grace, against the conceit of mans merits, and the certain Perseverance of all the Elect; and yet maintain that many of the Praesciti or non▪ elect are truly sanctified, and justified, and fall away from it and perish, doth seem to me to be unsound, and contrary to many Texts of holy Scripture, and therefore not to be received.  
To produce that Evidence against it, which is so common in mens hands in many Volumes written to this purpose, would here be worse than needless. And methinks Austins Exposition is a forcing of the Text. He expoundeth 1 Joh 2. 19. They were not of us, je. of us the Elect. And Rom. 8 30. he expoundeth by prefixing to each link the foregoing words, viz. the called according to his purpose: q. d.[ whom he called, viz. according to his purpose, them he justified; and whom he justified▪ that is, those whom he so called and justified, them he glorified; q. d. those before mentioned whom he justified he glorified; or those whom he predestinated, called and justified( conjuncttly) them he glorified.] As if the Text did not comprehend all the Justified, nor speak of the Justified as such, but did only extol Gods Love to the Elect, and consequently speak of them as Elect, and so of the Elect only, connexing every former Proposition in the chain with the later as necessary to make up its sense: as if the meaning were no more but this:[ so great is the everlasting Love of God to his chosen, that he fore-knew them, and predestinated them to be conformed to his Son; and having predestinated them all, he effectually calleth them, and having called them he justifieth them, and having justified them he glorifieth them:] and so he would not have all others excluded from calling and justifying, but only from predestination and glory. But I see not a sufficient warrant in the Text for such a limiting Exposition: It seems rather to me that[ whom he called] is as much as[ all whom he called] and[ whom he justified] as much as[ all whom he justified] And to me it seems unlikely, that ever such a love of God can change, by which he embraceth any man as a son; For if sons, than Heires, &c. That love which made us Sons▪ and taketh complacency in us as Sons, will surely continneus in a state of Son-ship, and give us the Inheritance. How else can the little Flock be raised from their fears, because of the good pleasure of the Father to give them the Kingdom! For, alas, nothing more certain than that we should lose our grace, and so lose the Kingdom, if the Father had no other good pleasure towards us, but only to give us the Kingdom if we Persevere, and not also to give us perseverance that we may have the Kingdom. I know that Augustine distinguisheth of sons; and some he saith may be called sons because they are Regenerate, and justified, and in such a state as they should have been saved if they had died in; who yet are not sons by predestination, but God fore-seeing their falling off, intendeth them not the Inheritance. But where he can find this distinction of sons in Scripture, I know not: though another dictinction of sons I confess may be found.  
Prop. 5. Though I presume to dissent in this point from Augustine and the common judgement of the Teachers of that and many former and later Ages; yet do I find myself obliged by the Reverence of such contradicting Authority, and forced also by the consciousness of my ignorance, to suspect my own understanding, and to dissent with modesty, both honouring the contrary-minded, and being willing to receive any further evidence, and to know the truth if it be on their side. And so I must needs say, that I see not near such clear evidence against this Opinion, as I do against the former, much less as I do for the Fundamental Articles of the Faith: and therefore I am not arrived at that certainty in the Doctrine of the Perseverance of all the Justified, as I am for the Doctrine of the Perseverance of all the Elect; much less as I am about the death and resurrection of Christ, the Life Everlasting, and such other verities.  
I know that there is very great variety of evidence of the several Truths revealed in the Scriptures, one Text being more or less plain than another. Though we know that all that God saith, is equally true, yet we have not an equal evidence of every Truth, that it is indeed the Word of God. And therefore our reception of these several Points must needs be as unequal as the evidence is, upon which we do receive them. I dare not say that I have attained a certainty in understanding this Point and all the Texts of Scripture that concern it, better than Augustine, and the common judgement of the Church for so many Ages: And therefore I dare not say that I have attained to a certainty, that all the justified shall persevere. I dare and I do venture my soul and everlasting hopes upon the truth of the Fundamentals; so that I dare, I must say;[ If these be not true, I will forfeit my hopes; I expect no salvation.] But I dare not▪ I do not venture my salvation upon this Opinion; nor dare I say,[ Let me have no salvation if any of the Justified fall from their Justification.] And therefore if I were put to it in arguing to deny either this or an evidenter truth, I would sooner reduce this to the more evident, than the more evident to this.  
And that it is not so evident as many others, or as that a common agreement in it by the godly can be expected, is apparent enough. 1. From the difficulties that occur, which the Scriptures and the dissenters reasonings may easily acquaint us with. 2. And from their answers to our Arguments. 3. And from the number and quality of the Dissenters. First, Sure that can be no very easy point which all or almost all the Church, for so many Ages erred in. Secondly, And which not only the most of the Christians of the world, but also so many Nations of Protestants themselves do err in to this day. Thirdly, And which the choicest men for Learning and diligence, and those that were the Leaders in defending the grace of God, as Austin and abundance of Protestant Divines, could never attain the understanding of, but resisted them as errors. Fourthly, Yea when they were and are as holy as we; and so as like to have Divine Illumination. All this being in the case, it seemeth to be high self-conceited arrogancy, for such a one as I to prosess such a point to be so evident and easy, and to imagine that all the most holy and judicious Writers for so many Ages, and so many at this day, are so far below me in the understanding of the Scriptures, and that even in points which they had so much occasion to search into, and so many and great advantages to understand. I do not, I dare not presume of this.  
Prop. 6. Hence it is most apparent, that this difference about the Perseverance of all the Justified, is not of so great moment, as to encourage or warrant us to withdraw our affection or communion from those that differ from us herein; as if they were heretics, or no Members of the Church, or could not be saved, because they err herein. For confirmation of which consider, 1. By the contrary conclusion we should be excessively Uncharitable, in condemning to Hell fire, for ought we can find, all, or next all, the Church▪ of Christ for▪ 1300 or 1400 years at least. 2. And we should be very proud in exalting ourselves so high above our Brethren, and the Churches of Christ. 3. And it were high presumption and arrogancy to step into Gods seat and pass so bold a censure. 4. And it were great Impiety to make Christ hereby to have no visible Church on earth( nor for ought we can prove, many persons) for so many hundred years: Hereby we should go far toward the giving up our Cause to the Infidels. For, no Church, no Head of the Church. 5. Hereby we should censure the form of Belief or Profession of all these Churches as insufficient. For the Doctrine of Perseverance now in question, was never( that is proved) in any of their Creeds. Sixthly, Hereby we should foment Divisions in and between the Churches, and make the healing of our Divisions seem desperate. For if we conclude all the Lutherans and Arminians( who yet go further than Austin in denying Perseverance) to be uncapable of salvation or of our communion, what room is left for any motions of Peace? 7. And also hereby we should very much encourage the Papists; if we make our first Protestants, Luther▪ Melanchton and the rest that subscribed the Augustane confession, to be heretics and persons whose communion was to be avoided. 8. And Lastly, We should be guilty of so notorious schism, as few sober men in the world have been guilty of; I mean in our principles; while we plainly imply that if we had lived in those former Ages that were of a contrary mind to us in this, we would have avoided the communion of them all. I do but name these things briefly, because I suppose that they will find few dissenters. I hope few among us are guilty of such conclusions as I gainsay.  
Prop. 7. Hence also it is very clear, that the denial of the Doctrine of the Perseverance of all the sanctified, doth not necessary destroy all Christian consolation. It doth indeed tend to the diminishing of it, as to all that have a certainty of their Justification, while it denieth them the certainty of Perseverance; and while it denieth to all men a certainty of salvation by ordinary means. But it doth not wholly destroy the comforts of the Saints: Nay, it is plain from hence, that a life of much Christian comfort may be had, without assurance of salvation. Which I prove, 1. Adam might live comfortably without assurance of Perseverance or salvation:( thatis past dispute: for Adam had no such assurance in his innocency:) therefore a Christian may live comfortably without assurance of Perseverance or Salvation. There is no dis-parity between Adams condition and others in other respects that will weaken the consequence, as long as the case is the same in the point in question.  
Obj. Being sinless, he had nothing to sadden him, as we have.  
Ans. True: therefore the uncertainty of Perseverance and of salvation was nothing or not enough to sadden him, or at least, to deprive him of a life of peace. If necessary to our peace, why not to his?  
2. It were unreasonable and uncharitable to think that none of the Ancient Churches that differed from us in this, had Christian peace; that none of the Lutherance Protestants, or Arminians now have peace; that such holy men as Anstin and Luther and multitudes more were deprived of this peace, who have manifested so great confidence and joy both in their lives and Writings. When we red so many of the Ancients and of the Lutherans professing their Peace and joy in believing, we cannot pretend that we knew their hearts better than they knew themselves; seeing we never knew the men: nor have we any certain or probable evidence to prove that they wrote falsely of themselves.  
3. If we could not have joy and Peace in believing, except we receive it from the certainty of our own Perseverance, then it would follow that exceeding few even of them that hold the Doctrine of the Perseverance of all the Justified, have joy and peace in believing. For that Doctrine of Perseverance can give assurance of their own Perseverance to none but those that are certain of their sincerity and Justification. If a man be uncertain whether he be sanctified truly himself, he must needs be uncertain whether he shall persevere in that grace which he knoweth not that he hath; yea and in common grace itself. But too sad experience telleth us that there be but few, exceeding few of the godly among us that are certain of their sincerity, Justification, or salvation: I have desired several Ministers that converse much with experienced Christians, and hear them open the state of their souls, to tell me how they find them in this point of assurance? And divers of them of largest acquaintance tell me that they meet not with one that hath it; but that they all profess some doubting and uncertainty, and none that they ask will say, I am sure. Others tell me that they meet with none that will say they are certain, except some passionate persons, especially women that are melancholy, who are carried on by passionate feelings; and they will sometime say they are certain of this Sanctification, Justification, and Salvation; but it is but in a fit which is quickly gone, and then they are usually in greater doubting and trouble than any others. I confess my own observation is the same or near it. Amongst many hundreds of Professors, I meet not with one that will say▪ they are certain of their sincerity and salvation, except four sorts; First, Such women or melancholy people afore-mentioned, who can give no great solid reason for it, and quickly lose it, and are passionate in their conversation. Secondly, Some persons that are fallen into new Opinions and societies, disowning our Profession and our Churches; who presently are rapt up with a seeming certainty that they are truly holy and justified; when both their doctrines and lives do cause their soberest acquaintance to fear that they are either proud hypocrites, or deluded Christians, worse than before. Thirdly, Some few very earnest Disputers for Assurance, that will say they are sure of their own salvation, in an eager maintaining of their Arguments. Fourthly, Some very few judicious holy men, who say they have no strict certainty, nor are free from all doubting; but yet they have so confident a persuasion as may be called a moral certainty, and freeth them from troublesone fears of damnation. And these last( though exceeding few) are the highest that ever I met with, whom I have cause to believe, as being judicious credible sober persons. and giving probable evidence in their lives of what they said. I never knew the man that attained any more than such a strong persuasion, mixed with some doubtings and fears, yet so far overcoming them as to live a peaceable joyful life.  
Now if Assurance of sincerity and Justification be so rare( and imperfect in the best) then it must needs follow that certainty of their own Perseverance must be as rare▪ And all these Persons that are uncertain of their Perseverance, can fetch no comfort from that certainty which they have not.  
But yet we cannot conclude that all these persons are voided of Christian Peace and Joy: For, first we see by experience that hundreds of these Christians that dare not say they are sure of their Justification or salvation, do yet express much Peace and Joy. Secondly, And the Holy Ghost telleth us that the Kingdom of God consisteth in Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost; and therefore we may not so far exclude the most of the Saints out of the Kingdom of God.  
4. Moreover, the nature of the thing may convince us that a man may live a comfortable life through believing, though he attain not a proper certainty of perseverance or salvation. For a high degree of probability, and a strong persuasion thereupon, may bear down the trouble of most of our doubts and fears. And though it may be objected, that Hell is such a misery, and the loss of Heaven so great a loss, that a man hath no ground of solid grace that is uncertain to escape it, especially considering how little trust is to be put in the slippery will of man: yet( for answer to this) let it be considered. First▪ That Heaven is so great a good, that the least true belief and hope of it, may afford abundance of comfort; and Hell is so great an evil, that the least true hope of escaping it, may be very comfortable. Secondly, Yet such uncertainty indeed to a Saint in Heaven would be more troublesone, because it is a condition worse than he is in already: But such hopes, though with uncertainty to the damned in Hell would be unspeakably comfortable; and so should they be to us on earth; because we were before in a state of death, condemned by the Law, and under the curse, and had been actually damned, if death had cut us off. Thirdly, That the goodness of Gods nature, his common mercy to mankind, the fullness and freeness of grace in Christ, the experiences of Gods Love both in common and special mercies, with abundance of comfortable passages in the Scripture, all these may do much to the support and comfort of the soul, against the fear of apostasy, though there had been no absolute promise of the perseverance of all the Justified.  
5. I argue a pari: First, There is no son of the wisest and most constant Father that is certain and shall persevere in the favour of his Parents, and that he shall not fall into their very hatred, and be dis-inherited by them: And yet it doth not follow that therefore all Children should uncomfortably vex themselves with fears, lest their Parents should hate them or dis-inherit them: yea, or that no Son may take comfort in the consideration of his Fathers love.  
Secondly, There is no Wife that hath the best and most loving Husband, that is certain, he will not hate her and cast her off: And yet when she sees, no probability of it, but much to the contrary, she need not be disquieted by the fears of it; nor forbear the peace and comfort of her condition.  
Thirdly, There is no man of greatest holiness certain that he shall not fall into some odious scandalous sin; For though there be promises of our perseverance in a state of grace, yet in the judgement of all, there is no promise to the best of us all, that we shall not fall into any such heinous particular sin. No man is certain but he may be drunk as Noah was, or incestuous as Lot was, or commit adultery and murder as David did, or deny Christ as Peter did. And if you were sure you should fall thus, and wound your conscience, and dishonour the Lord and your holy Profession, would it not even break your hearts? But what? Must all Christians live in doubts and fears of such a thing? Or may not they live in peace and comfort upon the strong probabilities they have of escaping these, though they have no certainty. Yea more; you are not certain but you may for such Capital crimes, be hanged at a Gallows, and made a public example to the world: And yet I hope we may live comfortably for all that, and need not trouble ourselves with such fears save only by necessary caution to prevent the evil. The same grounds therefore which may give you comfort against the fears of such scandalous sins, may give them comfort concerning their Salvation, who either believe not the Doctrine of the perseverance of all Saints, or are not certain of their own Sanctification.  
Prop. 8. It is fit and needful that as we maintain the truth of the aforesaid Doctrine of perseverance: so we should withall make known that it is not to be numbered with the most necessary or most evident certain truths, which our salvation, or all our peace, or the Churches Communion doth rest upon: and accordingly that we put it not into our Creed, or Confessions of Faith, which are purposed to express the Fundamentals only, or only those Points which we expect all should subscribe to, with whom we will hold communion. As we maintain it to be a truth: so we must show( as is done in the aforesaid Propositions) which rank of truths it belongeth to. For it is a very hurtful and dangerous thing to the Church, to affirm the less evident controvertible truths to be more evident and past doubt, and to affirm those to be of necessity to our Salvation, Communion, or Comfort, which are not so. This is the wrack that hath torn both the Church and the Consciences of men.  
Upon this occasion I may fitly give you an account of the reason of a passage in the Catechism agreed on by the Worcestershire Ministers, which I understand some Reverend, godly Divines, have taken exceptions at.  
In the Seventh Article of that Catechism it is said that[ the Holy Ghost doth by the Word enlighten mens understandings, and soften and open their hearts, and turn them from the power of Satan unto God by faith in Christ: that being joined to Christ the Head and into one Church which is his Body, and freely justified and made the sons of God, they may be a sanctified peculiar people to him, and may overcome the flesh, the world, and the devil, and being zealous of good works, may serve God in holiness and righteousness, and may live in the special love and communion of the Saints, and in hope of Christs coming and of everlasting life.] Here they are offended at the word[ may:] because we say not, they shall or will do these things▪ but only[ that they[ may,] which they say importeth but a Duty and a Possibility, but not the certainty of the event. To this I answer: 1. Our Question was about the first Participation of Christ and life: and our perseverance is not any part of that, and therefore we were not obliged to determine that controversy in answer to that question. 2. The first[ may] prefixed to our sanctification doth clearly speak of the certainty of the event; for it is impossible the fore▪ expressed work should be done and yet men be unsanctified, 3 Whereas these Brethren object this in their uncharitable suspicion, that we did it to intimate the apostasy of the sanctified, I must tell them that I am confident there is not one of the subscribers( to the fi●st impression, and I think not to the last neither) that doth question the Doctrine of perseverance; and that our own meaning is, that the Holy Ghost doth convert us, that we may be a holy people and overcome, &c. that is, that he intendeth this as the event, and useth the former as a means to the later; and that God is never frustrate of his intention, and consequently in our sense the Doctrine of perseverance is here expressed. 4. But I must add,( as the principal part of my answer) that we purposely put it in larger terms that all that subscribed might not be necessitated to understand it as we did: and we purposely avoided the determining of the controversy about perseverance, in the place. We had before drawn up our( prefixed) Confession of faith, which was to be a test of our peoples capacity of Church-Communion in the point of knowledge and soundness in the faith commonly called Orthodoxnes:) and so we were to disown all those that owned not all that was here contained: And when we composed our Catechism, it being in part to the same end, and partly to be so brief that all might learn it, we agreed to make up the first Eight Articles of the Catechism from the fore-going Confession: so that we were to put nothing in it but the Fundamentals of Salvation or of Communion; or nothing but what we thought we must exact a confession of from all that we would hold Communion with. Now I confess it is far from my Opinion that a man cannot be saved that denieth the perseverance of all the sanctified, or that we must reject all from our Communion that are of that mind: And I should rather have abhorred than subscribed a confeission, that had contained any such thing, or that had put in the point of perseverance to the ends and on the terms as our confession was subscribed. And this is the true reason of our terms in that Seventh Article; And a hundred other curtal men, may as well find fault with us, for leaving out of our Confession or Catechism the points which they maintain, as these Brethren may find fault with us in this. For we have left out many hundred controversies, whereof very many are as weighty as this. And I despair of pleasing all Disputers.  
Prop. 9. We cannot deny but that the Doctrine of the certain perseverance of all the sanctified, may Accidentally occasion much more trouble than Consolation, to many doubting souls that are sincere.  
I must confess I have had to do with some myself, that have pleaded this Objection so importunately that a wiser man than I might have found work enough to satisfy them. They say, that[ if they could have any assurance that they are truly sanctified, the Doctrine of certain Perseverance of all such would be comfortable to them; but they are brought now into such doubts of it, that th●y fear they shall never attain to such assurance, being rather induced to conclude themselves certainly unsanctified: For( say they) we never reached so high as some that we have known that have fallen away: We have known divers that have been judicious and affectionate, and constant and lively in duty, and of very upright careful lives, and so great contemners of the world that they would not have omitted an opportunity for their souls, for worldly gain, yea, they were persecuted and suffered very much for godliness in evil times, and in the sharpest trials never shrunk, when others did, and laid out themselves almost altogether in doing good; their Prayers and Conference were very holy and heavenly and affectionate, and their lives agreeable. so that they were incomparably beyond me in all these Qualifications, and yet some of them now do deny the God-head of Christ and the Holy Ghost; some deny the Scripture, and that there is any Church or Ministry; some are turned Quakers, and some Licentious, if not Infidels; and therefore certainly have now no saving grace. Now before we can ever be sure that we are justified, we must be sure that we go further than any of these did, or any other that ever fell away: Whereas we find ourselves far short of many of them. And we are in a manner certain that some of them did not dissemble: both by our observation of their whole course, being intimately acquainted with them, and by the plainness and openness of some of their hearts, which they manifest even to this day in the way that they are in, being unapt for dissimulation.] I have found it no easy matter to quiet the minds of some that were troubled with this doubt. If we tell them, that these men were gross dissemblers, they will not believe it, nor can I tell them so of all as being confident of the contrary by my acquaintance with some. If we tell them that at the highest they came short of sincerity, they answer that they have much more reason then, to suspect that they are short of it themselves: and that among an hundred Professors of Religion, there is not ordinarily two that seem to go further than these men did seem to go: and therefore who can have assurance? If we tell them, that yet God saw the unsoundness of their hearts; they answer, so he may see the unsoundness of mine; For these men did more in self-examination, Prayer, and other means to know their hearts than ever I did, and had greater▪ knowledge and helps to discern them. Some Learned Divines do answer this Objection thus: That it's true, these difficulties and temptations do stand in our ways, but they are no greater then many other temptations which we must encounter, and that the Members of Christ have that Spirit, that Teaching, and Anointing within them, which will sufficiently relieve them against all such temptations, and do more to comfort them than all the evidences of their uprightness can do, yea, when we do not see our uprightness, nor that we go beyond the persons that have apostatised, in our Qualifications. To this I have known this answer returned; 1. That they know not of any witness of the Spirit to assure us of our justification, but these three; First, The Witness contained in the Scripture, proving the truth of the Promise: Secondly, The Witness of Evidence, contained in the sanctifying Works of the Spirit on the Soul. Thirdly, And the effective Witness of actual illumination and exciting grace, causing us to see our Evidences within, and the truth of the Promise without, and to believe the later, and conclude our justification from both laid together, and to be thankfully and joyfully affencted herewith. And many holy Learned Divines and of great experience, profess they have no more, nor know of any more. 2. But if any other immediate revelation and Testimony of the Spirit without evidence be the thing that must satisfy, comfort, and establish us, those that have such a Testimony or Revelation may be comforted by it, but for our parts we must say that we know not what it is, and never had any such, and know not how to obtain it; and therefore must rather conclude the more confidently that we are unsanctified, because we have none of that Witness. And though we have had some sweet delights in Prayer, Meditations and other duties, and some strong persuasions of the Love of God to us, yet we know not whether these were from the Spirit, or whether such delights were not some common▪ work; and those that fell off did seem to us to have more of them, than we could reach.  
For my part, the answer that I usually make to this Objection is this.[ Though the falls of others must warn you to take heed, and with a godly jealousy to search your heart more exactly, and to watch over it more diligently, yet God never made the hearts or lives of other men, the Standard for you to try your own by: Nor are you to trouble your Souls by the doubtful conjectures which you fetch from the former Qualifications of others. God never opened you a window into their hearts: There might be abundance less good and more evil there than ever you suspected in them: The heart of man is deceitful above all things: Who( besides God and himself) can know it? And will you run out of the light into the dark for help to search after your sincerity and Justification? Why you know that God hath  told you expressly in his Word, that he that repenteth and believeth shall be saved, and that loving him, and loving one another, and esteeming Christ and eternal life above this world, are the sure marks of Christs Disciples. If you find these in your own souls, what need have you to doubt of them because that others have been deceived? God hath made you more capable of knowing your own hearts than others; and accordingly hath made it your duty to search your own and not theirs: You may know certainly what is in yourselves; but you can but uncertainly conjecture at what is in them. And is it fit in your inquiry to try a certain thing by an uncertain? Your own hearts which you know or may know, by other mens which you know not, nor cannot know? This is not the way that God hath appointed you for the trial of your state: and therefore no wonder if it puzzle and perplex you.]  
Some answer the foresaid Objection by telling them that as in actual sin( like Davids or Solomons) the habit of grace was alive under contrary actings: so in the foresaid actual Errors, the habit of sound faith may possibly be alive in many that seem to be fallen quiter away. Though I do make use of this answer in some cases where there is hope of such habits remaining, yet I am afraid of using it in most of the fore-mentioned cases. I dare not say that a man that long deliberately and industriously crieth down the God-head of Christ and the Holy Ghost, and that denieth the Scripture and Immortality of the Soul, &c. can be at that time in a state of salvation; The comfort is far fetched that is given men on such terms; and how we can make it good to them, I know not.  
Prop. 10. Moreover, we cannot deny but that carnal security, not only in hypocrites, but in the godly themselves, may possibly and too frequently take advantage for increase, from the Doctrine of perseverance.  
For the remnants of corruption in us will dispose us to make an ill use of this and many another truth. Hence we are too ready to argue thus; That which is impossible( or certainly not future) need not, and ought not, and if known to be such, cannot be the object of rational fear, and care to escape it. But the damnation and the apostasy of any of the sanctified, is impossible, or not future and known so to be: therefore it need not, and must not be the object of their fear, and care to escape it.  
So on the other side from the necessity of this fear, the Dissenters argue against the certainty of perseverance. That which is known impossible, or not future, cannot be the object of rational fear: But the apostasy and damnation of them that are now Believers, must be the object of rational fear: therefore it is not impossible, &c.  
They confess, that yet there may consist with the impossibility of apostasy, First, An irrational forced fear, which is not a moral act; such as a man would have if he were never so fast on the pinnacle of a Steeple, or the top of a steep Rock; Were he most certain to have no hurt, yet it would affrigh● him to look down: Secondly, A reverence of Gods Judgments as they shall be inflicted upon others: Thirdly, A use of means from the sole force of Love, and Faith, to avoid an evil, which yet we have not the least fear of, as knowing it to be impossible. But the fear and care in the Argument, they say cannot consist with this impossibility. For, say they, It is impossible the Act should be without its proper object. But a personal possible evil, called, a danger, is the proper object of that personal fear; for it is a fear of such an evil: therefore, &c. The Minor, and so the necessity of this fear they prove from many Texts of Scripture: Luk 12. 5. Fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell fire. Heb. 4 1. Let us therefore fear lest a Promise being left us of entering into rest, any of us should seem to come short of it. 1 Cor. 9. 27. I tame or k●ep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway. With many the like.  
To these Objections, there are divers sorts of answers made according to the various principles of the Answerers; some deny the mayor, and say that a known impossible evil may be the object of rational fear. To this it is replied, that this is a denying of natural Principles, and the common experience of mankind; it being agreed on by Philosophers, and felt by all men, that we fear nothing but an evil apprehended as possible. The Answerers say further, that it's true, that if it were impossible in the nature of the thing, we could not fear it: but that which is only impossible by accident or from an extrinsic cause, such as is the Decree, or Will of God, and his Promises may be the object of rational fear: because God hath not simply decreed our perseverance, but hath decreed that by the means of this rational fear we shall persevere, and accordingly commandeth us to fear as the means of our certain perseverance; To this it is further replied, First, That it still denieth a most undoubted principle, even the definition of fear, and also the common experience of men. For whence ever the impossibility be, extrinsic or intrinsic, reason tells me there is no cause of fear; and all the fear that ariseth about an evil that is known to be impossible is against reason, or without it. An aversion or displacency there may be, but no proper fear of that evil befalling us. And therefore( say they) you feign God to decree contradictions, and to command them. For to decree to give men perseverance by the means of a fear of apostasy, is to make the evil impossible, and so to be no object of fear, and yet to decree that we shall fear it: And to command a man to fear a known impossible evil, is as if he should command us to love a known evil as such. The earth could not stand an hour if God upheld it not: therefore the ruin or annihilation of it to morrow is in itself possible: But yet as long as God hath  told us that it shall continue till the resurrection, and we see that it never failed any one yet, but hath endured through all Ages, reason teacheth us not to fear the dissolution of this world till the day▪ of judgement. An impossibility of event from some one cause, doth properly denominate the thing impossible though in regard of an hundred other things it were not impossible.  
Some therefore take another course, and say that the mayor of the Dissenters Argument is true, but the Minor is false, viz. that we ought to fear our not-persevereing, or our damnation. But the Texts are so many and plain that require us to fear coming short of rest, the killing of the soul, &c. and consequently our not-persevering, that this Answer is not satisfactory; but indeed dangerous, yielding the Minor to the presumptuous and secure.  
Others therefore yield the conclusion that our apostasy and damnation are not impossible, but only non futura;( Or which more anon.) But to this it is replied that an evil certainly known to be not future, can no more be the object of rational fear, than that which is impossible. And therefore this hath the same answers as the former.  
For my own part, the answer that satisfieth me, is this: That it's true that a known impossibility or non-futurity of evil doth evacuate rational fear: But then he that will be perfectly freed from that fear, must have a perfect knowledge of the impossibility or non-futurity. But Christ and his Apostles knew that those whom they wrote to h●d no such perfect knowledge: Nay more, it is not( at least by any ordinary means) to be expected in this life, that this knowledge of our sincerity, Justification and perseverance should be so perfect as to have no degree of doubting, habitual or actual, at that time or any other. If no grace be perfect in this life, then the assurance of our sincerity, Justification and Perseverance are not perfect in this life: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the consequent.  
Obj. But was not Pauls assurance perfect who had been in the third Heavens? Is it possible that he should have any doubt of his salvation? And yet he saith I tame my body, &c. lest when I have preached, &c. Ans. 1. Those words do not necessary express fear, but the use of a means to avoid an evil that without such means would not be avoided. 2. Paul himself was not yet perfect as he professeth, Phil. 3. 12. and knew but in part, 1 Cor 13. 9. and therefore might have use for fear. Though he had special revelations of his salvation, yet his Faith and continued apprehensions and improvement of these, were yet imperfect. 3. If one man by revelation were perfectly certain, that's nothing to the generality of the Saints. Seeing therefore that we are all imperfect in our certainty of our sincerity and Perseverance, it's meet and requisite that we be called on to a rational working preventing fear, according to the measure of our uncertainty.  
Obj. But these fears then are sinful, as being the fruits of sinful doubts or ignorance, and so you make the Holy Ghost to command men to sin. Ans. They are not sinful, in themselves, but necessary duties. It's true, that the uncertainty that goes before them is a sin; but the sears that follow are a duty. Many things are duties to sinful man in order to his recovery, that would have been no duties if we had no sin: To believe for pardon, to repent, to pray for pardon, to confess sin, &c. would have been no duties, but on supposition of sin. But when we are once sinners, these are become special duties to help us out of it. And so is it of this fear of falling away and of damnation. But when assurance and love are perfect, and that is, when we are perfect in Heaven, then I shall yield that fear of these is needless. In this answer to this great Objection, I rest.  
Therefore, notwithstanding all the Objections that are against it, and the ill use that will be made of it by many, and the accidental troubles that it may cast some Believers into, yet it seems to me, that the Doctrine of perseverance is grounded on the Scriptures, and therefore is to be maintained, not only as extending to all the Elect against the Lutherans and Arminians, but also as extending to all the truly sanctified, against Augustine and the Jansenians, and other Dominicans: though we must rank it but among truths of its own order, and not lay the Churches Peace or Communion upon it.  
Prop. 11. Though it cannot afford them assurance of salvation, yet may this persuasion of the certain perseverance of all the sanctified, afford much comfort to those that have no certainty of their own sincerity or perseverance.  
If I have no persuasion either of my own sincerity, or perseverance, or yet of my perseverance as certain if I were certainly sincere, then I should have two difficulties in the way of my comfort; which is more than one alone, and therefore must put me further from comfort. But if I were sure that all true Believers shall persevere, if I had withall but a strong hope or probability that I am a true Believer, I should freely receive the comfort of that probability, without the impediment of further doubts concerning perseverance. When otherwise I should be thinking, What if I be justified, yet how can I tell but I may lose it by back-sliding? So that this Doctrine of perseverance firmly retained, doth free me from one of the doubts, though not from both.  
Prop. 12. As to the fifth Opinion before-mentioned( which makes either Election or Confirmation causally to infer perseverance) I have said enough on the third and fourth Opinion( which contain this between them) to show my thoughts of it. Though it be nearer the truth than the rest fore-mentioned, yet I see no ground to believe their supposition, that there is a third sort of truly Justified sanctified Persons▪ that are neither Elected nor Confirmed, and therefore will fall away. As I know of no such▪ degree of habitual grace in this life, which would preserve men from apostasy without Gods continued tutelary, preserving grace; so I know of no such thing as true Sanctification and Justification, without that Grace which is radicated in the soul, and so may be called a confirmed state; or without the Antecedent and Concomitant Decree of Gods Election, which layeth a certain ground of perseverance. Sure I am that the ground which received the seed upon a Rock and never gave it depth of earth, did from the beginning differ from the good ground, and so did the thorny grounds: and they seem to me to intimate, that the one sort were never hearty resolved Christians, and the other had never extirpated the love of the world, but had taken up a profession in a subordination to the world, and the flesh which had the dominion. So that if these persons had persevered in that unsound estate, they could not have been saved: For Christ hath assured us that he that loveth any thing, even his own life better than him, and he that forsaketh not all for him cannot be his Disciple, Luk. 14. 33. And the house that falleth when the winds arise and the storms assault it, was never built upon the Rock, but on the sands, Mat. 7. 26. So that I think that which some Papists call a state of Confirmation is the state of every true Christian, and that which they call unconfirmed grace, is but some preparatory grace, that is yet short of a state of Justification; and that which others of them( and most) call a state of Confirmation, which is supposed to be a state of impeccability, is not to be attained in this life; Though I must confess they very much mollify the matter in their Definitions of sin and of perfection, while they make him impeccable or perfect from sin, that is liable only to venial sins; and make some such venial sins, that I know many tender-conscienc't men, that would be ●oth to hold communion with such venial sinners, and loth to keep a servant in their houses that were guilty of such. To make sin no sin, and then to say we are perfect, and have no sin, is a near way to perfection; but they that go further about, will sooner come thither.  
This is my present judgement of their Doctrine of Confirming Grace: but yet I am not so obstinate, as to refuse any evidence that may tend to give me better information, if I be mistaken, and therefore shall willingly red what they will say to clear it more. And I marvel to find so little or nothing in Bellarmine and many another of that way, concerning this matter, and that those that do touch it, do it so superficially, rather taking the main Point for granted, then offering us any seeming proof of it. Aquinas 22. q. 24. art. 8 on the question, Whether Charity may be perfect in this life, concludeth, that though ex parte diligibilis it be not( for so only God himself can perfectly love himself) yet ex parte diligentium it may, that is, cum quantum possibile est ipsis, Deum diligunt: which saith he, centingit tripliciter: Uno modo sic quod totum cor hoins actualiter semper feratur in Deum: Et haec est perfectio charitatis patriae, quae non est possibilis in hâc vitâ. Alio modo, ut homo studium suum deputet ad vacandum Deo, & rebus Divinis praetermissis aliys nisi quantum necessitas praesentis vitae requirit & ista est perfectio charitatis quae est possibilis in viâ: non tamen est communis omnibus habentibus charitatens. Terti● modo ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor suum ponat in Deo, ita scilicet quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod Divinae dilectioni sit contratrium. Et haec perfectio est communis omnibus charitatem habentibus▪]  
If the Papists will insist upon this conclusion of Aquinas, I shall desire them▪ to consider, 1. That Thomas himself doth afterwards affirm that Perfectio viae non est perfectio simpliciter, ideo semper habet quo crescat.] Therefore it is but perfectio secundum quid, and wanting in degree. 2. How will they be ever able to prove that those imperfections of degree are not properly sins. 3. Aquinas in the description of his second sort of perfection▪ doth but huddle up the matter in the dark. For that studium deputare ad vacandum Deo considered simply in itself may argue sincerity, but not perfection of degree. Perfection of degree is either that which is the highest that our nature is capable of: and that is only to be had in Patriâ: Or the highest that we are obliged to here, and that our natural powers on earth are capable of, if freed from all vicious dispositions; and this may be called perfectio viae; but the doubt is whether any man shall attain it: It is such a perfection as in the way we are capable of, but shall not have. And they that affirm it, must try it by these two things: 1. Hath any man as much Love in Habit and Act as he ought to have, or is obliged to? What man that knows himself dare say it? Who dare say, I will not be beholden to God, or to the Blood of Christ, for a pardon for my defect of Love to God in act or habit? Yea, were it but for one day, or hour. I must profess for my own part, I am much more sensible of the sinfulness of my soul, for this defect, and of my need of a pardon for it, even in the best day and duty that I pass through( that I can love God no more vigorously and constantly,) than I am as to any of my external sins They must pervert the Law, or pharisaically boast of what they have not, before they can say that they do love God with all the heart, and mind and strength▪ in the sense which it requireth as to the degree, and to uninterrupted exercise of their love.  
2. And they must measure it also by their Natural Powers: If they love him in intention and constancy of exercise, as much as our Natural Powers are able▪ if they were perfectly sanctified, or habituated thereto, and perfectly freed from all sinful dispositions, then indeed they have that which may be called here perfection of degree: But this no man hath. If the Natural Powers can love God no more then they do( in sensu composito) because they are clogged by vicious dispositions, or are not elevated and rightly disposed by due habits, this is its moral impotency, and is far from proving it innocent or perfect, that it is the very sin and imperfection itself. If this be perfection, perhaps the damned might be called perfect. But if any man dare say that his soul is perfectly habituated, and freed from evil dispositions, and doth exercise Divine Love, and all other graces, always, ad Ultimum posse, to the highest capacity that the right disposed Natural-Powers in viâ, can reach, I am past doubt that that man is a stranger to his own heart, and an unhumbled Pharisee. Their making concupiscence in the habit or act to be no sin( added to their fore-mentioned Doctrine, that venial sins are but sins Analogically, and not properly) is but a sorry way to led men to perfection. We confess that the ordinate habitual or actual sensitive Appetite is no sin: But withall we must say, that in sinful man this Appetite is corrupted, and become inordinate and rebellious, and the phantasy infected with sinful sensual habits, and no man here perfectly freed from these( besides the remnants of sinful dispositions in the superior powers of the soul.) And we dare not say that these are not sins; and consequently, that man is perfect.  
Prop. 13. As to the sixth Opinion( of the Amissibility of a state of Infant Justification, or rather the cessation of it) which is a point of great difficulty, and a controversy( though not much agitated) among the most Learned of the Reformed Divines, I shall for divers Reasons at this time purposely forbear the delivering of my Opinion in it.  
Prop. 14. As to the controversy contained in the Seventh and Eighth Opinions, I think it is but verbal, and is to be dispatched by several distinctions of possibility and impossibility. To omit divers others that might conduce to the decision, these few at present may suffice. 1. We must distinguish between an Impossibility in re, and extra rem; or a causis intrinsecis, or a causis extrinsecis or else accidental. It is possible that true grace be lost, if you speak of a possibility a causis intrinsecis & de natura rei; that is, the habit and subject together. But it is impossible that it should be totally and finally lost, if you also respect the extrinsic causes: And that both per impossibilitatem consequentiae; because it is not possible that these Propositions should be both at once true.[ God willeth absolutely or fore-knoweth that Peter will persevere] and[ Peter will not persevere.]( And yet this following is reconcilable with the first[ It is impossible in natura rei for Peter to fall away.] And also 2. Per impossibilitatem causae; First, Because God hath not only decreed the perseverance of the sanctified, but also the Holy Ghost hath undertaken it as his special charge. Secondly, And the faithfulness of God,( as far as I can yet understand it) is by his Promise engaged for the perseverance of all the truly Justified and sanctified Believers; and, I am sure, for all the Elect that are such: which made the Lord Jesus himself judge it a fit speech to say,[ They should deceive if it were possible the very Elect, Mat. 24. 24.] intimating that it is not possible so to deceive them; and that is, because they are Elect; even an extrinsic accidental impossibility. It's a dry evasion of them that expound the Elect, of praevisi perseverantes; as if Christ had said[ It is not possible to deceive them that God foreknowes will not be deceived.] For there is some present cause here plainly intimated of their perseverance or future non-deception; and it is not a mere logical impossibility of consequence that is spoken of. And if this cause was within them, then it must be the nature or degree of their grace: If without them, it must be the Election and preservation of God, which indeed was the cause.  
For my part, I subscribe to Aquinas his explication of this matter in 22. q. 24. art. 11. Utrum charitas semel habita posset amitti? as it lieth in these words in conclusion which I think worth the reciting though somewhat large[ Quanquam patriae charitas, ubi Deus per essentiam videtur amitti nullatenus posset; charitas tamen viae, in cujus statu Dei essentia non videtur amitti peccando potest.( But mark the Explication) Respo. dicendum quod per charitatem spiritus sanctus in nobis habitat. Tripliciter ergo possumus considerare charitatem. Uno modo ex parte spiritus sancti moventis animum ad diligendum deum: & ex hac parte charitas Impeccabilitatem habet( I would say it is inextinguibilis or inextirpabilis) ex virtute spiritus sancti, qui infallibiliter operatur quodcunque volverit: Unde impossible est haec dvo simul esse vera, quod spiritus sanctus velit aliquem movere ad actum charitatis, et quòd ipse charitatem amittat peccando. Nam donum perseverantiae computatur inter beneficia Dei quibus certissime liberantur quicunque liberantur ut Aug. Alio modo potest considerari charitas secundum propriam rationem: & sic charitas non potest aliquid, nisi id quod pertinet ad charitatis rationem: Unde charitas nullo modo potest peccare, sicut calor non potest infrigidare, & sicut injusticia non potest b●●um facere, ut August. Tertio modo potest considerari charitas ex parte subjecti quod est vertibile secundum arbitrij libertatem. Potest autem attendi comparatio charitatis ad hoc subjectum, & secundum universalem rationem qua comparatur forma ad materiam; & secundum specialem rationem, qua comparatur habitus ad potentiam. Est autem de ratione formae, quod sit in subjecto amissibiliter, quando non replet totam potentialitatem materiae— sic ergo charitas Patriae quia replet totam potentialitatem rationalis mentis( in quantum scilicet omnis actualis motus ejus fertur in Deum) inamissibiliter habetur. Charitas autem viae non sic replet potentialitatem sui subjecti, qui non semper actu fertur in Deum. Unde quando actu in Deum non fertur, potest aliquid occurrere per quod charitas amittatur. Habitui vero proprium est, ut inclinet Potentiam ad agendum: quod convenit habitui in quantum facit id videri bonum quod ei convenit, malum autem quod ei repugnat. Si ut enim gustus dijudicat 
Vid. Aquin. con●r. gentle. lib. 3. qu. 155. fol. 125.  sapores secundum suam dispositionem: ita mens hoins dijudicat de aliquo faciendo secundum suam habitualem dispositionem: Unde Philos. dicit, Quod qualis unusquisque est, talis finis videtur ei. Ibi ergo charitas inamissibiliter habetur, ubi id quod convenit charitati non potest videri nisi bonum, scilicet in Patriâ, ubi Deus videtur per essentiam, quae est ipsa essentia bonitatis: & ideo charitas patriae amitti non potest. Charitas autem viae, in cujus statu non ●idetur ipsa Dei estentia, quae est essentia bonitatis, potest amitti]( that is, in respect of the subject alone considered) I take this for a plain and sound explication of the point: if the rest were added, viz. in whom the Holy Ghost doth thus preserve Grace.  
And here I cannot see but Aquinas is against Alvarez conceit of a confirming grace in this life, which is a participation charita. 'tis Patriae: For Aquinas confineth charitatem Patriae ad patriam, and excludeth it a viatore: and he confineth it to the Vision of God per essentiam, which both he and the truth do exclude from earth. And De veritate matter. 18. it is his first Qu. and he determineth that it is an Error in them that think that Adam in innocency did see God per essentiam, though imperfectly, and in a middle sort inter statum beatorum & peccatorum.  
See also Capreolus defence. li. 2. Dist. 23. qu. 1. of this.  
Yet of the main point Aquinas speaks as Alvarez before cited. And most fully lib de verit. matter. 24 qu. 9. fol. 137, 138. where he concludeth that in viâ no man can be perfect and confirmed in good simpliciter, ita viz quod in se sufficiens, suae firmitatis principium habeat quod omnino peccare non posset: but only per hoc quod datur eis aliquod munus gratiae per quod inclinantur in bonum, quod non possunt de facili a bono deflecti: non tamen per hoc ita retrahuntur a malo quod omnino peccare non possint, nisi divinâ providentiâ custodiente.] And ad 4 m he thus qualifieth his perfection[ Quod ex ratione illa potest haberi, quod non est aliquis in statu viae omnino confirmatus, sicut nec omnino perfectus.( And ad 5 m adds that posse peccare non facit ad meritum, said ad meriti manifestationem; which the jesuits may consider of.)  
Prop. 15. The ninth Opinion being the Libertines, is so gross against nature, and express Scripture, and the very holy nature, and the experience of the Saints, that I think it not necessary here to say any more of it, than to disclaim it, and open the truth in these few Assertions. 1. No mans assurance of his perseverance is perfect in this life: 2. Therefore in that measure as his assurance is imperfect, and he is liable to the least doubts, in that measure it is his duty to fear: The fear may be a duty, when the doubt that doth occasion it is a sin. 3. A very great cautelousness according to the weight of our work, would be necessary, if our assurance of perseverance were perfect. 4. God hath not only decreed and promised that we shall persevere, but also that we shall by the means of this holy cautelousness, and solicitude and fear, persevere: Jer. 32. 40. I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me. 5. The dominion of any one sin is inconsistent with saving grace and justification. 6. Therefore he that is under the dominion of any sin, may be sure that he is unjustified, but he cannot be assured that he hath that holiness or justification which he hath not, or that he shall persevere in it, before he have it. 7. He that hath not more hatred than love to any sin, and that had not rather be rid of it even in the use of Gods means, than keep it, in regard of the habituated state of his will, is under the dominion of sin, and in a state of damnation. 8. He that is thus resolved and affencted against a gross sin, or any known sin that is under the power of his will, is not like to live in, or give up himself to it: Nay he cannot commit it without renewed resolutions against it, and a restless importunity of soul to be delivered, which will prevail. 9 It is therefore a great suspicion, if not a certain thing, that the man that can live in such a sin, and quiet his mind in it on this account, that once he had grace, and therefore shall persevere, is yet without true saving grace. 10. Sin doth as naturally breed troubles and fears as the setting of the sun causeth darkness, or as a gross substance in the sunshine causeth a shadow. And this from the nature of the thing, and by the will of God. 11. A lapsed Christian must be recovered, and fear is one of the means of his recovery. 12. Therefore the Libertine Doctrines, of not fearing, mourning, praying, confessing, in order to pardon, are pernicious Doctrines: as I have more fully manifested in other Writings on that Subject.  
Prop. 16. As to the tenth Opinion, which affirmeth that no measure of our first st●ck of grace can be lost, which was infused in our regeneration; I distinguish between two sorts of converts: In some God may put at the first but the smallest degree of saving grace; and perhaps that may be Gods most ordinary way: And then no doubt, that cannot be diminished, but the sincerity or life itself must be lost: For the diminishing of the smallest spark would be the extinguishing of it. But for ought I know, in others God may give a greater measure of grace in their first conversion, than to most he doth after long use of means. I think he did so to Paul. Now in this case, though it is most probable that God never will suffer that grace to be brought to a smaller measure then at first it was infused, yet I know no certainty by Promise or any other proof that he will never permit such a diminution. Let them that affirm it, bring us their evidence, and we shall try and judge of it as we find it.  
A godly Divine Mr John Barlow in his Discourse of Spiritual steadfastness gives this Reason.[ As we were patients at the first reception, so are we no agents in its destruction. Lose we may what addition, by our co-operation with it we have gained: but not the least dram of that which without our co-working, was at ou● effectual call infused.] To which I answer. 1. It's but barely said, that we are no agents in it's destruction; and not proved. I deny the consequence: A man may be active in destroying grace, that was but passive in receiving it. 2. We may merit the diminution, and so may be active. 3. It is not yet proved, but that we are as truly passive in receiving each superadded degree, as the first; or that every degree is not infused as the first was: t●ough it be true that there are higher preparatory dispositions in the soul for further degrees than were for the first. 4. This whole Argument is confuted by the instance of Adam: For he was as passive as we in receiving his first grace, and yet lost it, and was too active as to the losing it: therefore the reason is insufficient.  
Prop. 17. The Eleventh Opinion,( that no degree of the habit can be diminished, either which was first infused or after added) is less probable than the former; And Mr Barl●w in the foregoing page. doth give four Reasons against it. And yet not only some few of ours, but most of the School-men, are against the diminution of the habit; but very differently, for though Aquinas simply say that[ Quanquam charitas secundum se ac direct, nullatenus diminui posset, dispositivè tamen & indirect per venialia peccata & cessando ab operibus virtutum diminution●m admittit] Yet Gr. Ariminensis, and abundance other School-men add that ex natura sua potest diminui, & si non potest respectu ordinationis divinae: And their denial of the diminution of it, is from their false Opinions about venial and mortal sin. 
* And the doctrine of the Thomists against the increase of Chari●y by addi●ion of further degrees, doth led them to th●nk it cannot be diminished. Against which see Rada. contr. 18. and other Sco●ists.  For they feign a thing called venial sin, which is not against charity, nor, properly sin, and then they give that as a reason why it cannot directly( that is, neque effective neque meritorie as Aquin.) diminish charity. And then for mortal sin, they say it doth totally evacuate and corrupt Charity, both effective & meritoriè: Aquin 22. qu. 24. art. 10. concl. But it will be long before they will be able to teach their Scholars to know which are mortal and which venial sins, according to their own descriptions,( so truly doth Gerson and with him others, complain of the difficulty of discerning them:) and longer before they will prove any sins to be venial in their sense: and as long will it be before they will well prove that every sin which they call mortal doth charitatem totaliter corrumpere as they affirm; and that Peter, David, Noah, &c. were utterly voided of Charity when they sinned, and were afterwards new-born a second or third time. I think I need not stand upon their Reasons.  
Prop. 18. As for the Twelfth Opinion which is the Libertine of that strain that are next the Familists, I have said so much against it in other Writings, and so many others have said more, and it is so gross as before was said of the Ninth which draws near it, that I shall suppose I may be here excused from meddling with it any further, than to bid the weak and unskilful to beware of it, as being a ready way to carnal security, impiey, liceniousness and perdition.   

Errata.  
page. 8. l. 12. for[ pr●destination] r.[ predetermination] p. 10. l. 21. for[ violaris] r.[ viatoris] p. 21. l. 37. for[ grace] r.[ peace] p 37. l. 6. for[ impossible] r.[ possible.]  
FINIS.