Carleton 1618. Theo. Field 1619. Lincoln William Barlow 1608. Richard Neile 1613. George Mountayn 1617. Iohn Williams 1621. London Richard Vaughan 1604. Thomas Ravis 1607. George Abbot 1609. Iohn King 1611. George Mountaine 1621. Norwich Iohn Overal 1618. Samuel Harsnet 1619. Oxford Iohn Bridges 1603. Iohn Houson 1619. Roch. Willam Barlow 1605. Rechard Neile 1608. Io. Buckridge 1611. Salisbury Robert Abbot 1615. Martin Fotherby 1618. Robert Tomson 1620. Iohn Davenant 1621. Winchester Ia. Mountague 1617. Lancelot Andrews 1618. Worcester Henry Parry 1610. Iohn Thornborough 1617. York Toby Mathew 1606. Carlisle Robert Snowdon 1616. Richard Milbourne 1620. Richard Senhouse 1624. Chester George Lloyd 1604. Thomas Morton 1616. Iohn Bridgeman 1618. Durham William Iames 1606. Richard Neile 1617. How few are they among these which the Doctor layes claim to And how little or no proof doth he give us that those whom he claims had publickly owned any of his Anti-calvinian Opinions Bancroft is never affirmed to have said or written any thing concerning Predestination but what occurs in the Relation of the Hampton Court Conference and that can at most amount but to a rebuke of some carnal Protestants who did abuse the Doctrine of Predestination to their destruction Overal's Opinion in these points if it somewhat differ from Calvin's much more differs from Dr. Heylin's Yet on the account of Overal's and some others Episcopal preserments the Historian groweth so confident as to averr that his Conditional-decree-men found King James a gracious Patron and by means of his gracious Patronage in the end surmounted all difficulties and came at last to be altogether as considerable both for power and number as the Calvinists were He that will affirm this and affirm it in Print and whilst so many are living that knew the Transactions of King Iames his Court must needs lose the credit of an impartial Historian Yet the Doctor as if he had not sufficiently disparaged himself in affirming so great an increase of Anti-calvinists in England goes on to give a reason of it just as some in Natural Philosophy undertake to give us a cause of the Swans singing before her death before they have given us any good Authority that she doth so sing But what is his reason Why Dr. H. Pag. 103. The differences betwixt the Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants in Holland and their publishing of their Books one against another by which the students in the Universities were quickned to study the points Answ. That the breaking out of the Remonstrants could not did not contribute to the increase of Arminianism in England we shall see by and by In the mean time it is no great credit to the Doctors cause that so few durst publickly appear for it till it had the incouragement of the civil Magistrate If the Primitive Christians had not published the truth before Kings became nursing Fathers to it the world had been to this day under Paganish darkness Let me offer a Dilemma Either there were some in England who thought Calvins Doctrines made God the Author of sin destroyed liberty of will opened a gap to all profaneness or there were not If there were none every one sees what will follow If any how came they to have so little zeal against so damnable blasphemies as not to adventure the loss of all preferments yea of life it self in opposing of them Dr. H. Pag. 104. But so it hapned that while matters went thus fairly forwards Conradus Vorstius suspected for a Samosetenian or Socinian Heretick c was chosen by the Curators of Leiden 1611 to succeed Arminius Answ. While things went thus fairly forward How fairly forward You told us before of the preferments of certain Bishops that had espoused your opinions several of whose preferments were bestowed on them after this election of Vorstius into the place of Arminius You also little credit your History by saying that Vorstius was but suspected of Socinianism and your friends the Remonstrants did less credit themselves in appearing so streâ—uously for a man suspected of such prodigious blasphemies if he had been only suspected But what ever secret good liking you had either for the Remonstrants or Vorstius by whom they would feign have been headed your Loyalty and Allegeance should have kept you from saying that King James used many harsh and bitter expressions against Arminius and his followers as if guilty of the same impieties with Vorstius For why might not King Iames charge the Remonstrants with Vorstius his blasphemies when as they so apertly declared that they had nothing against Vorstius nor had found any thing in his Writing which was contrary to truth or piety and that it would be most profitable to Church and Commonwealth if his calling should proceed Vid. praef ad acta Synodi But how inexcuseable a piece of is it to say as you do Chapt. 6th Numb 7 that King James was carried so to express himself against the Arminians not so much by the clear light of his own understanding as by reason of State and that it was a part of Kings craft to contribute to the suppression of the weaker party For doth not King Iames in his Declaration tell you the clean contrary Doth he not also call Arminius an enemy to God his followers Atheistical sectaries Doth he not call Bertius his Book of the Apostasie of Saints a blasphemous Book worthy of the Fire for its very Title Doth he not say that Bertius lâ—ed grosly in averring his heresie contained in his said Book was agreeable with the profession and Religion of our Church of England And will you after all this make the world believe that setting aside political considerations and a design to serve the Prince of Orange King Iames had no zeal against Arminianism What if one should say that this Book you have written is not the clear result of your Judgment but wrested from you by the importunity of your Friends who would not suffer you to be quiet till you had reproached the Calvinists and wrested the History of Church affairs to serve their ends You would think your self wronged And have not you then much more wronged King Iames under whose Government you lived in telling the world so long after his death that he put all the harsh expressions against Arminius into his Declaration to serve other mens turns rather than to advance his own as you speak Chap. 22. Numb 10. But you think you have reason to charge this hypocrisie on him for say you pag. 106 That King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves though he had taken some displeasure against their persons appears not only by rejecting the Lambeth-Articles and his dislike to the Calvinian Doctrine of predestination in the Conference at Hampton-Court but also by instructing his Divines commissionated for the Synod of Dort not to oppose the Article of Universal Redemption which they accordingly performed You told us before Chap. 6. Numb 7th that King James sent such Divines to the assembly
Bez. in praef ad acta Coll. I hope he wronged the Lutheran Schools or else I must needs say they had strange Schools in which a man could never hear a Syllogistical Disputation In our Schools no Disputations are allowed but what are Syllogistical and the main work of the Moderator is to keep the Disputants to form And this was that which Tertullian so much commended ad lineas in gradum disputare that which St. Hierom so often called for in his Disputations against the Luciferians Rhetoricaris a disputationum spinctis ad câ—mpos liberae declamationis excurris verum define quaeso a communibus locis in gradum rursus ac lineas regredere postea si placuâ—rit latius disseremus And yet the Author of Gods love to man-kind makes this one of his reasons why he suspected the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation not to be true because the maintainers of it are so loth to have it examined But the Author before he died knew that the absolute decree did not fear tryal but was as generally entertained and as firmly held after it had endured the most severe tryals as before Buâ— if men will say We cannot endure to haave a Doctrine examined because we do not like that it should be mis-represented and then bespattered by those who had rather lose a good Conscience than a prophane Iest if we must be accouted Cowards because we tell Rabshakeh that we understand Latine and pray him not to talk to us in English in the ears of the People and answer him not a word when he hath done reviling we are content to be thought such Cowards But let those who so call us think what they would do if the Doctrine of the Trinity should be impugned They would answer him who soberly went about to shew that the Scriptures we produce do not prove a Trinity or that should go about by reason to shew that an increated infinite essence can no mâ—re be one and yet agree to three persons than the humane nature can But if any one should write such Books as Servetus did in which above an hundred times over the Trinity iâ— called â—â—iceps Cerberus diabolicum phantasma Geryonis monstrum illusio Satanae and the eternal generation is thus derided Debent dicere quod pater habeat uxorem quandam spiritualem vel quod solus ipse masculo-faeâ—â—neus aut Hermaphroditus simul sit pater mater c. and Si logos filius erat natâ—s ex patre sine matre dic mihi quomodo peperit cum per ventrem an per latus they would think it sufficient to say The Lord rebuke thee To conclude If any one who is a Scholar and will write like a Scholar will be at the pains to shew me that Arminianism in the five points is not contrary to the Doctrine of St. Austin the hammer of Pelagianism nor yet contrary to the Doctrine of our Church I shall either speedily reply or acknowledge my self his Prisoner Put if any one shall publish a Book against me stuffed only with impotent railings or malicious calumnies I shall punish him as I have done two or three already by not buying not reading his Book It will perhaps be said that the Papists against whom we should unite our forces will be too too much gratified by one Protestant 's writing against another Answ. I doubt not but the Factors for the Papacy do with much delight tell their Disciples how those that are not in Communion with them are divided among themselves But they should do well to make up their own breaches before they upbraid us witâ— ours He that being scandalised at the diversity of opinions among the Reformed shall betake himself to the Romanists will leap out of the frying-pan into the fire The Papists only agree in that in which they dare not publish how much they differ and they then let a Popes decision put an end to their disputes when they can neither say that the Pope was misinformed or that he was not in Cathedâ—a or know not how by some distinction to evade the determination that is they then let the Popes reconcile them when they have no mind to be any longer at variance They will not deny but that there is as much difference between their Dominicans and Franciscans their Jansenists and Molinists as there is betwixt Calvinists and Arminians and yet they say that their Church is one and not ours How is this to be unridled One A. D. about the beginning of King James his Reign put forth a Pamphlet which he called a Treatise of Faith near the later end of which he lets us understand that the Roman Church is alwayes one and uniform in Faith never varying or holding any dogmatical point contrary to that which in former times it did hold The learned men thereof though sometimes differing in opinion in matters not defined by the Church yet in matters of Faith all conspire in one And no marvel because they have a most convenient means to keep unity in profession of Faith sith they do acknowledge one chief Pastor appointed over them viz. the Successor of St. Peter to whose definitive censure in matters concerning Religion they wholly submit themselves The Gentlemans meaning if I can fathom it is that the Romanists are resolved to think their Church is at unity within it self For though the members thereof have 10000 differences among themselves yet those differences are not in matters of Faith because they are resolved as soon as the Church shall decide them never to differ more Well one would think that Protestants also might be at unity because they profess they will yield to Scripture determination whatever it be Nay that the Gentleman will nâ—t grant because as he had told us a little before divers men expound the Scriptures diversly As if the decisions of their Church were not expounded diversly by divers and were not as apt to be diversly expounded as the Scriptures And as if they were as much at an end after they had found out the meaning of a decision made by the Pope as we are when we have found out the meaning of the Scripture Convince a Protestant that any one place of Scripture must needs be so understood as to assert Consubstantiation he becomes a Synoâ—siast forthwith But when you have convinced a Papist that a decision of the Pope must needs be so interpreted as to cross his opinion yet he will not lay down his opinion but will say perhaps that the Pope did decide not as Pope but only as a Learned man or that it may be questioned whether he be a Pope or whether he be infallible out of a Councel or whether he was rightly informed of matter of fact Suppose a Jansenist should thus argue The Pope did not intend to condemn the Doctrine of Augustine therefore He did not intend to condemn the Doctrine of Jansenius A Molinist would be loth to deny the Antecedent and yet if he
importunate Letters sent to him as able as any to strengthen the weak hands of Arminius and his followers I do in the entrance promise to have in my eye that golden saying Historici primum munus est ne quid falsi dicâ—â— audeat deinde ne quid veri non audeat ne qua suspicio gratiae sit in scribendo ne qua simultatis Which that the Doctor observed not will be evident before I have done to all but those who cannot or will not see Our Subject must be the unhappy Quinquarticular Controversie about which the Doctor had written something in that part of his Certamen Epistolare which was directed against Mr. Hickman That Certamen whether it pleased others or no it seems pleased the Doctor himself so well that he hath thought meet to repeat a good part of it in his Historia Quinquarticularis and that without begging pardon for his Taâ—tology But this being a fault against my purse rather than against the Truth I can easily forgive and shall make some Animadversions on his History and insert such Digressionâ— as I shall judge meet to decide the Controversie Whetâ—er the Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant opinions be most agreeable to the sense of the Antient and Modern Reformed Protestant Churches more especially this of England If I evince not that the Contra-Remonstrant are I refuse not the hardest Censure The Doctor in his first Chapter makes some declamatory attempts against such As have either made God the Author of sin or denyed the liberty of mans will or attributed too much to the natural freedom of mans will in the works of piety Whether with that fidelity and candor that becomes an Historian must now be examined Dr. H. Lib. 1. pag. 2. The Blasphemy which makes God to be the Author of sin was first broach'd 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 St. Irenaeus who published a Discourse against them bearing this Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that God was not the Author of sin For this he refers us to Eusebius Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 14 19 and to no other Author Answ. Periculosum est in limine offendere 'T is ominous to stumble at the very Threshold So hath the Doctor done For though I can easily grant that Florinus did in terminis assert God to be the Author of sin partly because of the Title of the Epistle written to him which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly because I find him by Irenaeus in a fragment of an Epistle to him recorded in Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 19 charged to maintain such Dogmata as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereticks out of the Church durst never hold yet is there not the least proof from Eusebius what ever there may be from others that Blastus ever maintained any such blasphemy From the Title of the Epistle written to him which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may guess that his opinions were such as had a tendency to Schism rather than to any thing which is properly Heresie-Tertullian towards the end of his Book de Heresibus writes thus of him Blastus latenter Iudaismum vult introducere Pascha enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse nisi secundum legem Moysis 14. mensis Quis autem nesciat quoniam Evangelica gratia evacuatur si ad iegem Christum redigit Feuardentius in his Preface to some fragments of Irenaeus saith It may be easily collected from several Antients whom he there names that Blastus gave the beginning to the Schism of the Quartodecimani This is all peculiar to Blastus that I can find though it is scarce to be doubted but that he held some of the absurd opinions of Valentinus whose Scholar he was I only add If Florinus an hearer of Polycarpe and a Presbyter of Rome fell into the highest most horrid of Blasphemies no one hath reason to be secure but every one that standeth had need take heed left he fall into the same fury or by running from it fall into some dotage as contrary to Scripture For so I find that a Sect of men called by Austin Coluthiani by Isidore corruptly Cottiliani and more corruptly by Platina Quolitiani from Coluthus a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria did not doubting to assert that God did not Create any sort of evil whereas he could not be God if he did not work all evils that are in Cities or Countries so far as they are fruits and just rewards of mens sins This errour saith Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c lasted not long but soon vanished yet because it is so expresly mentioned by Philaster Danaeus conceives it spread it self both into East and West Certain I am the Arminian if closely followed must either fall into this pit or else depart from some of his beloved opinions Dr. H. Ibid. What Arguments the good Father used to cry down this blasphemy I cannot gather from any Authour 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 or such as never attained to the height of their Masters impudence Ans. What the good Fathers Arguments were is not so impossible to be collected out of Eusebius as the Doctor here suggests For though it be but a very fragment of the Epistle to or against Florinus which is come to our hands yet our of that fragment we may gather something that Irenaeus thought meet to make use of namely that Florinus his Dogma was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not agreeable to the sentiment of the Church of God that then was that it did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lead as many as did embrace it into the greatest impiety 'T is also farther added there by Irenaeus that he had very perfect remembrance of Polycarpe who conversed with S. Iohn and that he could witness as in the presence of God that had that blessed and Apostolical Presbyter so he calls Polycarpe not Bishop heard any such thing as was by Florinus asserted he would have stopped his ear and cryed aloud according to his custom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Good God! unto what times hast thou kept me that I should hear such things yea that he would forthwith have fled out of that place in which either standing or sitting he had heard any such impiety Which considerations undoubtedly do not want their weight at least they are as material as any brought by Dr. Heylin himself Upon this occasion it may not be amiss to mention the Arguments by which if not Irenaeus yet other of the Antient Fathers have opposed this not undeservedly called Doctrine of Devils that God is the Author of sin 1. They laid some stress upon this that sin is not positive but privative This Argument is largely prosecuted by Dionysius commonly though falsly call'd the Areopagite He proveth that Moral
evil cannot be from God because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Much more of this nature may be seen in Mr. Hickmans Iustification of the Fathers and Schoolmen And therefore if any which God forbid should be minded to lick up the vomit of Florinus Mr. T.P. by maintaining the positivity of sin hath encouraged them so to do But the best is his Impartial enquiry into the Nature of sin is so managed that one may say to him as once Gualter Haddon did to Hieronymus Osorius Video librum tuum constare ex ignorantia impudentia quarum una cum fiat ut nihil intelligas altera tamen efficitur ut omnia audeas There 's one continued fallacy runneth through all his Pages the confounding of the materiale or substratum and the formale of sin he that can distinguish these as who cannot that hath but dipped into a Systeme of Mâ—taphysicks hath answered all his reasons all his Authorities 2. Basil and others argue from the Nature of God unto which Holiness and Righteousness are essential and therefore sin so contrary to it cannot be caused by it 3. The Fathers much urge the reason drawn from the last Judgment in which God is to punish all the impenitent for their ungodliness Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance God forbid for then how shal God Iudge the World Rom. 3.5 6. God could have no mind to punish that which he himself caused nor could he justly punish man for doing that which he had made him to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nyssen excellently But it is time that I should pass to that Age in which the Heresie of Florinus buried as the Doctor thinks for so many Centuries was revived Of that thus he begins Dr. H. Pag. 2. It never revived in more than thirteen hundred years after the death of Irenaeus when it was again started by the Libertines a late brood of Sectaries Answer If the Doctor here speak of those that did by just and necessary consequence make God the Author of sin there were many betwixt Irenaeus and the two Tailors of Flandria that did so but if he would have us think that the Libertines did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in express terms entitle God to the sins of all men he must pardon us if we be not too haâ—ty in so thinking For Bellarmine who possibly read over rhe History of the Libertines with as much care as the Doctor tells us expressly that the Libertines do in words deny that they make God the Author or cause of sin de Statu peccati lib. 2. c. 2. The truth is their Tenent rather was that there is no sin than that God is the cause of sin They would not deny but that God wrought all the Adulteries and Rapines that were but then they affirmed that Adulteries and Rapines being wrought by God were no sins But under whose wings were these miscreants hatched and when did they first infect the Christian Church Dr. H. Pag. 3. The time of their breaking out affirmed to be about the year 1529. Founders of the Sect Coppinus and Quintinus Flemmings both and this Prateolus affirms for certain to be the Progeny of Calvin and other leading Men of the Protestant Churches Bellarmine more remissly Omnino probabile est Answer About is a word that will stretch and hath saved many a lie yet was it no more than was needful For so uncertain is our Historian about the time of these wretched miscreants rising that having in these words placed it at the year 1529 a very few Lines after he placeth it at An. 1527 but his Friend Prateolus placeth it lower yet at the year 1525 at which time Mr. Calvin was not much above sixteen years old being born if he who writes his Life deceive me not the sixth of Iune Anno 1509 and therefore it would be a most strange oversight in Prateolus if he should affirm that the Libertines were the Progeny of Calvin But the truth is Prateolus is guilty of no such oversight though the Doctor is pleased to charge it upon him There is no necessity in the World that e Schola nostrae tempestatis Evangelicorum which are Prateolus his words should take in Calvin Bellarmine doth indeed in the place quoted by the Doctor say Omnino probabile est ut Anabaptistae ex Lutheranis sic Libertinos ex Calvinianis promanasse But he addeth a reason which methinks no one of his admirers should be able to read without blushing For in the books of Calvin and his Master Zuinglius and his Disciple Beza as also of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr are found most apert sentences out of which it is collected that God is the Author of all the wickednesses which are perpetrated by men Let us form this reason into an Euthymem that the goodliness of it may appear There are in Zuinglius Calvin Beza Bucer Martyr most apert sentences from which it is gathered that God is the Author of sin Therefore it is altogether probable that the Libertines did arise from the Calvinians The Antecedent he indeed useth all his wit and malice for many Chapters to prove howbeit with most pitiful success as divers have shewn divers are still ready to shew But why did he not use some covering for the Consequent the nakedness whereof is so visible Could he think that we without more ado would believe the Libertines were the brood of the Calvinians if the Calvinians have sentences in their writings from whence it may be inferred that God is the Author of sin Perhaps the Libertines were risen in the world before these mens writings were extant Perhaps they never saw these mens writings though they were extant when they did arise Perhaps there were other men no Calvinians whose writings the Libertines were acquainted with and sucked their loose opinions from Why do I use the word perhaps Most certain it is that no writing of any Calvinian either did or could bring Libertinism into the world But it is as certain that if the first Libertines were bookish men as I think they were not there were extant many Popish Divines and Professors Books in which were sentences more likely to draw men into Libertinism than any extant in Calvin or any of his Disciples or Collegues Nay if need were I could shew even in Bellarmine himself such sentences as have a greater shew of making God the Author of sin than any used by Calvin But if the Cardinal had a mind to lay those ugly brats of Libertinism and Anabaptism at the Protestants doors Why did he trouble himself to father them on two differing sorts of Protestants Why doth he say that Anabaptists are the progeny of the Lutherans and Libertines the brood of the Calvinians Doth he not confess that Luther and Melancthon did at first teach the very same things ministring to Libertinism that the Calvinians teach If so Why might not the Libertines learn their lessons from them Were not the first Anabaptists Libertines as well
from whom Prateolus must take what he brings if it be truth that he brings I shall let him enjoy his humour and not put my self to the trouble of an enquiry whether these furious men did affirm that sin was not from free-will Though there be some passages that render it probable that they thought that man when he sinned did propria voluntate peccare Though withal they seem to have been of this mind that the voluntas male agendi was not a thing we brought on our selves by the fall but something natural to us However without offence I hope the Doctor may be minded that Manes was not the first of that wicked sort of men for he first called not as Augus Urbicus but as Socrates Cubricus got into his hands the Books of one Terebynthus who had changed his name into Buddas and published them to the World as if composed by himself it being not likely that the World should be taken with any Books that did bear the name of Buddas who though pretending to be born of a Virgin and to be able to work great feats died not long before miserably being thrown from an high place and having his neck broke Nor was this Terebynthus or Buddas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had got into his custody the four Books entitled Evangelium Liber Capitum Mysteriorum Thesaurorum but the Books were composed by his Master one Scythianus a Saracen Merchant who to gratifie his wife lived in Egypt yet Scythianus himself did not excogitate these two Gods or first principles one good the other evil but sucked in that absurdity from such Writings or Fragments as he had met with of Empedocles and Pythagoras as Socrates tells us lib. 1. c. 21 whom in this whole matter I the more confidently follow because he faithfully alledgeth every thing out of the disputation of Archelaus a Mesopotamian Bishop who disputed with Manes face to face Wherefore seeing this is the undoubted and capital errour of the Manichees to assert two first Principles the one good the other bad I leave it to the serious consideration of our Historian Whether the opinion of Mr. Pierce and the English Tilenus concerning the positivity of sin do not border somewhat too neer that absurd blasphemy and Whether it would not sound better in the ears of Christians and Philosophers to say that the obliquity of the sinful act is but a privation and to be attributed to the defectible nature of the will but the Act which is the substratum of this obliquity is positive and to be ascribed to him who is the first and supreme Agent and Cause and Whether the admonition that Austin once gave to the Manichees de duabus anim contra Manich. cap. 6. in fine may not â—itly be given to the two forementioned Authors ut eos sequi mallent qui omne quicquid esset quoniam esset in quantumque esset ex uno deo esse praedicarent Dr. H. Page 4 5. Others not daring to ascribe all their sins and wickedness unto God himself imputed the whole blame thereof to the Stars and Destinies the powerful influence of the one and the irresistible Decrees of the other necessitating men to those wicked actions which they so frequently commit Thus we are told of Bardesanes quòd fato conversationes hominum ascriberet Ans. We are told of Bardesanes but where or by whom In the Margin I find Aug. de Haeres cap. 25. quoted But one would almost think that the Doctor was born under some such Planet as did either incline or necessitate him to mistake Nothing is by S. Austin said of Bardesanes cap. 25. Indeed in cap. 35. the words before mentioned are found but the Historian if he had not written in haste needed not have been ignorant that the Learned judge this passage to be the additament of some later Pen and they also affirm that it is wanting in most antient Copies of S. Austin Spondanus out of Baronius sticks not to affirm that nothing was ever more strenuously opposed by Bardesanes than the Doctrine of Fatality which he proves from the testimony of many yea all and from Bardesanes his own Dialogue of Fate written to Antoninus the Emperor and recorded by Eusebius lib. 6. de Praep. Evangelica Dr. H. Ibid. Page 5. And thus it is affirmed of Priscilianus Fatalibus astris homines alligatos That men were thralled to the Stars which last S. Austin doth report of one Colarbus save that he gave this power and influence only to the Planets Ans. Of any such fatalist as Colarbus did I never read In all Authors that mention him which I have met with he is called Colarbas or Colarbasus or bassus Where he was born or where he taught by all enquiry I have not yet found but he is commonly joyned with Marcus whose Heresie was raised out of the Greek Alphabet subjecting all Men and their Members to the Letters thereof so as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should rule the Head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Neck perhaps his School-fellow Colarbasus thought it less irrational to subject us to the Planets The History of Priscilianus is most exactly described by Sulpicius Severus in whom I have read it with care and delight and find that his Heresie did spread it self most stupendiously so as not only multitudes of Laicks but also sundry Bishops were carried away with it among the rest Hyginus or Iginus or Adyginus the Bishop of Corduba and Successor to Hosius though he was the very first man that set himself against it The Heresie it self was a mixture of Gnosticism and Manichaism Idacius and Ithacius called in the assistance of the secular powers to suppress it for which they are severely censured by Sulpitius However the Emperor did take cognizance of the cause put Priscilianus Felicissimus Armenius Latronianus and also Euchrocia a noted woman to death banished Instantius and Tyberianus into our Isle of Sylly But in all the accusations brought against Priscillianus I do not find him in that Author charged with Fatality yet seeing he was wont to pray naked and to keep night Meetings with base women let him upon Austins authority pass for a Fatalist and though he was after his death Celebrated for a Martyr and had in such honor by his followers as that they were wont to swear by him yet I hope that his name is abhorred by all professing Reformation and that nothing of Fatality hath been taught by any whom Protestants honour The Doctor thinks otherwise and I must see on what grounds Dr. H. Page 5. Amongst the Philosophical Heterodoxies of the Roman Schools that of the Manichees first revived by Martin Luther who in meer opposition to Erasmus who had then newly written a Book de libero arbitrio published a Discourse de servo arbitrio in which discourse he not only saith that the freedom ascribed unto the will is an empty nothing
and fittest for the people but withal affirming that what he held had nothing in it of contrariety to or inconsistency with what Mr. Calvin held His own words are these Quod ad quaestionem de praedestinatione habebam Tubingae amicum doctum hominem Franciscum Stadianum qui dicere solebat se utrumque probare evenire omnia ut divina providentia decrevit tamen esse contingentia sese haec conciliare non posse Ego cum hypothesin hanc tencam Deum non esse causam peccati nec velle peccatum postea contingentiam in hac nostra infirmitate judicii admitto ut sciant rudes Davidem sua voluntate ultro ruere eundem sentio cum haberet Spiritum Sanctum potuisse eum retinere in ea lucta aliquam esse voluntatis actionem Haec etiamsi subtilius disputari possunt tamen ad regendas mentes hoc modo proposita accommodata videntur Accusemus ipsi nostram voluntatem cum labimur non quaeramus in Dei consilio causam contra cum nos erigamus sciamus Deum velle opitulari adesse luctantibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit Basilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excitetur ergo cura in nobis laudetur Dei immensa bonitas quum promisit auxilium praestat sed petentibus ut inquit Dominus hoc est iis qui promissionem intuentur Nam a verbo Dei ordiendum est nec repugnandum promissioni sed ei assentiamâ—r nec disputemus antea tunc nos adsensuros esse cum arcanum decretum Dei nobis monstratum fuerit adsentientem autem Deus adjuvat qui per verbum Dei est efficax Haec non scribo ut tibi tradam quasi dictata homini eruditissimo ac peritissimo exercitiorum pietatis Et quidem scio haec cum tuis congruere sed sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad usum accommodata By which it appears that Melancthon was of his Friends Stadian and Calvin's mind but was loth to declare so much because he saw the point was intricate and perplexed and like to procure him much opposition which was the cause also why he did not care to publish his mind about the Sacramentary Controversie though it be now well known that in his latter days he was as much against Consubstantiation as Calvin himself therefore the Lutherans or rather Anti-Lutherans do some of them distinguish betwixt publick and private Philip and Benedict Morgensterus fear not to call Melancthon the Plague of the German Churches Epist. ad Schlusselburgium If any would know how Calvin resented Melancthon's Answer about Free-will and Predestination he may be informed from Calvin's Letter bearing date Iune 28. 1545. De responso tuo magnam habeo tibi gratiam simul etiam de humanitate non vulgari quam sibi abs te exhibitam fuisse Claudius testatur Qualis erga me futurus essâ—s inde conjecturam facio quod meos tam benigne comiterque accipias Deo autem maximas gratias agere non desino qui dedit ut in ejus quaestionis summa de qua rogati eramus sententiae nostrae congruerent tametsi enim paululum est discriminis in particulis quibusdam de re tamen ipsa inter nos optime convenit Yet it seems by the former Letters which are of a later date that others did object Melancthon to Calvin which made him so earnest with Melancthon to deliver his mind more clearly and plainly If this give not the Reader so ample satisfaction as he desireth he may please to consult such as have professedly made it their business to prove that Melancthon was no Arminian in the five controverted Points Among whom I principally find two recommended by the Learned Rivet in his Apologetick for Peace viz. Sopiâ—gâ—us in Apologâ—tica responsione ad bonam â—idem Sibrandi Lubberti a pag. 92 ad pag. 106 and Gaspar Peucerus the Son-in-law of Melancthon who in an Epistle of his to Iacobus Monavius by many Arguments labours to prove that the Opinion of his Father and the Geneva Divines may easily be reconciled and that they differ not so much in the things delivered as in the way and manner of expressing and delivering them If any one think this too much trouble let him consult Melancthon's Epistle to Brâ—ntius among those Printed at Leyden 1648 pag. 379 Thou subtilly and afar off out of Predestination gatherest that to every one his degree is distributed and thou reasonest rightly But I in the whole Apology avoided that long and inexplicable Controversie concerning Predestination I every where so speak as if Predestination did follow our Faith and Works and I do this on purpose for I will not trouble Consciences with these inexplicable Labyrinths Hunnius is thought to be and that not without cause a very Rigid Lutâ—eran yet hear what he saith in the beginning of his Theses Quod in divinis spiritualibus rebus nullum sit arbitrium humanae voluntatis sed res de solo titulo est id in nostris Ecclesiis extra dubitationem positum Et pag. 10 In his ne modiculum quidem Illud de quo Erasmus disputat superest homini suis viribus relicto sed sunt haec unius ac solius Spiritus Sancti virtuti operationi in solidum adscribenda I know some and Doctor Heylin for one pag. 6 do make as if Luther did retract his Book De servo arbitrio But that is a most gross mistake there being no Book that he did more glory in than that and his Catechism as is evident by a Letter written to Capito in the year 1539 which was but 7. years before his death De tomis meorum librorum dispoâ—endis frigidior sum segnior eo quod Saturnina same percitus magis cuperem omnes dâ—voratos nullum enim agnosco meum justum librum nisi sorte De servo arbitrio Catechismum The Duke of Saxony in the Preface to the Corp. Doct. writes That they are bewitched with the frauds of the Devil who say that Luther 's Book was ever retracted Schlusselburgh in his Catalogue of Hereticks lib. 4. pag. 254 affirms That the evil spirit cannot excogitate a more evident lye than this that Luther recanted his opinion De servo arbitrio The Divines of Saxony in Collequio Alden account all them Thieves Robbers and Sacrilegious Persons who repudiate the Book De servo Arbitrio or endeavour to alienate the Lutheran Churches from it Now I think they that hold with Calvin in the point of Free-will cannot if they will be true to their own Principle dissent from him in the point of Predestination Obj. But the Augustan Confession plainly condemns the Anabaptists who teach That a man once justified can by no means lose the Holy Ghost Therefore certainly the Composers of it did not hold Perseverance in such a way as is commonly taught in the Schools of the Calvinists Ans. I must confess this is a specious Objection and such as at the first reading
Elizabeth no favourer of Foreign Doctrine She accepted the Dedication suffered the Book and the Annotations to pass among her People without any censure here So much entertainment and applause did it meet with that some who have been curious to search into the number of its Editions say that by the Queens own Printers it was printed above thirty times I am not ignorant that King Iames highly censured this Trans-slation and the marginal Annotations in the Hampton Conference the Translation he calls the worst that ever he saw some of the Notes he calls very partial untrue seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits instancing in the Note on Exod. 1.19 and 2 Chron. 15.16 which censure a Jesuit takes as if spoken of the Translation used at Geneva it self But the Annotations on both these places are satisfied for by Bishop Morton page 104 of a Book written by him to shew the Romanists Doctrine of Rebellion and Aequivocation As for Arianism charged on these Annotations by Dr H. they are acquitted by the learned Letter of Sir Thomas Bodley I have all this while said nothing of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer out of whose Writings the Doctor hath transcribed so much And truly the things transcribed out of them are so impertinent that it would be no hazard to my Reader if I should wholly pass them over in silence Yet I will not but first shall say something of the men secondly of their writings Latimer was once a very hot Papist as himself acknowledgeth against himself Being converted from Popery he was as zealous for the Reformed Religion boldly reproving the sins of all whether Rulers or Ruled In his Sermons he used a style which perhaps was then accounted elegant but would now be judged ridiculous at least unbeseeming the Pulpit Hooper I look upon as one that feared the Lord from his youth for he chose from his youth to leave Oxford that he might not ensnare his conscience Beyond the Seas he fell into acquiantance with the learned Henry Bullinger and returned not into England till the Reign of King Edward when he gained more love from the Laicks than Clergy being a stiff Non-conformist Hand in drawing up the Articles of Religion he had none one of them being diametrically opposite to his declared judgment yet because he was very great both for piety and learning as his writings evidently shew therefore his judgment is not to be sleighted And if Dr. Heylin have proved or any one else can prove that he and Latimer held the opinions afterwards called Arminian I will grant that those opinions were not by the Protestant Church in King Edward's time adjudged intolerable Whether they held them or no must be considered First I yield that they both asserted Universal Redemption This being granted the Doctor dare say that Dr. H. Part 2. page 50. He Mr. Hickman he means will not be confident in affirming there can be any room for such an absolute Decree of Reprobation antecedaneous and precedent to the death of Christ as his great Masters in the School of Calvin have been pleased to teach him Ans. Mr. Hickman's mind is best known to himself so are his great Masters in the School of Calvin if he ever had any such but this I am confident of that Calvin's Decree of Reprobation may be maintained and yet Universal Redemption not denied Monsieur Amyrald as great a Scholar as this last age hath afforded hath in a whole Book defended Calvin's absolute Decree against Mr. Hoard yet the same Amyrald most strenuously defends Universal Redemption Two Dissertations also of Bishop Davenant are published by careful and faithful hands in the first he sets himself to assert Universal Redemption by Christ in the second to assert Personal both Election and Reprobation Let us see now what the Doctor can find in Latimer and Hooper Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 37. Latimer in his Sermon on Septuages rebukes those vain Fellows who abuse Election and Reprobation to carnal Liberty or Presumption Answ. Why so doth Calvin so doth Ursin so do our Divines at the Synod of Dort Dr. H. page 38. Hooper in his Preface to the ten Commandments saith We must not extenuate Original Sin nor make God the Author of Evil nor yet say that God hath written fatal Laws with the Stoicks and in the necessity of destiny violently pulleth one by the hair into Heaven and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell Answ. All this is just according to Calvin's method No Calvinists say that God's Decree offereth violence to Man's Will or pulleth a man into Heaven Only they say that Electing love makes men willing and that Holiness is an effect of Election As for Sin that they say is not an effect of Reprobation but only a Consequent I but Dr. H. page 39. Bishop Latimer teacheth us that we are to enquire no further after our Election than as it is to be found in our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Answ. Why so teach the Calvinists too that our Election is not to be known but by our knowledge of our interest in Christ. But the Anticalvinist will not say with Latimer If thou findest thy self in Christ then art thou sure of eternal life He saith A man may be in Christ and be a Reprobate a man may be in Christ to day and in Hell to morrow Perhaps the Doctor will find more against Calvinistical Reprobation or if he do not he must be concluded to have beaten the Air. First we must hear what he makes Calvinistical Reprobation to be 'T is that he saith Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 47. By which the far greater part of mankind are pre-ordained and consequently pre-condemned to the the pit of torments without any respect had unto their sins and incredulities This is generally he saith maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin Ans. If it be so then I am sure I never was in any School of Calvin for I never heard or read of any such Reprobation nay I never read of any person whatsoever that asserted such a Reprobation Sundry famous Schoolmen quoted by Dr. Rivet in his fifth Disputation de Reprobatione were of opinion that if God had decreed even innocent creatures to eternal damnation he had decreed nothing unworthy of himself and they seem to have but too much countenance for this bold and audacious Tenent from a passage of St. Austin's in his 16. cap. de Praedestinatione Gratia But the Calvinists as many as I have met with say that as God never actually damned any man but for sin so he never decreed to damn any but for sin All that they say is but this that Whereas Iudas and Peter were both alike corrupted by the fall and both alike apt by nature to abuse and reject grace the reason why God determined effectually to cure the corruption of Peter and not of Iudas was the meer good pleasure of his will The Calvinists are not engaged to say that God
he phrasifieth Dr. H. Part 3. Pag. 2. There were some men who in the beginning of King Edward 's Reign busily stickled in the maintenance of Calvin 's Doctrines and thinking themselves to be more Evangelical than the rest of their Brethren they either took unto themselves or had given by others the name of Gospellers Of this they were informed by the Reverend Prelate and right godly Martyr Bishop Hooper in the Preface to his Exposition of the ten Commandments Our Gospellers saith he he better learned than the Holy Ghost for they wickedly attribute the cause of punishments and adversities to God's providence which is the cause of no ill as he himself can do no evil and over every mischief that is done they say it is God's will In which we have the men and their Doctrine how the name of Gospellers and the reason why that name was ascribed to them It is observed by the judicious Author of Europae Speculum that Calvin was the first of these latter times who searched into the Counsels the eternal Counsels of God Almighty And as it seems he found there some other Gospel than that which had been written by the four Evangelists from whence his Followers had the name of Gospellers for by that name I find them called frequently by Campneys also in an Epistolary discourse c. And finding it given them also by Bishop Hooper a temperate modest man I must needs look on it as the name of the Sect by which they were distinguished from other men Answ. All this I have at large transcribed because I have sundry observations to make thereupon First I observe that in all probability the Doctor never read Hooper but trusted to other mens eyes for he quoteth that as from the Preface of Mr. Hooper which is not to be found in the Preface but rather in his Postscript or Appendix to his Declaration of the ten holy Commandments or his Answer to certain Objections that keep men from the obedience of God's Law the fourth of which is Curiosity Nor is this the first time that he hath suffered himself and his Reader to be abused Secondly I observe that he attributes â—hese words to the Reverend Prelate and right godly Martyr Bishop Hooper whereas Hooper when he did write these words was no Prelate but only a licenced if licenced Predicant But I am glad however to find Dr. Heylin speak of honourably of the Ring-leader of the Non-conformists It seems when he is pleased he can allow one that scrupled the Habit and expresly condemned the Civil Offices of Bishops to be reverend and right godly and temperate and modest Thirdly I observe that he chargeth Mr. Calvin from the Author of Europae Speculum to be the first in these latter times that searched into the Counsels the eternal Counsels of Almighty God That the Author of Europae Speculum hath any such observation I am not sure If he have it no way contributed to procure him that esteem with which the World reads his Book for as all eternal Counsels are the Counsels of Almighty God so all the Counsels of God Almighty are eternal And to say that Calvin was the first who in this latter age searched into the Counsels of Almighty God is in effect to say that none of this latter age before Calvin regarded God's glory or mans salvation I suppose instead of eternal Counsels the Doctor intended to say hidden unrevealed Counsels But the assertion of absolute Election and Reprobation is no searching into the secrets of God Almighty or if it be Mr. Calvin cannot by any one that hath the least skill in History be thought to be the first that searched into God's secret Counsels seeing both Luther and Zuinglius had done it before him Fourthly I observe the unrighteous censure or calumny of the Doctor that Calvin by searching into God's Decrees had found out another Gospel than that which had been written by the four Evangelists from whence his Followers in these Points had the name of Gospellers Neither Calvin nor Calvinists ever found out any other Gospel than this He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned Nor was the name of Gospellers given to Mr. Calvin's Followers on the account of their bringing in a new Gospel or on any other account but it was the general name by which all that joyned in opposing Popery called themselves Let any one but consult the word Gospellers in the Index of Mr. Fox's Martyrology and compare the places there referred unto he shall find Papists and Gospellers still opposed Gospellers used not as a name of ignoming but as a name of honour Let him also read Bishop Ridley's Letter to his Chaplain he shall find the same word used and contradistinguished to Papists Likewise in Latine no more usual distinction than Pontificii and Evangelici So that the Historian in making the Calvinists the only Gospellers makes them indeed the only Protestants Finally I observe that the words quoted from Bishop Hooper are inexcusable if they be not qualified with some distinction The Scripture doth not oftner ascribe unto God the Creation of the World than it doth ascribe unto his Providence all the Punishments and Adversities that befal either good or bad men yet it must be granted that God does not willingly afflict the sons of men and therefore never punishes them but when he finds something in them which deserves the punishment so that they may thank themselves for all the evil they suffer from God The Doctor 's next design is to vindicate one Campneys a Fellow that was made to bear a Faggot at Paul's Cross in King Edward's time the learned and pious Miles Coverdale preaching a Sermon when that punishment was inflicted on him This man it seems having either complied in Queen Mary's time or saved himself alive by flight when Q Elizabeth had restored the true Religion began to play his old pranks i. e. to cause disturbance by nibbling at such who were deservedly honoured and preferred in the Church publishing a Pamphlet but unto which he had not courage enough to affix his name against Predestination This Pamphlet was encountred by Mr. Iohn Veron a Chaplain to the Queen and Reader of the Divinity Lecture in S. Paul's Church as also by Mr. Robert Crowley sometime Fellow of Magdalen Colledge in Oxon at that time a famous Preacher in the City of London Both these put out Answers unto Campneys and their Answers were both licenced and approved and Veron's Dedicated to the Queen her self whereas Campney's virulent Pamphlet came forth surreptitiously neither Author nor Printer daring to put their names to it All this notwithstanding the Doctor would have us believe that Campneys defended the Doctrine of the Church Veron and Crowley opposed it as if the Church had so soon lost all her zeal for her Religion and would give no countenance at all to those that contended for it yet would vouchsafe to authorize the writings
observe this Canon whose Libraries scarcely afford a Father of any Edition to be trusted to The best advice I can give them is to buy such Books as contain a Confession of Faith confirmed all along with Scriptures and Fathers in which I cannot but commend the Orthodoxus Consensus dedicated by Gasper Laurentius to the Prince Elector Palatine bound up with the Corpus Syntagma confessionum Fidei printed at Geneva 1654. There is also published by Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople a Confession of Faith as Calvinistical as if it had been extracted out of Calvin's own Institutions which is now extant confirmed all along by Scripture and Fathers Catholick and ancient in a little Piece put out by the learned Hottinger where also there is enough said of Cyril's life troubles and death to free him from the aspersions cast on him by the Iesuits and by Grotius We have brought off Mr. Fox and must now see whether the Historian do charge Mr. Perkins with more success of whom it is affirmed page 62 That he did open wider the great breach that had been made by Mr. Fox Sure it may easily be pardoned him that he made that breach wider which was made by the Church it self by putting so much honour upon the Acts and Monuments as did if we may believe this Doctor manifestly tend to the subversion of that Doctrine that she had about ten years before so solemnly ratified But as it may well be presumed that the Church would not consent to the picking out of her own eyes so we have great reason to think that Mr. Perkins did design all his Treatises only to commend that milk unto others which he had with so much delight and nourishment sucked from the Breasts of his Mother the Reformed Church of England The Treatise of his quarrelled at is called Armilla Aurea composed by the Author in Latine translated into English by Dr. Robert Hill at the request of Perkins himself saith our Historian but tells us not whence he had that information nor indeed is it probable that Mr. Perkins would request another to do a work that might easily be done and yet could be done so well by no hand as his own The Translator tells us plainly in his Epistle Dedicatory unto the Judge of the Admiralty Court that he made the Translation at the request of some well disposed that his own Countrey-men might by it reap some profit and perhaps also he had a design to reap some profit by his Countrey-men presaging that it would be of very quick sale as indeed it hapned being printed fifteen times in the space of twenty years Many of the greatest learning and judgment thought this left-handed Ehud did by this his Book wound the Pelagian Cause to the very heart Our Historian thinks not so and tells us page 64 that it found not like welcome in all places nor from all hands Parsons the Iesuite is brought in thus sleighting him By the deep humour of fancy he hath published and writ many Books with strange Titles which neither He nor his Reader do understand as namely about the Concatenation or laying together of the causes of mans Predestination and Reprobation And then Iacob van Harmin he acquaints us wrote a full discourse against it I know not what he means by it Arminius his Examen as we all know being not designed against Perkins his Armilla Aurea but against another Piece called a Treatise of Predestination and of the largeness of God's grace And that Examen of Arminius hath been so confuted by the learned Dr. Twiss that no Remonstrant hath as yet had confidence enough to rejoyn All the wind hitherto sent from the Doctor hath shaken no corn We can contemn Parsons and not value Arminius He therefore further acquaints us page 65 of a very sharp censure passed upon Mr. Perkins by the Doctor of the Chair in Oxford What is this censure No more but that Mr. Perkins otherwise a learned and pious Person therefore surely able to understand the Title of his own Books did err no light error in making the subject of Divine Predestination to be man considered before the fall adding also further that some by undertaking to defend Mr. Perkins in this opinion had given unnecessary trouble to the Church This censure is very gentle in comparison of what the same Reverend and Learned Professor afterwards Bishop of Salisbury thought meet to pass upon Arminius Bertius and all their Followers whom he accuseth of most detestable Sacriledge The same Doctor had before undertaken a Defence of Mr. Perkins his Reformed Catholick calling him a man of very commendable quality and well deserving for his great travel and pains for the furtherance of true Religion and edifying of the Church which Reformed Catholick also is learnedly defended by Mr. Wotton For a parting blow the Doctor tells us that Mr. Perkins scarce lived out half his days and that in the pangs of death he spake nothing so articulately as Mercy mercy which he hopes God did graciously grant him in that woful agony And I for my part do not at all doubt that God shewed him mercy and had shewed him the very riches of his mercy many years before for God is not unrighteous that he should forget that labour of love with which Mr. Perkins had laboured in Cambridge As little do I doubt that there are hundreds in Heaven blessing that Providence that placed a light so shining and burning in that University His dying so soon is not to be imputed to his bloud-thirstiness or deceitfulness but to his hard studies and unwearied diligence which must needs wast his natural spirits and bring him sooner to his grave than he would have come if he could have satisfied himself as some do to enter into the Pulpit no oftner than the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies He always desired that he might die praying for the pardon of sin and he had his desire If in his Sermon he pronounced the word damned with a more than ordinary Emphasis it was only to forwarn his Hearers to flee from the wrath to come If he so pressed the Law as to make the hair of the young Scholars stand upright it was only that being awakened oâ—t of their security they might seriously ask the question How they should do to be saved The Law was designed to be a School-master to bring us to Christ and would not have that effect if it should not be preached with some of that terror with which it was at first delivered But he made the infinitely greatest part of all mankind uncapable of God's grace and mercy by an absolute and irrespective decree of Reprobation So it is said page 66. but no such thing can be proved out of Mr. P's Writings Had he framed any such decree as made any one man or woman uncapable of grace and mercy he must needs have affrighted away his Disciples and Hearers which he was so far from doing