The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...

DISCOURSE. The Second Motive.

ITS unwillingnesse to abide the Tryall. I find that the Authors and Abettors of it, have been * 1.1 very backward to bring it to the Standard, not only when they have been called upon by their Adversaries to have been weighed, but also when they have been intreated thereto by their chief Magistrates who might have commanded them. A shrewd argument (mee thinks) that it is too light.

In the Disputation at Mompelgard Anno 1586 held between Beza and Jacobus Andreas with some Seconds on both sides, Beza and his company having disputed with the Lutherans about the person of Christ, the Lords Supper &c. When they came to this Point, did decline the sifting of it, and * 1.2 gave this reason among others, that it could not then possibly be disputed of, sine gravi eorum offendi∣culo, qui tanti mysterii capaces non sunt, without the great scandall and hurt of the ignorant, and unac∣quainted with these high mysteries.

The Contra-Remonstrants also in their Conference with their Adversaries at the Hague in the year 1611 could not be drawn to dispute with them about this point, but delivered a Petition to the States of Holland and Westfrizland that they might not be urged to it, resolving rather to break off the Conference, then to meddle with it.

In the Synod likewise of Dort, in the year 1618, and 1619. the Remonstrants were warned by the President of the Synod ut de Electione potius quàm de odiosâ Reprobations materiâ agerent, that they * 1.3 should rather dispute of the point of Election, then the odious point of Reprobation.

Can this Doctrine be a truth, and yet blush at the light, which makes all thing manifest? especially considering these things.

1. That Reprobation is a principall Head of Practicall divinity by the ill, or well stating of which, the glory of God, and good of Religion is much promoted, or hindered.

2. That there is such a necessary connexion between the points of Election and Reprobation (both being parts of predestination) that the one cannot well be handled without the other.

3. That Reprobation was the chief cause of all the uproares in the Church at that time.

4. That it was accused with open mouth, and challenged of falshood, and therefore bound in justice to purge it selfe of the crimination.

5. That it may easily be defended, if (as some say) it be such an apparent truth, for Nihil est ad defendendum puritate tutius, nihil ad dicendum veritate facilius, saith S. Hierom.

The striving to lye close and hide it selfe, though perhaps it be not so infallible, yet it is a very pro∣bable argument of a bad cause. Truth covets no corners, but is willing to abide the tryall, whether in men or in doctrines. David knowing his heart to be without guile, offers himselfe ready to the * 1.4 Lords tryall, Search me, o God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me. And our Saviour tells us that, Every one that doth evill, hates the light and comes not to the light, least his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth truth, comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. As S. Paul saith of an He∣retick, he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 selfe condemned, and so may we say of Heresy and untruth, it con∣demnes it selfe, and by nothing more then by refusing the Touch-stone. He is to be thought an emp∣ty Scholler, who is loath to be opposed, and his gold to be light and counterfeit, that will not have it touched and weighed, and these Opinions to be but errours, which would so willingly walk in a mist, and dwell in silence, when it concernes the peace of the Church so much to have them exa∣mined.

TWISSE Consideration.

VVHo are these Authors of this Doctrine, who here are said to have been backward to bring it to the standard? Is Beza those Authors? whereof was he the Author? Was it the doctrine of predestination as proceeding of the meer pleasure of God, and not upon foresight of mans faith and works? Is it not apparent that this was the doctrine of Austin 1200 years agoe, and that in opposition to the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians? Or was it the doctrine of reprobation, as not proceeding upon the foresight of sinne, but of the meer pleasure of God? Is this Author so ignorant, as not to know what are the conclusions of Al∣varez in the question, Whether there be any cause of reprobation on mans part. Lib. 10. de Auxil. disc. 110. pag. 866.

1. His first Conclusion is this, Reprobation whereby God decreed not to give unto some e∣verlasting life, and to permit their sinne, is not conditionate, but absolute: neither doth it presuppose in God, foresight of the deserts of reprobates, or of their perseverance in sinne unto the last period of their life.

2. His next Conclusion is, In the Angells that fell, there is no cause of their reprobation on their part, as touching the whole effect thereof, but before any foresight of their future sinne, God, pro sua Voluntate, of his meer will, did reprobate some of them, and suffered them to fall into sinne.

3. The third, Infants departing in Originall sinne alone, there is no cause on their part of

reprobation, if they be considered in comparison with others which are not reprobated, and the like is to be said proportionably of men of ripe years.

4. The fourth, Not only comparatively, but absolutely there is no cause of reprobation. There∣fore neither sinne actuall, nor originall, nor both of them foreseen by God, was indeed the meritorious and motive cause of the reprobation of any, as touching all the effects thereof, and the proofe hereof he prosecutes at large.

5. Reprobation as touching the last effect thereof, presupposeth in signo rationis the foresight of sinne originall, or actuall, for which a reprobate is damned. Marke it well, He does not say as the cause for which God decrees his damnation, but as the cause for which a repro∣bate is damned. And Aquinas (whose followers the Dominicans are) expresseth this doctrine in this manner, and that more Scholastically and accurately then Alvarez. Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte paenae quae praeparatur reproba∣tis, in quantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata, &c. in Ad Rom. 9. Sect. 2. in fine, that is, Prescience of sinnes may be some reason of reprobation on the part of punishment, to wit, in as much as God purposeth to punish wicked men for their sinnes. Where sinne is evidently made the cause of damnation, and that by ver∣tue of Gods purpose, but by no means the cause of the decree it selfe. And the same Aquinas elsewhere professeth that, No man was so mad as to affirme that merits are the cause of Predestination, as touching the act of God Predestinating: and that it cannot be the cause thereof, he proves, because nothing can be the cause of Gods will, as touching the act of God willing, but as touching the things willed by God, as formerly he had proved. The same doctrine in effect is taught by Durand in 1. dist. 41. q. 2. Bona∣venture applies the same distinction to reprobation it selfe. Odium aeternum, saith he, im∣plies two things, Principale significatum & connotatum &c. & primum non est ex meritis, sed secundum. This he explicates in the words following, Quod patet si resolvatur, quia Odium est propositum puniendi: Propositum autem nullus meretur sed paenam, that is, Hatred (or re∣probation) is Gods purpose to punish: Of this divine purpose there is no meritorious cause, but only of the punishment. The same was the Opinion of Gandavensis, Scotus, Halensis, as I have shewed in my Vindiciae.

Now judge I pray with how little judgement, or modesty this Author intimates Beza to be the author of the doctrine of absolute reprobation. Perhaps he will say his meaning is, that he was the author of the Upper-way, as touching the making of the object of Predestination mankind not yet created. But to this I answer, that Be∣za doth so indeed, but he was never called to a conference hereabouts, and conse∣quently he never declined it. And that which was declined, he makes to be declined by the abettors, as well as the authors; which cannot be understood of this nice and Logicall poynt, as touching the object of reprobation. The main question is, whether there be any cause of reprobation, as touching the act of God reprobating: the Ne∣gative whereof, was maintained very generally amongst Schoole-Divines before Beza was borne. And was it ever known, that those I have named did shrink in their heads or decline the triall thereof? What a silly thing is it then to inferre, that because Be∣za at such a time, did decline the disputation hereof, and the Contra-Remonstrants at another time, therefore it is suspectable to be an untruth? Yet let us examine his instances.

Beza he saith did decline the sifting of this doctrine (to wit, of predestination) (for on that they were moved to dispute.) I doubt this Author speaks by rote, and that he is no∣thing at all acquainted with the story hereof, either in Osiander or in Beza, but tran∣scribes only what another hath prompted unto him. For it is apparent by Osianders History, that they did conferre thereof. It is true he stood off at the first, and gave reasons for it, but at length he and his fellowes, condescended to the instance and im∣portunity of their Adversaries, and so came on to the Conference hereabout, His words are these. Praefat. in 2. part. Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Mompelg. Quamvis quò evasura essent reliqua satis prospiceremus, mane nihilominus mutata sententia Illustriss. Principe salutato, in reliquam sequentem Collationem consensimus; eâ tantùm conditione additâ, ne propter proximum Paschae Festum, ea disceptatio longius protraheretur. Et ita demùm ad audiendas D. Andreae decla∣mationes rursum processimus.

Was it this point alone the sifting whereof, as this Author phraseth it, Beza decli∣ned? It is apparent they were no lesse then three Points. This appears by the second part of Beza's answer Ad act. Colloq. Mompelg. as also by the answer of Jacobus An∣dreae, as if he were the mouth of the Prince, namely, that if they list not De Tribus illis

conferre, yet he thought it fit that Theses written by them on those three Articles should be rehearsed in the hearing of all, which afterwards Beza and his fellowes might take home with them to addresse an answer to them afterwards, as they thought good. And these three Articles were concern∣ing, Predestination, Baptisme, and the putting down of Images in Churches. Concerning all which Jacobus Andreae gives his reasons, why he thought it fit they should entertaine farther Conference; Whereunto Beza makes answer in his Praeface to that second part of his Answer Ad Act. Colloq. Mompelg. It is true, this reason Beza gave why he thought it not fit in that place publiquely to dispute thereof, to wit, of predestinati∣on, Quod haec gravissima quaestio publicè in illo caetu allatis utrin{que} contrariis sententiis disceptari abs{que} nonnullorum offendiculo non posse videretur. For both the mysterious nature of it is such, as few are capable of it; the Massilienses professed as much, as appears in Prospers E∣pistle unto Austin, De his taceri exigunt (saith Prosper) quorum altitudinem nullus attigerit. And to the same purpose, even they who durst not dislike Austins doctrine thereof professed as much, as appears by the Letter of Hilarius unto Austin. Consentientibus eti∣am his qui hanc definitionem improbare non audent, ut dicant, Quid opus fuit hujusmodi disputatio∣nis incerto tot minus intelligentium corda turbari? Then again it was in a Lutheran Assem∣bly, and amongst many brought up in the hatred of the doctrine which Beza main∣tained, who in all likelihood would be the more exasperated. Causas verum tacendi * 1.5 tongum est omnes quaerere (saith Austin) quarum tamen est & haec una ne priores faciamus eos qui non intelligunt. No wise man, saith our Saviour, putteth new wine into old bottells. Quanto minus sapit, saith Beza in that Preface of his, qui de praest antissimo vino prius in utres faecibus adhuc, & vappa obsitos immittendo quàm de repurgandis illis & apparandis cogitet. Lastly, Beza perceiveth the practice of Jacobus Andreas standing upon a place of advantage, to urge them to conferre upon such a poynt, the truth whereof is most harsh to car∣nall affections, that so he might have the better opportunity to make them odious. And truly what Jacobus Andreas was, I know not, but Beza sets him forth as a man of a most malevolent disposition to the French Protestants: and our Saviour hath ad∣monished us, Not to give that which is holy unto doggs, or to cast pearle before swine. Yet Andreas to serve his turne, and to draw them into a snare, pleads that the doctrine of Predestination, is not so to be put over in the Schooles, ut non opus sit eam rudi & imperito populo ponere; yet Hunnius a man of the same profession, is so farre diffe∣rent from Iacobus Andreas, that he thinks it not fit to preach before the rude people of prescience divine, but very sparingly; how much lesse would he think it fit to Preach before them of Predestination divine? De Praedest. quest. & respons. pag. 394. his words are these, Interim hoc repeto quod supra monui rudioribus (quibus Apostolus vult lac propinari, non cibum solidum apponi) non esse multum de praescientiâ Dei disputandum, hâc solummodo de causa quia haud perinde capiunt ea quae alias in Scholis in Disputationibus contra adversarios, &, ut Pau∣lus ait, inter perfectos utiliter & ex fundamentis eloquiorum Dei astrui solent. Coram rudioribus er∣go simplicior loquendi ratio & ipsorum captui accommodatior est si dicamus, Deum ad haereditatem regni caelestis elegisse & certo salvare decrevisse eos omnes qui resipiunt, & in vera fide filii Dei ex hâc vitâ decedunt. Its well known what order King Iames took in his time, in the re∣straint of preaching this doctrine in the Pulpits, by any under the degree of a Deane, and counselled the States likewise to forbid the preaching of those controversall points amongst them. And if it were wisdome in them to take this course, without a∣ny prejudice to the truth of the doctrine, why should Beza's with-holding from con∣ference hereupon, be any thing prejudiciall thereto.

But were there not other causes of moment, to move him hereunto, which this Author conceales, and which Beza proposeth in the first place? as namely, that the Prince who invited them hereunto, in his Letters Missive, alleaged no other cause of that meeting, but Infaelicem de Coenâ Domini controversiam, that unhappy Controversy a∣bout the Supper of the Lord. Secondly, that their Citties sent them over according∣ly to this Conference for no other cause, but to conferre thereabours. This Iacobus Andreas acknowledgeth, and giveth a reason why in those Letters of the Prince, there was no mention made of those three Articles, whereabout they were afterwards ur∣ged to conferre, to wit, quod illos in istis quo{que} dissidere non intellexerat Princeps Illustrissi∣mus. And thirdly, because the Feast of Easter approched, and they desired to be at home in their own Citties by that time.

Lastly, doth if follow, that because they declined the sifting the truth of these poynts (as this Author phraiseth it) after such a manner, to wit, by publique dispu∣tation; doth it herehence follow, that they declined the sifting of it? They made

this offer to propose their opinion herein, and the confirmation of it out of the Word of God, in private before the Prince: and if Jacobus Andreas were plea∣sed to propose any Theses against it, they would take them along with them and upon consideration to addresse a convenient Answer thereunto; This Beza sets down in that Preface: Let D. Andrews shew if he can, saith Beza, hanc Christianae do∣ctrinae partem aut à nostris sive scribendo sive concionando praetermissam, aut a suis rectius & acura∣tius quàm a nostris pertractatam. And truly for my part, I no way like such conferences, being privy to mine own imperfections, as having neither such strength of memo∣ry as to command a present use of my knowledge in these poynts upon all occasions, nor such command of my passions, as to keep them from breaking forth in such sort as might be obnoxious to censures, not knowing how I might be provoked; but certainly I feare not to come to the examination of any of their Writings, or to offer mine own to be examined by any of them. One thing I had almost omit∣ted out of Beza, in his Preface to the First Part of his Answer to these Acts. It was Beza's motion that all things passing between them on both sides, might be set down in writing, under the hands of Collators; and this course I confesse I could willingly approve of, and after this manner to conferre with any. But this so faire a motion was rejected by Andreas; He would conferre rather by word of mouth then by writing. A second motion proposed by Beza was this, that what was spoken on both sides, might be set down in writing by Notaries chosen and appoynted thereunto by common consent. But neither would Andreas admit of this. Petivimus, saith Beza, initio ut utrin{que} omnia scriptis propria Collocutorum ma∣nu subsignatis agerentur. Quod cum D. Andreae non placuisset qui verbis agi malebat (for the Auditory was very propitious to him for the most part) postulavi ut utrin{que} dicta à pro∣batis & utrius{que} partis consensu delectis Notariis exciperentur, quae deinde cui{que} parti recognoscere & addita subscriptione confirmare liceret. Haec enim erat profectò justa & sincera colloquendi ratio ut sic falsationi occurreretur. Quum autem ne hoc quidem admitteret D. Andreas, &c. Now let any indifferent person that is not sowred with partiall affections, judge whose carri∣age is to be thought in equity more prejudiciall to their cause, the carriage of Andreas, or the carriage of Beza.

I come to the Contra-Remonstrants unwillingnesse to conferre upon the poynt of reprobation. What their reasons were I know not. But this I am sure of, the Scripture is free in speaking of election, and expresse; not so of reprobation, leaving us to take notice of the condition of reprobation by its opposition to election. And in conformity hereunto, both Austin in his time, and Remigius in his time, and Bradwardine in his time, speaks liberally of prede∣stination, but very sparingly of reprobation. And the doctrine of reprobation as it is nothing lesse mysterious then that of election; so it is farre more harsh to car∣nall affections. And it is well known that at the time of the Hague Conference, Bar∣navelt that ruled the rost amongst the States, was too great a friend to the Arminian Party.

But, what boldnesse doth this Author take in passing his suspicious cen∣sures upon a doctrine, because some defenders of it, at some time have been loath to come to entertaine a publique Conference thereupon? For what argument call you this, The Contra-Remonstrants would not be brought to give their reasons on this point; therefore the doctrine of Austin delivered 1200 years (or thereabouts) before, concerning the absolutenesse both of Predestination on the one side, and of preterition on the other (as Vossius acknowledgeth) is to be suspended of untruth? And if my readinesse to come to the triall hereon doth nothing credit the cause as maintained by others; why should others unwilling∣nesse to come to the same triall, be any disparagement to the same cause, as it is maintained by me or any other? It is well known that Peter Moulin, concurring with us in the poynt of absolute predestination, maintaines repro∣bation to proceed upon the divine foresight of finall perseverance in impenitency. If this Author differed from us no more the M^r Moulin doth, and acknowledged the meer pleasure of God, in giving grace to whom he will, and denying it to whom he will, I doe not think any friend of his would think any whit the worse of him, or charge him with defection from the truth of God in this. Neither can I think, that he ever was of any other opinion, considering how many worthy Divines opposite to the Arminians, doe either conceive, or at least seem to conceive

that the purpose of God to damne, doth presuppose in signo rationis the foresight of finall impenitency, yet concurring with us in this, that all are fallen in Adam and so brought forth into the world in damnatâ Massà, as Austin calleth it. God of his meer pleasure cures this naturall corruption (the fruits whereof are infide∣lity and impenitency) in some, by regenerating them and bestowing the grace of faith and repentance upon them, and leaves it uncured in others by refusing to rege∣generate them, to bestow faith and repentance upon them; We give the hands of Christian fellowship, and brotherly amity one unto another, without all exception notwithstanding some nice differences, which in the issue I hope, will prove to be meer∣ly Logicall, and nothing Theologicall.

Lastly, however this poynt of unwillingnesse in some, to come to conferre in the poynt of reprobation, might cast some colour of suspicion to the prejudicing of their cause; yet least of all did it become this Author to take advantage hereof, consi∣dering that it is his own case, as who declineth not one poynt only, but all the rest in this his discourse, and cleaves only to that of reprobation, nothing answerably (I pre∣sume) to * 1.6 your expectation, who put this task upon him: and whether it be any thing answerable to the promise he made unto you, your self are best acquainted therewith. Yet because the Remonstrants hereupon (to wit, upon the Contra-Re∣monstrants declining this Controversy) have taken liberty to oppose the doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants in this poynt, so farre forth, as they made construction of their opinion hereupon, by their doctrine concerning election; therefore I will not spare even here, to digresse so farre, as to take notice what they delivered, and to ad∣dresse an answer hereunto, the rather because I find this discourse of theirs inserted in their Relation of that Conference at Hague.

Now, whereas first, by a long deduction upon consideration of the Contra-Re∣monstrants doctrine in the poynt of election, they doe inferre Colloq. Hagh. Bertii p. 120. that like as faith is made by them a fruit of election, so infidelity is by them to be made a fruit of reprobation: this consequence we utterly deny. It only followes herehence, that like as faith, whereby mans naturall infideli∣ty is cured, is by them made the fruit of election, so the denyall of faith, that is, the not curing of mans infidelity, or the leaving of it uncured is the fruit of reprobation. And indeed considering the means must be his work who intends the end, wherehence it followeth, that look what end God doth intend in mans election, the means tending thereunto must be Gods work, as namely, faith; in like sort, whatsoever be the end which God intends in reprobation, the means tending thereunto, must be his work, which cannot be infidelity or sinne, but the permission of sinne rather and infidelity, or the not curing of that corruption and infidelity which is naturall unto us all. Hereupon they proceed to propose two things to be questioned, in congruity to the doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants. 1. Utrumne Fides in consilio & decreto Dei de electione ad salutem, eam ipsam electionem ordine praecedat an verò consequatur? 2, Ex alterâ parte; An Infidelitas in eodem Consilio & Decreto Dei de reprobatione ad exitium, eam ipsam reprobatio∣nem ordine praecedat an sequatur? The latter of these is only pertinent to our present purpose; yet seeing they handle them both, so farre as to dispute against the opi∣nion of their opposites in both, and carry themselves herein Magnificentissimè, I am content to weigh their arguments, in the ballance of Scholasticall considera∣tion, least some such as this Author, should affect to seem judicious in su∣specting my declining of them to savour of some inability to encounter them.

Thus therefore they beginne.

If faith followes election unto salvation, then also the decree of sending Christ as a Saviour into the World, must necessarily follow that election; But this consequent is absurd, and pertains notably to the ignominy of Christ.

To this I answer. First out of mine own opinion, Thus.

Faith is supposed to follow Election unto salvation, upon no other ground then because the intention of giving faith, is supposed to follow the intention of giving salvation. But this I should deny, and that for this reason, be∣cause this subordination is grounded only upon supposition, that salvation is the end which God intends, and faith the means tending unto that end: but this I deny. First, because the end of Gods actions, is not the salvation of man,

but the manifestation of his own glory. For he made all things for himselfe, Pov. 16. 4. and reason justifies it. For God being the supream efficient, must be the supream end; and being Optimus as well as Maximus, he must needs be both most lovely and most loving, of that which is most lovely, that is, of himselfe. But because some may conceive that though Gods glory be the supream end, yet mans salvation may be the intermediate end: therefore to this I answer; First, let such shew then what is the glory of God, which salvation of the creature setteth forth, and I doubt not, but if that glory be stated right, it will appeare, that not salvation alone, but something else is required to be joyned with it; as namely, the mission of Christ, yea and faith in Christ, to compleat that means, which tend to the procurement of such an end, that is, to the setting forth of such a glory. Secondly, the end whether supream or intermediate is alwaies such as being rightly understood, doth break such a means; but salvation is not so in respect of faith; for it doth not bespeak it, as is appa∣rent in the salvation of Angels, of Infants; as also in this, that it was absolute∣ly possible for God to save even sinners without Christ, as may be demonstra∣ted and I have demonstrated in my Vind. Grat. Dei. by variety of evident reasons.

In a word, if Gods supream end, were the manifestation of his glory on some considered, as meerely possible in doing them good in the highest degree, and that in the way of mercy mixt with justice, and that ex Condigno & ex Congruo; it is ap∣parent, that the means required hereunto, and bespoken hereby, is a body consisting of divers particulars, all together compleating the integrall means required here∣unto. For herehence it followeth, that they must be both created, without which no glory of God at all can be manifested upon them and permitted to sinne, otherwise God could not doe them good in the way of mercy, which supposeth misery, but also that a Saviour must be sent, and he no lesse then the Sonne of God, to deserve the pardon of their sinne and salvation, otherwise it could not be in the way of mercy mixt with justice de Condigno: and faith and repentance must be bestowed on them, otherwise the good done them, could not be by way of re∣ward: and lastly, salvation, otherwise good could not be done them in the high∣est degree. And thus in no moment of nature is the Predestination of Christ either before or after the Predestination of man; as our Brittish Divines maintained at the Synod of Dort; but at once God predestinated both him to be our Head and us his Members; like as Aquinas maintained Christs predestination, and our predestination to be one act in God, and consequently neither could be the cause of another.

Thus have I dispatched mine answer unto them, as touching mine own opinion. But supposing the method of the Contra-Remonstrants sound, in making sal∣vation of man, to be intended by God as an end, and both mans faith in Christ, and Christs Mission to be intended as means. We deny this to be absurd or igno∣minious unto Christ. Lets heare how they prove it, thus; If the decree of sending Christ be posterior to the electing of singular persons unto salvation, then the in∣tention of mans salvation was posterior to Gods intention of satisfaction to his justice, which say they is absurd and foolish, to wit, to decree the salvation of sinners, unlesse first he decree satisfaction to his justice. But I answer ac∣cording to the forme of the Contra-Remonstrants doctrine: First, by proving their order to be sound: Secondly, by shewing the invalidity of the Remonstrants discourse.

First therefore: There was never any other order of intentions acknowled∣ged by the learned, then such as is found between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means tending thereunto. And the Order most recei∣ved is this; That the intention of the end, is before the intention of the means. Now let every man that is is his right Witts consider, which is more like∣ly to be the end, and which the means of these two, Mans salvation, and Christs Mission to satisfy for the sinne of man. Was ever any man known to be so brainsick as to affirme, that the salvation of man is a means tending to this end, namely, the sending of Christ into the World to satisfy for the sinne of man? On the other side, how fair and plausible is it to affirme, that Christ was sent into the world, to satisfy for mans sinne, to this end, that man might be saved? whence it followeth evidently by the most approved rules of Schooles, that the intention of mans salvation is in signo rationis, before the

intention of sending Christ into the world, to make satisfaction for sinne. Againe, if Christs sending into the world to make satisfaction for sinne, be first in intention, then it should be last in execution, by rules undeniable, and such as are manifest by the very light of nature; Whence it followeth, that man should be first saved and after that Christ sent into the World, that, by his sufferings, Gods justice might be sa∣tisfied.

Now I come to the consideration of the Remonstrants argument. The Conse∣quence of the Major we grant, but the Minor we deny. And it is a vaine thing for them to cry out, that it is absurd and foolish to say, that the intention of salvation, precedes the intention of satisfying Gods justice; for words must not carry it: and it is well known that the most empty vessells give the greatest sound. I have shewed how absurd it is to conceive, that man was saved to this end, that Gods justice may be sa∣tisfied, and that 'tis farre more probable to say, That by Christs sufferings, Gods ju∣stice was satisfied to this end, that man might be saved. For the salvation of man we say, was not intended by God simply, but after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of mercy mixed with justice; which end doth not presuppose the permission of sinne, as these Remonstrants shape the matter to varnish over their consequence, with some colour of probability: but rather it bespeaks, both the permission of sinne, and satisfa∣ction to be made for sinne, to the end that so man might be saved, not simply, but af∣ter a certain manner, to wit, in the way of mercy mixed with justice. But suppose they were considered as sinners, Why should the Remonstrants look strangely upon this doctrine, namely, that God should intend the salvation of sinners in signo rationis, before he intended that his justice should be satisfied? For doe not they maintaine, that God by power absolute, can pardon sinne without all satisfaction? But suppo∣sing that God will not pardon sinne without satisfaction, in this case they may con∣tend, that God must first intend to take a course, that such satisfaction may be made, and then intend to save. And let them contend but in the name of reason, and not of clamours, and content themselves, with the infatuation of themselves, with such senselesse conceits, and not spread this scab unto others also. My reason to the con∣trary is still the same, namely, that if God be pleased to save sinners in despight of sinne, in the way of mercy mixt with justice, the case is cleare, that satisfaction for sinne, is rather a means of mans salvation, then mans salvation is a means tending to the procurement of satisfaction for sinne, and consequently the intention of salvati∣on of sinners, is in reason to precede the intention of procuring satisfaction, rather then to follow after it; as the intention of the end, is rather to be accounted before, then after the intention of the means. Yet say these Remonstrants, if a man will be so obstinate, as (notwithstanding the felicity of these Remonstranticall witts in fruitfull inventions and subtile argumentations) still to deny that there is any ab∣surdity herein, thus over and above we prove it. For as yet they have runne them∣selves out of breath. If, say they, the decree of Christ a Saviour, be after the election of parti∣cular persons unto salvation, it followeth that God did decree some particular mens salvation, before he ordained Christs merits to procure their salvation; but this is foolish and absurd.

I answer, No more foolish and absurd then the former: and indeed every one of these consequences for the expressing whereof, they affect to seem very inventious, doe savour of no invention at all; the Consequents doe so evidently, even every one of them appeare as clearely in the Antecedent, as a mans face in a glasse, and are to be accounted rather Tautologies, then deductions, much lesse doe they rellish of any subtilty of wit. So that all this while, they seem to be in travell with nothing but wind, or sick of the disease called Tenasmus, striving mightily to doe somewhat, when indeed they doe nothing at all. And our former argument still hath place, and here also applied, doth manifest, that seeing the merits of the sonne of God are the means of mans salvation, then mans salvation is the end of Christs merits; there∣fore in all probability, the intention of mans salvation, as the intention of the end, should precede the intention of sending Christ to merit as the means, rather then to be subordinate unto it. And indeed if the sending of Christ into the World to merit, should be first in intention, then should it be last in execution; that is, All the elect should first be saved, and then Christ should be sent into the world to merit their sal∣vation. Therefore to mend the matter (for who is so silly as not to perceive, that if the consideration of Christs obedience, as satisfactory, will not serve their turne, surely neither will the consideration of his obedience as meritorious, stand them in a∣ny

stead) they put into this Consequence another clause, without all art, and with∣out all honesty, pretending, that hereby we make salvation destinated to man, before it is decreed to man: as if we put any difference in this case between destination and decree, or as if we make salvation destinated to a man hereby, before it is destina∣ted unto him; whereas we only make the end (that is salvation) intended before the merits of Christ (which are the means of salvation) are intended. And would any man that is in his right witts, say this is to make salvation destinated to a man before it is destinated to him? Farther, it is to be observed, that we may omit nothing, but take notice of the uttermost of their strength, and the rather, because it will notably discover either their ignorance, or which is most likely, (for as much as they doe not directly insist, as they might upon a new argument farre more plausible with the ig∣norant) their unconscionablenesse. For they signify that hence it will come to passe, that the intention of salvation, being before the intention of finding of Christ to me∣rit, salvation shall exist, being decreed as present to God, before Christ is considered as he that by his Crosse hath deserved it. Now had they said before Christ hath deserved it, I should readily have granted it. For I hope none of thē would deny, that the salvation of many a Prophet and Patriarch, existed not only before God, but actually and real∣ly before Christ was crucified. To prevent this elusion of their argument, they ex∣presse it thus, Before Christ was considered as he that hath deserved it. Yet here they fall foule upon an indecent expression. For I will be bold to deny, that Christ was consi∣dered by God, as one that had deserved mans salvation, before he had deserved it. For before he had deserved it by his Crosse, to say, that God considered him as one that had deserved it, is either to erre or to feigne, neither of which is incident unto God. God considered him from everlasting, as one that in the fulnesse of time should deserve it, by suffering upon the Crosse, not as one that had deserved it. For to con∣ceive him after the former manner, is to conceive aright, but to conceive him after the latter manner, is to conceive amisse. But I will take the pains to mend this argu∣ment for them thus. If their salvation were decreed before Christs merits, then their salvation did exist as present with God before Christs merits did exist, as present with God. But this is not to be admitted: Now I come to discover their ignorance, which they betray in this. First, neither Gods prescience, nor Gods decree doth make things to exist, otherwise then in Esse cognito & in esse velito; but this is not to exist. Therefore they qualify it by the addition of the manner, ut praesens Deo; which indeed is Terminus diminuens in this case. For it is present to God by vertue of his de∣cree intentionally only, and not really, which alo••e is to exist. But let this Peccadil∣lio passe. Secondly, Who seeth not that this argument tends to the utter destruction of all distinct intentions of end, and means in God? For if there be any such distinct intentions in God, the one must be acknowledged to be before the other. As for ex∣ample, What was the end of creation? Lets goe no farther then the manifestation of Gods power and wisdome as the end thereof. Now hence it will follow by the quaint∣nesse of this argumentation, that the manifestation of Gods wisdome and power in creating the world did exist, as present with God, before the creation. Is not here a proper argumentation. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici.

Thirdly, to draw neerer to the discovery of their ignorance. I grant it shall first exist; but how? Not in duration; We acknowledge no such priority in God, between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means; though such a priority in this case is found in man. What then? Ile tell you: They commonly call it a prio∣rity of nature. But take heed you doe not apply it to any of the two kindes of prio∣rity of nature mentioned by Aristotle. For try if you please, and you shall find that none of them can possibly serve the turne; What then is this priority of nature so called? I answer, it is only Prioritas rationis: And so I formerly said, that the intenti∣on of the end is in signo rationis, before the intention of the means. You may farther demand, Wherein doth this Prioritas rationis consist? I answer out of Durand, it con∣sists in this, that, Ratio unius petitur a ratione alterius, and so indeed, Ratio mediorum petitur a ratione finis. This generally holds of the intention of end, and means, as well in God, as in the creature. For alwaies the nature of the end duely considered, doth bespeak what shall be the condition of the means. So that this makes no priority of existence at all, neither in duration nor in nature properly so called, but only such a subordination between them, that the reason of the one, that is, the nature or condi∣tion of the one, depends upon the nature and condition of the other. Now let any

sober man judge, Whether the salvation of man be required to the procuring of Christs merits, and not rather, Christs merits are required to the procuring of mans salvation; which yet is not true of salvation considered simply, but only as to be bestowed after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of justice, and by way of satisfa∣ction made for sinne, that so a man may be saved by grace in despight of sinne. In the close of all they signify that this of theirs in the last place seriously considered will make it appeare, that this doctrine of their Adversaries, tends notably to the di∣minution of Christs honour, and to the annihilation of Christs merits, to wit, unlesse Christs merits be acknowledged the end of mans salvation, and not mans salvation the end of Christs merits, Christ shall be dishonoured, and his merits annihilated. Here they are quite out of breath, and that which is wanting, they leave to be sup∣plied by the serious (they should say ignorant) consideration of their Proselites. They presume this colour of dishonour redounding hereby to Christ, will be suffici∣ent to blow up their Adversaries, though it prove of no more force then a squibbe. This carriage of theirs calls to my remembrance, a mad prank plaid by the English at Delfe, while they were billeted there, which was told me merrily, by one of the number. One of the Souldiers was billeted in an old Widdowes house, and another being a Goldsmith, told him and another consort of theirs, he had a devise to put mo∣ny in all their purses, for he knew how to make a Rex-dolar of three-pence sylver, and in that Widdowes house they would ply their businesse very securely. To work they went, and casting plates of Tinne to the quantity of one of those Dolars, and stamping them full and faire, this Gold-smith, with the quantity of three pence sil∣ver, sylvered them over very fairely, and, least they should seem too light, hangs them up in the chimny in a bagge, that the smoak might bring them to the sadder hew. Thus having met with a mine of Sylver in their lodging, one is imployed as a Merchant-man to goe to the Staple of Cloth, and he laies out their coyne in cloth, whereof afterwards they made good silver indeed: at length one of them paying a debt of his to a Dutchman in Delfe, in one of these Rex-dolars, he found the Dutch to betray some suspicious gestures and interpretations upon the coyne. That was a faire warning to an intelligent man of armes; and hereupon they get them packing ing away with all speed; and home they come, and make themselves merry with the relation. In like sort these Remonstrants shew a great deale of Tinne and trash in these argumentations, and they have not so much as three pence silver to colour it therewithall to cheat the World, if they will be cheated. But they hope the colour of some dishonour by their adversaries doctrine redounding unto Christ, will be ta∣ken for a peece at least of good silver. I confesse, I am somewhat the more merrily disposed at this time, For being taken off from the midst of a sentence, by the courte∣ous invitation of a Gentleman, to come unto him to his Inne: He was pleased to en∣tertaine me with such good discourse, that it did not a little refresh my spirits. His reaches were after new discoveries for the advancement of learning; and endoctrina∣ted me more in one halfe hower, then seventeen years study in the University. For whereas I never learned there, more causes then foure, he was pleased to acquaint me with nine; which I took some pains to learn without book, and they were these, Matter, Forme, Workman, Will, Power, Time, Finding out, Accident, End. And most courteously offered himselfe to enlarge on every one of them; but having left off at a broken sentence, I was desirous to return to my studies Theologicall, and to let those Philosophicall progresses alone. But I protested unto him seriously, that he had informed me more in the number of causes in a short space, then Oxford had done in many years; he entreated I would consider of them, and I promised I would, and conferre of them too, with all the Schollers I companied with; which he took in ve∣ry goo part; and so I took my leave. And finding my spirit not a little elevated with this recreation, I resolved, forbearing my usuall time of supper, to follow these stu∣dies close that night, which truly fell out very happily. For one of those causes be∣ing found out, otherwise called, Invention (as for Judgement, I doe not remember that it was admitted into the number) I made use of it very happily in finding out, or discovery of the foppery of these Remonstranticall argumentations.

Now I proceed to the second Question, as more seasonable to the present occasion. And here first they begin with their former artifice, making infidelity on the part of reprobation, answerable to faith on the part of election, which is most untrue, as for∣merly I shewed: Only the not curing of infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by

us subordinate to reprobation; as the curing of naturall infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by us subordinate to election. But they goe on, as in shaping our Te∣nent at pleasure, so in basting it with their very liberall censures, as absurd and execra∣ble, in such sort, as the bare commemoration of it, they take to be sufficient to represent the horrour of it, and to confute it, and this they commit to the judgement of all the faithfull of Christ. And indeed their best strength lyeth in setting forth their Adversaries doctrine in such colours, as the Devill is painted with. And in this particular, they conceive good hope (no doubt) that propitious Readers will conceive hereby, that the infide∣lity of man is made by their Adversaries the work of God, as well as Faith; Whereas it is well known, that there is so little need of working men to infidelity, that all be∣ing borne in sinne, and corrupted and estranged from the life of God, through the fall of Adam, infidelity is as naturall and hereditary to a man, as any other corrup∣tion. And it is as well known and undeniable, that none can cure it but God, by faith; but this he cures in whom he will, by giving Faith to whom he will, and if he refuse to cure it in any, that, and that alone is enough to make him a vessell of wrath, that so Gods glory may be manifested upon him, in the way of justice vindicative. But come we to their Arguments.

1. The first is this. If Infidelity followeth Reprobation unto destruction, then God can∣not in justice destroy Reprobates for their infidelity. For there is no greater inju∣stice, then to destroy a man for that, that followeth necessarily upon reprobation which is the work of God. To this I answer.

1. According to mine ordering the decrees divine. Secondly, according to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenent in ordering them.

1. According to my ordering of the decrees divine; In no moment of nature or reason is the decree of damnation precedent to the decree of permitting infidelity, or leaving the infidelity of some men uncured, to wit, by denying them faith, by deny∣ing the grace of regeneration. But the decrees of creating all in Adam, of permitting all to fall in Adam, in bringing all men forth into the World in the state of Originall sinne, of leaving this originall sinne uncured in them, and last of all, of damning them for their sinnes; are decrees not subordinate, but coördinate, as decrees de Medi∣is, tending joyntly to one supream end, which is the manifestation of Gods glory upon them in the way of justice vindicative; as also to shew the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, whom he hath prepared unto glory, to wit, by beholding * 1.7 in others that miserable condition, which through Gods meer grace and goodnesse they have escaped.

2. According to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenent, I answer,

1. Many of them doe not maintaine that infidelity is consequent to the decree of damnation, but in the foresight of God, precedent rather: as appears by the Brittish Divines their Theses De Reprobatione; and Alvarez professeth the same. The denyall of grace, and so the permitting of naturall infidelity to remain uncured, they make consequent (as it seems) to a negative decree of denying glory. And to the decree of permitting infidelity, they make the foresight of infidelity subsequent; and this fore∣sight of infidelity they make precedent to reprobation, as it signifies the decree of damnation. And thus farre I agree with them, That in no moment of nature, or signe of reason did God ordain any man to damnation, but for sinne; and conse∣quently in no moment of nature, or signe of reason, did the decree of damnation goe before the foresight of sinne or infidelity.

2. But suppose, as these Remonstrants collect and pick out their meaning, They make the decree of reprobation, in all poynts proportionable to the decree of salva∣tion, that like as the decree of giving faith, they conceive to be subordinate to the de∣cree of salvation; so the decree of permitting infidelity, or denying faith (for herein consists the just proportion, and not as they feigne it, between faith on the one side, and infidelity on the other) is with them made subordinate to the decree of damnati∣on. Then I answer,

1. Their Consequence should be this, If the permission of Infidelity followeth the decree of damnation, then God cannot in justice damne them for Infidelity. Now here is no colour of good Consequence.

2. If they reply, That in case infidelity followeth necessarily upon Gods permit∣ing of it, the Consequence is as good as in case infidelity followed upon reprobation. For even hereby it appears, that infidelity followeth upon reprobation though not

immediately, but by the mediation of the divine permission thereof; but whether it followeth mediately or immediately all is one, as touching the force of the Con∣sequence.

Resp. Now to this I Reply, Granting that all is one, as touching the force of the Consequence: but then consider.

1. All the force of the argument depends not upon the consequution of infideli∣ty, simply unto the decree of damnation, but only upon the necessary consequuti∣on thereof. And yet no mention at all was made hereof, in the Consequence of the Major, but it is brought afterwards over and above most illogically.

2. In this case all the force of the Consequence depends upon the necessary con∣sequution of sinne in generall, or infidelity in speciall, upon Gods permitting of it.

So that whether Gods decree to permit the sinne of infidelity, be antecedent or consequent to the decree of damnation all is one. Yet these Remonstrants make the force of their argument, to consist only in the subordinating of the decree divine, as touching the permission of infidelity to the decree of damnation, which yet appears by this to be of no force.

3. But if they hereupon take a new course of argumentation, and dispute thus; If Infidelity followeth necessarily upon Gods permitting of it, then God cannot in justice damne a man for Infidelity; pretending no injustice to be greater, then to damne a man for that which followeth necessarily upon permission, which is Gods work.

Resp. I answer.

1. That thus their former argumentation is cashierd as unprofitable.

2. We deny this Consequence; and call in no meaner name then Arminius him∣selfe to beare us out in this our deniall. Who expressely professeth, That in case God permits a man, Velle peccatum, necesse est ut nullo argumentorum genere persuadeatur ad nolen∣dum. Exam. pag. 153. I could adde Vorstius also, herein concurring with Piscator, Per∣kins, and Navarrettus the Dominican is as expressely in this as any other; as also in sub∣ordinating it to the decree of reprobation. Arminius likewise professeth faith and repentance, Nisi Deo dante haberi non posse. Exam. 57. and that both of them are denied to the reprobates by the decree of reprobation. See his own words, At Deus statuit decreto reprobationis reprobis fidem & paenitentiam non dare. Concedo lubens, illam assumptionem, sed rectè intellectam: He laboureth to charme this inconvenient grant of his, but no charme will serve to keep this adder, from stinging and wounding their doctrine of reprobation unto death. He saith, Faith is given by way of suasion. We say, that matters nothing; for so it be given by God wheresoever it be found, and so it be de∣nied to reprobates by the decree of reprobation, we desire no more. We our selves acknowledge, that faith is not given to the elect, but by way of swasion, the Word working faith, running in this manner; Repent and believe the Gospel; and whosoe∣ver believeth shall be saved. For God hath set forth his Sonne to be a Propitiation for our sinnes, through faith in his bloud.

3. At length he proceeds in his charming course, but most unsuccessefully, as whereby his former saying is nothing charmed. His care rather seems to be to eat his own words, as Satan devoured his own children. For distinguishing suasion into that which is sufficient, and that which is effectuall: this effectuall suasion, he confesseth to be administred by the decree of election; but as for that sufficient suasion, though withall he accounts it allwaies ineffectuall, yet he saith it is administred by the de∣cree of providence, not by the decree of reprobation. At length he confesseth, that by the decree of reprobation is denied grace effectuall, that is such a grace as whereup∣on he foresaw they would believe. Now herein I appeale to the judgement of every sober man. Take we two men into consideration, the one elect as Paul, the other re∣probate as Esau. Of two sufficient graces, the Lord foreseeth which of them will prove effectuall with Paul, and which ineffectuall; and he makes choice to give him such a grace, as he foreseeth will prove effectuall. Again he foreseeth of two sufficient graces, which of them will prove effectuall with Esau and which ineffectuall, and makes choice to afford him only that which he knowes will prove ineffectuall. Now what can be the reason hereof, but because he purposeth to shew his mercy in the sal∣vation of the one, and his justice in the damnation of another. Before Arminius came to this resolution, as expressely to professe, That by the decree of reprobation is denyed grace effectuall, he found himselfe in a streit upon his distinction of grace

sufficient and effectuall, and the description of each; he drew his breath very short; and therefore to get, as it were, more liberty of ayre, he concluded that dis∣course with, Haec ex Augustini sententiâ dicuntur. pag. 58. and in the next page. Hisce autem ita explicatis ex mente Augustini & fortè Scripturae sensu. But, What, a mischiefe, doth this great Doctor mean to tell us? First, that he willingly grants that, Deus statuit decreto reprobationis reprobis fidem & paenitentiam non dare (provided it be well understood) and after all this explication, tells us, that all this explication of his is delivered ex sententiâ & mente Augustini, and but perchance, ex Scripturae sensu, concealing all the while what is his own Opinion. Is this to give us the right understanding of that Assertion (Deus statuit decreto reprobationis repro∣bis fidem & paenitentiam non dare) most prejudiciall to his own Tenent at first fight, and much more by the distinction following of Gratia sufficiens & efficax; which he so well perceived, that he is content to clap it upon Austins back to beare the burthen of it; and puts it but upon adventure, that it may prove to be the Scripture meaning. And in like sort, when, pag. 98. having proposed two things to be necessarily unfolded by him. Primò, de Gratiâ sufficiente & efficaci. Secundo, de utrius{que} dispensatione, dispensationis{que} Causis: He leaves off there, giving it over in plain ground. What doth this argue? but that he manifestly perceived, he was not able in any tollerable manner, to shape this distinction in congruity to his own Te∣nent. Let this Author well consider this, that talkes so much of our Divines unwil∣lingnesse to come to tryall in the poynt of reprobation; When Arminius durst not adventure upon the explicating of his own opinion, touching the distinction of grace sufficient and effectuall, and in giving us the definition of each. The like to have been the course of other Arminians, I have known, declining the point of effectuall grace, as a precipice and breakneck unto them: And when others have been put upon it, they have placed it in the grace subsequent, and have not been ashamed to make it consist in this, that God by effectuall grace, doth work in man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Velle credere, modo velit, and why not as well, that he workes in man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere, modo Credat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Resipisce∣re modo Resipiscat. This that I speake, I can shew under the hand of one of them, a great stickler for the Arminian Cause; great I say in respect of affection, not of judgement. And I have cause to conceive, that both this Authors Discourse, and that others I have had to deale withall, is but as a smoake, that for a great part, if not for the most of it, comes out of the same Chimney.

4. Let the argument stand as it doth, let infidelity by Gods permission follow up∣on the decree of damnation, and that necessarily. Yet consider.

1. Gods permitting of it, is no other then the leaving of it uncured: not that hereby infidelity followeth, which was not before; but being in all before, as the fruit of that naturall corruption wherein all were borne, as all confesse, as many as concurre against the Pelagians, in acknowledging Originall sinne. By Gods permission of it, it continueth to be uncured; What actuall sinne is there in the World, or habituall sinne arising thereupon, which God cannot cure if it please him? If then he will not cure it in some, shall it not be lawfull for him to punish it, where he findes the continuance of it unto the end, without breaking off by re∣pentance?

2. Suppose all men had power to doe any good thing; if God will not give them Velle quod possunt (as Austin saith he dealt with Adam in his innocency, and gave the An∣gels that stood, amplius Adjutorium, then he gave the others; whereby it came to passe, that they stood in obedience when the other fell) what shall wee say in this case, is it possible that they should Velle bonum, if God will not work it in them, of whom the A∣postle professeth, that he works in us both the Will and the Deed? Or shall wee here∣upon say, they doe not sinne freely? What shift have they to avoyd this, but either by contradicting the Apostle, and saying God doth not work in us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Velle, or by saying that God doth work in us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Velle, modò Velimus, as plain a contradiction as ever pro∣ceeded from the mouth of any, The selfe same act, being made before and after it self; for the condition is allwaies before the thing conditioned. And is this to work in us the Will according to Gods pleasure, or according to mans good pleasure? What is it to say, that grace is given according unto works, if this be not?

3. We deny, that any evill act therefore comes not to passe freely, because it comes to passe necessarily, upon supposition of Gods denyall of grace, to refraine from it. For like as good works, are not therefore not wrought

freely by us, because God by his grace workes us to the performance of them; (For who dares deny that it is in Gods power to make us work this or that freely) in like sort, and much more, evill works are not done the lesse freely, because God denies speciall and effectuall grace to abstain from them. For, want of grace doth not take away willingnesse unto that which is evill, but leaves too much rather in man of that kind. As Austin saith, that Libertas sine gratiâ non est libertas sed contumacia. Now where there is contumacy, there is rather too much will then too little. For Contu∣macy is Wilfulnesse.

4. The Schooles teach, that liberty of will consists only, in electione mediorum, in the election of means to certain ends. Now when the Gospel is preached to a car∣nall man, whose ends are only carnall, as the Apostle saith, Philip. 3. 20. They mind earthly things; so farre forth as he shall find it serviceable to his carnall ends, he may believe it and make profession of it, as many times Hypocrites doe, and some∣times in such sort, as it is hard to distinguish, between a true and an Hypocriti∣call professour. This moved the Apostle to exhort the Corinthians, famous for their faith, to examine themselves, and prove themselves, Whether they were in the faith, that is, in faith unfaigned. For there is not only a grosse Hypocri∣sy, whereunto a mans own heart is privy, but a secret Hypocrisy whereof the man himselfe is nothing conscious; yet such a faith undoubtedly is performable by a naturall man. Now when a man rejects the Gospell, the faith and professi∣on whereof he finds nothing serviceable to his carnall ends, doth he not judici∣ously and deliberately, yea and wisely too (according to the wisdome of flesh and bloud) reject it?

5. Austin professeth Lib. 1. De Gen. contr. Manich. cap. 3. That all men may believe if they will, and justifies it in his Retractations. But if the will of man be corrupt, and averse from believing, We justly say, such a man cannot believe; as our Saviour saith, How can you believe that receive honour one of another, and seeke not the honour that cometh of God alone. Joh. 5. 44. yet this is an impotency Morall only, which is to be distinguished from impotency Naturall. For notwithstanding this, it may be truely said, that, All men may believe if they will, and herein consists the naturall liberty of the will. The Morall liberty consists, rather in a sanctified inclination unto that which is good, whereby it is freed from the power of sinne and Sathan; then in a power to doe good if they will, and not otherwise. But I never find that Arminians doe distinguish these.

6. It is not sufficient for Arminians to conclude, that such a thing upon supposi∣tion comes to passe necessarily, therefore it comes not to passe freely.

1. For upon supposition that God decreed to create the World, the creation of the World came to passe necessarily; yet simply the World was made by God freely.

2. In like sort, upon Gods foreknowledge that such a man will not believe it followeth necessarily, that such a one will not believe; and so the like may be said of the most free act that is performed. But will it follow herehence, that it is not done freely?

3. In like sort upon the denyall of an effectuall impediment of sinne, unto a man it followeth necessarily, that such a man will sinne, according to Arminius his do∣ctrine, and this holds applied to any particular sinne whatsoever. But will it here∣hence follow according to Arminius, that such a sinne is not committed freely? no∣nothing lesse.

2. The Remonstrants second argument is this.

What God cannot performe that God cannot will. But God cannot damne a man for infidelity flowing from such a decree of Reprobation.

Resp. 1. But who saith that infidelity floweth from the decree of reprobation? Not one that I know, but Piscator upon these words, Yee therefore heare not my words, because yee are not of God. But understand him aright, it is as if he * 1.8 should say, Therefore such a man goeth lame, because the Physitian will not cure him: yet it is well known the cause of his lamenesse is from within, and perhaps procured by some distemper of his own: yet in case a Surgeon could cure him and will not, he may be said to be the cause of lamenesse; but how? per modum non removentis. This is well known by the learned to be a kind of cause whereof notice is taken in Naturall Philosophy. And in this sense and no other,

it is well known that Piscator makes God the cause of infidelity, and that according to the expresse Word of God. But in my judgement Piscator mistakes the phrase, To be of God, which he conceives to denote election. I rather take it to denote regeneration, as much as to say, yee therefore he are not my words, because God hath not hitherto by re∣generation cured that naturall infidelity which is in you.

2. But take the argument according to the former expression, God cannot damne a man for that infidelity which is consequent to reprobation; And then my An∣swer to the former argument in every particular thereof, may be accommodated un∣to this.

3. The Third followeth. If Infidelity flowes from reprobation, then God can neither require Faith of reprobates, nor seriously offer salvation unto them, but necessarily counterfeit. For it is manifest Hypocrisy, to invite those unto faith and salvation, who are excluded from both by the decree of God.

Resp. 1. Here again Infidelity is made to flow from reprobation; whereas nothing flowes from reprobation by the doctrine of the Contra-Remonstranes, but the not curing of mans naturall infidelity, like as the curing of it by faith, is that which flows from election.

2. I say, There is no simulation at all of God in this. For that wich he pro∣poseth is but this, that, Whosoever believeth shall be saved, and Whosoever believeth not shall be damned. He sends his Ministers to Preach this, and to Beseech them to believe, and to be reconciled unto God, yea, all they meet with. But for whose sake? Not for the reprobates sake, but for the elects sake, Who because they are mixed among re∣probates, and God hath not revealed to his Ministers, Who are elect and who are not (as neither was it fit he should, many of the Ministers themselves, even of those that not only prophecyed in his name, but cast out Devills, being reprobates) there∣fore it was fit their Commission should be generall to Preach to all. Yea, did not the Apostles themselves take notice of this? Doth not Paul professe that, He be∣came * 1.9 all things to all that he may save some? And who were those some, but the ve∣ry elect of God, as the same Apostle elsewhere professeth, saying, I suffer all things for the elects sake. And doth not Austin professe that if we knew who were reprobate, * 1.10 we would no more pray for them, then for the Devills? De Civit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 24.

4. The Fourth and last. If Incredulity followes the decree of reprobation, then God consi∣dered the reprobates in his counsell of reprobation, either as creatable, or as created in the state of innocency, or as falne into Originall sinne. Sed falsa sunt haec omnia. All these things are false. And these things, he saith, are delivered, contra absurdam, detestabilem, at{que} abominabilem sententiam.

Resp. Here is froth enough of words, but a very hungry discourse for substance of argumentation throughout.

1. Yet as I said, All this nothing toucheth them, Who albeit they maintaine that God of his meer pleasure, hath mercy on some, giving them faith and repen∣tance (considering all in the corrupt Masse) and of his meer pleasure hardens others (no worse in nature then the former) by denying them faith and repentance, yet as reprobation signifies the decree of damnation, doe permit thereunto the foresight of finall perseverance in sinne.

2. According to my Ordering of Gods decrees, Who conceive mankind not yet created to be the object of all Gods decrees, they being eternall, and but one act in God, and that act his very Essence, and all other things being temporall. I doe not maintain that the decree of damnation, is in any moment of nature or reason, before the consideration of mans finall impenitency. As neither doe I conceive it to be after this, but both simultaneous; for as much as the decree of permitting all to fall in A∣dam, together with the decree of finall leaving some therein, and the decree of damn∣ing them for sinne, I take not to be subordinate, but coordinate and simultaneous.

3. Whether we take the First-way for shaping the object of predestination, or the Second, or the Third, I Answer.

1. The difference hereabout is in my judgement meerly Logicall, nothing Theo∣logicall; the resolution whereof according to generall rules, is easily made by light of nature, if once it be agreed upon in Divinity, What is Gods end both on the part of election, and on the part of reprobation, and what are the means that tend unto those ends.

2. Which way soever we take of the Three, I never found any reason given by Arminians of any force to take us from it, as I have justified in my Vindiciae, as touch∣ing the First-way; And in my Examination of the Conference between Arminius and Junius, as touching the Second-way; And in my Answer to Corvinus against Ti∣lenus, as touching the Third-way, and therein, I trust, routed and profligated the 20 Reasons of Arminius, proposed against the First and Last-way, but chiefly a∣gainst the First, in the Declaration of his Opinion before the States.

Now I returne to the Author of this discourse, and to the remainder of his second Motive, from whence I have digressed.

I was here passing over unto the third instance, to wit, of the proceedings in the Synod of Dort; but upon my looking into the History thereof, to prepare my selfe for an answer thereunto, ere I was a ware, I lighted upon the reasons of that the Contra-Remonstrants motion to be spared, preferred unto the State. And they ut∣terly deny what is here cast upon them, namely, that they deprecated at all, that they might be spared from conferring upon the poynt of reprobation. But where∣as the Remonstrants had incumbred the point of election and reprobation with sea∣ven Questions, which pertained not to the state of the Controversy concerning the first Article, and being also imperfect and intricate for the most part, and proposed to this end, to draw their Adversaries away from the true state of the Question; They desired to be spared from answering unto them. And upon this Petition of theirs it pleased the States, that leaving those thorny questions, they should come to the handling of the Articles. This is set down in the Preface to those Acta Synodalia, set forth by the Authority of the States. Fol. 10. pag. 1. For after the proposing of these two questions to the Remonstrants, as touching the decree of Predestination. 1. Whe∣ther the intire decree of Predestination were contained in this Article, namely, That God did from everlasting decree to save believers, which no man denies. 2. Whe∣ther they thought faith & perseverance therein, did precede election, as the Causes or Conditions thereof. After the Remonstrants had answered affirmatively unto them both; hereupon they bring in their seaven, for the most part, intricate questions. Re∣ponebant deinde septem alias tum de electione tum de reprobatione, questiones, ad quas a Pastoribus à Classibus deputatis responderi volebant. Quae cum ad controversiae de primo articulo statum non spectarent, etiam mutilae at{que} intricatae plerae{que} essent; eum{que} in finem ab illis proponerentur, ut hoc modo a praecipuo controversiae statu recta{que} agendi ratione, in ambages ad ducerent. Pastores expositâ per Libellum supplicem Illust. Ordd. iniquâ hâc agendi ratione, non quidem deprecati sunt, ne de re∣probatione sententiam suam manifestarent (uti Remonstrantes improbè saepius ipsis objectarunt) sed disertè sententiam suam quantum ad Ecclesiarum pacem at{que} aedificationem sufficere existimarent, non tantum vivâ voce sed & scripto declararunt. Se nimirum cum aeternum electionis singularium personarum decretum ponunt, simul quo{que} ponere aeternum de reprobatione & rejectione quarundam singularium personarum decretum, quum fieri nequeat ut sit electio, quin simul quò{que} sit aliqua repro∣batio aut derelictio. Difficiles omnes circa hunc articulum quaestiones temere excutere, nihil aliud esse quam inutilibus disputationibus & nihil profuturis litibus, Ecclesiam replere, ejus{que} pacem per∣turbare. Declarationem suam hanc Libello supplice expressam, moderatis omnibus, pace••{que} amanti∣bus ingeniis, sufficere debere: Credi videlicet ac doceri ab ipsis, Deum neminem condemnare, imò verò ne statuisse quidem condemnare quenquam nisi justè propter propria ipsius peccata: Placuit ita{que} Illust. Ordd. ut missis illis spinosis quaestionibus, ad articulorum pertractationem deveniretur. And Pag. 136. & 156. I find this objection proposed by the Remonstrants in these words. Pag. 156. In Collatione Haghiensi Libello supplice Illust. Hollandiae & Westfriziae Ordinibus ex∣hibito, deprecati sunt Contra-Remonstrantes ne de reprobatione ageretur: & more at large Pag. 195. Thus, Ipsi Contra-Remonstrantes cum in Colloquio Haghiensi jussi essent, ad interrogata quaedam nostra de reprobatione respondere Magistratui morem gerere gravati fuerint, us{que} adeò ut Collationem caeptam abrumpere se malle profiterentur quàm ut summarum Potestatum imperio se con∣stringi paterentur, nihil aliud conscientiae suae praetexentes quam quod Ecclesiae aedificationi obfutu∣ram eam agendi rationem judicarent. Now to this Pag. 157. Festus Hominus, one present in that Conference, stands up and answers, Exposuit{que} paucis quàm non bonâ fide haec de illis dicerentur. Se Libello supplice non fuisse deprecatos, ne de reprobatione ageretur: caeterùm quia Re∣monstrantes subdolè in ipso Collationis initio, septem questionibus spinosis ac minime necessariis non tantum ad reprobationis, sed electionis quoque doctrinam spectantibus, à recto agendi ordine Contra-Remonstrantes in ambages adducere conarentur. Contra-Remonstrantes Libello supplice apud Illust-Ordd. de tam iniquâ agendi ratione conquestos fuisse at{que} ut Remonstrantibus mandaretur, ne extra justam agendi rationem jam inchoatam evagarentur petiisse. De reprobatione autem Contra-Re∣monstrantes

quantum ad aedificationem satis erat, sententiam suam clarè ibidem explicasse uti scrip∣torum editorum fide probari potest. Idem etiam Reverendus & Doctissimus vir, D. Joannes Becius qui & ipse huic interfuerat Collationi, suo praesens comprobabat testimonio.

Now I come to the Synod of Dort.

4. This Author saith the Remonstronts were there warned by the President of the Synod, Ut de electione potius quàm de odiosâ reprobationis materiâtagerent. And truly at first I wondered not a little, that the President of that Synod should account, the matter of reprobation (which is as much as to say, the doctrine of reprobation) an odious matter, an odious doctrine. For we commonly signify hereby, such a doctrine as deserves to be hated; but I thought withall, that they might expresse rather, what is the condition of it in the event, namely, that it is entertained with hatred, not of all neither, nor of any of those, that submit their judgements to the word of God; but rather of those, and of those only, who follow the judgement of flesh and bloud. Yet I thought good to enquire into the truth of the fact here mentioned; and I find it in the page men∣tioned, and how the Remonstrants themselves doe expresse this, even as here it is ex∣pressed, thus, A Reverendo Praeside moniti sumus ut à negativis enunciationibus abstineremus & de electione potius quàm odiosâ reprobationis materiâ ageremus. Yet I confesse this did not satisfy me; For why should this Author make choyce to expresse it in the Remon∣strants termes, rather then in the words of the President himselfe. Therefore I turne to the beginning of that Session, being Sess. 32. There I find this particular, Submo∣nuit & Praeses ut potius quaestionibus illis inhaererent, quae circa suavem de electione doctrinam ver∣sarentur, quàm ut d•• odiosè doctrinam de reprobatione exagitarent. Now I find a great deale of difference between professing the matter of reprobation, or the doctrine hereof to be odious, and admonishing to spare the exagitation thereof after an odious manner. This indeed being their usuall course, to make it as odious as they can, like as Armini∣us, Doctrinam de praedestinatione odiosam reddere conabatur, as it is professed in the Preface to those Act. Synod. fol. 7. pag. 2. and fol. 8. pag. 2. They professe in like manner of the Remonstrants, namely, that in their Remonstrance they endeavoured, Illust. Ordd. odiosam reddere doctrinam Ecclesiarum Reformatarum, and that not only, de divinâ predestina∣tione, but also de Gratiâ Dei & Sanctorum Perseverantiâ, but all this malâ fide, nec sine aper∣tis, atrocibus{que} calumniis. Moreover I find, Sess. 39. pag. 151. this decree of the Synode gratifying the Remonstrants, and yeelding to their motion made, which was, that they might have liberty to treat as well of reprobation as of election, thus, Quoniam Remonstrantes aliquoties professi sunt, se per conscientiam in Synodo subsistere ulterius non posse, nisi prius caveatur ipsis fore, ut de electione & reprobatione, eâ ratione quam in Thesibus & Scriptis su∣is hactenus exhibitis proposuerunt, in posterùm agatur. Synodus quò magis ipsis fiat satis, publice ac coràm omnibus declarat, statuisse sese ac statuere sententiam ipsorum, non de electione modò, ve∣rum etiam de reprobatione expendere at{que} examinare. Quantum nempe in conscientiâ ad Dei glori∣am, aedificationem & tranquillitatem Ecclesiae, omnium{que} conscientiarum posse ac debere satis esse, ipsa judicaret. Ad agendi verò modum, qui hic est servandus & ordinem quod attinet, suum esse de eo dispicere, non autem fratrum Remonstrantium qui huc sunt citati, quicquam praescribere, existi∣mat. This decree being read to the Remonstrants, they refused to give way unto it. The 40 Session contains the altercation thereabout, between the Synod and them. They forsooth would prescribe to the Synod de modo Agendi, the Synod must not pre∣scribe to them. And they professe against it Sess. 41. pag. 155. in this manner, Nec satisfit nobis si dicatur Synodum permissuram, ut nostram de reprobatione sententiam tractemus quoad illa ipsa ad gloriam Dei, aedificationem Ecclesiarum, conscientiarum tranquillitatem fore judicabit. Nam hâc ipsâ restrictione, nobis praeciditur libertas & plenaria sententiae nostrae defensio, & contra∣riae Impugnatio. Praeterquam quòd non levis suspicandi nobis data sit occasio, Synodum, ubi nos de electione disserentes audiverit, nequaquam permissuram ut Contra-Remonstrantium & eorum quos illi pro Orthodoxis habent, de reprobatione sententiam prout necessarium judicabimus, ad incudem re∣vocari. Hereupon the Synod entreats the judgement of Forraine Divines; and they all with one consent professe, Tantam Remonstrantibus libertatem ad defensionem causae suae con∣cessam esse, quantâ ex ratione & dignitate Synodi Citatis concedi posset. Ac proinde nullam esse causam cur Synodicum decretum mutandum videretur, aut cur Remonstrantes querelam instituerent, vel authoritatem hujus Synodi subterfugerent. Nihil illis esse imperatum quod ullo modo conscientias ipsorum gravare posset. Ac proinde conscientiae velum frustra pervicaciae obtendi. Abundè iis om∣nibus{que} modis satisfactum jam esse. Absolutam illam, nullis{que} circumscriptam limitibus libertatem quam petunt, à Synodo concedi ipsis non posse. Aequum esse ut certis sese legibus submittant, quibus, si exorbitent, coërceantur. Nay in the next Session, which is Sess. 42. there is a representa∣tion

made of their unreasonable demand in these words. Professi sunt sibi agendi modum a Synodo praescriptum, iniquum videri. Sibi permitti velle non tantum primo loco, sed & circa omnes articulos & Theses, singula{que} argumenta de sententiâ Contra-Remonstrantium, & corum quos illi pro Orthodoxis habent, quoad reprobationem agere, quia in hoc argumento calceus illos maximè ur∣geat. Hereupon the Opinions of the forraigne Divines were required, to wit, Whether it were fit to yeeld unto them, as to treat of Reprobation, before they treated of E∣lection, Qui consentientibus declarabant suffragiis, ab omni ratione & methodo esse alienum id quod Remonstrantes peterent, ut prius de reprobatione quàm de electione agere sibi liceret. Their judgements hereupon are here represented severally and at large; First of our Brit∣tish Divines, then of the Palatine Divines, then of the Divines of the Land of Hesse, then of the Helvetians, then of those who were of the correspondency of Weteraw, then of those of Geneva, then of those of Breme, and lastly of those of Emden.

5. Upon the former bald and base pretences, as if, Conclusum esset contrà Manichae∣os, the Author proceeds crowing magnificentissimè, and demanding in this man∣ner.

Can this doctrine be a truth, and yet blush at the light which makes all things manifest, especially considering these things?

1. That Reprobation is a principall Head of practicall Divinity by the well, or ill stating, or ordering of which, the glory of God, and good of Religion, is much promoted or hindered.

2. That there is such a necessary connexion between the points of election and reprobation (both being parts of predestination) that the one cannot be well handled without the other.

3. That Reprobation was the chiefe cause of all the uproares in the Churches of that time.

4. That it was accused with open mouth and challenged of falshood, and therefore bound in ju∣stice to purge it selfe of the crimination.

5. That it may easily be defended, if (as some say) it be such an apparent truth. For, Nihil est ad defendendum puritate facilius, saith S^t Hierome.

Now albeit for the discovery of the vile vanity of this conclusion, I need take no other pains, then to appeal to your, or any sober mans due consideration of the pre∣mises duely examined according to my former answer; yet I think good not to passe it over without such particular consideration as it deserves. First, I pray consider, what is that light that makes all things manifest? Is it the light of Conference? In the Conference of Mompelgard there were diverse other things disputed of, besides this of predestination. Now is the truth manifested hereby in all those particulars? If it be, I pray, let him signify on whose side, whether on the part of Jacobus Andreas, or on the part of Beza? To whom is it made manifest? To either side, or only to that side, on whose side this Author conceives the truth to stand? Doe you not manifestly perceive the crudity of this conceit? Nay, who seeth not, that it is not the condition of conference, but the quality rather and ability of the conferrers, that is apt to ma∣nifest the truth. And such men are able to manifest, as well out of conference in their discourses, either Positive, or Controversiall, as in conference; yea, and farre better; Those discourses being more quietly carried, and more free from altercation, then conferences; especially in case they meet with malignant opposites. And indeed it is the Word of God alone, which is that spirituall light, which giveth manifestation to all spirituall truth. And consequently neither are they to be censured as blushing at the light, that prefer to write quietly of these controversies, then to conferre about them in some cases; or that preferre conference by the penne as Beza did, before con∣ference by word of mouth, though this better pleased the lipps of Jacobus Andreas. Yet neither Beza did refuse to yeeld to Andreas his own way, neither did either the Contra-Remonstrants at the Haghe Conference, or the Divines of Dort, refuse to treat of reprobation, as well as election, as formerly I have shewed by authenticall e∣vidences. But suppose Beza and his fellowes, whether two or three had altogether declined to conferre at all, as in my judgement they had good reason to refuse, must this be censured their blushing at the light? Austin professeth as I have formerly vouched him, that there may be many causes of forbearing to deliver the truth at some times. He little dreamed of exposing the truth thereby to such a censure, as if it blushed at the light. And if some few might be justly censured as blushing at the light, must all for their sakes, by the rules of justice, be made obnoxious to the same censure, and not the Doctors only, but the Doctrine it selfe? Is it not apparent that a true and sound doctrine, may be weakly apprehended by many, though learned, and Veritas est temporis filia, and the accurate handling and maintaining of the truth

in plainer points then this of reprobation, comes not to perfection, but by degrees, and after much ventilating of it in a ruder manner. Thus I think I have crackt the crowne of this conclusion; I may proceed with the greater facility to the rest.

1. That Reprobation is an Head to any part of practicall Divinity, I never read, nor heard till now. But yet in every theoreticall poynt, as touching the nature of God and his attributes, by the true doctrine thereof, the glory of God, and good of Religion is promoted, & by the erronious doctrine thereabouts it is as much impaired. For like as it is blasphemy, to attribute that unto God, which doth not become him; so is it blasphemy also, to deny unto him that which doth become him. As for the entertaining or refusing conference thereabouts, I have already spoken sufficiently; yet two particulars more I have to deliver, which I purpose to subjoyne to the end of those five considerations here distinguished, as remarkable ones, if my memory failes me not.

2. A Connexion I grant there is, between election and reprobation, and the clearing of the truth in the one, doth give light unto the other. But which of these is to be handled first, that the clearing of the truth therein, may give light to the sta∣ting of the other, I should think no sober man would make question. Yet the Remon∣strants at the Synod of Dort, were eager to begin with Reprobation, but were there∣in generally censured by the consent of forraine Divines that assisted there. But that one of them cannot be handled without the other, is a palpable untruth, as appears by the very practice of this Author himselfe, and his own carriage in this businesse. For he undertakes only the poynt of reprobation.

3. As touching the third particular, in charging the doctrine of reprobation, with being the chiefe cause of all the uproares in the Church at that time; this author takes to himselfe a strange liberty of discourse. We read and heare of no small stirres in the Church of Rome, between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; but I never read that the Jesuits laid to the Dominicans charge, that their Doctrine as touching the predetermination of the creatures will to every act thereof, was the cause of any up∣roare in the Church of Rome: But to the contrary rather. I read that in the conten∣tion between the Dominicans and Jesuits in Rome it selfe, wherein Valentianus through some heat in disputation, caught a feaver whereof he dyed within three daies after; of the relation whereof, made by one Pet (that had been a Priest) in Ox∣ford I was sometimes an eare witnesse. The Jesuits were rather taxed for their he∣terodoxy in the poynt de auxiliis, as Petrus Mattheus in his History reports it. And from D. Jacksons mouth, I have heard what a Spaniard should deliver upon the men∣tion of Molina the Jesuit, namely, that he was the man, qui tantos tumultus excitavit, to wit, in Spain. But as for Churches Protestant, he doth well to limit his crimination to a certain time. For the stirre that was raised by Huberus in the Lutheran Churches, was neither caused nor occasioned by our doctrine concerning reprobation. Huberus his cause was, a pertinacious standing for an universall Election. It seems he hath re∣lation only to the Haghe conference, and the uproares, as he calls them, amongst the States only, and their particular, or provinciall congregations alone (as it seems) he denominates the Churches. Now let us consider, Who made those uproares, were they the Contra-Remonstrants, or the Remonstrants only? If he chargeth this upon the Contra-Remonstrants, let him prove it, least he be justly censured for one of those wild beasts, an Emperour was sometimes warned to beware of, they were the slanderers. If the Remonstrants were the authors of these uproares, how doth he prove that the doctrine of reprobation, was the chiefe cause of them, Were not those Arminians voluntary agents in those uproares? If they conceived their opposites do∣ctrine to be unsound, could they not oppose it without uproares, without violent proceedings? Againe, their opposites doctrine, was it never received or preached 'till those daies? Or was there any uproare made thereupon, 'till Arminius his inno∣vating? And is that the chief cause of an uproare, which hath no such consequent ensuing untill it meets with some turbulent spirits, which begin to stirre as innovators in a Church or State. And yet was reprobation that alone, whereupon they stirred? Is it not apparent, that about the five Articles commonly so called, they conferred a∣like? But he saith it was the chiefe cause, and only saith it, yet Molinaeus professing reprobation to proceed, upon foresight of finall impenitency, as in truth it cannot be denied, but that as the Contra-Remonstrants professed, as well in that Conference at the Hague, as in the Synod of Dort, that God did never intend to damne any man

of ripe years, but for finall perseverance in infidelity and impenitency. Did their contentions hereupon, either totally cease or in part? But such criminations are no∣thing strange. We know after what manner of greeting wicked Ahab saluted the ho∣ly Prophet Elijah. Art thou he that troubleth Israel? but he spared not to answer him, I am not he that troubleth Israel, but Thou and thy Fathers house. In the like manner were Paul and Silas entertained Act. 16. 20. when being caught and brought before the Magistrates, heard such an accusation made against them, These men which are Jewes trouble our citty: and preach Ordinances which are not lawfull for us to receive, neither to observe, seeing we are Ro∣mans. And no marvaile if the Devill roares, when he falls from heaven, like light∣ning, and his kingdome is shaken. But because he putts us to it in this crimination, I think it fit to give a tast of the violent proceedings in those parts, as I find them or∣dered in the Preface to the Synod. Dordrac. set forth by the authority of the States. And because uproares concern insurrections against government in Church or State; The first particular I observe of this nature is, Fol. 3. pag. 1. where after Arminius had been much suspected, and divers times urged to declare his opinion, upon certain poynts which hitherto he had declined, saving in a false manner, his protestation in the issue, proving directly contrary to his practice. The Rectors of particular Chur∣ches, sowred with the leaven of his doctrine, openly refuse to subscribe the Confessi∣on of the Catechisme, though the Synod of South-Holland commanded them. Pa∣stores Arminii sententiam amplexi passim in Classibus recusabant mandato Synodi de subscriptione Confession is, ac Catecheseos morem gerere. Here we have the begining of a manifest schisme. Now consider we the progresse hereof. Hereupon a resolution was made (it being high time) by the States, for the calling of a Nationall Synode, in the yeare 1605. a∣bout November 26. the execution whereof, was by divers practises of the Arminian Faction, delayed, and put off from time to time, for the space of 13 years. Fol. 5. pag. 2. Arminius himselfe acknowledgeth, de Heterodoxiâ suâ varios rumores omnes jam ecclesi∣as pervasisse, incendium{que} à se suscitatum ipsa Ecclesiae tecta super are dici. Fol. 8. pag. 1. In the mean time, Anno 1608. the States declared their purpose was, to call a Provinciall Synode in October following, and signification hereof being made, the Rectors of particular Congregations, as many as were addicted to Arminius, being admonished to manifest their considerations in their severall Deanaries, that so they might be fairely sent to the Synod that approached. They put this off also. Illi vero ut antea, ita nunc quo{que} singuli consuetis tergiversationibus pariter hoc detrectarunt. The like refusall was afterwards made in the Synod of South-Holland, though they were urged by the Synod to declare themselves (for as for the Provinciall Synod, that was deferred two months longer.) Whereupon the Synod decreed, that they should give up their considerations within a Months space, or be obnoxious to Censure Ecclesiasticall. Hereupon was means made by Utenbogard, for letters from the States unto those Pa∣stors, to send up unto them their considerations sealed, that so they might reserve them to the Provinciall Synod shortly to be held. In these proceedings a man may easily smell Barnavells hand all along. Hereupon came forth at length Arminius his Declaration before the States. In answer whereunto Gomarus riseth up, as there we may read, Fol. 6. pag. 2. And amongst other courses of Arminius, makes relation of this, as how Spretis Synodorum Classium & Prebyteriorum judiciis ac decretis ad supremi Magi∣stratus tribunal prima instantia prosiluisse, ibi{que} querelas at{que} accusationes suas adversus Ecclesia∣rum doctrinam proposuisse, artibus{que} aulicis favorem sibi Ecclesiis verò odium consiliare diligenter studiisse. And hereupon besought the States, that seeing Contentiones gliscerent, Ecclesiae turbarentur, Cives{que} in partes distraherentur, the Nationall Synod which they had promi∣sed might be gathered together with the first; which yet by the practice of Utenbogard and others was still delayed. Hereupon Arminius his Faction grew so bold, as pub∣liquely to Preach against the received Doctrine, as Bertius spared not to declare him∣selfe; but wherein? Mark I pray the Article well, because this Author drawes all to reprobation. Now the Articles whereupon Bertius declared himselfe, to differ from the Doctrine received, were, De justificatione hominis coram Deo, De Praedestinatione, De Gratiâ Dei, & libero arbitrio, De Perseverantiâ fidelium; and upon these very points after∣wards, proceeded the Conference between Arminus and Gomarus before the States. And one Venator spared not publiquely to broach Pelagian and Socinian errours. Where∣upon he was suspended by the Churches of North-Holland. In spite of whom not∣withstanding, he continued his courses of Preaching. Now whereas the Orthodox Pastors in the Deanary of Alomar considering he was lawfully suspended, and withall

a man of impure life, refused to admit him into their company. Hereof com∣plaint was made to the States, and by Utenbogards practice a Mandate obtained from them, that they should admit him. Now when the States considering the present exigent, were easily like to condescend to a Provinciall Synode, the Ar∣minians moved, that the Deputies to be sent thither, should not be appointed there∣unto by the Churches, according to the usuall course, but only by the States, presuming hereby, that either none, but such as favoured their cause should be sent, or at least such as were lesse alienated from their Opinion. fol. 8. p. But though they could not effect this, yet by their practice it came to passe, that the calling, not only of a Provinciall Synode, but of the yearely Synods were hin∣dered. Shortly after this, finding what liberty they had, they met together of their own accord privily, Sine Magistratus Supremi authoritate magno numero. At{que} ibi inter se initâ per subscriptionem nominum confaederatione seu conspiratione, manifestum in Ec∣clesiis Reformatis Schisma instituunt. That year came forth the Remonstrance. Up∣on this by the practice of the Remonstrants, Vorstius is brought in to be a Profes∣sor in the place of Arminius. For as touching the exceptions taken against him, the Remonstrants professed before the States, he had given them good satisfacti∣on, Fol. 10. pag. 2. Then follow their practises for the removing of such Re∣ctors from their Churches, as were their opposites, and obtruding upon the people such as were of their own Party. At Alcmar, Adolphus Venator, a man of impure life and faith, moved the people to Armes against the Magistrate, whereby he was driven to relinquish his place, and others brought in of Venator his Faction. Fol. 12. pag. 1. Hereupon the Elders and Deacons of that place were removed, and two Pastors, the one having formerly executed his Ministry amongst them for fifty years continuance. Grevincovius in like sort, with the Magistracy of Rot∣terdam, to deprive his Colleague there Cornelius Geselius of his Ministry first, and then by their Sergeants to cast him out of the Citty. Utenbogard sends Remonstrants into Utrecht, and amongst others, Jacobum quendam Taurinum hominem turbulentum & saevum. Fol. 12. pag. 2. In Gelderland also the or∣dinary and annuall Synodicall Assemblies were hindred by the practice of U∣tenbogard, like as still they continued withall their art to hinder the calling of a Nationall Synod, so often promised by the States, and so many years deferred. William of Nassau moved both Utenbogard on the one side, and Festus Hommius on the other side, to consider of a course how these stirres might be pacified. To which motion Festus Hommius makes answer, that in case the Remonstrants dif∣fered from the Churches only in five Articles, he could think of a course where∣by some peace might be made in the interim, untill a Nationall Synod were gathered. This is the more observeable, because this Author layeth all the cause of those uproares (as he calls them) upon Reprobation. But he pro∣fesseth they had great cause to suspect the Remonstrants differed from them in greater points of moment. And these are afterwards declared to be these, Fol. 14. pag. 1. De perfectâ Christi pro peccatis Satisfactione, de Justificatione hominis coràm Deo, de Fide Salvificâ, de Peccato Originali, de Certitudine salutis, & de Perfectione hominis in hâc vitâ. And whereas, they desired the Remonstrants would deale clearly and make known what their opinion was in those poynts: Utenbogard having labou∣red to have a hearing before the States alone, There traduceth the actions of his Brethren in demanding the Declaration of their minds hereupon, as if this were to bring in a new kind of Inquisition amongst them, not to be endured. And hereupon obtaines of the States, that no such Declaration should be re∣quired at their hands. And more then that, finding the Deputies of the Synode by their continuall sollicitations with the States (as it well became them in their places) to be most prejudiciall to their proceedings, they brought it so to passe, that like as formerly their Annuall Synods were hindered, so now it was forbidden to the Deputies themselves, thenceforth to take any such stile unto them, or performe any such office as whereabout they were then imployed. And so the Relator proceeds in setting downe their insolent cour∣ses untill at length perceiving, that by the mediation of the King of Great Brittaine, all for the most part, inclined to the convocation of a Nationall Sy∣nod, they fell plainly on, upon these desperate Counsells openly professing that the calling of a Nationall Councell, would prove prejudiciall to the Majesty

and Liberty of the Provinces, manifesting themselves hereby utterly averse from such a course; which yet hath been most in use in the Church of God, and that of an∣cient times, for the pacifying of contentions arising in matter of Religion. I professe, I nothing affect to spend time in such searches and relations, I had rather imploy it another way, but you see I am driven unto it, to represent the unshamefased conditi∣on of this Narration.

4. And whereas he saith, It was accused with open mouth, and challenged of falshood, it is apparent that the Remonstrants would very well have rested contented with a mutu∣all toleration of one another in their severall waies. For when Utenbogard and Festus Hommius were to meet together, and treat upon some faire course of composition, Utenbogard, together with those of his side, professed they knew no other course for setling peace, but my mutually tolerating one the other; Festus Hommius and others with him on the other side, professed they knew no better course then convocation of a Nationall Synode, and in the interim to tolerate one another, provided they would declare themselves to differ from the received doctrine in the Church, in no other points then in the five Articles. But how they carried themselves herein refusing to declare themselves, I have formerly shewed. And farther, in the pur∣suit of this their practice to enjoy toleration, it is farther storied, by what means they procured a Letter from King James to farther them therein, and after that an Edict to that purpose from some of the States. And consider far∣ther, If any amongst us should rise up, and confederate themselves and im∣pugne any five Articles of the Church of England, and accuse us for maintaining erronious doctrine therein, and challenge us for falshood, if they doe it with never so open mouth, shall this be sufficient to justify them and condemne us, if wee doe not come to a tryall with them to dispute the case, though Wee are the Possessours, They the Intruders and Innovators? Wee maintaining no other Doctrine then that which is by Authority established amongst us, and They which impugne the doctrine received, are they not usually judged amongst us, as such who are rather to be censured then disputed with? And withall consider, that this mutua tolerantia, which the Remonstrants so much pressed and were so glad to enjoy, was with greatest instance stood for long after the Conference at the Hague. Lastly, how often was Arminius himselfe questioned and called upon to give satisfaction for his Heterodoxies, and how often did he decline it? When at the first, Motion was made for his surrogation into the place of Iu∣nius beind deceased, then the suspicions of his Heterodox breaking forth, and they of Amsterdam not well likeing to let him goe from them, amongst whom at that time, he exercised his Ministry; and that because they observed his luxuri∣ant and novelizing Wit, which was like to breed dangerous effects in an Univer∣sity: at length upon the great instance both of Utenbogard and Arminius himselfe, way was made for him unto the Chayre, upon condition he should conferre with Gomarus upon some chief heads of Doctrine, and by a round declaration of his mind thereon, remove all suspicion of Heterodoxy, having formerly by a so∣lemne Protestation given his word, that in case he had any singular opinion of his own, he would not spread it. Hereupon he made open profession, that he con∣demned the chiefe Pelagian opinions concerning grace naturall, the strength of Free-will, Originall sinne, the perfection of man in this life, and Predestination, and that he approved all those disputes, which Austin and other Fathers had writ∣ten against them; and that in his judgement the Pelagian errours were rightly refuted by those Fathers, and withall promised, that he would teach nothing that differed from the received Doctrine of the Churches; and hereupon he was admit∣ted to a Professors place in the University. In the beginning whereof he laboured by all means to quench all suspicion of Heterodoxy in himselfe, and maintained the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, De satisfactione Christi, de Fide justificante, de justifi∣catione per fidem, de Perseverantiâ verè fidelium, de Certitudine salutis, de Perfectione hominis in hac vitâ &c. all which he afterwards contradicted, as also did his Followers. This I say, he then at the first maintained publiquely, contrà sententiam suam (which let every man judge, whether it be not as much as to say, against his own Conscience) and Corvinus is alleaged as in a certain Writing of his set forth in Low-Dutch inge∣niously professing as much, Praefat, in Synod. Dordracen, Authoritate Ordinum Fol. 2. p. 1. But after he had been a yeare or two in the place, he begins to unmaske

himselfe, and by his Publique Lectures, and chiefly by his dealing with his Schollers in private, his heterodoxy discovered it selfe. Here upon the deputies from the Churches of South and North Holland are sent unto him, who acquaint him with the rumours that went of him, praying him that if he disliked ought in the doctrine received, he would sincerely declare it unto his Brethren, to the end, either by a friendly Conference, he might receive satisfaction, or the whole businesse might lawfully be put over to the consideration of a Synod. Arminius his answer was, that he never gave any just cause, why such rumour should be spread of him, neither was it wisdome for him to treat with them as with Deputies, that should make relation of the whole matter to a Synod, though as private persons, he refused not to con∣ferre with them, provided that in case they differed, no relation hereof should be made unto a Synod. The Church of Leyden also admonished him, that there might be a Conference between him and his Colleagues, before the Presbytery of that Church. To them he answered he could not yeeld thereto, without leave from the Gurators of the University, and that he perceived not, that any benefit was like to redound unto the Church by such a Conference. At another time Fol. 4. p. 2. being entreated by the Professors and Pastors with great earnestnesse, that if he had ought to say against the doctrine received in their Confession and Catechisme, he would freely and brotherly communicate it unto them, promising their endeavours to give him full satisfaction, or if not so, yet that he and his Colleagues under certain con∣ditions might come to a faire agreement, to live together in peace, and that the recon∣ciliation being made, nothing which passed between them should be divulged. The answer he made, was this, It was no wise part for him to yeeld to their motion, nei∣ther was he bound thereto, the present meeting being not ordained unto any such purpose, fol. 5. p. 2. Gomarus openly tells him, how it became him to declare his opini∣on, ne{que} ejusmodi subterfugiis diutius hâc in re uti, & fol. 6. p. 2. before the States he repre∣sents his continuall practice thereunto, in concealing his Opinion, His words are these, Quibus insuper artibus opiniones suas disseminare; Publicè scilicet ab Ecclesiis rogatum obtestatum{que}, sententiam suam occultare, privatim vero Pastoribus quos in eam pertrahi posse speraret, ac discipu∣lis suis diligentèr eam inculcare; argumenta Nostrorum praecipua quibus astrui doctrina Orthodoxa soleret enervare, Jesuitarum verò aliorum{que} Adversariorum, quibus doctrinam Ecclesiarum Refor∣matarum oppugnant confirmare, Varias de doctrinae receptae Veritate dubitationes discipulorum ani∣mis ingerere, eandem{que} cum doctrinâ heterodoxâ prius, quasi in aequilibrio suspendere, ac deinde prorsus rejicere, nullam hactenus sinceritatis ac consensus in doctrinâ, licet saepius ab Ecclesiis amanter fraterne{que} rogatum Declarationem edere voluisse. Now let any indifferent per∣son compare the carriage of Arminius the Innovator, with the carriage of the Contra-Remonstrants, standing for the doctrine heretofore received, and judge impartially which of them betrayes the greater distrust of the integrity of their Cause.

5. As for the easinesse of defending it, if it be not, or were not so in their opinion, who are here pretended to have declined the sifting of it, What is that to the purpose? Then who are they, who say it may so easily be defended? I never read any hitherto, who doe not acknowledge a great mystery in the divine providence. And from the daies of Anselme unto this present day, it hath ever been accounted (in my observation) a very difficult poynt to accord predestination divine, with the li∣berty of mens wills. But put the case it may easily be defended, as of evident truth by the word of God, yet notwithstanding, if it be found harsh to mens affections, are they likely to admit it with such ease? I should think it ought to be put out of que∣stion, that God hath mercy on whom he will, in bestowing faith and repentance upon them, and thereby curing their naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart, as also that God hardneth whom he will, leaving their infidelity and hardnesse of heart uncured; yet when flesh and bloud riseth up against this doctrine thus, Why then doth God com∣plaine; (to wit, of mans disobedience) for who hath resisted his will? And the Apostle addresseth hereunto no other answer but this, O man who art thou who disputest with God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessell unto honour, ano∣ther unto dishonour? Is flesh and bloud, I pray, apt to rest satisfied with this?

Now as touching the two things I promised to adde, they are these.

1. I pray consider whether in all this, this Author doth not very judiciously pro∣nounce

sentence against himselfe. For you know, your own motion you made unto him, and the promise he made unto you; and I pray consider how answerable here∣unto hath been his performance. The certain Controversies, as touching which he professeth change of Opinion, what are they, but the five Articles so much agitated between the Remonstrants, and the Contra-Remonstrants? Doe you not perceive how he makes choyce only of reprobation to grate upon? Is he not content to lye close as touching foure of them? What is this, but according to his language, the co∣veting of corners? And what willingnesse of abideing the tryall doth this manifest? Yet he pleaseth himselfe in a conceit, of being as free from guile, as David was when he offered himselfe to the Lords tryall, and thereupon advanceth himselfe to the greater liberty of censuring others, such as Beza, and Musculus, and their Fellowes, to∣gether with the Contra-Remonstrants, as too full of that guile, whereof himselfe, by virtue not of his Free-will, but of a grace of God of his shapeing, is voyd. This is an usuall course with those of his spirit, whereof I have had plentifull experience in this very kind. For if you believe them, all the Arminians Geese are Swannes, and all our Swannes are Geese in comparison to them. He hopes you will not think he hates the light, or refuseth to come to the light, (in his phrase) this is the censure he libe∣rally bestowes upon his opposites. For though some of our Divines are willing e∣nough to treat of the five Articles, yet to treat of reprobation, which is a part of one of those, they are not so willing, but this young Master in Israel, out of the pleropho∣rious conceit of his own integrity and sufficiency, is very willing to treat of this of reprobation, though he leaves all the rest alone. Yet I pray make the scales even, What instance can be given, I doe not say of Beza, Musculus, or any one of the Con∣tra-Remonstrants, but of any one of the like condition to himselfe, that being en∣treated by a friend (as this Author was by you) to shew the reasons, why he hath changed his mind from Arminianisme, to the opposite opinions, hath carried him∣selfe, as this Author hath done, to give his reasons only on the part of one of them, and yet passeth his censure so prodigally on others for refusing triall, by the way im∣plying, a glorious ostentation of his own performances to the contrary, as if he had done a notable piece of service, whereas all that he hath performed hereon, by proofe from testimonies of Scripture, are little more then two Leaves, and therein also as it were purposely, declines all those places, wherein the Scripture speaketh direct∣ly of election, predestination, and of that, which in effect, is all one with reprobation. Such places pregnantly speaking hereof, he purposely declines, and yet he calls the places he insists upon, pregnant testimonies; and indeed so they are, but nothing at all to the purpose of predestination, election, or reprobation. Yet I marvaile not he is so well conceited of his atchievements. I remember the Fable of the fly, sitting on a Cart-wheele, in a dry summers day, and saying, See what a dust I make. For, because he hath discharged himself so unworthily with you, he may be bold to conceit, that if he had to deale with Beza, or with any of the Contra-Remonstrants, or of the Synod of Dort, he would make it soon appeare, that Heresy and untruth condemnes it selfe (this is the sweet accommodation he makes of that the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to wit, by their refusing the touch-stone, and his readinesse backed with all sufficiency to come thereto, whereof he hath given so plentifull demonstration in this he hath written un∣to you; as if he had been with some Oracle of late, who had not only revealed unto him, some reasonable motives, and wise carriages of the matter, but inspired him al∣so with some martiall spirit, fit for any encounter, despising his Adversaries, as empty Schollers, and as if their parts were but copper, to his gold. Therefore he may take heart to speak boldly, and shew himselfe in the clear day, when such as Beza make choyce to walk in mistrs, and dwell in silence. Besides his care is very Apostolicall for the peace of the Church, whereas Beza's was not at Mompelgard, nor the Contra-Remonstrants, neither at the Hague Conference, or at the Synod of Dort. For none of these belike, have been so forward to shew themselves unto the World, and upon the stage, for the maintenance of their doctrine (at least in the poynt of reprobation) no not Beza in his Lectures upon the ninth to the Romans. Yet neither this man nor his Oracle hath done ought that I know, but in corners. And in corners I find these spirits exceeding busy; and I have been so happy (for so I account it, although I con∣fesse my time might be farre more profitably bestowed) as to meet with some of their Mysteries, ere I was aware. And I find their Lyons skinnes, doe smell farre more of the Fox then of ehe Lyon.

2. The second is this, Why should their carriage be any prejudice to others, who are as willing to give an account of their faith in these particulars, as any Arminian whatsoever. For my part, I never met with any of them, that I declined, nor I hope never shall. I heartily wish, time might serve me for them all. I have dealt with Armi∣nius his Examen, his Conference with Junius, Corvinus his answer unto Tilenus, I have en∣tred upon Vossius his Pelagian History. I desire I might have time and opportunity, for their Synodalia Dordracena, but most of all with the Jesuits; while I deale with them I learne somewhat, but nothing at all while I am occupied with the Arminians.

3. Let mee adde one thing more: In the Articles of our Church, the seaventeenth is concerning Predestination and Election, not one concerning Reprobation. If any of us, should forbeare to meddle with the doctrine of reprobation in dispute, may we not justly plead, a faire conformity to the wisdome of the Church whereof we are members? And by the way to touch one thing, Might not this be the reason, why this author utterly pretermits the prosecuting his opinion concerning Predestination and election, to wit, least thereby he should fall foule upon the doctrine of our Church, so evidently set downe in that Article concerning the poynt of Predestinati∣on? The Church of Ireland content themselves, with the very forme of that 17^th Article of ours concerning Predestination: Only they premise two Theses; the one whereof is this, God from all eternity, did by his unchangeable Councell ordaine, whatsoever in time should come to passe, yet so, as thereby no violence is offered to the Wills of the reasonable creatures, and neither the liberty, nor the contingency of the second cause is taken away, but establi∣shed rather; The other this, By the same eternall Counsell, God hath Predestinated some unto life, and Reprobated some unto death, of both which there is a certain number, known only unto God, which neither can be increased nor diminished.

Notes

• * 1.1

  2dò.
• * 1.2

  Beza in Col. Mompelg. pag. 375. Vide etiam O∣siander. Brand. Collog. Hagh. pag. 57.
• * 1.3

  Act. Syn. p. 1. pag. 133.
• * 1.4

  Psalm. 139. 23, 24, Ioh. 3. 20, 21.
• * 1.5

  Aug. de Den. Persev. c. 16.
• * 1.6

  The Doctor directs his speech unto S. Nathaniel Rich.
• * 1.7

  Rom. 9. 22.
• * 1.8

  John 8. 47.
• * 1.9

  2 Corinth. 6.
• * 1.10

  2. Tim. 2. 10.