necessity to thinges But this later point is most false for example if it were reuealed by diuine power to a man that the next day it would rayne yet this mans foreknowledge is not the cause of the rayne and yet no doubt it would rayne but no lesse contingently then if the maÌ„ had not foreknowne the same at all Neither the foreknowledge or preuision of God I meane as it is particularly of God imposeth any necessity to thinges And the proofe hereof is this As God foreknoweth not only what man hereafter will do so also he foreknoweth what himselfe hereafter will doe And yet Gods prescience doth not force God to do that which he will do Neither therefore vpon the same reason doth his foreknowledge force man in his actions Againe God did foresee the fall of Adam and yet in the iudgmeÌ„t of the chiefest Deuines Adam had Free-will before his fall Enthusiastus But how commeth it to passe thaâ— those thinges which are certainly for 〈◊〉 knowne haue euer the euent when yet they are effected contingently as you say and may in that respect not be aâ— all Arminius The reason heerof is Because whâ— foreknoweth a thing heerafter to bâ— effected doth in his vnderstanding precurre or preuent the effecting of the thing and beholdeth it as done before it be done but that which is done cannot be vndone although it be effected voluntarily or contingently But to conclude this poynt the concordancy of Gods prescience with Free-will is so acknowledged euen by thâ— Deuines as that D. Willet thus plainâ—ly writeth heerof c D. VVillet in Synops p. 809. God foreseeth but willeth not sinne Enthusiastus Indeed there is no such repugnancy after the true ballancing of the difficulty betweene Gods prouision and Freewill as at the first it appeareth to be whereby we may learne that that sentence is true * SecuÌ„dâ—â— cogitationis prudentiores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I do find a farre greater labour to reconcile Gods Cooperation with mans Freewill so as they may both stand togeather and not exile and banish one the other For since God hath decreed from all eternity what shal be or what shall not be I see not how any place can heer be left for Freewill Arminius O Enthusiastus you must not measure the Mysteries of Christianity by the false yard of Naturall reason or maÌ„s capacity For though demonstratiuely we were not able to reconcile Gods cooperation Freewill yet neither of them are therefore to be denyed if so ech of them receaue their particuler warrant from the word of God Notwithstanding for your greater satisfaction Enthusiastus I will set downe one way among others by which in the iudgement of the greatest Deuines Gods cooperation and mans freedome of Will are reconciled For thus they teach To wit that the Diuine Cooperation doth beare it selfe with reference only to the Effect and not to the cause whereby is vnderstood that the concourse of God doth not determine our will neither doth it worke vpon the will but flowes only into the Effect produceth the Effect in the same moment in the which it is produced by our will And yet the same Effect could not be produced if eyther Gods Cooperation or Mans Will were wanting They illustrate this sentence from two which beare a great stone the which stone the of one them could not carry neither of those two men giueth force to the other nor impelleth the other and it is in the free choyce of them both to leaue this burden The like falleth out in the Cooperation of God and MaÌ„s-Wil in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thing And 〈…〉 this point only before I end I must tell you that it seemeth strange to me to obserue your humility as I may terme it in descending to the former Arguments drawne from humane Authorities and naturall reason Seeing diuers of your iudgement in the Question of Freewill and the inferentiall Conclusions resulting from thence will in great venditation brauery of speach vndertake to proue all such their assertions only from the sacred word scorning with a supercilious looke all other kind of proofes deduced either from the Fathers froÌ„ Naturall Reason or from any other humane authority whatsoeuer Enthusiastus Well Arminius I see heere what the iudgement of the chiefest Deuines are in this point But now I will proceed no further in producing any more kinds of proofes It then resteth vpon you to vndergoe the like labour by prouing from the Scriptures and other Authorities the Doctrine of Freewill Begin then at your pleasure Arminius I imbrace willingly that imposed labour in the prosecuting whereof I will draw my first proofes from Reason that done I will next ryse to human Authorities and lastly I will firmely entrench or anchour my cause vpon the infallible authority of Gods sacred Writ thus by ascending by degrees in proofes I will consequently ascend in the weight of the proofes produced from the said Authorities And to begin My first argument shall be this Let vs 1 August l. 14. de vera Religione take away by supposall Free will from man then with all we take away all punishment due for perpetrating of Sinne and rewards for the exercise of Vertue But this last point stands not with the practise not only of Priuate men but of all good Common wealths who euer retaliate Vertue with rewards and Vico with punishments Enthusiastus This your first argument is in my iudgment but diaphorous transparent For * So answereth Caluin l. Instit. 2. c. 5. it followeth not that man should not be punished if he hath not Freewill the reason heereof being in that the punishment is due to the offence which offence is yet remayning in vs and indeed taketh its whole emâ—nation from our selues Arminius Howsoeuer Enthusiastus you allâ—uiate and sleighten the force of this argument yet is it insisted vpon by Chrysostome Ierome and finally is grounded vpon force of Reason Now more particulerly to answere here to I say that in your Answere you offend in the Paralogisme or Fallacy in Logick commonly called Petitio Principij since you assume that as granted which yet is in controuersy For you in your dispute do presume that the fault doth remaine and flow from vs although we be forced through necessity to the working thereof and that it is not in our power to auoyde Sinne so fouly you see you are mistaken in this your seeming answere But I will proceed to a second Argument Exyle * Aug. l. de Vera relig â— 14. and banish from man Free-will â— exyle with all all kinds of Counsels and precepts among men as Exhortations and persuasions to Vertue all prayse due to the workers thereof as also on the contrary side all de hortations and rebukes touching the perpetrating of Vice and Impiety since to what end tend these exhortations persuasions reprehensions prccepts c. if so men can not do otherwise then they doe Enthusiastus I answere
are Arminius Enthusiastus Enthusiastus LEARNED Arminius Now after your Lecture is ended God saue you We were loath to interrupt you in the midle thereof We haue beene at your lodging to enquire for you and your SeruaÌ„ts directed vs to these publiâ— Schooles assuring vs that we should fynd you reading at this houre Glad I am that it hath so fallen out that my eares haue beene witnesse thereof Arminius Gentlemen You are all strangers to me and therefore I know not how to proportion my resalutatioÌ„ but yet I will make bould to vse towards you those words of Holy Writ 1 Pet. 1. Gratia vobis pax multiplicetur Indeed you haue fouÌ„d me performing my Calendary weekly task of Reading I could wish that my Lecture had been worthy your Audience But I pray you Sir if so I may make bold what is the occasion of your and the rest of your Companies arriuall at this place Enthusiastus I will relate to you the Motiue of our comming hither Take notice then that whereas his Maiesty of England whom God long preserue in a most happy gouerment ouer vs hath sent ouer certaine Knights and others of Quality here present and with them my selfe to negotiate with the High Lords States of HollaÌ„d touching matters of State And hauing stayed some weekes at the Hage without effecting any thing so intricate and delaying is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of State busines my selfe vnwilling to rauell out weeke after weeke in doing nothing haue taken the aduantage of the Vacancy of some few dayes in coÌ„ming with these worthy Knights and Gentlemen to visit this your Vuiuersity of Leyden being not past half a dayes iourney off from vs and particularly your Selfe Arminius You are all as welcome as my power and ability can affoard I will shew you our Vniuersity before your departure though indeed it must needs appeare in your eyes but drouping and of meane esteeme in regard of your Two of England famous throughout all Christendome in respect whereof our poore Academy may stand but for a foyle But Syr if without offence I would intreate your Name in particular seeing discoursing with men whose names are not knowne is as if men should walke togeather in darknes Enthusiastus My name is Enthusiastâ—â— and I anâ— a Doctor though vnworthy of Diuinity created in our owne Vniuersities And know you further Worthy Arminius that I haue often heard of you in England though I could wish that the report of you had taken its rise and beginning from some other grounds then it doth That you are learned wâ— all know and by this your Lecture now read we may rest no lesse assured But part of your learning resteth I feare in maintaining vnwarrantable Assertions and such as are repugnant to the Word of God For it is knowne that among other peculiar Doctrines broachâ—d by you you teach with a strong deliuery of your selfe therein That Man hath Freewill that Iustifying fayth may be lost and finally Vncertainty of Saluation and Reprobation Points which I much doubt no good Professour of the Ghospell doth maintayne And which is thâ— worst these your Doctrines by me râ—hearsed vpon all which you briefly touched eueÌ„ now in this your Lecture â—aue already inuaded if Report do not vaynely and idly multiply it selfe the Iudgments of diuers most remarkable men in England and such who both for learning and places of dignity which they hould are in our owne Euangelic all Spherc Stars of the greatest Magnitude Nay the Very stones of our Episcopall and Cathedrall Churches as also the walls of the Colledges in our Vniuersities euen in a speaking silence do Eccho forth the great hurt by you perpetrated Hinc illae lachrymae Furthermore which I relate with disconsolate sighes and lamentation Such men in our owne Conntry who haue imbraced these your doctrines do among vs in this respect take their Denomniation euen from your Name they being in the vulgar speach styled for the better distinguishing them from other more pure meÌ„bers of our Church Arminians A demonstration euicting that your Doctrines are Innouations since in euery innouation of doctrine the Professours commonly take their Name from the first Coyner of the saâ—â— So true is that saying of Chrysostome Prout 2 Hom. 33. in Act. A post Haereliarcha noman itâ— Secta vocatur Pardon â—yr this my playnesse vnfyled words I pray you Now then seeing I do hould yoâ—â— former doctrines as incompatible with the Scriptures Therefore I confesse my chiefe Allectiue of Visiting you Arminius is to enter into a Scholasticall Duellisme or dispute in all Christian feruour and sobriety Pede pes densusque viro vir that so in the sight of these Gentlemen heere present I may either alter your iudgment or be by you altered But why do I intimate in the least â—orte this later since my owne Profession doth warrant my attempt and the Illustrious radiancy of the Truth on my syde doth infallibly promise me the better of the day Arminius Enthusiastus since it seemes you so are called and you worthy Men hither accompanying him I must tell you all that the Occasion of your Comming to me is most strange and vnexpected Yet seeing euery good Christian is obliged when iust reason therof is presented to giue an account of his fayth and Religion Corde 1 Rom. â—â— creditur ad iustiâ—iaâ— ore fit Confessio ad salutem I shall not according to my ability be slow therein But before you begin I must put you in mynd that where you confesse that diuers of the Chiefest men in your Country both for learning and Authority maintayne my former Theses and Positions this greatly turneth to the honour of my Cause For why should such eminent and selected Deuines giue their full assent thereto and this contrary to the present streame sway of the tymes but that the doctrines so intertayned by them are warraÌ„ted with an inexpugnable Truth and Certainty Againe where you say that such Worthy men among you take their denomination from me and consequently and by implication you brand me with the odious Name of an Arch-Heretike my answere to you shal be in all candour and sobriety for I am vnwilling by way of retaliation to conuitiate you or to bandy words of disgrace especially in my owne Vniuersity and you being but a stranger since this would be accounted but Coridâ—nisme and Rusticity that I am assured you cannot iustly throw vpon me any such imputation My reason is this They only from whom others take the appellation for matters of fayth are to be reputed for Arch Heretikes who did first dogmatize teach Opinions in fayth neuer before heard as belieued by the Church of God Such were Arius Eutiches Pelagius Nâ—storius and some others Now if it can be made good as I am assured it can that the former Tenets by you mentioned and by me belieued be concordant to thâ— sacred Scriptures and were with an vnanimous consent belieued
sinnes c And agayne we thus read y Ibidem When we were dead by sinne c. Arminius The transparency of this obiection euen an ordinary eye can pierce for aâ— the Text sayth We are dead by sinne so also it addeth in the places alleaged that we are quickned in Christ. Which addition importeth that though of our selues we are not able to performe any spirituall actions yet Christ hath so quickned vs with his preuenting Grace as that therby we are made able to produce the said spirituall actions thus this quickening in Christ implyeth only an infusion of Gods Grace which I willingly acknowledge but not a taking away of the freedome of manâ— will so wildly as I may say these twoâ— passages of Scripture are shot by you still glancing vpon one point or otheâ—â— impertinent to the controuersy ventilated betweene vs. But I pray you Enthusiastus proceed further in your Scripturall proofes Enthusiastus I must confesse that the most forcing authorities of sacred Scripture which either I or my partners can alleadge for the impugning of Freewill are already drawne out by me And though some other Texts might be insisted vpon yet I foresee the answere to them in your iudgment might be appropriated out of the former Animaduersions But Arminius grant for the tyme that the Scripture doth not expresly and articulately condemne the doctrine of Freewill for Heresy doth it therefore follow that the doctrine therof is Orthodoxall Most inconsequently inferred The Turkish Religion and the many Heresies registred by Epiphanius Austin Ierome and other Fathers of those early tymes are not punctually and literally condemned by Gods Holy Writ for hardly could they be condemned particulerly by the Scripture they rising many ages after the Scripture was written anâ— yet no man will from thence concludeâ— that those doctrines or Religions 〈◊〉 true The like we may say heere touching the doctrine of Freewill For the truth of the point hereis that a doctrine oâ— Article of fayth is to receaue its warrant not because the Scripture dotâ— not in particuler anathematize the said doctrine it by omission speaking nothing thereof at all but the said doctrine receaues its authority in that 〈◊〉 receaueth from the Scripture certainâ— euident and affirmatiue proofes for thâ— defence of the said doctrine in particuler Therfore Arminius except yoâ— be able as I presume you are not toâ— fortify and establish the Doctrine of Freewill with some cleare euident and vnanswerable Texts of Scripture your cause is nothing aduantaged thougâ—â— the former diuine passages aboue produced do not so vnauoydably as â— first perhaps expected they should confute the doctrine of Freewill Arminius This which you speake of the Scriptures passing ouer in silence any doctrine or confirming the contrary doctrine by euident proofes is in part true I grant though it be alleaged by you at this present meerly as a subterfugious euasion because you are not able to produce so much as One Text to impugne our doctrine withall Though at other times you and yours do cry out with great exaggeration in wordes that the doctrine of Freewill is most repugnant to the Holy Scripturs the maintayners therof being deadly wounded with euery splinter of the seuerall passages thereof so variable and seuerall is your comportment herein at seuerall tymes Now whereas you say it is more peculiarly incumbent vpon me affirmatiuely to fortify the doctrine of Free-will by euident Texts of Scripture or â—ls the doctrine therof to be abandoâ—ed as false and erroneous I do agree with you herein and am ready to fortify the sayd doctrine with choaking and Vnanswerable places of those diuine writings if so your selfe hath already finished your Scene of obiecting Enthusiastus I will presently surrender the fuâ—ction of OpponeÌ„cy to you For I granâ— that there ought to be according to 〈◊〉 methode of Schooles certaine vicissitâ—â— des alternations of turnes betweeâ— the parties disputant Neither is it 〈◊〉 reason iustifiable that the one 〈◊〉 should be forced to maintayne only defensiue and neuer an offensiue 〈◊〉 But before I end I must tell you thâ—â— the chiefe Doctor of Christs Churâ—â— since the Apostles I meane Austin 〈◊〉 most strong in the deniall of Freewill For thus he writeth y Lib. 6. de Genes ad literam cap. 15. Conditoris 〈◊〉 luntas rerum necessitas est The will and tâ—â— mynd of the Creator is the Necessity 〈◊〉 thinges Againe z Vbi supra c. 17. That is necessarily 〈◊〉 come to passe which God willeth and they are truly hereafter to be which God foreseeth And lastly omitting some otheâ— passages a In Enchirid c. 30. Libero arbitrio malè 〈◊〉 homo se perdidit seipsum Man meâ—ning our first parent by vsing Freewill badly did both loose therby himselfe 〈◊〉 Freewill Arminius How easily is the cloud heere disâ—elled For the meaning of the two first â—laces is that what God will haue to â—ome to passe is infallibly to come to 〈◊〉 yet speaking of mans actions it â—â—mmeth to passe with the freedome of mans will For God doth not destroy Nature first created by him but will that euery thing should be effected in â—â—ch manner as best sorteth to the Nature of the thing To the third place I answere That 〈◊〉 first Father is said to haue lost Free-will because by his fall the Freewill of man was made more feeble and faynt For that Austins meaning is not that Freewill was absolutely lost by Adam as though it neuer after were to be in rerum natura appeareth from those other wordes se perdidit For Adam did not loose himselfe by any extinguishment of himselfe or not after being but because Adam thereby was â—ade far more worse his Freewill being â—othing so vigorous and actiue as â—ore it was Enthusiastus I will not much labour in seekiâ—â— to eneruate these your answeres 〈◊〉 they shall passe as matters hanging 〈◊〉 suspense But there is one difficulâ— drawne from force of reason which euâ—â— arresteth my iudgment from giuiâ—â— assent to your doctrine And this is 〈◊〉 great repugnancy which is between Gods foreknowledge and Freewill For 〈◊〉 God do foresee such a thing will bâ— then certainly it must be and if ceâ—tainly it must be where then is maâ— Freewill in doing or not doing the saiâ— thing Arminius This doubt is partly aboue vâ—foulded but to answere more particulerly thereto The prescience and foresight of God is most certaine and 〈◊〉 that it importeth no necessity of thingâ— to come is thus proued euen from 〈◊〉 authority of Austin who thus dispâ—â—teth b De libero arhitrio l. â— c. â— Yf the foreknowledge 〈◊〉 God do impose a necessity to things fâ—ture this falleth out either as it is 〈◊〉 sutely a foreknowledge or els because it â—â— in particuler the foreknowledge of God Not the first because it would vpon the same ground follow that not only the â—oreknowledge of God but the foreknowledge of man should impose the â—ike
former wordes r Austin l. 15. de Ciuitat Deâ— c. 7. Tulominaberis illius numquid fratris absit â—uius igitur nisi peccati thou shalt rule ouer it what ouer thy brother not so ouer what then but Sinne So conspiringly this Father agrees with our Interpretation heerein To come to the ancient Rabins s In his Hebrew Commentaries vpon Genesis c. 4. Aben Ersa affirment it to be a meer forgery to referre the Relatiue in the former Text to any other thing then to the word Sinne. Rabby Moyses Hadarsan sayth t In ca. 4. Genes quod scriptumest Adte concupiscentia peccati tu dominaberis illius Hoc est sivolueris praeualebis aduersus illud That is where it is written the desire of Sinne shal be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it The meaning heerofis that if thou wilt thou shalt preuayle ouer it Thus Rabby Hadarsan To be briefe the auncient Iewes are so plaine in expouÌ„ding the former passage in proofe of Freewill that D. Fulke taketh notice therof and thus answereth them u In the English Translat pa. 380. The Iewish Rabbins erre in this place To come lastly to our owne Brethren Their iudgments are here made manifest partly by their wrytings and partly by their like agreeable Transstion of this very Text in their versioâ—â— of their Bibles Touching their owne Authorities herein I will for greater expedition only cite the places of such their writings See then x In l. 2. Method Theolog. p 478. Hyperius y In Syntagm ex veteri Testam Colum. 489. Wigandus both no obscure ProtestaÌ„ts and euen z Tom. â— VVittenberg ann 1580 fol. 62. Luther himselfe As concerning their Publike Translations of the Bible answerable thereto see thâ— great English Bible of anno 1584 and see the Annotations annexed thereto all shewing that it is Sinne and not Abel ouer which Cain shall haue rule The same appareth from the Translation of the Bible by Castalio printed at Basill anno 1573. which Translation is much commended by a Derat Interpret l. 1. p. 62. 63. D. Humfrey And thus far for the more full vnfoulding and explicating of this most markable cleare and illustrious passage of Genesis for the confirmation of our Doctrine of Freewill And heere now I make my pause being in good hope that all the former Authorities both diuine and humane produced by me since the beginning of our dispute will winne some ground vpon your Iudgment Enthusiastus for your giuing assent to our most true ancient and Aâ—ostolicall doctrine herein Enthusiastus I do freely grant my iudgment is â—ouerborne with the streame of your most forcing Authorities and the rather since I must confesse I was much mistaken in the alleadging of my proofes for the impugning of Freewill seeing through your auoiding of them now vpon a second and more retired view I well discerne how they did rather but idly beate the wynd through my owne misapplyed detortioÌ„ of them then otherwise leuell at the intended marke So illustrious a truth now I confesse is the doctrine of Freewill as that the greatest doubt which thereof I shall hereafter perhaps make is only whether I can haue Freewill at any time hereafter to deny the doctrine of Free-will But learned Arminius though I doe much incline to belieue that man hath Freewill yet there are certaine other dogmaticall points in which I confesse as yet I do dissent from you And among the rest these two following To wit the first The doctrine of 〈◊〉 probation by which I belieue That Goâ— hath decreed some men euen from their mothers wombe without any preuision oâ— their workes to eternall damnation The sâ—cond The Infallible Certainty of a manâ— owne Election or Predestination in botâ— which points many learned Deuines oâ— our owne Country borrowing theiâ— doctrines from you do I grant hold the contrary Now I would see Arminius if you be as fully furnished with sufficient Answeres to what I shall obiect therein as also with good proofeâ— for the fortifying of your contrary Tenets heerein as you haue discouered your selfe to be for the Doctrine of Freewill Arminius Glad I am to heare Enthusiastus the hopefull eueÌ„t of this our discourse and in you I see that sentence verifyed b Math. â—â— Iustificata est sapientia à filijs suis And as touching the other points of doctrine mentioned by you wherein you and your party mainly differ from me you may take notice that our beliefe of them is necessarily and implicitly included so the Cause includes in it selfe the Eflect in the doctrine of Freewil For once granting the Doctrine of Freewill to be consonant to the Scriptures then â—t vnauoydably and most consequently followeth that euery man may be saued through the force of his Freewill cooperating with Gods Grace mercy as also it followeth from the Doctrine of Freewill that man enioyeth not an Infallibility of his Election seeing as enioying Freewill it is in his power of Vertuous to become wicked consequently to loose the benefite of Election Neuertheles seeing the reducing the warrant of the sayd two doctrines to the doctrine of Freewill is ouer generall and large therefore beginne at your pleasure Enthusiastus to impugne the sayd doctrines I shall shape particuler answeres to your particuler Arguments and that done then will I vndertake to make good the said doctrines both from diuine and humane Authorities Enthusiastus I will most willingly so desirous I am to receaue satisfaction heerin from your selfe 〈◊〉 I will 〈…〉 the doctrine of the Cortainty of 〈◊〉 Election or Predestination in the preseâ—ting whereof I will tread my forâ— tract of Methode to wit in giuing 〈◊〉 first place to diuine proofes and 〈◊〉 after I will descend to humane prooâ— being of an inferiour weight Arminius Well Sir proceede in your 〈◊〉 chosen Methode at your own pleasuâ—â— but before you enter into dispute 〈◊〉 me leaue as in the doctrine of Free 〈◊〉 aboue I did to set downe the true 〈◊〉 of this question with its due explicâ—â—â—on or restrictioÌ„ seeing by this meanâ—â— we no doubt shall find as in the foâ—mer Controuersy we did that souerâ—â— of your proofes from Scripture wilâ— receaue their full answere by recâ—ring to the true state of the Question Heer then we are to obserue 〈◊〉 whereas you and your fellowes 〈◊〉 maintaine that euery one that i◠〈◊〉 is assured infallibly of his 〈◊〉 Election by his owne ordinary and spâ—â—â— fayth which say you is most infâ—â—â—ble Now I and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me do teach as followâ—th First that so far forth as concernes Gods promise touching our Election we say his promise is on his part most certaine and infallible But yet seeing Gods promise therein is only conditionâ—â—â— implying euer some things to be performed on our part to wit the Conditions of beliefe of true repentance of finall perseuerance now the performance by Gods grace or not performance of these Conditions being in our
Calu. in Instit. l. 2. c. â—8 Dauid to number the â—eople That n â— Samuel 16. God commanded Semei â—â—curse Dauid And o â— Regum 22. appointed Saâ—in to be a false Spirit in the mouth of 〈◊〉 Prophets Besydes many other â—assages of like nature Now these and the like Texts do seeme in diuers of our Brethrens Iudgments to prooue that God would not cause these actions in â—en which are predestinated to Saluation but only in the Reprobate Arminius Heere againe as in some of the former I haue done I will interpose the iudgements of diuers learned Protestants as a shield betweene the former Texts and me yet before I come to their expresse Testimonies therein I must aduertise you Enthusiastus of two things The first is that many things which are done only by the permissioÌ„ of God himself according to the phrase and Dtalect of the Scripture is sayd to doe as aboue I noted touching Pharaos induration Secondly you may be aduertised that when God suffereth man to do any thing to this or that particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the like forme of speach iâ— Scrâ—â—ture is sayd to cause or command 〈◊〉 doing of it as is â—as where noted 〈◊〉 to apply these two obseruations to 〈◊〉 former passages of Scripture And 〈◊〉 touching God commanding Dauid 〈◊〉 number the People it is explayned 〈◊〉 where in expresse wordes that p 1. Chro. â—â— Sâ—â—tan prouoked Dauid to number them So euident it is that the numbering of thâ— People was the worke of Satan persuaâ—ding thereto and not the worke of God but only by his permission according to this my Answere the Marginall noâ—tes of the English Bibles of anno 157â— vpon this place do thus comment The Lord permitted Satan c. And to this ouâ— expositioÌ„ Austin accordeth touching Sâ—mei in these wordes q L. de gra libero arbitrio c. â—0 Quomodo dixerâ—â— Dominus Semci maledicere Dauid c. 〈◊〉 the Lord spake to Semei to curse Dauid c this is to be vnderstood non iubendo not by commanding Semei c. For if Semei 〈◊〉 obeyed the Lord commanding him theâ— there were reason why he should be 〈◊〉 praysed then punished In like sort Iohn Know speaking of the Tyranny of Pharao an 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—sing of Semei thus writeth r Against the Aduessaries of Gods predestination p. 374. Neiâ—her to Pharao neither to Semei nor to any â—â—ther reprobate doth God giue eyther wicked â—â—mmandement or euill thoughts The â—ruth of which Answere God himselfe making mention of the sinnefull actions of the People may seeme to seale vp in these his words s Hierom â—â— I commaÌ„ded it not â—or spake it neyther came it into my mynd So much are meÌ„ deceaued in dreaming that God should eyther command or cause sinne But Enthusiastus before I end this passage I would demand of you the reaâ—on as aboue I did why your party â—o alledg these last Texts and some others aboue obiected by you to wit â—ouching Gods leading vs into Tempâ—aâ—ion touching the Induration of Pharaos hart touching Iudas his prodiâ—ion of our Sauiour c Yf they be alledged by your syde to proue that God iâ— the cause and procurer of those sinfull Acts tending to mans Reprobation as it seemes they are to that end alledged how then can you and yours exclude God as afore I vrged touching some Texts aboue insisted by you from â—â—ing Authour of Sinne a confessed blaspheney and 〈◊〉 such 〈◊〉 t Contra Duraeum l. 8 p. 524. D. Whitakers u In his defence of the English Translation pag. 500. D. Fulke and 〈◊〉 most learned Protestants Yf the 〈◊〉 sayd passages be not produced to 〈◊〉 former end then they in no sort 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Reprobation Enthusiastus I grant Arminius I cannot suâ—â—â—ciently to my owne satisfaction reply thereto and to speake more fully 〈◊〉 confesse the consideration of this 〈◊〉 so seeming necessary inference hath oftentymes strongly assaulted my â—â—â—gement to giue assent that God is 〈◊〉 Authour of Sinne. Yea which is moâ—â— I haue often insisted in this coÌ„sequenâ—â— to many learned men of my syde 〈◊〉 any of them would euer yield in â—â—presse wordes that God was the Aâ—thour of Sinne But when vpon 〈◊〉 their wordes I replyed how then 〈◊〉 God be said to obdurate Pharao's 〈◊〉 to lead vs into temptation to cause â—â—mei to curse Dauid and to cause or pâ—â—cure infallibly these and the like 〈◊〉 wicked Actions specified in 〈◊〉 the former Texts commonly all 〈◊〉 for proofe of Reprobation â— and 〈◊〉 notwithstanding all this it should not â—â—llow that God were the Authour of â—inne They I well remember would answere this my propounded difficulty seuerall wayes whose Answeres I will at this present relate to you to know how far the said Answeres in your leuell do carry or whether in your iudgment they are satisfactory to take away your former dangerous illation Some prime men do first answere That x Beza in his display of Popery pag. 11â— Whatsoeuer God doth is good He doth all thinges all thinges therefore â—â—re good as they be done of him And the difference of good or euill hath place only in â—he instruments And thus they teach that such Actions which are in man wicked are notwithstanding in God most iust and good Others agayne would secondly salue the matter in this sort y Aretius in Loc. Com. pag. 130. Swingl tom 1. do prouidentia Dei c. 6. fol. 365. We answere God hauing no Superiour can haue no law prescribed to him And Sinne hath only place where there is a â—aw from whence it followeth that in the Astions of God there is no Sinne. Others agayne shape a third solution so irreâ—olute I did fynd them in their Answeres by distinguishing that z D. Whitak contr Duraeum vbi supra l. 8. p. 527. Bucanuâ— in loc Comâ— loc 36 pag 4â—4 in â—uery sinfull Action what is Positiue Materiall is euer 〈…〉 aboue is touched the 〈…〉 which is in euery such action not of God but of our selues Arminius All this your diuersity of Answres solue not the difficulty aboue â—â—â—pounded but they are meer ter giue 〈◊〉 and subtill euasions of the 〈◊〉 handled And to beginne with 〈◊〉 your last Answere if your comparâ—â—â— did meane nothing els but that 〈◊〉 is materiall in a sinfull action is of 〈◊〉 and the defect priuation and impiety 〈◊〉 such action doth proceed 〈◊〉 man then were the difficulty 〈◊〉 and the controuersy at an end but 〈◊〉 of your friends are so full 〈◊〉 in their sentences of God being 〈◊〉 sole causer of our wicked actions as that the said sentences are 〈◊〉 capable of this solution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Swingl â—om 1. de prouident Dei fol. 365. fynd some of them thus to write 〈◊〉 When we commit adultery or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worke of God being the 〈…〉 and inciter Heere you see that not only 〈◊〉 is materiall in these actions but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
own 〈◊〉 for the Lord excludeth no man Yea Bulinger is so absolute in this doctrine 〈◊〉 that he vndertaketh to explayne 〈◊〉 n In his 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 pag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â— Induration of Pharaos heart diuâ—â—â—lyke Texts of Scripture produced agaynst this our doctrine But to proceed further AmaÌ„dus Polanus thus teacheth o Amandus Polanus in partition Theolog. p. 11. 12. God by his condiâ—â—onall will would haue all men saued And further p Ibid. p. 8. God doth not cause but permit men to fall into Sinne. And yet more q Ibid. p. 7â— God is not the cause of all thinges that he foreseeth To conclude Piscator is so great a Patrone of our doctrine as that he r Volum 1. Thes Theolog. pag. 174. 175. alleageth diuers Scriptures for the fortifying of his owne Opinion therein as also answereth diuers Texts of Scripture obiected by our Aduersaries Now touching the Lutheranes We fynd that s In Enchirid p. 158. Kempnitius t In Respons Bez. ad Colloq Montisâ—elg partâ— altâ—ra pag. 25â— Iacobus Andraeas u In Theolog. Calu. l 1. Art â—â— Conradus Schlussenburg x In disput prâ— lib. Concord pag. 60. 61. 6â— Gesâ—erus the y Cent. â— l. 2. c. 4. Century Writers The z In the Harm of the Confess in English pag. 268. 269. Confession of Auspurg a In loc Com. p. 140. Manlius b In Syntagm â—x Nou Testam Col. 109. â—10 111. Wigandus c In disput Theolog. disput 1. p. 24. disput â—1 p. 507. Lobechius d In loc Com. com 1. de prâ—dest fol. 29. 3â— â—2 Sarcerius e In Margarâ—t Theolog. pag. â—96 Adamus Francisci and to omit many others euen the learned Melancthon to conspire with vs herein Which Melancthon though for a tyme he was deuoted to the contrary doctrine yet in his later dayes he wholy disauowed his said doctrine and agreeth with the former Lutheranes therein For thus he writeth f In Concil Theolog part 2. p. â—â—â— Falsa detestanda accusatio est c. That accusation is false and to be 〈◊〉 tested which sayth God sinneth not tho◠〈◊〉 he helpeth the wicked to perpeirate their â—â—pietyes because say 〈◊〉 men God 〈◊〉 aboue the Law it is lawfull for him to 〈◊〉 what he pleaseth And then further 〈◊〉 tetram vocem c. O bad saying For neyther God willeth at any tyme nor causeth 〈◊〉 workes contradicting and repugnant to his Law And agayne g Vbi supra pag. â—â—â— Addunt hoc argumentum c. The foresaid men doe adioyne this argument To wit All thingâ— are done God seeing and determining theâ—â— c. But let vs perseuere euer in this sentence or opinion that God neither willeth nor affecteth nor approueth Sinne. Thus faâ— of the Protestants iudgments in this point omitting for the auoyding of prolixity the like Authorities of many other Protestants of Eminency Of whom some do call this doctrine of our Aduersaries h Melancth in loc Com. de causa peccati Hurtfull to manners Others i Christmannus in Diagraphe Elect. pag. 94. Wicked Agayne Others k Blasphemous And finally Others l Horrendum dogma horrendum auditu Enthusiastus I had little thought before this instant that so great a trooÌ„pe of learned â—â—otestants had with such an vnaniâ—â—ous consent maintayned this your â—â—ctrine But I see your allegations of â—â—em are so precise and punctuall that â—f force I must giue way thereto But 〈◊〉 me intreate you to proceed to oâ—her proofes Arminius k Rungius in disput quindecim ex epist Pauli ad Corinth posteriori disput 14. In this next place I come to the Fathers Whose iudgment herein is aâ—oue discouered touching their iudgment in the doctrine of Freewill seeing as is aboue often said the doctrine of Reprobation or Predestination is included l Andâ—aeas in epitom Colloq Mâ—nâ—â—sbelg pag. 54. or rather impugned in the doctrine of Freewill But to take a little â—tast or delibation of some Fathers particular sayings Thus we fynde Austin to write m Austin ad Articul sibi falso imposit Art 10. Detestan la c. It is a hatefull and abominable opinion to belieue that God is the authour of any euill wil or action Vincentius Lyrinensis thus fully writeth hereof n â— aduers Haeres post medium Who before Nouatianus taught that God would rather the death of him that dieth then that he should returne and liue Which Father also further sayth o Vâ—â— câ—nt Lyriâ— vbi supra Who before Simon Magus c. was bold to affirme God the Creatour to be 〈◊〉 Authour of our wicked deeds Thus you see these doctrines to no small blemish of them take their beginning from Simon Magus and the Hereticke Nouatianus But this point of further producing particular Testimonies of the Fathers wil be not much needfull seeing the learned Protestants our Aduersaries in this doctrine confesse fully thereof For p Beza in his display c. pag. 2â—7 one of theÌ„ taxeth reprehendeth Chrysostome Cyrill Origen others for their different doctrine to them touching Reprobation And another thus in expresse wordes confesseth heereof an acknowledgment aboue alledged q Calulustis l. 2. c. 4. sect 3. Veteres omnes c. All the Auncient Fathers were afrayd to confesse the truth in this matter And Austin truly was not free from this superstitioÌ„ as where he saith that Induration and Execation pertaine not to the working of God but to his forknowledge Thus much for greater breuity touching the Ancient Fathers heerein Enthusiastus You may then rise to your other proofes for these your former Authorities taken from the Protestants and the Fathers thus farre most euidently carry that is that both the ProtestaÌ„ts and the Fathers next aboue by you alledged do agree with you in doctrine touching Reprobation Arminius Well before I arriue vp to the Holy Scriptures I will touch a litle vpon the auncient Iewes who as afore teaching the Freedome of mans will must therein as is aboue often inculcated necessarily teach our doctrine of Vniuersality of Grace and the impugning of Reprobation but how farre the Iewish Rabbins are engaged in this our doctrine it will easily appeare from the acknowledgements of r In Annoâ— in Exod. â— 7. Munster and s In Epist ad Romanos c. 9. Peter Martyr both which confesse that those Rabbins did ascribe the iuduration and hardning of Pharaos heart only to Gods permission and not as to his proper act or worke Now in regard of these two eminent Protestants confessions in this poynt it will be lesse needfull to insist in the particular Authorities of the said Iewes but I will content my selfe with the alledging only 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 learned and graue Iew his words Thâ—â—â— then Philo wâ—itâ—th t In lib. de confusione linguarum Ipsi eâ—iim patints c. It was not conuenient or seemingm thâ—â— the powerfull God should