Keimåelia 'ekklåesiastika, The historical and miscellaneous tracts of the Reverend and learned Peter Heylyn, D.D. now collected into one volume ... : and an account of the life of the author, never before published : with an exact table to the whole.

Historia Quinqu-Articularis: OR, A DECLARATION Of the Judgment of the Western-Churches, &c. (Book 1)

CHAP. I. The several Heresies of those who make God to be the Author of Sin, or attribute too much to the Natural freedom of Man's Will in the Works of Piety.

• 1. God affirmed by Florinus to be the Author of sin, the blasphemy encountred by Irenaeus, and the foul consequents thereof.
• 2. Revived in the last Ages by the Liber∣tines, said by the Papists to proceed from the Schools of Calvin, and by the Calvi∣nists to proceed from the Schools of Rome.
• 3. Disguised by the Maniches in another dress, and the necessity thereby imposed on the Wills of men.
• 4. The like by Bardesanes, and the Priscilia∣nists, the dangerous consequents thereof exemplified out of Homer, and the words of S. Augustine.
• 5. The error of the Maniches, touching the servitude of the Will revived by Luther, and continued by the rigid Lutherans.
• 6. As those of Bardesanes and Priscilian, by that of Calvin, touching the Absolute Decree, the dangers which lie hidden un∣der the Decree, and the incompetibleness thereof with Christs coming to Judgment.
• 7. The large expressions of the Ancient Fa∣thers touching the freedom of the Will, a∣bused by Pelagius and his followers.
• 8. The Heresie of Pelagius, in what it did consist, especially as to this particular, and the dangers of it.
• 9. The Pelagian Heresie condemned and re∣called: the temper of S. Augustine touch∣ing the freedom of the Will in spiritual mat∣ters.
• 10. Pelagianism falsly charged on the Mo∣derate Lutherans: How far all parties do agree about the freedom of the Will, and in what they differ.

OF all the Heresies which exercised the Church in the times fore∣going, [unspec I] there never was any more destructive of humane So∣ciety, more contrary to the rule of Faith and Manners, or more repugnant to the Divine Justice and Goodness of Al∣mighty God, than that which makes God to be the Author of sin. A blasphemy first broacht in terms express by Florinus, Blastus, and some other of the City of Rome, about the year 180. encountred presently by that godly Bishop and Martyr S. Irenaeus, who published a Discourse against them, bearing this Inscription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Viz.* 1.1 That God was not the Author of sin. And he gave this Inscription to it (as the story telleth us) because Flo∣rinus not content with those Vulgar Heresies which had been taken up before, would needs break out into blasphemous Phrensies against God himself, in making him the Author of all those sins which lewd men commit. Which Doctrine were it once admitted, not only the first sin of Adam, but all the sins that have been hitherto per∣petrated by his whole Posterity, must be charged on God, and he alone must be ac∣countable for all Murthers, Robberies, Rapes, Adulteries, Insurrections, Treasons, Blas∣phemies, Heresies, Persecutions, or any other Abominations which have been acted in the world since the first Creation. For certainly there can be no reason why every

man may not say, on the committing of any sin, whatsoever it be, as did Lyconides in Plantus, when he defloured old Eudio's Daughter, Deus mihi impulsor fuit, is me ad illam illexit; it was God alone who tempted and provoked them to those wicked actions.

What Arguments the good Father used to cry down this Blasphemy (for a Heresie is a name too milde for so lewd a Doctrine) I cannot gather from my Author, [unspec II] but such they were, so operative and effectual in stopping the current of the mischief, that either Florinus and the rest had no followers at all (as most Hereticks had) or such as never attained to the height of their Masters Impudence. And so that damnable Doctrine (the Doctrine of Devils I may call it) seems to be strangled in the birth, or to be bu∣ried in the same grave with the Authors of it, never revived in more than thirteen hun∣dred years after the death of Irenaeus, when it was against by the Libertines, a late brood of Sectaries, whom each of the two opposite parties are ashamed to own. This taught as did Florinus,* 1.2 in the Primitive times, Quicquid ego, & tu facimus, Deus efficit; nam in nobis est, That whatsoever thing they did, was Gods working in them; and therefore God to be intituled to those wicked actions which themselves committed. The time of their first breaking out affirmed to be about the year 1529. The Foun∣ders of this Sect Loppinus and Quintinus, Flemmings both; and this Prateolus affirms for certain to be the Progency of Calvin, and other leading men of the Protestant Churches. They came (saith he) Eschola nostrae tempestatis Evangelicorum. Bellarmin somewhat more remisly,* 1.3 Omnino probabile est, eos ex Calvianianis promanasse, and makes it only probable that it might be so, but not rightly neither: The Libertines breaking out, as before was said, Anno 1527. when Calvin was of little credit, and the name of Calvinists, or Calvinians not so much as heard of. And on the other side, Paraeus Pro∣fessor of Divinity in the University of Hidelberg, writing some Animadversions on the Cardinals works, assures us that they were both Papists, acquaints us with the place of their Nativity, and the proceedings had against them. Nor was Calvin wanting for his part, to purge himself from such an odious imputation, not only by confuting their Opinions in a set discourse, but making one Franciscus Porquius, a Franciscan Fryer to be a chief stickler in the Cause. Against which I know nothing that can be said, but that the doctrine of the Libertines in this particular, doth hold more cor∣respondence with Calvins principles, than any of the received Positions of the Fryers of S. Francis. But whether it were so or not, I shall make this Inference, That the Doctrine must needs be most impious, which both sides detested, which the Papists laboured so industriously to father on the Schools of Calvin, and the Calvinians no less passionatly to charge on some of our great Masters in the Church of Rome.

But so it is, [unspec III] that though the Impiety was too gross to appear bare fac'd, yet there have been too many both in the elder and these latter times, who entertaining in their hearts the same dreadful madness, did recommend it to the world under a disguise, though they agreed not at all in that Masque or Vizard which was put upon it. Of this sort Manes was the first, by birth of Persia, and Founder of the damnable Sect of the Manicheans, Anno 273. or thereabouts. This Wretch considering how unsuc∣cesfully Florinus had sped before, in making God (who is all, and only good) to be the Author of sin: did first excogitate two Gods, the one good, and the other evil, both of like eternity; ascribing all pious actions to the one, all Sins and Vices to the other; Which ground so laid, he utterly deprived the will of man of that natural li∣berty, of which it is by God invested; and therefore that in man there was no ability of resisting sin, or not submitting unto any of those wicked actions which his lusts and passions offered to him.* 1.4 Condendebant, item, peccatum non esse à libero arbitrio, sed à Daemone, & capropter non posse per liberum arbitrium impediri, as my Author hath it. Nor did they only leave mans will in a disability of hindering or resisting the incursions of sin, but they left it also under an incapability of acting any thing in order to the works of Righteousness, though God might graciously vouchsafe his assisting grace, making no difference in this case, betwixt a living man and a stock or Statua, for so it follows in my Author. Sed & nullam prorsus voluntati tribuetant Actionem, nec quidem adjuvante spirity sancto: quasi nihil interesset inter statuam & voluntatem. In both directly contrary to that divine counsel of S. James, where he adviseth us to lay apart all filthiness and su∣perfluity of naughtiness, and to receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. Chap. 1. ver. 21. That of S. Peter exhorting, or requiring rather, That we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. And finally that golden Aphorism of S. Augustine; si non sit liberum arbitrium, quomodo Deus judicabit mundum? With what

justice saith the Father, can God judg or condemn the world, if the sins of men pro∣ceed not from their own free will, but from some over-ruling power which inforc'd them to it?

Others there were who harbouring in their hearts the said lewd opinions, [unspec IV] and yet not daring to ascribe all their sins and wickednesses unto God himself, imputed the whole blame thereof to the Stars and Destinies, the powerful influence of the one, and the irresistable Decrees of the other, necessitating then to those wicked actions which they so frequently commit. Thus we are told of Bardesanes, Quod fato conver∣sationes hominum ascriberet, That he ascribed all things to the power of Fate.* 1.5 And thus it is affirmed of Priscillianus, Fatalibus Astris homines alligatos, That men were thral∣led unto the Stars, which last S. Augustine doth report of one Colarbus, save that he gave this power and influence to the Planets only, but these if pondered as they ought, differed but little, if at all from the impiety of Florinus before remembred, only it was expressed in a better language, and seemed to savour more of the Phi∣losopher than the other did. For if the Lord had passed such an irresistible Law of Fate, that such and such should be guilty of such foul Transgressions as they com∣monly committed, it was all one as if he was proclaimed for the Author of them: and then why might not every man take unto himself the excuse and plea of Aga∣memnon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It was not I that did it,* 1.6 but the Gods and Destiny. Or if the Lord had given so irresistable a power to the Stars of Heaven, as to inforce men to be wickedly and lewdly given; what differs this from making God the Author of those vitious actions, to which by them we are in∣forced? And then why might not every man cast his sin on God, and say, as did some good fellows in St. Augustines time. Accusandum potius esse Autorem syderum,* 1.7 quam commissorem scelerum. That he who made the Stars was in the fault, not the men that did it.

But this absurdity being as much cryed down by Augustine and other learned Wri∣ters of those elder times, as the impiety of Florinus had been before; [unspec V] were either ut∣terly extinguish'd, or lay concealed for many hundred years together. Amongst the philosophical Heterodoxies of the Roman Schools, that of the Maniches first revived by Martin Luther, who in meer opposition to Erasmus, who had then newly written a Book De Arbitrio libero, published a Discourse, intituled, De Arbitrio servo. In which Discourse he doth not only say, That the freedom ascribed unto the Will is an empty nothing, Titulus, & nomen, sine re, a name of no such thing in Nature: but holds expresly, that man is drawn no otherwise by the grace of God, than Velut inanimale quiddam, No otherwise than as a sensless stock or stone (the Statua of the ancient Maniches) in the great work of his conversion, to a state of Righteousness. And though Luther afterwards conformed his Judgment in this Point, unto that of Melancthon, as appear∣eth by the Augustan Confession, in drawing up whereof he is acknowledged to have had a principal hand; yet was he followed in this first Errour, as in almost all the rest of his extremities, by the rigid Lutherans, headed by Flaccus Illyricus, and his Associats in the City of Magdeburg, at his first separation from the Melancthonian Di∣vines, who remained at Wittenberg, and had embraced more moderate and sober counsels: of which more hereafter.

But Luther shall not go alone, and not take Calvin along with him, [unspec VI] how much so∣ever they might differ in some other Points: Luther revived the Error of the Ma∣niches in denying all freedom to the will, especially in matters which relate to eternal life; and Calvin will revive the Errors of Bardesanes, and Priscillian, in charging all mens wicked actions on the Stars, and Destiny, not positively and in terminis, I must needs say that, but so that he comes close up to them, to Tantamont, ascribing that to the inevitable Decrees of Almighty God, which Bardesanes attributed to the powers of Fate: Priscillian, Clolarbus to the influences of the Stars and Planets: For if God before all Eternity (as they plainly say) did purpose and decree the Fall of our Father Adam, Ʋt sua defectione periret Adam: In the words of Calvin,* 1.8 There was in Adam a necessity of committing sin, because the Lord had so decreed it. If without consideration of the sin of man, he hath by his determinate sentence ordained so many millions of men to everlasting damnation, and that too necessario, and inevitabiliter, as they please to phrase it, he must needs pre-ordain them to sin also: there being (as themselves confess) no way unto the end but by the means. The odious Inferences which are raised out of these Opinions, I forbear to press, and shall add only at the present: That if we grant this Doctrine to be true and Orthodox; we may do well

to put an Index expurgatorius upon the Creed, and quite expunge the Article of Chrins coming to Judgment. For how could God condemn his Creature to un∣quenchable Flames? or put so ill an Office upon Christ our Saviour, as to condemn them by his mouth, in case the sins by them committed were not theirs, but his; or punish the for that himself works in them, unto which rather he decred them be∣fore all Eternity.* 1.9 Nothing more true than that excellent saying of Fulgentius, Deus non est eorum ultor, quorum est Autor. That God doth never punish his own actings in us.

Such were the men, [unspec VII] and such the means, by which the blame of sin was transfer∣red from man, and charged on the account of God, either expresly and in terms, or in the way of necessary consequence and undeniable Illation, by which lost man was totally deprived of all abilities for resisting Satan, or otherwise concurring with Gods grace in his own conversion. Nor wanted there some others in those elder times, who did ascribe so much to mans will, and the powers of Nature, as to make Gods Grace unprofitable, or at least unnecessary in either of the Acts aforesaid. The Fathers generally which lived before the starting of the Pelagian Heresies, declared themselves so largely, if not lavishly also, in the present Point, that the greatest Pa∣trons of Free will in the Church of Rome, were fain sometimes to qualifie their ex∣pressions, and put a milder sence upon them, than the words import. For being to deal with the fatal necessity of the Pagans on the one side, and the impiety of Maniches on the other side; they gave themselves such liberty in advancing the powers of Na∣ture, as might best serve to the refelling of either Adversary; not dreaming then that any Heresie could arise in opposition to the free Grace of God, to the advancing of free will above all degrees of power and possibility. But on the contrary Pe∣lagius, a Britain born, either misguided by the lavishness of their expressions, or otherwise willing to get a Name unto himself by some new Invention, ascribed so much unto the freedom of the will in all Acts of Piety. Ʋt gratiam Dei necessariam non putaret, as Vincentius Lirynensis telleth us of him.

This man associated with Caelestinus and Julianus two of his Companions, [unspec VIII] whom he had either drawn into the same Opinion with him, or found them ready of them∣selves to promote the work, began to spread abroad their Errours about the year 405. Amongst the which those that especially concern this purpose are these two that follow,* 1.10 Viz. 1. Non esse liberum Arbitrium, si Dei indiget auxilio, quoniam in propria voluntate babet unusquis{que} facere aliquid, vel non facere. 2. Victoriam nostram non ex Dei adjutorio esse; sed ex Libero Arbitrio: That is to say, 1. That there is no freedom of the will, if it stand in any need of Gods assistance, because every man hath it in the power of his own will, either to do a thing, or not to do it, as to him seems best. And 2. That our Victory over sin and Satan comes not of any help which we have from God, but our own free will. Add unto this, that which must follow of ne∣cessity from the former Principles. Orationes quas facit Ecclesia pro infidelibus, & aliis peccatoribus ut convertantur, sive pro fidelibus ut perseverent, frustra fieri. That is to say, That the Services of the Church, which are made either for the conversion of the wicked, or the perseverance of the Just, are but labour lost; because (say they) our own free will is able of it self to attain those ends, and therefore it is to no pur∣pose to ask those things at the hands of God, which we may compass of our selves: Quod ad illa omnia sufficere dicant nostri Arbitrii liberam potestatem,* 1.11 & ita non opus esse à Deo petere quae nos ipsi consequi possumus, as my Author hath it; whose words I have laid down at large, that we may see how much the world was carried to the other extream, how much the Truth was lost on both sides, and yet how easie to be found by those who went a middle was in the search thereof.

For looking on these last opinions as they stand in themselves, [unspec IX] we may affirm of them in general, as Augustine doth particularly of the Stoical Fates: Nil aliud agere nisi ut nullus omnino aut rogetur aut colatur Deus. They seem to aim at nothing more than the utter abolition of the Worship and Service of God. But these Pelagian He∣resies did not hold out long, being solemnly condemned in the two Affrican Councils of Cartbage, and Milevis, confuted by St. Augustine with great care and diligence: and finally retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine. So that the Heresie being suppressed, the Catholick Doctrine in that Point became more setled and con∣firmed by the opposition, such freedom being left to the will of man, as was subser∣vient unto grace, co-operating in some measure with those heavenly influences: And so much is confessed by St. Augustine himself, where he asks this question, Quis

nostrum dicit, quod primi hominis peccato perierit Arbitrium de humano genere?* 1.12 Doth any man (saith he) affirm that free will is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam? And thereunto he makes this answer: Libertas quidem periit per peccatum; sed illa quae in Paradiso fuit habendi plenam cum immortalitate justitiam. That is to say, Free∣dom is perished by sin, but it is that freedom only which we had in Paradise, of having per∣fect righteousness with immortality. For otherwise it appears to be this Opinion that man was not meerly passive in all the Acts of Grace which conduced to Glory, ac∣cording to the memorable saying of his (so common in the Mouths of all men) Qui creavit te sine te, non salvabit te sine te: That he who first made us without our help, will not vouchsafe to save us at the last without our concurrence. If any harsher ex∣pressions have escap'd his Pen, (as commonly it hapneth in the heats of a Disputa∣tion) they are to be qualified by this last Rule, and by that before; in which it was affirmed, That God could not with justice judge and condemn the World, if all mens sins proceeded not from their own free will, but from some over-ruling provi∣dence which inforc'd them to it.

After this time we meet with no such Enemies to the Grace of God, [unspec X] no such Ad∣vancers of mans free will and the power of Nature, as might intitle any man to the Crime of Pelagianism. It cannot be denied but that Illyricus and some other of the rigid Lutherans upbraided Melancthon and all the Divines in a manner, both of Lipsique and Wittenberge, with teaching that a man by the powers of Nature may yield obedience to the Word, embrace the Promises, and make no opposition to the workings of the Holy Ghost, as hath been noted by Lyndanus.* 1.13 But then it must be granted, that when their works came to be weighed in the Scale of the Sanctuary, it will be found that they speak only of such a Synergie, or co-operation, as makes men differ from a sensless stock, or liveless statua, in reference to the great work of his own conversion. And thereupon we may resolve that at the last the Church in general concentred upon these Propositions.

1. Man in the state of corruption hath freedom of will in Actions natural and civil.

2. That considered in the same estate he hath free will in matters moral. And,

3. That man hath free will in Actions of Piety, and such as belong unto his sal∣vation; that is to say, Being first prevented by Gods Grace, and having afterwards the assistance, and support thereof: which Propositions being easie and intelligible as they stand by themselves, but are made more difficult and obscure, even to learned men, by interweaving them with many intricate Disputes, touching the correspon∣dence of free will, with Prescience, Providence, and Predestination; Disputes so in∣tricate and perplexed, that Armachanus (as great a Clerk as almost any in his time) travelled no less than twenty years in the search of one of them alone, and yet could not find it. And yet I cannot say, that the consent in those three Propositions before remembred, in which the Church hath generally concentred: since the death of St. Augustine hath met with no dissenting Judgment in these later times. Some men re∣straining all our Actions to so strict a Rule, as to make the will of man determined and tied up in all particulars, even to the taking up of a Rush, or Straw, as in ano∣ther case it was taught by Cartwright the great Bel-weather of the Flock in Queen Elizabeths time, sufficiently derided,* 1.14 or rather gravely reprehended for it by judicious Hooker. And if we meet with any thing which looks that way in the Writings of some Dominican Fryers, who stifly stand to all the rigours of St. Augustine in the con∣troversies of Predestination, Grace, Free-will, &c. against the Jesuits, and Franciscans: it is to be imputed rather to the errour of their Education a stiffness in maintaining their old Opinions, or finally to that Animosity, which commonly the weaker party carrieth against the stronger, than to any clear and evident Authority, which they can pretend to from that Father, or any other ancient Writers of unquestioned cre∣dit; which said, I hope it will be granted without much difficulty, that such a Doctrine of Predestination, as neither directly nor indirectly makes God to be the Au∣thor of sin, nor attributes so much to the will of man, in depraved Nature, as to exclude the influences of Gods Heavenly Grace; is more to be embraced than any o∣ther, which dasheth against either of the said extreams: And that being granted or supposed, I shall first lay down the Judgment of the differing parties, in the Ar∣ticle of Predestination, and the points depending thereupon: and afterwards declare to which of the said differing Parties, the Doctrine of the Church of England seemeth most inclinable.

CHAP. II. Of the Debates amongst the Divines in the Council of Trent, touch∣ing Predestinations, and Original Sin.

• 1. The Articles drawn from the Writings of the Zuinglians, touching Predestination and Reprobation.
• 2. The Doctrine of Predestination, accord∣ing to the Dominican way.
• 3. As also the old Franciscans, with Rea∣sons for their own, and against the other.
• 4. The Historians Judgment interposed be∣tween the Parties.
• 5. The middle way of Catarinus to com∣pose the differences.
• 6. The newness of St. Augustines Opinion, and the dislike thereof by the most learned Men in the Ages following.
• 7. The perplexities amongst the Theologues, touching the absoluteness of the Decrees.
• 8. The Judgment of the said Divines, touch∣ing the possibility of falling from Grace.
• 9. The Debates about the nature and transmit∣ting of Original Sin.
• 10. The Doctrine of the Council in it.

IN such conditions stood Affairs in reference to the Doctrines of Predestination Grace, [unspec I] Free will, &c. at the first sitting down of the Council of Trent, in which, those Points became the subject of many sad and serious Debates amongst the Pre∣lates and Divines, then and there Assembled, which being so necessary to the un∣derstanding of the Questions which we have before us: I shall not think my time ill spent in laying down the sum and abstract of the same, as I find it digested to my hand by Padre Paulo, the diligent and laborious Author of the Tridentine History; only I shall invert his Method, by giving precedency to the Disputes concerning Prede∣stination, before the Debates and Agitations, which hapned in canvasing the Articles touching the Freedom of mans Will, though those about Free-will do first occur in the course and method of that Council: It being determined by the Council, as that Author hath it, to draw some Articles from the Writings of the Protestants, concern∣ing the Doctrine of Predestination: It appeared that in the Book of Luther, in the Augustan Confession, and in the Aplogies and Colloquies, there was nothing found that deserved Censure; But much they found among the Writings of the Zuinglians, out of which they drew these following Articles; Viz.

• 1. For Predestination and Reprobation; that man doth nothing, but all is in the will of God.
• 2. The Predestinated cannot be condemned, nor the Reprobate saved.
• 3. The Elect and Predestinated only are truly justified.
• 4. The Justified are bound by Faith to believe, they are in the number of the Predestinated.
• 5. The Justified cannot fall from Grace.
• 6. Those that are called, and are not in the number of the predestinated, do never receive Grace.
• 7. The Justified is bound to believe by Faith, that he ought to persevere in Justice until the end.
• 8. The Justified is bound to believe for certain, that in case he fall from Grace, he shall receive it again.

In the examining the first of these Articles, [unspec II] the Opinions were diverse. The most esteemed Divines amongst them thought it to be Catholick, the contrary Heretical, be∣cause the good School-Writers (St. Thomas, Scotus, and the rest) do so think, that is, that God before the Creation, out of the Mass of mankind, hath elected by his only and meer mercy, some for Glory, for whom he hath prepared effectually the means to obtain it, which is called, to predestinate. That their number is certain and determined, neither can there any be added. The others not predestinated can∣not complain, for that God hath prepared for them sufficient assistance for this, though indeed none but the Elect shall be saved. For the most principal reason they alledged, that S. Paul to the Romans having made Jacob a pattern of the predestina∣ted, and Eau of the Reprobate, he produceth the Decree of God pronounced be∣fore they were born, not for their Works, but for his own good pleasure. To this

they joyned the example of the same Apostle: That as the Potter of the same lump of Clay, maketh one Vessel to honour, another to dishonour; so God of the same Mass of men, chooseth and leaveth whom he listeth: for proof whereof S Paul bringeth the place where God saith to Moses, I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy, and I will shew pity on whom I will shew pity. And the same Apostle concludeth: It is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God who sheweth mercy; adding after, that God sheweth mercy on whom he will, and hardneth whom he will. They said further, That for this cause the Council of the Divine Predestination and Reprobation is called by the same Apostle, the height and depth of Wisdom unsearchable and incomprehensible. They added places of the other Epistles, where he saith, We have nothing but what we have received from God, that we are not able of our selves, so much as to think well: and where, in giving the cause, why some have revolted from the Faith, and some stand firm, he said, it was because the Foundation of God standeth sure, and hath this seal; the Lord knoweth who are his. They added divers passages of the Gospel of S. John, and in∣finite Anthorities of S. Augustine, because the Saint wrote nothing in his old Age but in favour of this Doctrine.

But some others though of Iess esteem, opposed this opinion, calling it hard, [unspec III] cruel inhumane, horrible, impious, and that it shewed partiality in God, if, without any motive cause, he elected one, and rejected another; and unjust if he damned men for his own will, and not for their faults, and had created so great a multitude to condemn it. They said, it destroyed Free-will, because the Elect cannot finally do evil, nor the Reprobate good: that it casteth men into a gulph of desperation, doubting that they be Reprobates: That it giveth occasion to the wicked of bad thoughts, not caring for Pennance, but thinking if they be elected, they shall not perish; if Reprobates, it is in vain to do well, because it will not help them. They confessed that not only works are not the cause of Gods election, because that is before them, and eternal; but that neither Works foreseen can move God to Predestinate, who is willing for his in∣finite mercy, that all should be saved, to this end prepareth sufficient assistance for all, which every man having Free-will receiveth or refuseth as pleaseth him: and God in his eternity foreseeth those who will receive his help and use it to good, and those who will refuse; and rejecteth these, electeth and predestinateth those: They added, That otherwise there was no cause why God in the Scriptures should complain of sin∣ners, nor why he should exhort all to repentance and conversion, if they have not suf∣ficient means to get them: that the sufficient assistance invented by the others, is in∣sufficient, because in their opinion it never had, nor shall have any effect.

The first Opinion as it is mystical and hidden, keeping the mind humble, [unspec IV] and re∣lying on God, without any confidence in it self, knowing the deformity of sin, and the excellency of Divine Grace; so this second was plausible and popular, cherishing humane presumption, and making a great shew; and it pleased more the preaching Fryers than the understanding Divines. And the Council thought it probable, as con∣sonant to politick Reason: It was maintained by the Bishop of Bitonto, and the Bishop of Salpi shewed himself very partial. The Defenders of this, using humane Reasons, prevailed against the others, but coming to the testimonies of Scripture, they were ma∣nifestly overcome.

Calarinus, holding the same Opinion, to resolve the places of Scripture, [unspec V] which troubled them all, invented a middle way; That God of his goodness had elected some few whom he will save absolutely, to whom he hath prepared most potent, effectual, and infallible means; the rest he desireth for his part they should be saved; and to that end hath promised sufficient means for all, leaving it to their choice to accept them and be saved, or refuse them and be damned. Amongst these there are some who re∣ceive them and are saved, though they be not of the number of the Elect; of which kind there are very many. Other refusing to co-operate with God, who wisheth their salvation, are damned. The cause why the first are predestinated, is only the will of God: why the others are saved, is the acceptation, good use, and co-operation with the Divine assistance, foreseen by God: why the last are reprobated, is the fore∣seeing of their perverse will, in refusing or abusing it. That S. John, S. Paul, and all the places of Scripture alledged by the other part, where all is given to God, and which do shew infallibility, are understood only of the first, who are particularly priviledged; and in other, for whom the common way is left, the admonitions, exhortations, and general assistances are verified, unto which, he that will give ear and follow them, is saved; and he that will not, perisheth by his own fault. Of these few who are priviledged

above the common condition, the number is determinate and certain with God, but not of those who are saved by the common way, depend on humane liberty, but only in regard of the fore-knowledge of the works of every one. Catarinus said, He won∣dred at the stupidity of those, who say, the number is certain and determined, and yet they add that others may be saved; which is as much as to say, that the number is certain, and yet it may be enlarged: And likewise of those who say, That the Repro∣bates have sufficient assistance for salvation, though it be necessary for him that is saved to have a greater, which is to say, a sufficient, unsufficient.

He added, [unspec VI] that S. Augustins Opinion was not heard of before his time, and himself confesseth it cannot be found in the works of any, who wrote before him; neither did himself always think it true, but ascribed the cause of Gods will to merits; saying, God taketh compassion on, and hardneth whom he listeth. But that will of God can∣not be unjust, because it is caused by most secret merits; and that there is diversity of sinners: some who though they be justified, deserve justification. But after the heat of Disputation against the Pelagians transported him to think, and speak the contrary; yet when his opinion was heard, all the Catholicks were scandalized, as S. Prosper wrote to him, and Genadius of Marselles, fifty years after in his judgment which he maketh of the famous Writers, said, That it hapned to him according to the words of Solomon: That in much speaking one cannot avoid sin; and that by his fault exagitated by his Enemies, the question was not then risen, which might afterwards bring forth He∣resie, whereby the good Father did intimate his fear of that which now appeareth; that is, that by that opposition some Sect and Division might arise.

The censure of the second Article was diverse, according to the three related Opi∣nions. Catarinus thought the first part true, in regard of the efficacy of the Divine Will towards those who were particularly favoured: But the second false, concerning the sufficiency of Gods assistance unto all, and mans liberty in co-operating. Others ascribing the cause of Predestination in all to humane consent, condemned the whole Article in both parts. But those that adhered unto S. Augustine, and the common opinion of the Theologans, did distinguish it, and said, it was true in a compound sense, but damnable in a divided: a subtilty which confounded the minds of the Pre∣lates, and his own, though he did exemplifie it by saying, he that moveth cannot stand still, it is true in a compound sense, but is understood, while he moveth: but in a di∣vided sonse it is false, that is, in another time. Yet it was not well understood, be∣cause applying it to his purpose: It cannot be said that a man predestinated can be damned, in a time when he is not predestinated, seeing he is always so; and gene∣rally the divided sense hath no place, where the accident is inseparable from the subject. Therefore others thought to declare it better, saying, that God governeth and moveth every thing according to its proper nature, which in contingent things is free, and such, as that the act may consist together with the power to the opposite; so that with the act of predestination, the power to reprobation and damnation doth stand. But this was worse understood than the first.

The other Articles were consured with admirable concord. [unspec VIII] Concerning the third and sixth, they said, it hath always been an opinion in the Church, that many re∣ceive divine Grace, and keep it for a time, who afterwards do lose it, and in time are damned. Then was alledged the example of Saul, Solomon, and Judas, one of the twelve; a case more evident than all, by these words of Christ to the Father: I have kept in thy name all that thou hast given me, of which not one hath perished, but the son of Per∣dition. To these they added Nicholas, one of the seven Deacons, and others, first com∣mended in the Scriptures, and then blamed; and for a conclusion of all, the Fall of Luther.

Against the sixth, [unspec IX] they particularly considered, that Vocation would become impi∣ous derision; when those that are called, and nothing is wanting on their side, are not admitted: that the Sacraments would not be effectual for them; all which things are absurd. But for censure, first, the Authority of the Prophet was brought directly contrary in terms, where God saith, That if the Just shall abandon justice, and commit iniquity, I will not remember his works. The example of David was added, who com∣mitted Murther and Adultery; of Magdalen and S. Peter, who denied Christ: They derided the folly of the Zuinglians, for saying, the Just cannot fall from Grace, and yet sinneth in every work. The two last were uniformly condemned of temerity, with exception of those unto whom God hath given a special Revelation, as to Moses and the Disciples, to whom it was revealed, that they were written in the Book of Heaven.

Now because the Doctrine of Predestination doth naturally presuppose a Curse from which man was to be delivered: [unspec IX] * 1.15 It will not be amiss to lay down the Judgment of that Council in the Article of Original sin (which rendred man obnoxious to the dreadful curse) together with the preparatory Debates amongst the School-men and Divines which were there Assembled; touching the nature, and transmitting of it from Adam unto his Posterity, and from one man to another. Concerning which it was declared by Catarinus, That as God made a Covenant with Abraham, and all his Posterity, when he made him Father of the faithful: So when he gave Original Righ∣teousness to Adam, and all man-kind, he made him seal an Obligation in the name of all, to keept it for himself and them, observing the Commandment: which because he transgressed, he lost it, as well for others as himself, and incurred the punishment also for them; the which, as they are derived in every one, and to him as the cause to others, by vertue of the Covenant: so that the actual sin of Adam is actual sin in him, and imputed to others is Original; for proof whereof, he grounded himself upon this especially, that a true and proper sin must needs be a voluntary act, and nothing can be voluntary but that transgression of Adam imputed unto all. And Paul, saying, that all have sinned in Adam, it must b e understood that they have all committed the same sin with him; he alledged for example, that S. Paul to the Hebrews affirmeth that Levi paid Tyth to Melchisedeck; when he paid in his great Grandfather Abraham; by which reason it must be said that the Posterity violated the Commandments of God when Adam did it; and that they were sinners in him, as in him they received Righteousness.

Which Application as it was more intelligible to the Prelates Assembled together in the Council, than any of the Crabbed Intricacies, [unspec X] and perplexities of the rest of the School-men, irreconcilable in a manner amongst themselves: so did it quicken them to the dispatch of their Canons, or Anathamatisms (which they had the Notions in their heads) against all such as had taught otherwise of Original sin,* 1.16 than was allowed of and maintained in the Church of Rome, but more particularly against him. 1. That confesseth not, that Adam by transgressing hath lost Sanctity and Justice, incurred the wrath of God, Death, and Thraldom to the Devil, and is infected in Soul and Body. 2. Against him that averreth that Adam by sinning hath hurt himself only, or hath de∣rived into his Posterity the death only of the Body, and not sin, the death of the Soul. 3. Against him that affirmeth the sin, which is one in the beginning, and proper to every one (committed by Generation, not imitation) can be abolished by any other remedy than the death of Christ) is applied as well to Children, as to those of riper years, by the Sacrament of Baptism ministred in the Form and Rite of the Church.

CHAP. III. The like Debates about Free-will, with the Conclusions of the Council, in the Five Controverted Points.

• 1. The Articles against the Freedom of the Will, extracted out of Luer's Writings.
• 2. The exclamation of the Divines against Luer's Doctrine in the Point, and the ab∣surdities thereof.
• 3. The several Judgments of Marinarus, Ca∣tarinus, and Andreas Vega.
• 4. The different Judgment of the Domini∣cans and Francisans, whether it lay in mans power to believe, or not to believe; and whether the Freedom of the Will were lost in Adam.
• 5. As also of the Point of the co-operation of mans Will with the Grace of God.
• 6. The opinion of Fryer Catanca, in the point of irresistibility.
• 7. Faintly maintained by Soto a Dominican Fryer, and more cordially approved by o∣thers, but in time rejected.
• 8. The great care taken by the Legates in having the Articles so framed, as to please all parties.
• 9. The Doctrine of the Council in the Five controverted Points.
• 10. A Transition from the Council of Trent, to the Protestant and Reformed Churches.

THese Differences and Debates concerning Predestination, [unspec I] the possibility of falling away from the Faith of Christ, and the nature of Original sin: being thus passed over; I shall look back on those Debates which were had amongst the Fathers and Di∣vines in the Council of Trent, about the nature of Free-will, and the power thereof. In order whereunto these Articles were collected out of the Writings of the Lutherans, to be discussed and censured as they found cause for it. Now the Articles were these that follow, viz.

• 1. God is the total cause of our works good and evil, and the Adultry of David, the cruelty of Manlius, and the Treason of Judas, are the works of God as well as the Vocation of Saul.
• 2. No man hath power to think well or ill, but all cometh from absolute necessity, and in us is no Free-will, and to affirm it is a meer fiction.
• 3. Free-will since the sin of Adam is lost, and a thing only titular, and when one doth what is in his power, he sinneth mortally: yea, it is a thing fained, and a Title without reality.
• 4. Free-will is only in doing ill, and hath no power to do good.
• 5. Free-will moved by God, doth by no means co-operate, and followeth as an In∣strument without life, or an unreasonable Creature.
• 6. That God correcteth those only whom he will, though they will not spurn against it.

Upon the first Article they spake rather in a Tragical manner than Theological; that the Lutheran Doctrine was a frantick wisdom: [unspec II] that mans Will as they make it, is prodigious; that those words, a thing of Title only, a Title without reality, are mon∣struous: That the Opinion is impious and blasphemous against God; that the Church hath condemned it against the Maniches, Priscilianists, and lastly against Aballardus, and Wickliff; and that it was folly against common sense, every one proving in him∣self his own Liberty; that it deserveth not confutation, but as Aristotle saith, Chastise∣ment and Experimental proof, that Luther's Scholars perceived the folly, and to mo∣derate the Absurdity, said after, that a man had liberty in External, Political, and Oeconomical actions, and in matters of Civil Justice, that, which every one but a Fool knoweth, to proceed from Councils and Election, but denied Liberty in matter of Divine Justice only.

Marinarus said, [unspec III] That as it is foolish to say no huane action is in our power, so it is no less absurd to say, that every one is: every one finding by experience that he hath not his affections in his power; that this is the sense of the Schools, which say, that we are not free in the first motions: which freedom because the Saints have, it is cer∣tain that some freedom is in them which is not in us. Catarinus according to his opi∣nion, said, That without Gods special assistance, a man cannot do a moral good; said, there was no liberty in this, and therefore that the Fourth Article was not so easily to be condemned. Vega, after he had spoken with such Ambiguity, that he un∣derstood not himself, concluded that between the Divines and the Protestants, there was no difference in Opinion. for they concluding now that there is liberty in Phi∣losophical Justice, and not in Supernatural, in External works of the Law, not in external and spiritual; that is to say, precisely with the Church, that one cannot do spiritual works belonging to Religion without the assistance of God. And though he said, all endeavour was to be used for composition, yet he was not gratefully heard: it seeming in some sort a prejudice, that any of the differences might be reconciled; and they were wont to say that this is a point of the Colloquies, a word abhorred, as if by that, the Laity had usurped the Authority which is proper to Councils.

A great Disputation arose upon them, [unspec IV] Whether it be in mans power to believe, or not to believe? The Franciscans following Sotus, did deny it: saying, That as Know∣ledge doth necessarily follow Demonstrations, so Faith doth arise necessarily from persuasions; and that it is in the understanding, which is a natural Agent, and is na∣turally moved by the Object. They alledged Experience, that no man can believe what he will, but what seemeth true, adding that no man would feel any displeasure, if he could believe he had it not. The Dominicans said, that nothing is more in the power of the Will, than to believe, and by the determination and resolution of the Will only, one may believe the number of the Stars is even.

Upon the I hird Article, Whether Free-will be lost by sin, very many Authorities of S. Augustine being alledged, which expresly say it.* 1.17 Soto did invent, because ke knew

no other means to avoid them, that true Liberty is equivocal; for either it is derived from the Noun Libertas, Freedom, or from the Verb Liberare, to set Free: that in the first sense it is opposed to Necessity, in the second to Servitude; and that when S. Au∣gustine said, That Free-will was lost, he would infer nothing else, but that it is made slave to Sin and Satan. This difference could not be understood, because a servant is not free, for that he cannot do his Will, but is compelled to follow his Masters: And by this opinion Luther could not be blamed for entituling a Book of SERVILE WILL; many thought the Fourth Article absurd, saying, That Liberty is understood to be a power to both the contraries; therefore that it could not be said, to be a Liberty to Evil, if it were not also to Good: But they were made to acknowledge their Error, when they were told that the Saints and blessed Angels in Heaven are free to do good, and therefore that it was no inconvenience that some should be free only to do Evil.

In the examining the fifth and sixth Articles of the consent which Free-will giveth to Divine Inspiration, or preventing Grace, [unspec V] the Franciscans and Dominicans were of divers Opinions: The Franciscans contended that the Will being able to prepare it self, hath Liberty much more to accept or refuse the divine Prevention when God giveth assistance, before it useth the strength of Nature. The Dominicans denied that the Works preceding the Vocation, are truly preparatoy, and ever gave the first place to God. Notwithstanding there was a contention between the Dominicans themselves. For Soto defended, that although a man cannot obtain Grace without the special pre∣venting assistance of God, yet the Will may ever some way resist and refuse it; and when it doth receive it, it is because it giveth assent, and doth will so: and if our assent were not required, there would be no cause why all should not be converted. For ac∣cording to the Apocalyps, God standeth always at the Gate and knocketh: And it is a say∣ing of the Fathers, now made common, That God giveth Grace to every one that will have it; and the scripture doth always require this consent in us, and to say otherwise were to take away the Liberty of the Will, and to say that God useth violence.

Fryer Aloisius Catanca said to the contrary, [unspec VI] That God worketh two sorts of pre∣venting Grace in the mind, according to the Doctrine of S. Thomas, the one sufficient, the other effectual: To the first, the Will may consent or resist, but not to the second, because it implieth contradiction, to say, that Efficacy can be resisted; for proof, he alledged places of S. John, and very clear Expositions of S. Augustine: He answereth that it ariseth hence, that all are not converted, because all are not effectually prevented. That the fear of overthrowing Free-will is removed by S. Thomas, the things are vio∣lently moved by a contrary Cause, but never by their own: and God being the cause of the WIll, to say it is moved by God, is to say, it is moved by it self. And he con∣demned, yea, mocked the Lutherans manner of speech; that the Will followeth as a dead and unreasonable Creature: for being reasonable by Nature, moved by its own Cause, which is God, it is moved as reasonable, and followeth a reasonable. And likewise that God consenteth, though men will not, and spurn at him: For it is a contradiction that the Effect should spurn against the Cause. That it may happen that god may effectually convert one, that before hath spurned before sufficient pre∣vention, but afterwards cannot, because a gentleness in the Will moved, must needs follow the Efficacy of the Divine Motion.

Soto said, That every Divine Inspiration was only sufficient, and that, [unspec VII] that where∣unto Free-will hath assented, obtaineth efficiency by that consent, without which it is ineffectual; not by the defect of it self, but of the man. The Opinion he defended very fearfully, because it was opposed, that the distinction of the Reprobate from the Elect, would proceed from man, contrary to the perpetual Catholick sense; that the Vessels of Mercy are distinguished by Grace from the Vessels of Wrath. That Gods Election would be for Works foreseen and not for his good Pleasure. That the Do∣ctrine of the Fathers in the Affrican and French Councils against the Pelagians, hath pub∣lished, that God maketh them to will, which is to say, that he maketh them consent; therefore giving consent to us, it ought to be attributed to the Divine Power; or else he that is saved would be no more obliged to God than he that is damned, if God should use them both alike.

But notwithstanding all these Reasons, the contrary Opinion had the general ap∣plause, though many confessed that the Reasons of Catanca were not resolved and were displeased that Soto did not speak freely, but said, that the Will consenteth in a certain manner; so that it may in a certain manner resist: as though there were a certain man∣ner of mean between this Affirmation and Negation. The free speech of Catanca, and

the other Dominicans did trouble them also, who knew not how to distinguish the O∣pinion which attributeth Justification by consent from the Pelagian; and therefore they counselled to take heed of leaping beyond the Mark, by too great a desire to condemn Luther: that Objection being esteemed above all, that by this means the Divine Election or Predestination would be for Works foreseen, which no Divine did admit.

The Ground thus laid, [unspec VIII] we shall proceed unto a Declaration of the Judgment of the Church of Rome, in the five Articles disputed afterwards with such heat, betwixt the Remonstrants, and the Contra Remonstrants in the Belgick Church, so far forth as it may be gathered from the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and such preparatory Discourses as smoothed the way to the Conclusions which were made therein. In order whereunto, it was advised by Marcus Viguerius, Bishop of Sini∣gali, to separate the Catholick Doctrine from the contrary, and to make two De∣crees; in the one to make a continued Declaration and Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Churches,* 1.18 and in the other to condemn and Anathematize the contrary. But in the drawing up of the Decrees, there appeared a greater difficulty, than they were aware of, in conquering whereof the Cardinal of Sancta Cruz (one of the Presidents of the Council) took incredible pains, avoiding as much as was possible to insert any thing controverted amongst the School-men; and so handling those that could not be omitted, as that every one might be contented. And to this end he observed in every Congregation, what was disliked by any, and took it away, or corrected it as he was advised; and he spake not only in the Congregations, but with every one in particular, was informed of all the doubts, and required their Opinions. He diver∣sifyed the matter with divers Orders, changed sometimes one part, sometimes ano∣ther, until he had reduced them unto the Order in which they now are, which ge∣nerally pleased, and was approved by all. Nor did the Decrees thus drawn and setled, give less content at Rome than they did at Trent, for being transmitted to the Pope, and by him committed to the Fryers, and other learned men of the Court, to be consulted of amongst them, they found an universal approbation, because every one might understand them in his own sense: And being so approved of were sent back to Trent, and there solemnly passed in a full Congregation, on the thirteenth of January, 1547. according to the account of the Church of Rome. And yet it is to be observed, that though the Decrees were so drawn up, as to please all parties, espe∣cially as to the giving of no distast to the Dominican Fryers and theis Adherents; yet it is casie to be seen, that they incline more favourably to the Franciscans, whose cause the Jesuits have since wedded, and speak more literally and Grammatically to the sence of that party, than they to do the others: which said, I shall present the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, as to these controverted Points in this Order following.

1. Of Divine Predestination.

All Mankind having lost its primitive integrity by the sin of Adam, [unspec IX] they became thereby the Sons of wrath,* 1.19 and so much captivated under the command of Satan; that neither the Gentiles by the power of Nature; nor the Jews by the Letter of the Law of Moses were able to free themselves from that grievous Servitude. In which respect it pleased Almighty God the Father of all Mercies to promise first,* 1.20 and after∣wards actually to send his only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the World, not only to redeem the Jews who were under the Law, but that the Gentiles also might embrace the righteousness which is by Faith, and all together might receive the Adoption of Sons. To which end he prepared sufficient assistance for all,* 1.21 which every man having free will might receive, or refuse, as it pleased himself; and foreseeing from before all Eternity who would receive his help, and use it to God: and on the other side, who would refuse to make use thereof; he predestinated and elected those of the first sort to Eternal Life; and rejected the others.

2. Of the Merit and Effect of the Death of Christ.

Him God proposed to be a propitiation for our sins by his Death and Passion, and nor for our sins only,* 1.22 but for the sins of the whole World. But so that though Christ died for all men, yet all do not receive the benefit of his death and sufferings, but only they to whom the merit of his Passion is communicated in their new birth or

Regeneration, by which the grace whereby they are justified, or made just, is conferred upon them.

3. Of Mans Conversion unto God.

The Grace of God is not given no man by Jesus Christ, to no other end,* 1.23 but that thereby he might the more easily divert himself in the ways of Godliness, and conse∣quently merit and obtain eternal life, which otherwise he might do without any such Grace, by his own free will, though with more difficulty and trouble. And therefore if any man shall say, that without the preventing Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and his heavenly Influences, a man is able to even hope, love, or repent, as he ought to do, that so he may be justified in the sight of God: let him be Anathema.

4. Of the manner of Conversion.

The Freedom of the Will is not so utterly lost in man,* 1.24 though it be diminished and impaired, as to be accounted nothing but an empty Name, or the name of no such thing existing in Nature: in that the Will of man moved and stirred up by the grace of God, retains a power of co-operating with the heavenly Grace, by which he doth prepare and dispose himself for the obtaining of the Justification, which is given unto him.* 1.25 And therefore if any one shall say that a man cannot resist this grace though he would, or that he is meerly passive, not acting any thing, but as a stock or sensless stone, in his own Conversion, let him be also held accurst. And so are they who have presumed to affirm and teach, that it is not in the power of man to do evil, but as well bad as good works are done not only by Gods permission, but by his proper working: so that as well the Treason of Judas, as the Calling of Paul, is to be reckoned for the work of Almighty God.

5. Of the certainty or uncertainty of Perseverance.

No man is so far to presume on the secret Mystery of Predestination,* 1.26 as to account himself for certain to be within the number of the Elect; as if he were assured of this, that being justified, he could neither sin no more, nor were sure of Repentance if he did. And therefore no man is to flatter himself with any such certainty of per∣severance, though all men ought to place a constant and firm hope (for the ob∣taining of the same) in the help of God.* 1.27 They which by sin have fallen away from the grace received, may recover their lost Justification, if being stirred up from above, they endeavour the recovery of it by sincere Repentance,* 1.28 or by the Sacrament of Pennance, as the words there are; And finally the grace of Justification (or the grace by which a man is justified) is not only lost by infidelity, by which the Faith it self doth suffer Shipwrack, but even by every mortal sin, though Faith be not lost also at the same time with it.

Such is the Doctrine of this Council in the Points disputed, [unspec X] extracted fainfully out of the Canons and Decrees thereof: one only clause being added to the Article of Predestination, agreeable to the Opinion in the Conferences and Debates about it, which prevailed most upon the Prelates and all others who were interessed and in∣trusted in drawing up the Products and Conclusions of it, which how far it agreeth or disagreeth with, or from hat which is maintained by the opposite Parties in the Reformed and Protestant Churches, we are next to see.

CHAP. IV. The Judgment of the Lutherans and Calvinians in these Five Points, with some Objections made against the Conclusions of the Council of Dort.

• 1. No difference in the Five Points betwixt the Lutherans and the Church of Rome, as is acknowledged by the Papists themselves.
• 1. The Judgement of the Lutheran Churches in the said five Points, delivered in the fa∣mous Confession of Ausperge.
• 3. The distribution of the Quarrel betwixt the Franciscans, Melancthonians, and Arminians, on the one side, the Domini∣cans, Rigid Lutherans, and Sublapsa∣rian Calvinists on the other; the middle way of Catarinus paralleled by that of Bishop Overal.
• 4. The Doctrine of Predestination as laid down by Calvin, of what ill Consequence in it self; and how odious to the Lutheran Doctors.
• 5. Opposed by Sebastian Castellio in Ge∣neva it self, but propagated in most Churches of Calvins Plat-form, and af∣terwards polished by Perkins, a Divine of England, and in him censured and confuted by Jacob Van Harmine, a Belgick Wri∣ter.
• 6. A brief view of the Doctrine of the Sub∣lapsarians, and the odious Consequences of it.
• 7. The Judgment of the Sublapsarians in the said Five Points, collected and pre∣sented at the Conference at the Hauge, Anno 1610.
• 8. The Doctrien of the Synodists in the said Points.
• 9. Affirmed to be repugnant to the holy Scri∣pture, as also to the Purity, Mercy, Justice, and Sincerity of Almighty God.
• 10. And the subversion of the Ministry, and all Acts of Piety, illustrated by the Ex∣ample of Tiberius Caesar, and the Lant∣grave of Thurin.

SUCH being the Doctrines of this Council in the Points disputed; [unspec I] we need not not take much pains in looking after the Judgment of the Lutheran Chruches; which comes so near to that of the Church of Rome, as to be reckoned for the same. For in the History of the Council,* 1.29 it is said expresly, as before is noted, that in the Books of Luther, in the Augustane Confession, and in Aplogies and Colloquies, there was nothing found (as to the Doctrine of Predestination) which deserved to be censured. And therefore they were sain to have recourse unto the Writings of the Zuinglian party, (amongst which, Calvin and his followers were to be accounted) to find out matter to proceed upon in their Fulminations: And in particular it is said by Andreas Vega, one of the stiffest and most learned men amongst the whole pack of the Franciscans,* 1.30 when the Points about Free will were in agitation, that be∣tween themselves and the Protestants there was no difference of Opinion, as to that parti∣cular. How near they came to one another in the other Points, may easily be found in the Debates and Conferences before laid down, compared with the Judgment of the Lutheran Doctors, not only in their private Writings, but their publick Colloquies. But then we are to understand, that this Agreement of the Lutheran Doctors expressed in their private Writings and their publick Colloquies, and especially the solemn Con∣fession at Ausperge, relates to that interpretation of the Decrees and Canons of the Tridentine Council, which is made by the Jesuits and Franciscans, and not unto the Gloss or Exposition which is made thereof by the Preaching and Dominican Fryers.

But not to leave so great a matter to a Logical Inference, [unspec II] I shall lay down the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches in the said Five Points, extracted faithfully out of the Augustan Confession, with the Addition of one Clause only to the first Article (the Makers of the Confession declining purposely the Point of Predestination) out of the Writings of Melancthon, and other learned men of the same persuasion. Now the Doctrine of the said Churches so delivered is this that followeth, Viz.

1. Of Divine Predestinction.

After the miserable fall of Adam,* 1.31 all men which were to be begotten, according

to the common course of Nature, were involved in the guilt of Original sin, by which they are obnoxious to the wrath of God, and everlasting damnation: In which E∣state they had remained, but that God, beholding all mankind in this wretched con∣dition, was pleased to make a general conditional Decree of Predestination,* 1.32 under the condition of Faith and perseverance; and a special absolute Decree of electing those to life, whom he foresaw would believe, and persevere under the means and aids of Grace, Faith and Perseverance: and a special absolute Decree of condemning them whom he foresaw to abide impenitent in their sins.

2. Of the Merit and Efficacy of Christs Death.

The Son of God, who is the Word, assumed our humane Nature in the Womb of the Virgin, and being very God and very Man, he truly Suffered, was Crucified,* 1.33 Dead, and Buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be the Sacrifice not only for Original sin, but also for all the Actual sins of men.

A great part of St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews is spent in the proving of this Point, that only the Sacrifice or Oblation made by Christ,* 1.34 procured for others Re∣conciliation and Remission of sins, inculcating that the Levitical Sacrifices were year by year to be reiterated, and renewed, because they could not take away sins, but that satisfaction once for all was made by the Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of all men.

3. Of Mans Will in the state of depraved Nature.

The Will of man retains a freedom in Actions of Civil Justice,* 1.35 and making Ele∣ction of such things as are under the same pretension of natural Reason, but hath no power without the special Assistance of the Holy Ghost to attain unto spiritual Righ∣teousness, according to the saying of the Apostle; That the natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the spirit of God. And that of Christ our Saviur, Without me you can do nothing. And therefore the Pelagians are to be condemned, who teach that man is able by the meer strength of Nature, not only to love God above all things, but also to fulfill the Law, according to the substance of the Acts thereof.

4. Of Conversion, and the manner of it.

The Righteousness which is effected in us by the operation and assistance of the Holy Ghost, which we receive by yielding our assent to the Word of God:* 1.36 accord∣ing to that of S. Augustin, in the third Book of his Hypognosticks, in which he grants a freedom of the Will to all which have the use of Reason, not that they are thereby able either to begin or g o through with any thing in the things of God, without Gods assistance, but only in the Affairs of this present life whether good or evil.

5. Of falling after Grace received.

Remission of sins is not to be denied in such who after Baptism fall into sins,* 1.37 at what time soever they were converted; and the Church is bound to confer the be∣nefit of Absolution upon all such as return unto it by Repentance. And therefore as we condemn the Novatian Hereticks, refusing the benefit of Absolution unto those, who having after Baptism lashed into sin, gave publick Signs of their Repentance: so we condemn the Anabaptists, who teach, that a man once justified can by no means lose the Holy Ghost, as also those who think that men man have so great a measure of perfection in this present life, that they cannot fall again into sin.

Such is the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches agreed on in the famous Augustin Confession, so called, because presented and avowed at the Diet of Auspurge. (Au∣gusta Vindelicorum the Latins call it) 1530. confirm'd after many struglings on the one side, and oppositions on the other, by Charles the fifth, in a general Assembly of the Estates of the Empire holden at Passaw, Anno 1552. and afterwards more fully in another Dyet held at Auspurge, Anno 1555. A Confession generally ebtertained not only in the whole Kingdoms of Demnark, Norway, and Sweden, but also in the Dukedom of Prussia, and some parts of Poland, and all the Protestant Churches of the High Germany: neither the rigid Lutherans, nor the Calvinians themselves, being

otherwise tolerated in the Empire, than as they shrowd themselves under the Patronage and shelter of this Confession. For besides the first breach betwixt Luther and Zuing∣lius, which hapned at the beginning of the Reformation, there afterwards grew a sub∣division betwixt the Lutherans themselves, occasioned by Flacius Illyricus and his Asso∣ciates; who having separated themselves from Melancthon, and the rest of the Divines of Wittenberge, and made themselves the Head of the rigid Lutherans, did gladly enter∣tain those Doctrines, in which they were sure to find as good assistance as the Domi∣nicans and their party could afford unto them. The wisdom and success of which Council being observed by those of the Zuinglian or Calvinian Faction, they gladly put in for a share, being not meanly well approved, that though their Doctrines were condemned by the Council of Trent, yet they found countenance (especially in the Sublapsarian way) not only from the whole Sect of the Dominicans, but the rigid Lu∣therans: And that the Scales might be kept even between the Parties, there started out another Faction amongst the Calvinists themselves, who symbolized with the Me∣lanctbonians, or moderate Lutherans, as they did with the Jesuit and Franciscan Fryers. For the abetting of which their Quarrel, this last side calling to their ayd all the An∣cient Fathers both Greek and Latine, who lived before the time of S. Augustine, the others relying wholly on his single judgment, not always constant to himself, nor very well seconded by Prosper, nor any other of great Note in the times succeeding. Finally that Catarinus may not go alone in his middle way, I will follow him with one of his own Order (for he was afterwards made Bishop of Minori in Italy) that is to say, the right learned Doctor Overal, publick Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, Dean of S. Pauls, and successively Bishop of Lichfield and Norwhich, whose judgment in a middle way, and though not the same that Catarinus went, the Reader may find in Mr. Play∣ferts notable Picce, intituled Apello Evangelium; to which I refer him at the present, as being not within the compass of my present design, which caries me to such dif∣putes as have been raised between the Calvinians and their Opposites in these parts of the world, since the conclusion and determination of the Council of Trent.

And for the better carrying on of my design, [unspec IV] I must go back again to Calvin, whom I left under a suspition of making God to be the Author of sin; from which, though ma∣ny have taken much pains (none more than industrious Doctor Field) to absolve and free him; yet by his Doctrine of Predestination, he hath laid such grounds as have involved his followers in the same guilt also. For not content to travel a known and beaten way, he must needs find out a way by himself, which either the Dominicans, nor any other of the followers of S. Augustine's rigors had found out before, in making God to lay on Adam an unavoidable necessity of falling into sin and misery, that so he might have opportunity to manifest his mercy in the electing of some few of his Poste∣rity, and his justice in the absolute rejecting of all the rest. In which, as he can find no Countenance from any of the Ancient Writers, so he pretendeth not to any ground for it in the holy Scriptures. For whereas some objected on Gods behalf, De certis verbis non extare, That the Decree of Adams Fall, and consequently the involving of his whole Posterity in sin and misery, had no foundation in the express words of Holy Writ,* 1.38 he makes no other Answer to it than a quasi vero, as if (saith he) God made and created man the most exact Piece of his Heavenly Workmanship, without determining of his end. And on this Point he was so resolutely bent, that nothing but an absolute Decree for Adams Fall, seconded by the like, for the involving of all his Race in the same prediction, would either serve his turn, or preserve his Credit. For whereas others had objected on Gods behalf, that no such unavoidable necessity was laid upon man-kind by the will of God; but rather that he was Created by God unto such a perishing estate, because he foresaw to what his own perversness at the last would bring him: He answereth that this Objection proves nothing at all, or at least nothing to the purpose,* 1.39 which said, he tells us further out of Valla, though otherwise not much versed (as he there affirmeth) in the holy Scriptures, That this question seems to be su∣perfluous, because both Life and Death are rather the Acts of Gods Will than of his Pre∣science or fore-knowledge. And then he adds as of his own, that if God did but fore-see the successes of men, and did not also dispose and order them by his Will, then this Question should not without cause be moved, Whether his fore-seeing any thing availed to the ne∣cessity of them.* 1.40 But since (saith he) he doth no otherwise fore-see the things that shall come to pass, than because he hath decreed that they should so come to pass: it is in vain to move any Controversy about Gods fore-knowledge, where it is certain that all things do happen ra∣ther by divine Ordinance and appointment. Yet notwithstanding all these shifts, he is

forced to acknowledge the Decree of Adams Fall to be Horribile decretum, a cruel and horrible Decree, as indeed it is a cruel and horrible Decree to pre-ordain so many Millions to destruction, and consequently unto sin, that he might destroy them. And then what can the wicked and impenitent do, but ascribe all their sins to God, by whose inevitable Will they are lost in Adam, by whom they were particularly and per∣sonally necessitated to death, and so by consequence to sin. A Doctrine so injurious to God, so destructive of Piety, of such reproach amongst the Papists, and so offen∣sive to the Lutherans, of what sort soever, that they profess a greater readiness to fall back to Popery, than to give way to this Predestinarian Pestilence (by which name they call it) to come in amongst them.

But howsoever having so great a Founder as Calvin was, [unspec V] it came to be generally en∣tertained in all the Churches of his Plat-form, strongly opposed by Sebastian Castellino in Geneva it self; but the poor man so despightfully handled both by him and Beza (who followed him in all, and went beyond him in some of his Devises) that they never left pursuing him with complaints and clamours, till they had first cast him out of the City, and at the last brought him to his Grave. The terrour of which example, and the great name which Calvin had attained unto, not only by his diligent Preach∣ing, but also by his laborious Writings in the eye of the World: As it confirmed his power at home, so did it make his Doctrines the more acceptable and esteemed abroad. More generally diffused, and more pertinaciously adhered unto in all those Churches, which either had received the Genevian Discipline, or whose Divines did most industri∣ously labour to advance the same. By means whereof it came to pass (as one well ob∣serveth) That of what account the Master of the Sentences was in the Church of Rome;* 1.41 the same and more amongst the Preachers of the Reformed Churches Calvin had purchased; so that they were deemed to be the most perfect Divines, who were most skilful in his Writings. His Books almost the very Canon by which both Doctrine and Discipline were to be judged: The French Churches both under others abroad, or at home in their own Country, all cast according to the Mold which he had made. The Church of Scotland in erecting the Fabrick of their own Reformation, took the self same pattern. Receive not long after in the Palatine Churches, and in those of the Netherlands: In all which, as his Doctrine made way to bring in the Discipline, so was it no hard matter for the Discipline to support the Doctrine, and crush all those who durst oppose it. Only it was permitted unto Beza and his Dis∣ciples to be somewhat wilder than the rest, in placing the Decree of Predestination be∣fore the Fall, which Calvin himself had more rightly placed in Massa corrupta, in the corrupted Mass of Man-kind: and the more moderate Calvinians as rightly presuppose for a matter necessary, before there could be any place for the Election or Reprobation of particular persons. But being they concurred with the rest, as to the personal Election or Reprobation of particular persons; the restraining of the Benefit of our Saviours sufferings to those few particulars (whom only they had honoured with the glorious name of the Elect) the working on them by the irresistible powers of Grace in the Act of Conversion, and bringing them infallibly by the continual assistance of the said Grace unto life everlasting: there was hardly any notice taken of thier Deviation, they being scarce beheld in the condition of erring brethren, though they differed from them in the main fountain which they built upon; but passing under the name of Calvinists, as they thus did. And though such of the Divines of the Belgick Churches as were of the old Lutheran stock, were better affected unto the Melancthonian Doctrine of Predestination, than to that of Calvin; yet knowing how pretious the name and memory of Calvin was held amongst them: or being unwilling to fall foul upon one another, they suffered his Opinions to prevail without opposition. And so it stood till the year 1592. when Mr. William Perkins, an eminent Divine of Cambridge pub∣lished his Book, called the Armilla Aurea, &c. containing such a Doctrine of Predesti∣nation as Beza had before delivered, but cast into a more distinct and methodical Form. With him as being a Foreiner both by birth and dwelling, a Supralapsarian in Opi∣nion, and one who had no personal Relations amongst themselves, it was thought fittest to begin to confute Calvins Doctrines in the person of Perkins; as many times a Lion is said to be corrected by the well Cudgelling of a Dog, without fear of danger. And against him it was, his order in delivering the Decree of Pedestination, that Armi∣nius first took up the Bucklers in his Book, intituled Examen Pradestinationis Perkinsoniae, which gave the first occasion to those Controversies which afterwards involved the Sublapsarians also, of which more hereafter.

In the mean time, [unspec VI] let us behold the Doctrine of the 'Supralapsarians, first broacht by Calvin, maintained by almost all his followers, and at last polished and lickt over by the said Mr. Perkins, as it was charged upon the Contra Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague, Anno 1610. in these following words, viz. That God (as some speak) by an eternal and unchangeable Decree from amongst men,* 1.42 whom he considered as not created, much less as faln, ordained certain to eternal life, certain to eternal death, without any regard had to their righteousness, or sin, to their obedience, or disobedience; only because it was his pleasure (or so it seemed good to him) to the praise of his Justice and Mercy, or (as others like better) to declare his saving Grace, Wisdom, and free Authority (or Jurisdiction:) Many being also so ordained by his eternal and unchangeable decree, fit for the execution of the same, by the power or force whereof, it is necessary that they be saved after a necessary and unavoidable manner, who are ordained to Salvation, so that 'tis not possible that they should perish, but they who are destined to destruction (who are the far greater num∣ber) must be damned necessarily and inevitably; so that 'tis not possible for them to be saved. Which doctrine first makes God to be the Author of sin, as both Piscator and Macarius, and many other Supralapsarians, as well as Perkins, have positively and ex∣presly affirmed him to be; and then concludes him for a more unmerciful Tyrant, than all that ever had been in the world, were they joyned in one: A more unmerciful Ty∣rant than the Roman Emperour, who wished that all the people of Rome had but one Neck amongst them, that he might cut it off at a blow, he being such in voto only, God alone in opere.

But this extremity being every day found the more indefensible, [unspec VII] by how much it had been more narrowly sifted and inquired into: the more moderate and sobert sort of the Calvinians forsaking the Colours of their first Leaders, betook themselves into the Camp of the rigid Lutherans, and rather chose to joyn with the Dominican Fryers, than to stand any longer to the dictates of their Master Calvin. These passing by the name of Sublapsarians, have given us such an order of Predestination as must and doth presuppose a fall, and finds all man-kind generally in the Mass of Perdition. The sub∣stance of whose doctrine both in this and the other Articles were thus drawn up by the Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague before remembred.

1. That God Almighty, willing from eternity, with himself to make a decree con∣cerning the Election of some certain men, but the rejection of others; considered man-kind not only as created, but also as faln and corrupted in Adam and Eve, our first Parents, and thereby deserving the Curse: And that he decreed out of the fall and damnation to deliver and save some certain ones of his Grace, to declare his Mercy: But to leave others (both young and old, yea truly, even certain Infants of men in Covenant, and those INfants baptized, and dying in their Infancy) by his just Judgment in the Curse, to declare his Justice: and that without all consideration of Repentance and Faith in the former, or of impenitence or unbelief in the latter. For the execution of which decree, God useth also such means whereby the Elect are necessarily and unavoidably saved; but Reprobates necessarily and unavoidably perish.

2. And therefore that Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World died, not for all men, but for those only who are elected either after the former or this latter manner, he being the mean and ordained Mediator, to save those only, and not a man besides.

3. Consequenty that the Spirit of God, and of Christ doth work in those who are elected that way, or this, with such a force of Grace that they cannot resist it: and so that it cannot be, but that they must turn, believe, and thereupon necessarily be saved. But that this irresistible grace and force belongs only to those so elected, but not to Reprobates, to whom not only the irresistible Grace is denied, but also grace necessary and sufficient for Conversion, for Faith, and for Salvation, is not afforded. To which Conversion and Faith indeed they are called, invited, and freely sollicited outwardly by the revealed Will of God, though notwithstanding the inward force necessary to Faith and Conversion, is not bestowed on them, according to the secret Will of God.

4. But that so many as have once obtained a true and justifying Faith by such a kind of mesistible force, can never totally nor finally lose it, no not although they fall into the very most enormous sins, but are so led and kept by the same irresistible force, that 'tis not possible for them (or they cannot) either totally, or finally fall, and perish.

And thus we have the doctrine of the Sublapsarian Calvinists, as it stands gathered out of the Writings of particular men. But because particular men may sometimes be mistaken in a publick doctrine, and that the judgment of such men being collected by the hands of their Enemies, may be unfaithfully related; we will next look on the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort, which is to be conceived to have delivered the Ge∣nuine sense of all the parties, as being a Representative of all the Calvinian Churches of Europe (except those of France) some few Divines of England being added to them. Of the calling and proceedings of this Synod, we shall have occasion to speak further in the following Chapter. A this time I shall only lay down the Results thereof in the five controverted Points (as I find them abbreviated by Dan. Tilenus.) accordin gto the Heads before mentioned, in summing up the doctrine of the Council of Trent.

Art. 1. Of Divine Predestination. That God by an absolute decree hath Elected to salvation a very small number of men, without any regard to their Faith, or obedience whatsoever;* 1.43 and secluded from saving Grace all the rest of man-kind, and appointed them by the same decree to eter∣nal damnation, without any regard to their Infidelity or Impenitency.

Art. 2. Of the Merit and Effect of Christs Death. That Jesus Christ hath not suffered death for any other, but for those Elect only,* 1.44 having neither had any intent nor commandment of his Father to make satisfaction for the sins of the whole World.

Art. 3. Of Mans Will in the state of Nature. That by Adam's Fall his Posterity lost their Free-will,* 1.45 being put to an unavoidable necessity to do, or not to do, whatsoever they do, or do not, whether it be good or evil; being thereunto Predestinated by the eternal and effectual secret decree of God.

Art. 4. Of the manner of Conversion. That God, to save his Elect from the corrupt Mass,* 1.46 doth beget faith in them by a power equal to that, whereby he created the World, and raised up the dead, insomuch that such unto whom he gives that Grace, cannot reject it, and the rest being Repro∣bate, cannot accept of it.

Art. 5. Of the certainty of Perseverance. That such as have once received that Grace by Faith, can never fall from it finally,* 1.47 or totally, notwithtanding the most enormious sins they can commit.

This is the shortest, and withal the most favourable Summary, [unspec III] which I have hitherto met with, of the conclusions of this Synod: that which was drawn by the Remon∣strants in their Antidotum, being much more large, and comprehending many things by way of Inference, which are not positively expressed in the words thereof. But against this, though far more plausible than the rigorous way of the Supralapsarians,* 1.48 it is objected by those of the contrary persuasion: 1. That it is repugnant of plain Texts of Scripture, as Ezek. 33.11. Rom. 11.2 John 3.16. 2 tim. 2.4. 2 Pet. 3.9. Gen. 4.7. 1 Chron. 28.9. 2 Chron. 15.2. Secondly, That it fighteth with Gods Holiness, and makes him the cause of sin in the greatest number of men. 1. In regard that only of his own will and pleasure he hath brought men into an estate in which the cannot avoid sin; that is to say, by imputing to them the transgression of their Father Adam.* 1.49 And 2. In that he leaves them irrecoverably plunged and involved in it, without af∣fording them power or ability to rise again to newness of life. In which case that of Tertullian seems to have been fitly alledged, viz. In cujus manu est ne quid fiat,* 1.50 ei deputa∣tur cum jam sit. That is to say, In whose power it is, that a thing be not done, to him it is imputed when it is done; as a Pilot may be said to be the cause of the loss of that Ship, when it is broken by a violent Tempest, to the saving whereof, he would not lend a helping hand when he might have done it. They object thirdly, That this doctrine is inconsistent with the mercy of God, so highly signified in the Scriptures,* 1.51 in

making him to take such a small and speedy occasion, to punish the greater part of men for ever, and for one sin once committed, to shut them up under an invincible necessity of sin and damnation. For proof whereof they alledge this saying out of Prosper, viz. Qui dicit quod non omnes homines velit Deus salvos fieri,* 1.52 sed certum numerum praedestinato∣rum: durius loquitur quam loquutum est de altitudine inscrutabilis gratiae Dei. That is to say, He which saith that God would not have all men to be saved, but a certain set number of predestinate persons only: he speaketh more harshly than he should of the light of Gods unsearchable Grace. 4. It is affirmed to be incompatible with the Justice of God, who is said in Scripture to be Righteous in all his ways, according unto weight and measure,* 1.53 that the far greatest part of man-kind should be left remedil••sly in a state of damnation, for the sin of their first Father only: that under pain of damna∣tion, he should require faith in Christ, of those to whom he hath precisely in his abso∣lute purpose denied both a power to believe, and a Christ to believe in; or that he should punish men for the omission of an Act which is made impossible for them by his own decree, by which he purposed that they should partake with Adam in his sin, and be stript of all the supernatural power which they had in him before he fell. And fifthly, It is said to be destructive of Gods sincerity, in calling them to repentance, and to the knowledge of the faith in Jesus Christ,* 1.54 that they may be saved, to whom he doth not really intend the salvation offered, whereby they are conceived to make God so to deal with men, as if a Creditor should resolve upon no terms to forgive his Debtor the very least part of his debt,* 1.55 and yet make him offers to remit the whole upon some conditions, and bind the same with many solemn Oaths in a publick Auditory. The like to be affirmed also in reference to Gods passionate wishes, that those men might repent, which repent not; as also to those terrible threatnings which he thun∣dreth against all those that convert not to him: all which, together with the whole course of the Ministry, are by this doctrine made to be but so many acts of deep Hypo∣crisie in Almighty God, though none of the maintainers of it have the ingenuity to contess the same, but Piscator only, in his Necesse est, ut sanctam aliquam si mutationem statuamus in Deo, which is plain and home.

And finally it is alledged that this doctrine of the Sublapsarians is contrary to the ends by God proposed, [unspec X] in the Word and Sacraments, to many of Gods excellent gifts to the Sons of men, to all endeavours unto holiness and godly living, which is said to be much hindered by it,* 1.56 and tend to those grounds of comfort, by which a Conscience in distress should be relieved. And thereupon it is concluded, that if it be a doctrine which discourageth Piety; if it maketh Ministers (by its natural import∣ment) to be negligent in their Preaching, Praying, and other Services which are or∣dained of God for the eternal good of their people: if it maketh the people careless in hearing, reading, praying, instructing their Families, examining their Consciences, fasting and mourning for their sins, and all other godly exercises, as they say it doth: it cannot be a true and a wholsome doctrine, as they say 'tis not. This they illustrate by a passage in Suetonius,* 1.57 relating to Tyberius Caesar, of whom the Historian gives this note: Cire à Deos & Religiones negligentior erat, quippe addictus mathematicae, persuasionisque plenus, omnia fato agi. That is to say, That he was the more negligent in matters of Religion, and about the Gods, because he was so much addicted to Astrologers, fully persuaded in his own mind that all things were governed by the Destinies: And they evince by the miserable example of the Landgrave of Turing, of whom it is reported by Heistibachius,* 1.58 that being by his Friends admonished of his vitious Conversation, and dangerous condition, he made them this Answer, viz. Si praedestinatus sum, nulla pec∣cata poterint mibi, regnum coelorum auferre; si praescitus, nulla opera mihi illud valebunt conferre. That is to say, If I be elected, no sins can possibly bereave me of the King∣dom of Heaven, if reprobated, no goods deeds can advance me to it. An Objection not more old than common; but such I must confess to which I never found a satis∣factory Answer from the Pen of Supralapsarian, or Sublapsarian, within the small com∣pass of my reading.

CHAP. V. The Doctrine of the Remonstrants, and the Story of them, until their final Condemnation in the Synod of Dort.

• 1. The doctrine of the Remonstrants an∣cienter than Calvinism in the Belgick Churches, and who they were that stood up for it before Arminius.
• 2. The first undertakings of Arminius, his preferment to the Divinity Chair at Leiden, his Commendations and Death.
• 3. The occasion of the Name Remonstrants, and Contra Remonstrants; the Contro∣versie reduced to Five Points, and those disputed at the Hague, in a publick Con∣ference.
• 4. The said Five Points according to their several Heads first tendred at the Hague, and after at the Synod at Dort.
• 5. The Remonstrants persecuted by their Opposites, put themselves under the pro∣tection of Barnevelt, and by his means ob∣tained a collection of their Doctrine. Bar∣nevelt seised and put to death by the Prince of Orange.
• 6. The Calling of the Synod of Dort, the pa∣rallel betwixt it and the Council at Trent, both in the conduct of the business against their Adversaries, and the differences a∣mongst themselves.
• 7. The breaking out of the differences in the Synod in open Quarrels between Martinius one of the Divines of Breeme, and some of the Divines of Holland; and on what occasions.
• 8. A Copy of the Letter from Dr. Belconqual, to S. Dudly Carlaton, his Majesties Resi∣dent at the Hague, working the violent prosecutions of those Quarrels by the Dutch Divines.
• 9. A further prosecution of the parallel be∣tween the Council and the Synod, in refe∣rence to the Articles used in the Draught upon the Canons and Decrees of either, and the doubtful meaning of them both.
• 10. The quarrelling Parties joyn together a∣gainst the Remonstrants, denying them any place in the Synod; and finally dismist them in a furious Oration made by Boyer∣man, without any hearing.
• 11. The Synodists indulgent to the damnable Doctrines of Macorius, and unmerciful in the banishment or extermination of the poor Remonstrants.
• 12. Scandalously defamed, to make them odi∣ous, and those of their persuasions in other places, Ejected, Persecuted, and Dis∣graced.

HAving thus run through all the other Opinions, touching Predestination, [unspec I] and the Points depending thereupon: I come next to that of the Remonstrants (or Arminians, as they commonly call them) accused of Novelty, but ancienter than Calvinism, in the Churches of the Belgick Provinces, which being originally Dutch, did first embrace the Reformation, according to the Lutheran model, though afterward they suffered the Calvinian Plat-form to prevail upon them. It was about the year 1530, that the Reformed Religion was admitted in the Neighbouring Country of East Priezland, under Enno the first, upon the preaching of Hardingbergius, a Learned and Religious man, and one of the principal Reformers of the Church of Emden, a Town of most note in all that Earldom: From him did Clemens Martini take those Principles, which afterwards he propagated in the Belgick Churches, where the same Doctrine of Predestination had been publickly maintained, in a Book called Odegus Laicorum, or the Lay-mans guide, published by Anastasius Velluanus, Ann. 1554. and much commended by Henricus Antonides, Divinity Reader in the University of Francka: But on the other side the French Ministers having setled themselves in those parts, which either were of French Language, or anciently belonged to the Crown of France, and having more Quicksilver in them than the others had, prevailed so far with William of Nassaw, Prince of Orange, that a Confession of their framing was presented to the Lady Regent, ratified in a forcible and tumultuus way, and afterwards by degrees ob∣truded upon all the Belgick Churches: which notwithstanding the Ministers successively in the whole Province of Ʋtrecht adhered unto their former Doctrines; not looked on for so doing as the less reformed: Nor wanted there some one or other of eminent note, who did from time to time oppose the Doctrine of Predestination, contained in that Confession of the year, 1567. when it took beginning. INsomuch that Johannes Isbrandi, one of the Preachers of Roterdam, openly professed himself an Anticalvinian,

and so did Gellius Succanus also in the Countrey of West-Friezland, who looked no otherwise upon these of Calvin's Judgment, than as Innovators in the Doctrine which had been first received amongst them. The like we find also of Holmanus, one of the Professors of Leyden, of Cornelius Meinardi, and Cornelius Wiggeri, two men of prin∣cipal esteem, before the name of Jacob Van-Harmine, was so much as talked of.

But so it hapned, [unspec II] that though these learned men had kept on foot the ancient Do∣ctrines, yet did they never find so generally an Entertainment in those Provinces, as they did afterwards by the pains and diligence of this Van-Harmine: (Arminius he is called by our Latin Writers) from whom these Doctrines have obtained the name of Arminianism, called so upon no juster Grounds than the great Western Continent is called by the name of America, whereas both Christopher collumbus had first discove∣red it, and the two Cabots Father and Son had made a further progress in the said discovery, before Americus Vespatius ere saw those shores. As for Arminius, he had been fifteen years a Preacher (or a Pastor as they rather phrase it) to the great Church of Amsterdam, during which times, taking a great distast at the Book pub∣lished by Mr. Perkins, intituled Armilla Aurea, he set himself upon the canvasing of it, and published his performance in it, by the name of Examen Predestinationis Perkinso∣niae, as before was said. Incouraged with his good success in this adventure, he un∣dertakes a Conference on the same Argument with the learned Junius, the sum where∣of being spread abroad in several Papers, was after published by the name of Amica Collatio. Junius being dead in the year 1603. the Curators or Overseers of the Uni∣versity made choice of this Van-harmine to succeed him in his place. But the Inha∣bitants of the Town would not so part with him, till they were over-ruled by the Entreaties of some, and the power of others, A matter so unpleasing to the rigid Calvinians, that they informed against him to the State for divers Heterodoxies, which they had noted in his Writings. But the business being heard at the Hague, he was acquitted by his Judge, dispatcht for Leyden, and there confirmed in his place. To∣ward which the Testimonial Letters sent from the Church of Amsterdam, did not help a little. In which he stands commended, Ob vitae inculpatae sanae doctrinae & morum summam integritatem. That is to say, for a man of an unblameable life, sound Doctrine and fair behaviour, as may be seen at large, in the Oration which was made at his Funeral in the Divinity Schools of Leyden, on the 22. day of October, 1609.

Thus died Arminius, [unspec III] but the Cause did not so die with him. For during the first time of his sitting in the Chair of Leyden, he drew unto him a great part of the Univer∣sity, who by the Piety o••he man, his powerful Arguments, his extream diligence in that place, and the clear light of Reason which appeared in all his Discourses, were so wedded unto his Opinions, that no time nor trouble could drown them: For Armi∣nius dying in the year 1609, as before was said, the heats betwixt the Scholars, and those of the contrary persuasion, were rather increased than abated; the more in∣creased for want of such a prudent Moderator, as had before preserved the Churches from a publick Rupture. The breach between them growing wider and wider, each side thought fit to seek the Countenance of the State, and they did accordingly: for in the year 1610. the followers of Arminius address their Remonstrnace, (containing the Antiquity of their Doctrines, and the substance of them) to the States of Holland, which was encountred presently, by a Contra Remonstrance, exhibited by those of Cal∣vins Party: from hence the names of Remonstrants, and Contra Remonstrants, so fre∣quent in their Books and Writings; each Party taking opportunity to disperse their Doctrines, the Remonstrants gained exceedingly upon their Adversaries: For the whole Controversie being reduced to these five Points, Viz. The Method and Order of Predestination; The Efficacy of Christs Death, The Operations of Grace, both be∣fore and after mans Conversion, and perseverance in the same; the Parties were ad∣mitted to a publick Conference at the Hague, in the year 1611. in which the Remon∣strants were conceived to have had much the better of the day. Now for the five Articles above mentioned, they were these that follow;

VIZ.

I. De Electione ex fide praevisa. DEus aeterno & immutabili Decreto, in Jesu Christo filio suo, ante jactum mundum fundamentum statuit, ex lapso & peccatis obnoxio humano genere, illos in Christo, propter Christum, & per Chri∣stum servare, qui spiritus sancti gratia in eundem filium ejus credunt, & in ea fide, fideique obedientia, per eandem gratiam, usque ad finem perseverant.

II. De Redemptione Universali. Proinde Deus Christus pro omnibus ac singulis mortuuus est: atque id ita quidem ut omnibus per mortem crucis Reconciliationem, & Peccato∣rum Remissionem impetrarit: Ea ta∣men conditione, ut nemo illa pecca∣torum Remisione fruatur, praeter hominem fidelem, John 2.26. 1 John 2.2.

III. De causa fidei. Homo fidem salutarem à seipso non habet, nec vi liberi sui arbitrii, quandoquidem in statu defectionis, & peccati, nihil boni, quod quidem vere est bonum (quale est fides sa∣lutaris) ex se potest cogitare, velle, aut facere: sed necessarium est, eum à Deo, in Christo, per spiritum ejus sanctum regigni, renovari, mente, af∣fctibus, seu voluntate, & omnibus facultatibus, ut aliquid boni posset intelligere, cogitare, velle, & perfi∣cere, secundum illu, JOhn 15.5. sine me potestis nihil.

IV. De Conversionis modo. De, gratia est initiumi progressus, & perfectio omnis boni, atque adeo quidem, ut ipse homo Kegenitus, abs∣que hac praecedanea seu Adventitia, excitante, consequente, & co-operante gratia, neq, boni quid cogitare, velle, aut facere potest, neq, etiam ulli ma∣le tentationi resistere, adeo quidem ut omnia bona opera, quae excogitare possumus, Dei gratiae in Christo tri∣buenda sunt. Quoad vero modum co-operationis illius gratiae, illa non est irresistibilis: de multis enim dicitur, eos spiritui sancto refistisse. Acto∣tum 7. & alibi multis locis.

V. De Perseverantia incerta. Qui Jesu Christo per veram fidem sunt insiti ac proinde spiritus ejus vivificantis participes, ii abunde ha∣bent facultatum, quibus contra Sa∣tanam, peccatum, mundum, & pro∣priam suam carnem pugnent & vi∣ctoriam obtineant: verumtamen per gratiae spiritus sancti subsidium. Je∣sus Christus quidem illis spiritu sus in omnibus tentatinnibus adest; ma∣num porrigit, & modo sint ad certa∣men prompti, & ejus Auxilium Petant, neque officio suo desint, eos confirmat: adeo quidem ut nulla satanae fraude, aut vi seduci, vel e manibus Christi eripi, possint, secun∣dum illud Johannis 10. Nemo il∣los è manu mea eripiet, Sed an illi ipsi negligentia sua, principium illud quo sustentantur in Christo, deserere non possint, & praesentem mundum iterum amplecti, à sancta doctrina ipsis semel tradita deficere, conscien∣tiae naufragium facere, à gratia ex∣cidere; penitus ex sacra scriptura esset expendendum, antequam illud cum plena animi tranquillitate, & Plerephoria dicere possumus.

VIZ.

I. Of Election ont of Faith foreseen. ALmighty God by an Eternal and un∣changeable Decree, ordained in Je∣sus Christ, his only Son, before the founda∣tions of the World were laid, to save all those in Christ, for Christ; and through Christ, who being faln, and under the command of sin, by the assistance of the Grace of the Holy Ghost, do persevere in Faith and Obedience to the very end.

II. Of universal Redemption. To this end Jesus Christ suffered Death for all men, and in every man, that by his death up∣on the Cross, he might obtain for all mankind, both the forgiveness of their sins and Reconci∣liation with the Lord their God; with this Con∣dition notwithstanding, that none but true Be∣lievers should enjoy the benefit of the Reconci∣liation and forgiveness of sins, John 2.16. 1 John 2.2.

III. Of the cause or means of attaining Faith. Man hath not saving Faith in and of himself, nor can it attain it by the power of his own Free∣will, in regard that living in an estate of sin, and defection from God, he is not able of himself to think well, or do any thing which is really, or truly good; amongst which sort saving Faith is to be accounted. And therefore it is necessary that by God in Christ, and through the Work∣ings of the Holy Ghost he be regenerated and renewed in his Understanding, Will, Affections, and all his other faculties; that so he may be able to understand, think, will, and bring to pass any thing that is good, according to that of St. John, 15.5. Without me you can do nothing.

IV. Of the manner of Conversion. The Grace of God is the beginning, promo∣tion, and accomplishment of every thing that is good in us; insomuch that the Regenerate man can neither think well, nor do any thing that is good, or resist any sinful Temptations, without this Grace preventing, co-operating and assisting; and consequently all good works, which any man in his life can attain unto, are to be attributed and ascribed to the Grace of God. But as for the manner of the co-ope∣ration of this Grace, it is not to be thought to be irresistable, in regard that it is said of many in the holy Scripture, that they did resist the Holy Ghost; as in Acts 7. and in other pla∣ces.

V. Of the uncertainty of Perseverance. They who are grafted into Christ by a lively Faith, and are throughly made partakers of his quickning Spirit, have a sufficiency of strength, by which (the Holy Ghost contributing his Assistance to them) they may not only right, but obtain the Victory, against the Devil, Sin, the World, and all infirmities of the flesh. Most true it is, that Jesus Christ is present with them by his Spirit in all their Tempta∣tions, that he reacheth out his hand unto them, and shews himself ready to support them, if for their parts they prepare themselves to the encounter, and beseech his help, and are not wanting to themselves in performing their un∣ties: so that they cannot be sedoced by the cunning, or taken out of the hands of Christ by the power of Satan, according to that of St. John, No man taketh them out of my hand, &c. Cap. 10. But it is first to be well weighed and proved by the holy Scripture, whether by their own negligence, they may not forsake those Principles of saving Grace, by which they are sustained in Christ, embrace the pre∣sent World again, Apostatize from the saving Doctrince once delivered to them, suffer a Ship∣wrack of their Conscience, and fall away from the Grace of God, before we can publickly teach these doctrines, with any sufficient tranquility or assurance of mind.

It is reported, [unspec V] that at the end of the Conference between the Protestants and Papists, in the first Convocation of Queen Maries Reign, the Protestants were thought to have had the better, as being more dextrous in applying and in forcing some Texts of Scripture than the others were, and that thereupon they were dismissed by Weston the Prolocutor, with this short come off: You, said he, have the Word, and we have the Sword. His meaning was, That what the Papists wanted in the strength of Ar∣gument, they would make good by other ways, as afterwards indeed they did by Fire and Fagot. The like is said to have been done by the Contra Remonstrants, who finding themselves at this Conference to have had the worst, and not to have thrived much better by their Pen-comments, than in that of the Tongue, betook themselves to other courses; vexing and molesting their Opposites in their Classes, or Consisto∣ries, endeavouring to silence them from Preaching in their several Churches: or o∣therwise to bring them unto publick Censure. At which Weapon the Remonstrants being as much too weak, as the others were at Argument and Disputation; they be∣took themselves unto the Patronage of John Van Olden Burnevelt, a man of great Power in the Council of Estate for the Ʋnited Belgick Provinces, by whose means they obtained an Edict from the States of Holland, and West-Friezland, Anno 1613. re∣quiring and enjoying a mutual Toleration of Opinions, as well on the one side as the other. An Edict highly magnified by the Learned Grotius in a Book, intituled, Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae &c. Against which some Answers were set out by Bogerman, Si∣brandus, and some others, not without some reflection on the Magistrates for their Actings in it: But this indulgence, though at the present it was very advantageous to the Remonstrants, as the case then stood, cost them dear at last. For Barnevelt ha∣ving some suspition that Morris of Nassaw, Prince of Orange, Commander General of all the Forces of those Ʋnited Provinces both by Sea and Land, had a design to make himself the absolute Master of those Countreys, made use of them for the uniting and encouraging of such good Patriots as durst appear in maintenance of the common li∣berty, which Service they undertook the rather, because they found that the Prince

had passionately espoused the Quarrel of the Contra Remonstrants. From this time for∣wards the Animosities began to encrease on either side, and the Breach to widen, not to be closed again; but either by weakning the great power of the Prince or the death of Barnevelt. This last the easier to be compassed, as not being able by so small a Party to contend with him, who had the absolute command of so many Legions. For the Prince being apprehensive of the danger in which he stood, and spurred on by the continual Sollicitations of the Contra Remonstrnats, suddenly put himself into the Head of his Army with which he march'd from Town to Town, altered the Guards, changed the Officers, and displaced the Magistrates, where he found any whom he thought disaffected to him; and having gotten Barnevelt, Grotius, and some other of the Heads of the Party into his power, he caused them to be condemned, and Barnevelt to be put to death, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Countrey, and the Rules of the Union.

This Alteration being thus made, [unspec VI] the Contra Remonstrants thought it a high point of Wisdom to keep their Adversaries down, now they had them under, and to effect that by a National Council, which they could not hope to compass by their own Au∣thority: To which end, the States General being importuned by the Prince of Orange, and his Sollicitation seconded by those of KIng James (to whom the power and person of the Prince were of like Importance) a National Synod was appointed to be held as Dort, Anno 1618. Barnevelt being then still living. To which besides the Commissioners from the Churches of their several Provinces, all the Calvinian Churches in Europe (those of France excepted) sent their Delegates also; some eminent Divines being Commissioned by King James to attend also in the Synod: for th eRealm of Britain. A Synod much like that of Trent, in the Motives to it; as also in the managing and conduct of it. For as neither of them was assembled till the Sword was drawn, the terrour whereof was able to effect more than all other Argu∣ments: so neither of them was concerned to confute, but condemn their Op∣posites.

Secondly, The Council of Trent consisted for the most part of Italian Bishops, some others being added for fashion-sake, and that it might the better challenge the Name of General, as that of Dort, consisted for the most part of the Delegates of the Belgick Churches, to whom the foreign Divines were found inconsiderable. The Differences as great at Dort, as they were at Trent, and as much care taken to adulce the discon∣tented Parties (whose Judgments were incompatible with the ends of either) in the one as the other. The British Divines, together with one of those which came from the Breme, maintained the Universal Redemption of mankind by the death of Christ. But this by no means would be granted by the rest of the Synod especially by those of North-Holland, for fear of yielding any thing to the Arminians; as Soto in the Council of Trent opposed some moderate Opinions, teaching the certainty of Salva∣tion, because they were too much in favour with the Lutheran Doctrines. First, The general body of the Synod not being able to avoid the inconveniences which the Supra∣lapsarian way brought with it, were generally intent on the Sublapsarian: but on the other side, the Commissioners of the Churches of South-Holland, thought it not ne∣cessary to determine which were considered, an faln, or not faln, while he passed the Decrees of Election and Reprobation. But far more positive was Gomarus, one of the four Professours of Leyden, who stood as strongly to the absolute irrespective and irreversible Decree (exclusive of mans sin, and our Saviours Sufferings) as he could have done for the HOly Trinity. And not being able to draw the rest unto his Opinion, not willing to conform to theirs, he delivered his own Judgment in writing apart by it self, not joyning in subscription with the rest of his Brethren, for conformity sake, as is accustomed in such cases. But Macorius one of the Professors in Frankar, in West-Friezland, went beyond them all, not only maintaining against Sibrandus Lubbertus his fellow Collegiate in their open Synod; That God wills sin; That he ordains sin as it is sin: and, That by no means he would have all men to be saved; but openly declaring, That if these Points were not maintained, they must forsake their chief Doctors who had so great a hand in the Reformation.

Some other differences there were amongst them, not reconcilable in this Synod; [unspec VII] as namely, wether the Elect be loved out of Christ, or not: whether Christ were the cause and foundation of Election, or only the Head of the Elect; And many others of like nature. Nor were these Differences managed with such sobriety as became the gravity of the persons, and weight of the business, but brake out many times into such open heats and violences, as are not to be parallel'd in the like Assemblies; the

Provincial Divines banding against the Foreiners, and the Foreiners falling foulupon one another: for so it hapned, that Martinius, one of the Divines of Breme, a moderate and learned man, being desired to speak his mind in the Points last mentioned, signitied to the Synod,* 3.1 That he made some scruple touching the Doctrine Passant, about the manner of Christs being Fundamentum electionis, and that he thought Christ not only the Effector of our Election, but also the Author and Procurer of it. Gomarus presently as soon as Mar∣tinius had spoken, starts up and tells the Synod, Ego hanc rem in me recipio, and there∣withal casts his Glove, and challenges Martinius with this Proverb, Ecce Rhodum, ecce Sullum, and required the Synod to grant them a Duel, adding, That he knew Martinius could say nothing in Refutation of that Doctrine. So my dear Friend Mr. Hales of Eaton relates the story of this passage in a Letter to Sir Dudly Carleton, bearing date Jan. 25. 1618. according to the style of the Church of England: and where he endeth, Dr. Bel∣canqual shall begin, relating in his Letters to the said Ambassadour, the story of a grea∣ter Fray, between the said Martinius and Sibandus Lubberius, above mentioned, upon this occasion. Martinius had affirmed God to be Causa Physica Conversionis; and for the truth thereof, appealed to Goclenius a great Philosopher, being then present in the Synod, who thereupon discoursed upon it out of Themistinus, Averores, Alexander Aphrodisaeus, and many more; affirming it to be true in Philosophy, although he would not have it to prescribe in Divinity. Sibrandus Lubbert taking fire at this, falls upon them both: but the Fray parted at the present, by the care of Boyerman. Gomarus with∣in few days after picks a new quarrel with Martinius, and the rest of the Divines of Breme, for running a more moderate course than the rest of the Synod: many other of the Provincials seconding Gomarus in the quarrel, and carrying themselves so uncivilly in the prosecution, that Martinius was upon the Point of returning homewards. But this quarrel being also taken up, the former is revived by Sibrandus in the following Session, concerning which Belcanqual writes to Sir Dudley Carleton, this ensuing Let∣ter, which for the rarity and variety of the passages contained in it, and the great light which it affords to the present business, I shall crave leave to add it here.

Dr. Belcanqualis Letter to Sir Dudley Carleton.

My very good Lord,

SInce my last Letters to your Lordship, [unspec VIII] there hath been no business of any great Note in the Synod,* 4.1 but that which I am sure your Lordship will be very sorry to hear; Contention like to come to some head, if it be not prevented in time: for there hath been such a Plot laid ex compositò, for disgracing of the Bremenses, as I think the Synod shall receive small grace by it. D. Gomarus being he at whom the last Disquisition of the third and fourth Articles ended, was entreated by the President to speak his mind of the said Articles; but Sibrandus desireth the President, first, to give him leave to add some few things to that he had poken the day before: Now what he added was nothing but a renewing of the strife, which was between him and Martinius in the last Session: two things he alledged; First, That he had been at Goclenius his Lodging, conferring with him about that Proposition, whether God might be called Causa Physica of humane Actions, and delivered certain Affirmations pronounced by Goclenius, tending to the Negative; for the truth of his relation he appealed to Goclenius there present, who testified that it was so: next Martinius had alledged a place out of Paraeus for the Affirmative in opere conversionis. Sibrandus read a great many places out of Paraeus, tending to the contrary: and (no question it being pleaded before) be entreateth some of the Pallatines (naming them all severally) who were Paraeus his Colleagues, would speak what they did know of Paraeus his mind, concerning the said Proposition. Scultetus be∣ginneth with a set speech, which he had written lying before him; but such a Speech it was, as I, and I think all the Exteri, were exceeding grieved it should have come from a man of so much worth: the sum of it was this, That he did know upon his own knowledge, that Paraus did hold the contrary of that which had been falsly fathered on him in the Synod, that he could not endure to hear his dearest Colleague so much abused as he had been by some men in the Synod: Moreover he could not now dissemble the great grief he had conceived that some in the Synod went about to trouble sound Divinity with bringing in Tricas Scolasticas, such as was to make God Causam Physicam Conversionis (that was for Martinius) such portenta vocabulorum, as determinare, and non determinare voluntatem: That some men durst say that there were some doubts in the Fourth Article, which Calvin himself had not throughly satisfied, nor other Learned Reformed Doctors; that it was to be feared that they intended to bring in

Jesuits Divinity in the Reformed Churches, and to corrupt the Youth committed to their Charge, with a strange kind of Divinity. This last Speech concerned D. Grotius. Scultetus delivered his mind in exceeding bitter and disgraceful words, and repeated his bitterest sentences twice over: He having ended, Martinius with great modesty answered, first, That he would read Paraeus his own words, which he did; next that for Sibrandus, he wondred that he would now in publick bring these things up, since out of his love to Peace, that very day he had sent his Colleague Grotius to Sibrandus, with a large explication in that sense, in which he was fully satisfied, and so he made account that that business had been peaceably transacted: All this while Grotius spake nothing; Gomarus beginneth to go on in the Disquisition, but I think he delivered a Speech against the Bremenses, which none but a madman would have uttered. First, Whereas Martinius had said that he did desire the resolution of this doubt, Qui Deus possit ab homine cujus potentia est finita, fidem, quae est opus omnipotentiae, exigere: and that neither Calvin, nor any of the Divines, had yet plainly enough untied the Knot: He replied, first, That he that said so was not Dignus qui solveret Calvino Corrigiam; and that for the doubt it self, it was such a silly one, that ipsi pueri in trivio, could ipsius soluti∣onem decantare (at which Speech very body smiled.) Moverover, whereas Martinius in his Answer to Scultetus, had not spoken one word against him, but only this, That he was sorry that one who had now been 25 years a Professor of Divinity, should be thus used for using a School-term: Gomarus very wisely had a fling at the two, and telleth the Synod, that since some men thought to carry it away annorum numero, he himself had been a Professor not only 25, but 35 years. Next he falleth upon Grotius, and biddeth the Synod take heed of these men that brought in the Monstra & Portenta vocabulorum, the Barbarisms of the Schools of the Jesuits, determinare, & non determinare voluntatem, with many such speeches deli∣vered with such sparklings of his eyes, and fierceness of pronunciation, as every man wondred the President did not cut him off, at last he cut off himself I think for want of breath; and the President giveth Celeberrimo Doctori Gomaro, many thanks for that his Grave and accu∣rate speech: the Exteri wondred at it; at last my Lord of Landaff, in good faith, in a very grave short speech (for which, as for one of the least, I am persuaded he ever delivered, we and all the Exteri, thought he deserved infinite Commendations:) he spake to the President to this purpose, That this Synod called Disquisition, was instituted for Edification, not for any man to shew Studium Contentionis; and therefore did desire him to look that the knot of Ʋnity were not broken. In this his Lordships speech, be named no man, the last word was hardly out of his Lordships mouth, but furious Gomarus, knowing himself guilty, delivered this wise Speech; Reverendissime D. Praesul, non agendum est hic in Synodo authoritate, sed ratione. That it was free for him to speak in his own place, which no man must think to abridge him of by their Authority. My Lord replied nothing; but the President told my Lord, that Celeberrimus D. Gom, had said nothing agaist mens Persons, but their Opinions, and there∣fore that he had said nothing worthy of Reprehension: This gave every man just occasion to think the President was of the Plot. Martinius against this Speech of Gomarus said nothing, but that he was sorry that he should have this Reward for his far Journey: The Disquisition went on to Thysius, who very discreetly told the SYnod he was sorry Martinius should be so exagi∣tated for a speech, which according to Martinius his explication was true. Just as Thysius was thus speaking, Gomarus and Sibrandus, who sate next him, pulled him by the Sleeve, talked to him in a confused angry noise, in the hearing and seeing of all the Synod, chiding him that he would say so: afterwards Thysius with great moderation, desired Martinius to give him satisfaction of one or two doubtful Sentences he had delivered; which Martinius, thank∣ing him for his Courtesie, fully did. The President was certainly in this Plot against Martinius, for at the same time he read out of a Paper publickly, a note of all the hard Speeches martinius had used. All this while. D. Grotius his patience was admired by all men, who being so grosly abused and disgraced, could get leave of his affections to hold his peace.

I could pursue these Differences further, both in weight and number, without any great trouble; but that I have some other work to do, which is the pressing of some other Conformities between this Synod and the Council: the same Arts being used in drawing up the Canons and Conclusions of the one, as were observed in the other; what care and artifice was used in the Council of Trent, so to draw up the Canons and Decrees thereof, as to please all the differing Parties, hath been already shewn in the third Chapter of this Book. And in the History of the Councils, we shall find t his passage, viz. That immediatly after the Session, Fryer Dominicus Soto, principal of the Dominicans, wrote three Books, and did Intitle them of Nature and of Grace: for Commentary of this Doctrine, and in his Expositions all his Opinions are found.

When the work was published,* 4.2 Fryer Andrew Vega, the most esteemed of the Francis∣cans, set forth fifteen great Books for Commentaries, upon the sixteen Points of that Decree, and did expound it all according to his own Opinion; which two Opinions, saith my Author, do not only differ in almost all the Articles, but in many of them are expresly contrary. A perfect parallel to which we may find in this Synod; the con∣clusions and results whereof, being so drawn up, for giving satisfaction to the Salap∣sarians, that those of the Supralapsarian Faction might pretend some Title to them also:* 4.3 Concerning which, take here this passage from the Arcan. Dogm. Remonstr. long since published, where we are told of a bitter Contention betwixt Voetius and Maresius, about the sense of this Synod: the one of them maintaining that the Synod determined the Decree of Predestination and Reprobation, to antecede the consideration of the Fall of Adam; the other opposing him with an Apology in behalf of the Synod, against that Assertion. So that though assembled on purpose to decide these Controversies, and appease the broyls that Emerged, and were inflamed upon them, yet (that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seem to agree together in something) have they wrpt up their Decrees and Canons in so many Clouds, and confounded them with so many Intricacies, (if a man hath recourse to their suffrages for an Interpretation) that they are like to fall into a greater new Schism, before they come to a setled resolution, of knowing what the meaning of that Synod is. And so much of the parallel between the Council of Trent and the Synod of Dort, touching the managery of all affairs both in fact, and post fact.

It was to be supposed in the midst of so many differences and disorders, [unspec X] the Remon∣strants might have found a way to have saved themselves, either by somenting the Con∣tentions, or by finding some favours at their hands, who seemed to be any thing in∣clinable to their Opinions: but no such favour could be gained, not so much as hoped for; though Ephraim was against Manasses, and Manasses against Ephraim, yet were they both together against Judah, as the Scripture tells us. Nor did the differences between the Supralapsarians, and the Sublapsarians, or those which were of equal mo∣ment in the other Points extend so far, as to be any hindrance to the condemning of those poor men, to whom they were resolved not to give an equal hearing before the final sentence of their recondemnation: so truly was it said by some of the Remonstrants themselves:* 4.4 Adeo facile Coeunt, qui in fatalitatem absolutam tantum consentiunt. In order whereunto many direct proceedings had been used to hinder those of the Remonstrant or Arminian party, by excommunicating some, and citing others to appear as criminal persons, from being returned Commissioners from their several Classes; and to refuse admittance to them into the Synod, upon such returns, except they would oblige themselves to desert their Party, as in the case of those of Ʋtrecht, there when the Parties whom they cited, were authorized by the re•••• to present themselves before the Synod, and to press for audience, offering to refer their Cause to a Disputation: their offer was not rejected only, but they were commanded to forbear any further atten∣dance, unless they would submit themselves unto two Conditions: First, to acknow∣ledge the Members of the Synod (whom they beheld as Parties) to be competent Judges in that case. And secondly, To proceed in such a method as they conceived would be destructive of their Cause: On the refusal of which last, the former Point be∣ing in a manner yielded to, in hope of some fair dealing from the foreign Divines, they were dismist without hearing what they could say for themselves, as before was noted. For Boyerman President of the Synod, having some suspition that they would openly report those gross Impieties which were contained under the absolute Decree of Repro∣bation; dismissed them the Assembly in a most bitter Oration, his eyes seeming to sparkle sire for the very fear, or fervency of spirit which was then upon him, which though I might report with safety enough from the Pen of some of the Remonstrants, in their Books called the Synodalia Remonstrantium, and the Antidotum, &c. yet I choose rather to relate it from a more impartial Author, even from the mouth of my dear Friend Mr. Hales (the most learned and ingenious John Hales of Eaton) who being then Chaplain to Sir Dudley Carleton, King James his Resident at the Hague, was suffer∣ed to be present at the hearing of it; so that it might be said of them, as was affirmed by Tertullian of the ancient Gentiles, when the persecuting humour was upon them: Audire nolunt, quod auditum damnare non possunt; they were resolved not to hear those Arguments which they could not answer, or to give ear unto the proving of those Points, which they could not honestly condemn, if they had been proved.

More favourable were they unto those of the other extremity, looking no otherwise on the Supralapsarians, than as erring Brethren; but on the Remonstrants or Arminians,

as their mortal Enemies. Macorius before-mentioned, is charged to have brought many dangerous and blasphemous Paradoxes, in making God to be the Author of sin, and openly maintaining in the Synod it self, that God willed sin, that he ordained sin, a•• sin, and that by no means he would have all men to be saved, as before is said.* 4.5 He had taught also in his Writings, Deum Reprobis verbum suum proponere non alio sine, quam ut inexcusabiles reddantur: That is to say, That God doth propound his Word to Reprobates for no other end, than that they might be left without excuse: That if the Gospel be considered in respect of Gods intention, the proper end of it, and not the Accidental, in reference to Re∣probates, is their inexcusableness. More than so yet, That Christ knoweth all the hearts of Re∣probates, who he knoweth neither can nor will open to him; not that he may enter in, but parth, that he may upbraid them for their impotency, and partly that he may encrease their damnation: And finally, Deum ideo eis locutum esse, ut ex cotenptu, & odio filii unigeniti, Grat••r con∣demnatio esset. That God doth speak unto them to no other end, but that by the contempt and hatred of his only Son they might incur the greater condemnation. For which, and many other expressions of the like foul nature, occurring frequently in his Writings, and those Positions which he stood to in the open Synod, he received no other Censure from them, but a fair and friendly Admonition, to forbear such Forms of speech as might give offence to tender Ears, and could not be digested by persons ignorant and uncapable of so great Mysteries:* 4.6 As also that he would not set light by those distinctions of Divines who had deserved well of the Church of Christ. But on the other side, the Remonstrants who maintained no such Impieties, whose Writings neither charged God with Ty∣ranny and Hypocrisie, or having any hand in the act of sin, were most reproachfully handled and thrown out of the Senate, without so much as hearing what they had to say in their own defence, though that was the least part of the unsery intended to them: For when the Synod had concluded in the condemnation of their Doctrine, they next proceeded to the destruction of their persons, calling upon them to subscribe to the Acts of the Synod; and setting them a peremptory day for conforming to it: And when they saw that would not do it, by their incensed importunity, they procured a Proclamation from the States General, to banish them from their Native Countrey, with their Wives and Children, and so compelling them to beg their Bread, even in desolate places.

But yet this was no end of their sorrows neither. He must come under a new Cross, [unspec XII] and be calumniated for maintaining many horrid Blasphemies, and gross impieties which they most abhorred. For in the continuation of the History of the Netherlands, written by one Cross, a fellow of no parts or judgment, and so more apt to be abused with a false report: It is there affirmed (whether with greater ignorance or malice, it is hard to say) That there was a Synod called at Dort, to suppress the Arminians; and that the said Arminians held amongst other Heresies First, That God was the Author•••• sin: and Secondly, That he created the far greater part of Man-kind, only of purpose for to damn them; with several others of that kind: Which every man of reason knows, not only to be the consequence and results of Calvins Doctrine, but to be po∣sitively maintained and taught by some of his followers. By which and such like sub∣tile and malicious practises, they endeavoured to expose their Adversaries to the pub∣lick hatred, and make th em odious with the people; till at last these poor men might have said most justly, as one the primitive Christians did, under the burden of the like Calumnies and Imputations, Condemnati sumus quia nominamur, non quia convincimur, as Tertullian hath it, the name of an Arminian carried a Condemnation in it self without any conviction. Nor was their fury satisfied in Exauctorating, Banishing, and de∣stroying those of the adverse party, who lived within the compass of the Belgick Pro∣vinces; the genius of the Sect being active in all parts alike, in none more visibly than the neighbouring City of Ledan, the principal seat and Signory of the Dukes of Bovillon: Out of which Francisous Auratus, a most faithful Minister of that Church, is said to have been shamefully ejected for no other reason, by those of the Calvinian party, but because, preaching on the Text of St. James. 1.13. God tempteth no man, &c. he largely de∣clared that God was not the Author of sin. With what severity they proceeded in Eng∣land, when they had gotten the advantage of Power and Number, and with what Ca∣lumnies and Reproaches they aspersed all those which were of a contrary persuasion to them; the sequestring and ejecting of so many hundreds of learned and religious men from their several Benefices, the most odious Pamphet called, The first Century of Scan∣dalous and MALIGNANT PRIESTS, together with many uncharitable and disgrace∣ful passages against them, in the Writings of some Presbyterian Ministers, do most clear∣ly evidence.

CHAP. VI. Objections made against the Doctrine of the Remonstrants, the Answer unto all, and the retorting of some of them on the Opposite Party.

• 1. The Introduction to the said Objections.
• 2. The first Objection, touching their being Enemies to the Grace of God, disproved in general, by comparing the Doctrine with that of St. Augustine, though somewhat more favourable to Free Will than that of Luther.
• 3. A more particular Answer in relation to some hard Expressions, which were used of them by King James.
• 4. The second charging it as Introductive of Propery, began in Holland, and pressed more importunatly in England, answered both by Reason and Experience to the con∣trary of it.
• 5. The third, as filling men with spiritual pride, first answered in relation to the te∣stimony from which it was taken, and then retorted on those who objected the same.
• 6. The fourth CHarge, making the Remon∣strants a factious and seditious people, began in Holland, prosecuted in England, and answered in the general by the most Religious Bishop Ridly.
• 7. What moved King Jmaes to think so ill of the Remonstrants, as to exasperate the States against them.
• 8. The Remonstrants neither so troublesom nor so chargeable to the States themselves, as they are made by the Assertor; the in∣direct proceedings of the Prince of Orange, viz. the death of Barnevelt, and the injustice of the Argument in charging the practices of his Children, and the Prince upon all the party.
• 9. Nothing in the Arminian doctrine, which may incline a man to seditious courses, as it is affirmed and proved to be in the Calvin.
• 10. The Racrimination further proved by a passage in the Conference of the Lord Treasurer Burleigh with Queen Eliz. in a Letter of some of the Bishops to the Duke of Buckingham, and in that of Dr. Brooks to the late Archbishop.
• 11. More fully prosecuted and exemplified by Campney's an old English Prote∣stant.
• 12. A Transition to the Doctrine of the Church of England.

IT may be thought, [unspec I] that some strange mystery of iniquity, lay hidden under the Mask or Vail of the Five Articles last mentioned, which made the Synodists so furiously to rage against them; to use such cruelty (for security is too mild a name to express their rigour) towards all those who did maintain them. For justifying whereof in the eye of the World, both before, and after the Synod, course was taken to impeach their Doctrine in these points of no smaller crimes, than to be destructive of Gods Grace, introductory of Popery, tending unto spiritual pride, and to Sedi∣tion or Rebellion in the Civil Government. Which Objections I shall here present, as I have done the Arguments of most importance which were Excogitated, and en∣forced against the Conclusions, and Determinations of the Synod in the said five points: and that being done, I shall return such Answers as are made unto them.

First then it is objected, [unspec II] that this Doctrine is destructive of Gods Free Grace, re∣viving the old Pelagian Heresies,* 4.7 so long since condemned. This is press'd by Boyer∣man, in his Annotations on the Book of Grotius, called Pietas Ordinum, &c. where he brings in Pareus, charging them, with having proceeded E Schola Caelestii & Pelagii, from no other School, than that of Pelagius, and Caelestius, those accursed Hereticks. Thycius another of the Contra-Remonstrants, but somewhat more moderate than the rest in this particular, conceives their Doctrine to incline rather to Semi-Pelagianism, Et aut eandem esse, aut non multo diversam, and either to be the very same, or not much different.* 4.8 But the authority of King James was of greatest weight, who in his heats against Vorstius, calls them the Enemies of Gods grace, Atheistical Sectaries, and more particularly, the Enemy of God Arminius, as the King once called him. To which Objection it is answered, that whatsoever Paraeus and the rest might please to call them, they had but little reason for it; the Remonstrants speaking as honourably of the Grace of God as any other whatsoever. And this they prove, by comparing the first branch of the Fourth Article, with that Golden saying of St. Augustine, yiz. Sine gratia Dei praeveniente ut velimus, & subsequente ne frustra velimus, ad pietatis opera nil

valemus: that is to say, that we may will the things which are good, and following or assisting, that we do not will them to no purpose, we are not able to do any thing in the works of Piety. And by comparing the said Clause with St. Augustins words, it cannot easily be discerned, why the one party should be branded for the Enemies of the Grace of God, while theo ther is honoured as the chief Patron, and Defender of it. It cannot be denied, but that they ascribe somewhat more to the will of man, than some of the rigid Lutherans and Calvinians do, who will have a man drawn for∣cibly, and irresistably, with the cords of Grace, velut inanimatum quiddam, like a sensless stock, without contributing any thing to his own salvation. But then it must be granted also, that they ascribe no more unto it, than what may stand both with the Grace and Justice of Almighty God, according to that Divine saying of St. Au∣gustine, viz. Si non est gratia Dei, quomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum? Were it not for the Grace of God, no man could be sa∣ved, and were there not a freedom of will in man, no man with justice could be condemned.

And as for the Reproachful words which King James is noted to have spoken of them, [unspec III] it hath been said (with all due reverence to the Majesty of so great a Prince) that he was then transported with prejudice or particular Interesse; and therefore that there lay an Appeal, (as once to Philip King of Macedon,) from the King being not then well informed, to the same King, whensoever he should be better informed. Touching their proceedings, it was observed, 1. That he had his Education in the Kirk of Scotland, where all the Heterodoxies of Calvin were received as Gospel, and therefore could not so suddenly cast off those opinions, which he suckt in as it were with his MOthers Milk. 2. He was much governed at that time by Dr. Mountague, then Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Dean of his Majesties Chappel Royal, who having been a great Stickler in the Predestinarian Controversies, when he lived in Cambridg, thought it his best way, to beat down all such Opinions by Kingly Authority, which he could not over-bear by the strength of Arguments. And thirdly, That K. James had then a turn to serve for the Prince of Orange, of which more anon, which turn being served, and Mountague dying not long after, his ears lay open to such further informations as were offered to him, which drew him to a better liking both of the Men and then Opinions than he had formerly entertained of either of them.

It is objected secondly, [unspec IV] that these Doctrines symbolize so much with the Church of Rome, that they serve only for a Bridg for Popery to pass over, into any Church, into which they can obtain admittance. This Calamity first laid upon them in a Declaration of the States General, against Barnevelt before remembred; wherein they charge him with a design of confederating with the Spaniard, to change the Religion of those Countreys, and countenancing to that end the Arminian party, as his fittest Instruments; which clamor being first raised in Holland, was afterwards much che∣rished and made use of, by the Puritan, or Calvinian party amongst us in England. By one of which it is alledged,* 4.9 that Mr. Pym being to make a report to the House of Commons, Anno 1626. touching the Books of Richard Mountague, after Bishop of Chichester, affirmed expresly, that the whole scope of his Book was to discourage the well-affected in Religion, and as much as in him lay, to reconcile them unto Popery. He gives us secondly, a Fragment of a scattered Paper, pretended to be written to the Rector of the Jesuits colledg in Bruxels; in which, the Writer lets him know, that they had strongly fortified their Faction here in England, by planting the Soveraign Drug Arminianism, which he hoped would purge the Protestants from their Heresie. Thirdly, he backs this Paper with a Clause in the Remonstrance of the House of Commons, 1628. where it is said that the hearts of hsi Majesties Subjects were perplexed in beholding the daily growth and spreading of the Faction of Arminanism, that being, as his Majesty well knew, (so they say at least) but a cunning way to bring in Popery. To all which, being but the same words out of divers mouths, it is answered, first, That the points which are now debated between the Calvinians and the old Protestants in England; between the Remonstrants, and the Contra-Remonstrants in the Belgick Churches; and finally between the rigid and moderate Lutherans in the upper Germany, have been as fiercely agitated, between the Franciscans and the Dominicans in the Church of Rome: The old English Protestants, the Remonstrants, and the moderate Lutherans, agreeing in these points with the Franciscans; as the English Calvinists, the Contra-Remonstrants, and the rigid Lutherans do with the Dominicans: So that there is a compliance on all sides with one of the said two differing parties in the Church of Rome. And there∣fore

why a general compliance in these points with the Fryers of S. Dominick, the princi∣pal sticklers and promoters of that Inquisition, should not be thought as a ready a way to bring in Popery, as any such compliance with the Fryers of St. Francis, he must be a very wise man indeed which can give the reason. Secondly, it is answered, that the Melanctho∣nian or moderate Lutherans which make up infinitely the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, agree in these points with the Jesuits or Franciscan Fryers, and yet are still as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as when they made the first separation from it. And therefore thirdly, that if Arminianism, as they call it, be so ready a Bridg for passing over to Popery, it would be very well worth the knowing, how and by what means it should come to pass, that so few of the Remonstrants in the Belgick Provinces, and none of those whom they call Arminians in the Church of England, should in so long a time pass over that Bridg, notwithstanding all the provocations of want and scorn, which were put upon the one, and have been since multiplied upon the other.

In the next place, [unspec V] it is observed, that the Arminian Doctrines, naturally incline a man to the sin of pride,* 4.10 in attributing so much to the power of his own will, and so little to the Grace of God, in chusing both the means, and working out of the end of his own salvation. And for the proof hereof, a passage is alledged out of the History of the Council of Trent, that the first Opinion, (that is to say, the Doctrine of Pre∣destination, according to the opinion of the Dominican Fryers) as it is hidden and mystical, keeping the mind humble, and relying on God, without any confidence in it self, knowing the deformity of Sin, and the excellency of Divine Grace; so the Second (be∣ing that maintained by the Franciscans) was plausible and populare, and cherished hu∣mane presumption, &c. The whole passage we have had before in the Second Chapter, Numb. 4. but we shall answer to no more of it than the former Clause. Concerning which, it may be said, that though Father Paul the Author of the History hath filled the Christian World with admiration, yet it is obvious to the eye of any discerning Reader, that in many places he savoureth not so much of the Historian, as he doth of the Party; and that being carryed by the Interest of his Native Countrey, (which was the Signory of Venice) he seldom speaks favourably of the Jesuits; and their ad∣herents, amongst which the Franciscans in these points are to be accounted. Second∣ly, that either Father Paul did mistake himself, or else that his Translator hath mi∣staken his meaning, in making the Second Opinion to be more pleasing to the Preaching Fryers, than the understanding Divines; the name of Preaching Fryers, being so appropriated in common speech to those of the Dominican Order, that it is never ap∣plyed unto any other. And Thirdly, That the Authority of Father Paul is no other∣wise to be embraced in Doctrinal matters, (what credit soever may be given to him in point of History) than as it is seconded by Reason. And certainly, if we pro∣ceed by the rule of Reason, that Doctrine must needs more cherish humane presump∣tion, which puffeth men up with the certainty of their Election, the infallibility of assisting and persisting Grace, and the impossibility of falling from the attaining of that salvation which they have promised to themselves; than that which leaves these points uncertain, which puts a man to the continnal necessity of calling on God, and working out the way unto his salvation with fear and trembling. He that is once possessed with this persuasion, that all the sins which he can possibly commit, were they as many as have been committed by all mankind, since the beginning of the World, are not able to frustrate his Election, or separate him from the love and favour of Almighty God; will be too apt to swell with Pharisaical pride, and despise all other men as Heathens and Publicans; when such poor Publicans as have their minds humble and relying on God, will stand aloof, not daring to approach too near the Divine Majesty, but crying out with God be merciful unto me a sinner, and yet shall be more justified in the sight of God than the others are. For this we need produce no proof, we find it in the su∣percilious looks, in the haughty carriage of those who are so well assured of their own Election; who cannot so disguise themselves, as not to undervalue and despise all those who are not of the same party, and persuasion with them. A race of men, whose insolence and pride there is no avoid by a modest submission, whose favour there is no obtaining by good turns and benefits. Quorum superbiam frustra per mo∣destiam, & obsequium, effugeris, as in another case was said by a Noble Britain.

And finally it is objected, [unspec VI] (but the Objection rather doth concern the men, than the Doctrine) that the Arminians are a Faction, a turbulent, seditious Faction, so found in the Ʋnited Provinces, from their very first spawning; not to be suffered by any Rea∣son

of State in a Commonwealth. So saith the Author of the pamphlet called the Obser∣vator observed, and proves it by the wicked conspiracy (as he calls it) of Barnevelt,* 4.11 who suffered most condignly (as he tells us) upon that account, 1619. And afterwards by the damnable and hellish plot of Barnevelts Children and Allies, in their designs against the State, and the Prince of Orange.* 4.12 This Information seconded by the Author of the Book called, The Justification of the Fathers, &c. who tells us, but from whom he knows not, that the States themselves have reported of them, that they had created them more trouble, than the King of Spain had by all his Wars. And both these backt by the Authority of King James, who tells us of them in his Declaration against Vorstius, That if they were not with speed rooted out, no other issue could be expected, than the Curse of God, infamy through∣out all the Reformed Churches, and a perpetual rent, and destraction in the whole body of the State. This is the substance of the Charge: So old and common, that it was answered long since, by Bishop Ridly in Qu. Maries days, when the Doctrine of the Protestants was said to be the readiest way to stir up Sedition, and trouble the quiet of the Com∣monwealth; wherefore to be repressed in time by force of Laws. To which that godly Bishop returns this Answer, That Satan doth not cease to practice his old guiles and accustomed subtilties: He hath ever this Dart in a readiness, to whirl against his adversa∣ries, to accuse them of Sedition, that he may bring them, if he can, in danger of the Higher Powers; for so hath he by his Ministers, always charged the Prophets of God. Ahab said unto Elias, art thou he that troubleth Israel. The false Prophets complained also to their Princes of Jeremy; that his words were seditious, and not to be suffered. Did not the Scribes and Pharisees falsly accuse Christ, as a seditious person, and one that spake against Caesar. Which said, and the like instance made in the Preachings of St. Paul;* 4.13 he concludes it thus, viz. But how far they were from all sedition, their whole Doctrine, Life and Conversation doth well declare. And this being said in reference to the Charge in general, the Answer to each part thereof is not far to seek.

And first it hath been answered to that part of it which concerns King James, that the King was carried in this business, not so much by the clear light of his most excel∣lent understanding, as by Reason of State; the Arminians (as they call them) were at that time united into a party, under the command of John Olden Barnevelt, and by him used (for the reasons formerly laid down) to undermine the power of Maurice then Prince of Orange, who had made himself the Head of the Contra-Remonstrants, and was to that King a most dear Confederate. Which Division in the Belgick Pro∣vinces, that King considered as a matter of most dangerous consequence, and utterly destructive of that peace, unity and concord, which was to be the greatest preserva∣tion of the States Ʋnited; on whose tranquillity and power, he placed a great part of the peace and happiness of his own Dominions. Upon which reason, he exhorts them in the said Declaration, To take heed of such infected persons; their own Countrey-men being already divided into Factions, upon this occasion (as he saith) which was a matter so opposite to Ʋnity (which was indeed the only prop and safety of their State, next under God) as of ne∣cessity it must by little and little bring them to utter tuin, if justly and in time they did not pro∣vide against it. So that King James considering the present breach, as tending to the utter ruin of those States, and more particularly of the Prince of Orange, his most dear Ally; he thought it no small piece of King-craft, to contribute toward the suppression of the weaker party; not only by blasting them in the said Declaration, with reproach∣ful names, but sending such Divines to the Assembly at Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation.

So that part of the Argument which is borrowed from the States themselves, [unspec VIII] it must be proved by some better evidence, than the bare word of Mr. Hickman, before it can deserve an Answer; the speech being so Hyperbolical (not to call it worse) that it can hardly be accounted for a flower of Rhetorick. The greatest trouble which the States themselves were put to in all this business, was, for the first eight years of it, but the hearing of Complaints, receiving of Remonstrances, and being present at a Con∣ference between the parties. And for the last four years, (for it held no longer) their greatest trouble was to find out a way to forfeit all their old and Native Privi∣ledges in the death of Barnevelt, for maintenance whereof they had first took up Arms against the Spaniard. In all which time, no blood at all was drawn by the Sword of War, and but the blood of five or six men only, by the Sword of Justice, admit∣ting Barnevelts for one: Whereas their Wars with Spain had lasted above thrice that time, to the sacking of many of their Cities, the loss of at least 100000, of their own lives, and the expense of many millions of Treasure. And as for Barnevelt, if

he had committed any Treason against his Countrey, by the Laws of the same Coun∣trey he was to be tryed. Contrary whereunto, the Prince of Orange having gotten him into his power, put him over to be judged by certain Delegates, commissionated by the States General, who by the Laws of the Union, can pretend unto no Authority over the Life and Limb of the meanest Subject. Finally, for the conspiring of Bar∣nevelts Children, it concerns only them whose design it was. Who to revenge his death, so unworthily and unjustly contrived, and (as they thought) so undeserved∣ly, and against their Laws, might fall upon some desperate Counsels, and most un∣justifiable courses in pursuance of it. But what makes this to the Arminian and Re∣monstrant party? Or doth evince them for a turbulent and seditious Faction, not to be suffered by any Reason of State in a well-ordered Commonwealth. Barnevelts Kin∣dred might be faulty, the Arminians innocent, or the Armanians faulty, in their pra∣ctice against the life of the Prince of Orange, under and by whom they had suffered so many oppressions, without involving those in their Crimes and Treasons, who hold the same Opinion with them in their Neighbouring Churches.

The reason is, [unspec XI] because there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Arminians, (it as re∣lates to the Five points in difference) which can dispose the Professors of it to any such practices. And therefore if the Arminians should have proved as turbulent and seditious as their Enemies made them, yet we were not to impute it to them, as they were Arminians, that is to say, as men following the Melancthonian way, of Predestina∣tion, and differing in those points from the rest of the Calvinists, but as exasperated, and provoked, and forced to cast themselves upon desperate courses, Quae libertatis arma dat ipse dolor, in the Poets language. But so some say, it is not with the Doctrine of the other party by which mens actions are so ordered and predetermined by the eternal Will of God, even to the taking up of a straw, as before was said, ut nec plus boni nec minus mali, that it is neither in their power, to do more good, or commit less evil than they do. And then according to that Doctrine, all Treasons, Murders and Seditions, are to be excused, as unavoidable in them, who commit the same, because it is not in their power not to be guilty of those Treasons or Seditions which the fire and fury of the Sect shall inflame them with. And then to what end should Princes make Laws, or spend their whole endeavours in preserving the publick Peace, when notwithstanding all their cares, and travels to prevent the mischief, things could no otherwise succeed, than as they have been predetermined by the Will of God. And therefore the best way would be, Sinere res vadere quo vult (in the Latin of an old Spanish Monk) to let all matters go as they will, since we cannot make them go as we would; according to that counsel of the good old Poet.

Solvite mortales animos,* 4.14 curisque levate, Totque super vacuis animum deplete querelis: Fata regunt Orbem, certa stant omnia lege.

That is to say,

Discharge thy Soul poor man of vexing fears, And ease thy self of all superfluous cares. The World is governed by the Fates, and all Affairs, by Heaven's decree, do stand or fall.

To this effect, [unspec X] it is reported, that the old Lord Burleigh should discourse with Queen Eliz. when he was first acquainted with the making of the Lambeth Articles. Not being pleased wherewith,* 4.15 he had recourse unto the Queen, letting her see how much her Majesties Authority, and the Laws of the Realm were thereby violated, and it was no hard matter to discern what they aimed at, who had most stickled in the same. For, saith he, this is their Opinion and Doctrine; that every Humane action, be it good or evil, it is all restrained and bound up by the Law of an immutable De∣cree; that upon the very wills of men also, this necessity is imposed, ut aliter quam vellent homines, velle non possent, that men could not will otherwise than they did will. Which Opinions, saith he, Madam, if they be true, Frustra ego aliique fideles Ma∣jestatis tuae ministri, &c. then I and the rest of your Majesties faithful Ministers do sit in Council to no purpose, 'tis in vain to deliberate and advise about the affairs of your Realm; Cum de his quae eveniunt necessario, stulta sit plane omnis consultatio, since in those things that came to pass of necessity, all consultation is foolish, and ridiculous.

To which purpose it was also press'd by the Bishop of Rochester, Oxon, and St. Davids, in a Letter to the Duke of Buckingham, concerning Mountagues Appeal, Ann. 1625.* 4.16 In which it is affirmed, that they cannot conceive what use there can be of Civil Government in the Common-wealth, or of Preaching, and external Ministry in the Church, if such fatal Opinins, as some which are opposite and contrary to those delivered by Mr. Mountague, shall be publickly taught and maintained. More plainly and particularly charged by Dr. Brooks. once Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge, in a Letter to the late Archbishop,* 4.17 bearing date Decemb. 15. 1630. in which he writes, that their Doctrines of Predestination is the root of Puritanism, and Puritanism is the root of all Rebellions, and disobedient untractable∣ness in Parliaments, &c. and of all Schism and saweiness in the Countrey, nay in the Church it self; making many thousands of our People, and too great a part of the Gentlemen of the Land very Leightons in their hearts; which Leighton had published not long before, a most pestilent and seditious Book against the Bishops, called Sions Plea, in which he excited the People to strike the Bishops under the fifth rib, reviling the Queen by the name of a Daughter of Heth; and for the same was after censured in the Star-Chamber to Pillory, loss of Ears, &c.

But because perhaps it may be said that this is but a new device, [unspec XI] excogitated by the malice of these later times, to defame this doctrine,* 4.18 let us behold what Campneys hath delivered of it in the first or second year of Queen Eliz. at the first peeping of it out to disturb this Church. Where (saith he) who seeth not the distraction of England, to follow this Doctrine? Who seeth not the confusion of all Common-wealths to de∣pend hereupon? What Prince may sit safely in the seat of his Kingdom? What sub∣ject may live quietly possessing his own? What man shall be ruled by the right of Law? If these Opinions may be perfectly placed in the hearts of the People? Which Corol∣lary he brings in, in the end of a discourse touching the Rebellion, raised by Martin Cyrnel, and seconded by the Earl of Lincoln, Martin Swarth, and others, against Hen. VII. For, building on the Culvinian Maxim, that as God doth appoint the end, so he ap∣pointeth also the means and causes which lead unto it; he thereupon inferreth that Martin Swarth, and his men, according to that Doctrine were destined by God to be slain at the Batrel of Stoke. In order whereunto, first Sir Richard Simon the Priest must be appointed and predestinate of God to pour in the pestilent poyson of privy Conspi∣racy, and trayterous mischief of vain glory into the heart of Lambert (his Scholar) as a cause leading to the same end. Secondly,* 4.19 That he the said Lambert was appointed and predestinate of God to consent and agree unto the pestiferous persuasion of his Ma∣ster S. Richard, in the pride of Lucifer, to aspire unto the Royal Throne, as another cause leading to the same end which God ordained. Thirdly, That the Irish men were appointed of God to be Rebellious Traytors against their Soveraign Lord the King of England, and to maintain the false and filthy quarrel of Lambert, as another cause leading to the same end. Fourthly, That in order to the said end, the Lady Margaret (Sister to K. Edw. IV.) was appointed and predestinate of God to be a Tray∣toress to England, and to imploy all her wits, forces, and power, to the utter de∣struction of her natural Countrey: And fifthly, in particular, that the said Lady Mar∣garet was appointed of God, to hire the said Martin Swarth and his men to invade the Realm of England. Sixthly and finally, that the said Martin Swarth, the Earl of Lin∣coln, the Lord Lorel, the Lord Gerrard, and divers others, Captains of the Rebels, were appointed and predestinate of God to be of such valiant courage in maintaining the false quarrel of trayterous Lambert, that they were slain, (and on the other side, many a brave English mans blood was shed) at the Battel of Stoke, which was the end of this woful Tragedy. Let them say therefore what they can or will; this meer ne∣cessity which our men teach, is the very same which the Stoicks did hold; which opi∣nion, because it destroyed the state of a Common-wealth, was banished out of Rome, as St. Augustine declareth in lib. Quaest. Vet. & Nov. Testam.

And thus the different judgments of all the other Western Churches, [unspec XII] and the several Subdivisions of them in the five controverted Points, being laid together with such discourses and disputes as have occasionally been made, and raised about them, we will next shew to which of the said differing parties the Church of England seems most in∣clinable, and afterwards proceed in the story of it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hist. Eccl. Euseb. l. 5. c. 14. & 19.
• * 1.2

  Calv. Advers. Libertl. c. 12.
• * 1.3

  Prateol. E∣lench. Haeve. in Quintino. Bellar.
• * 1.4

  Prateol. in Elench. Haer. in Marich.
• * 1.5

  August. de Hae∣res. cap. 25. Ibid. cap. 15. & 70.
• * 1.6

  Homer Illiad.
• * 1.7

  August. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 2. c. 27.
• * 1.8

  Calv. instit. lib. 3. c. 23. sect. 7. V. Synod. Rom.
• * 1.9

  Falgent. ad Monimum.
• * 1.10

  August. Tom. 2. Epist. 106.
• * 1.11

  Prattol. Elench. Heret. in Pe∣lag.
• * 1.12

  August. l. 1. contr. Epist. Pelagi. cap. 2.
• * 1.13

  Lindan in Dial. 21.
• * 1.14

  Eccles. polit. lib. 11. p. 96.
• * 1.15

  Hist. of the Council. fol. 175.
• * 1.16

  Idem. sol. 181.
• * 1.17

  Hist of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cil. p. 108. &c.
• * 1.18

  Ibid. p. 215.
• * 1.19

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.20

  Ibid, c. 2.
• * 1.21

  Hist. of the Council. f. 212.
• * 1.22

  Ses. 6. c. 2, 3.
• * 1.23

  session 6, can. 2, 3.
• * 1.24

  Sess. 6. c. 5.
• * 1.25

  Can. 4.
• * 1.26

  Sess. 6. Can. 13.
• * 1.27

  Can. 14.
• * 1.28

  Can. 15.
• * 1.29

  Hist. of the Council of Tr. p. 210.
• * 1.30

  Ibid. f. 208.
• * 1.31

  August. Confes. cap. 2.
• * 1.32

  Appel. Eving. cap. 4.
• * 1.33

  Aug. Confess. c. 3.
• * 1.34

  Id. cap. de Missa.
• * 1.35

  Ibid. cap. 18.
• * 1.36

  Idem. cap. 18.
• * 1.37

  Idem cap. 11.
• * 1.38

  Institut. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7.
• * 1.39

  Calv. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect. 6.
• * 1.40

  ••a••m •••• sect. 7.
• * 1.41

  Hooker in ec∣cle. Pol. Pres. p. 9.
• * 1.42

  Arcan. Dog. Aat. Rom. p. 15.
• * 1.43

  Arcan. Dogn. Contr. Remon. p. 23.
• * 1.44

  Ibid. p. 29.
• * 1.45

  Ibid. p. 33.
• * 1.46

  Ibid. p. 41.
• * 1.47

  Ibid. p. 47.
• * 1.48

  Gods love to Mankind, p. 45.
• * 1.49

  Ibid. p. 53.
• * 1.50

  Tertul. l. 2. contr. Marcion. c. 22.
• * 1.51

  Gods love to Mankind, p. 62.
• * 1.52

  Ibid. p. 64.
• * 1.53

  Ibid. p. 65. & p. 67.
• * 1.54

  Ibid. p. 58.
• * 1.55

  Ibid. p. 76.
• * 1.56

  Ibid. p. 91.
• * 1.57

  Sect. de vit. Tyb. c. 69. p. 180.
• * 1.58

  Heisti. lib. 1. de Minor. Hist l. 27. p. 39. or Gods love to mankind. p. 97.
• * 3.1

  In his Letters, p. 72.
• * 4.1

  ••••••canquals Letters, p. 10.
• * 4.2

  Hist. of the Contr. p. 215.
• * 4.3

  ••rtf. A. 9.
• * 4.4

  Exam. Cens. p. 63. D.
• * 4.5

  Gods 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Man-kind p. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 4.6

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 4.7

  ••••••man, An∣not. Grotii Putat.
• * 4.8

  Declar. against Vorstius.
• * 4.9

  Justificat. of the Fathers, &c.
• * 4.10

  Justif. of the Fathers, &c. p. 34.
• * 4.11

  Obf. Obser¦ved, p. 46.
• * 4.12

  P. 37.
• * 4.13

  Confer. be∣tween Kidley and Latimer.
• * 4.14

  Manil. de Sphe. lib.
• * 4.15

  Hist. Artic. Lambeth, p. 6, 7.
• * 4.16

  Cabuba. p. 116.
• * 4.17

  Cont. Dom. p. 167.
• * 4.18

  Answer to a certain Lett. p. 38.
• * 4.19

  Ibid. p. 38.