No such thing had the Arch-Bishop to charge on Calvin and therefore it is like enough would have desired his assistance in King Edward's time had he not known that Gâ—nâ—va could not or would not have parted with him Certain I am Cranmers and Calvins principles differed very little either as to Doctrine or Discipline nor did either greatly dissent from Lâ—ther unless in the matter of the corporal preâ—ncâ— of Christ in the Sacrament I have done only desiring the Râ—ader to consider 1 Whether it be not difficult to reconcile the Author of the Fides Veterum and the Historia Quinquarticularis seeing the one saith that our first Reformers had â—n eye to the Lutheran Platform and took the Articles of our Church word for word out of the Augustan Confession the other saith that Luther by a spirit of Prophecy no doubt declared himself no friend either to our Doctrine or Discipline And if any one can reconcile this contradiction then let him 2 compare our Articles with the Augustan Confession and see whether our Reformers were such plagiaries as to take their Articles of Religion all or any out of those drawn up at Ausberg And then 3 let him also well weigh whether it be not a great discouragement to all good endeavours to say that Luther and Calvin after all their prayers and study were as subject to error and humane frailty and as indulgent to their own opinions as any men whatever Learning and Piety would scarce be so earnestly prayed for if after we had attained both in some good measure we should still remain as subject to error as obnoxious to humane frailty as indulgent to our own private opinions as any men how unlearned and wicked soever Is there any one else that the Doctor thinks the first Reformers attributed much unto Yes one viz. Erasmus Of whom he tells us that he was Greek Professor in Cambridge Which every one knows as also that he is put in the Catalogue of the Lady Margarets Professors of Divinity in that University but died 1536. And though it be true which the Doctor relates out of Fox that by the Protector in the first year of King Edward's Reign it was commanded That Erasmus his Paraphrasâ—s on the four Evangelists should be set in some convenient place in Churches and that every Priest should have of his own one new Testament in English and Latine with the Paraphrases of Erasmus on the same yet it doth not follow as is inferred that our Reformers intended not to advance any other Doctrine than what was countenanced in the writings of that Learned man I say this follows not or if it do follow then if follows much more from the Canon of our Convocation 〈◊〉 that our Church never intended to propagate any Doctrine but what had countenance in the Martyrology of Fox But that consequence the Doctor will at no haâ—d allow but sets himself against it totis viribus Part 3. â— 56. See the difference King Edward's Council in the first year of his Reign when the Church was scarce crept out of Popery if crept out of Popery placed Erasmus his Paraphrases in Churches therefore the Church intended no Doctrine but that which was countenanced in Erasmus This is a good Argument Queen Elizabeth when Reformation was come to a great height by the advice of her whole Convocation placed Mr. Fox in Churches and Houses of great resort therefore the Church intended no Doctrine but what was countenanced in the writings of Mr. Fox This is no good Argument because the case is altered But I hope the Doctor thinks the Protector did intend to propagate some other Doctrine than what was countenanced in the Writings of Erasmus Why else did he go to fight against the Scots which War was unlawful on the Principles of Erasmus If the Protector warred against his conscience yet I trow the Articles were not drawn up against the minds of those that form'd theâ— yet in one of them War is justified Yea I heartily wish that the Article of the Trinity were not against some Doctrine countenanced in the Writings of this learned man Erasmus The blot of Arianism shall not fall on his face from my pen but our new Arians the Socinians do boast of him as their own I hope not upon so good grounds as they may boast of Hugo Grotius his Countreyman But boast of him they do The Ministers of Transilvania in the most cursed Book of the Knowledge of one God number him among their Ancestors and Socinus himself in his Epistles saith of him that he was not undeservedly suspected by the Trinitarians of Arianism and of the Antitrinitarians reckoned among those who somewhat darkly renounced the Trinity But now at last that Dr. Heylin may say that he hath met with a very good natured man I will give but not yield that Erasmus his Paraphrases were eyed by our first Reformers in making their Confession of Faith What will he gain thence Truly just nothing at all or less than nothing if nothing more be found in them than what is picked out and set before us pag. 109 110 111 For in all those collections there is not one phrase or sentence that doth contradict any one of the five Points as stated by the rigidest Calvinists Even those who say that Christ died only for the Elect in which number I never put my self will bring themselves off from all and every thing that is here alledged out of Erasmus Dr. H. Pag. 110. Of universal Redemption saith the Doctor he tells us thus This Lamb is so far from being subject to any sin that he alone is able to take away all the sins of the whole World Answ. Will Amesius Gomarus or any other that most restrains the death of Christ deny this Do they not all distinguish betwixt the worth of the death and the will of him that died and say that the worth of the death was such that God might without any indecency have accepted it for the redemption of ten thousand Worlds if there had been so many But Erasmus further adds Dr. H. Ibid. He is also so gentle and so desirous of mans salvation that he is ready to suffer pains for the sins of all men and to take upon him our evils because he would bestow upon us his good things Answ. This is so dilute a speech that I will strengthen it and say that he did suffer pains for the sins of all men and yet dare peremptorily aver that no Gomarist would refuse to subscribe the saying for he can grant that Christ died with an intention to purchase some benefits for the very Reprobates and he will further say that for ought appears to the contrary Erasmus might by all men mean the genera singulorum and not the singula generum for doubtless that phrase in Scripture sometimes signifies no more than men of all sorts ages countries I wish men would either not at all dispute for the amplitude of Redeeming grace or
their infancy they would reply that they were predestinated to life or death according to the good or bad life which God foresaw they would have lead if they had come to maturity of years Do the Arminians who are so angry when called Pelagians differ from them in this I confess Arminius doth not make a man to be predestinated from foreseen Works but from foreseen Faith nor doth he make Faith the cause but a condition or decent antecedent using a less suspected term but intending the very same thing for as our incomparable Davenant hath well observed Conditions are of two sorts common distinguishing these later he defineth to be such acts or qualities which being foreseen or preconsidered in the subject contrary Divine Acts are exercised about that subject Arminius when he makes Faith a condition of Divine Election infidelity a condition of reprobation takes the word condition in the later sense and so plainly makes it the same with a meritorious or motive cause for he every where maintains that posita side ponitur electio negata fide negatur electio that Faith is a means ordained and appointed by God for the obtaining of Election therefore as that Learned Professor well concludes pag. 119 120. Sunt merae verborum praestigiae cum aiunt praevisam fidem infidelitatem esse conditioones non modo quae praecedunt praedestinationem reprobationem communiter promiscue consideratam sed etiam ex quibus oritur distinctio electorum tamen negant habere aliquam causalitatem Consequently as the Pelagians and Semipelagians did hold that the number of Elect and reprobate was not definite but indefinite and indeterminate so also do the Anticalvinists or Arminians Illud pariter non accipiunt eligendorum rejiciendorumque esse definiâ—um numerum saith Hilary Epist. ad August of the Massilians Grevincov Thes. exhib p. 137 saith the same Electio incompleta potest interrumpi ac interdum interrumpitur suntqâ—e incomplete electi vere quidem electi sed possunt fieri reprobi ac perire numerusque electorum potest angeri ac minui 3. Our third parallel shall be in the Doctrine of grace the efficaciousness of grace Hilary in the so often quoted Epistle to Austin thus describes the Massiâ—ians They affirm the will to be so free that it can of its own accord admit or refuse Cure or Medicine and Faustus plainly tells us that Though it be of the grace of God that men are called yet the following the call is referred to their own will Are our Arminians any whit more careful to give grace the things that belong to grace do they not make converting grace to be nothing else but a gentle suasion do they not every where rant against those who hold that God doth by an Omnipotent and unresistable motion beget Faith and other Divine Graces in us I shall among many places that do occur for the confirmation of this make choice onely of two Hague conference pag. 282. A man may hinder his own regeneration even then when God will regenerate him and doth will to regenerate him And Arnold against Boyerm pag. 263. saith expresly that all the operation which God useth to the Conversion of men being already performed yet this Conversion still remaineth in mans power so that he can convert or not convert believe or not believe I had thought to have proceeded to the point of perseverance but that I considered the necessary dependance of that on the other two concerning Election and Grace By what hath already been laid down it is manifest that if the Pelagians and Semipelagians were in the right then are not the Arminians mistaken but if Austin Prosper Hilary and those others whom the Church of God hath been wont to grace with the Title of Orthodox were not in an errour then Mr. Calvin and those that follow him are in the right Obj. Here I may expect it will be said that the Doctrine most quarrelled at in the Calvinists is the Doctrine of absolute reprobation and in favour of that nothing hath yet been produced out of Orthodox antiquity Ans. To that I shall answer 1. By concession that if by reprobation absolute be meant a purpose to damn any man without consideration of or respect unto sin either actual or original such an absolute reprobation is indeed unknown to all antiquity but as yet I could never meet with that Calvinist that asserted such an absolute reprobation 2. But if by reprobation absolute be meant Gods purpose to deny Grace to some according to the pleasure of his will I then stick not to affirm that such reprobation absolute is not unknown to antiquity Indeed the Ancients do rarely speak of reprobation our Church in her Articles mentions it not at all both they she leave us to gather the nature of reprobation which is but Non-Election or Praeterition from what we find laid down concerning Election Now seeing the Fathers those of them that had to with the Pelagians and Semipelagians did constantly affirm that Gods own good will not any foresight of the good use of free-will was it which moved God to give converting grace unto some they must also hold that God did out of his own good pleasure and not from any fore-sight of an ill use of free-will purpose to deny this efficacious converting grace unto others Indeed it 's scarce rational to assert that God should purpose not to cure any one because he is sick not to enlighten any one because he was by him looked on as dark and blind But concerning the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter no more shall be said at present the Reader that desires further satisfaction is referred to the Learned Davenant in the close of his most accurate Dissertation concerning Election and Reprobation As for Vossius his judgement concerning reprobation it is considered in a Manuscript by Doctor Twisse which Manuscript may possibly in a short time be published From it the World will soon see how unjustly the absolute Decree is charged with Novelty Object 2. It may be further objected that about the year 415 there were a Sect of men called Praedestinati who were accounted and condemned for Hereticks whose opinions about the Divine Decrees seem to be the very same that are now maintained by the followers of Calvin Answ. This Objection were scarce worth the taking notice of if one R. B. Gentleman in his English Manual called a Muster roll of evil Angels had not placed the Praedestinati among the Capital Hereticks but since it hath pleased him so to do upon the credit and authority of Sigebert Monk of Gemblaux it will be needful to let the English Reader know that this Predestinarian Heresie is a meer figment and that there never were any such Hereticks as the Praedestinati So much this Mr. R. B. might have learned from Doctor Twisse Answer to Gods Love to Mankind Part 1. pag. 58 59. and more fully from Iansenius Tom. 1. pag. 219 220
is placed by Mr. Fox at the 22. of Ian. 1552 the sixth year of the King's Raign but a few moneths before the King 's own death He had indeed two years before lost his Protectorship and so as to that may be said to be fallen Before either his fall as Duke of Somerset or as Protector Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer had been in England Now both these Worthies I shall prove to be Calvinistical in the Points under debate And certainly the sending for two Calvinists is a better and stronger Argument that our first Reformers had a respect to Calvin in drawing up the Articles of Faith than the sending for one Melancthon is that they had an Anticalvinistical project especially if it be considered that Hierom Zanchy a Calvinist if not more than a Calvinist was also sent for over into England and had come over to assist in carrying on the Reformation if when he was just upon his journey a call to another Church had not diverted him Let me also ask What Writings of Melancthon be they that our Reformers had for their Directory The first Edition of Melancthon's Common places approved by Luther was written as Calvinistically as to the matter of Predestination as Calvin himself could desire Calvin's own Book against Pighius was approved by Melancthon and indeed dedicated to him If in any other writings he seems to contradict Calvin he doth but seem in these matters it is to be imputed not to any contrariety in his own judgement but to a contrariety in those mens tempers that he had to deal with and there is even betwixt St. Iames and St. Paul writing against contrary errors such a seeming contrariety as every man is not able to reconcile Something there is in what Lampadius writes in the continuation of Pâ—zelius his History page 409 Philippus rigidissime olim si quisquam alius de praedestinatione scripsit in Loc. communibus Anno 1523. Postea cum videret infirmos duris Lutheri phrasibus offendi perduelles eas passim cippo affixas ad inflammandum Evangelium traducere calumniari mitigavit sententiam suam ut qui satis esse putaret auditores deduci ad Christum vitae librum tanto magis fructus fidei deposceret urgeret viz. concordiam charitatem neque tamen ob hanc sobrietatem ab Orthodoxis unquam est repudiatus aut condemnatus neque ipse propterea a severioribus syntheticis alienior fuit sed ad Bezam se per omnia cum Genevensibus Orthodoxis â—acere scribit No Church can be more Melancthonian than the Church of Breme it answering by Pezelius to the Besâ—huldigung van Calvinischer the accusation of Calvinism hath these words translated We and our Predecessors have alway so declared our selves and by this do again declare our selves that as by the Magistrate of this City we are called to the Function Ecclesiastical to teach according to the Prophetical and Apostolical Writings the Catholick Symbols of Christian the Augustan Confession the Apology the Franckford Recess and the whole Body of the Doctrine of Philip Melancthon so we have by the grace of God hitherto taught congruously thereunto and by none have been convinced by solid reasons to teach any thing different therefrom in which kind of teaching by the help of God we have moreover decreed to persevere Yet the three Divines of this Church did not refuse to subscribe the Canons of the Synod of Dort so that in the opinion of these men who seem to have studied the five Points as much as any Melancthonism and Calvinism are not irreconcileable And if our first Reformers were regulated by Mâ—lancthon they and the Calvinists may shake hands as good Friends But how comes the Dr. in this History to speak more favourably of Luther than of Calvin It was but Iuâ—e 6th 1654 that he did write a Preface to his Fides Veterum In that thus he expresseth himself Though I had a good respect both to the memory of Luther and the name of Calvin as those whose Writings had awakened all these parts of Europe out of the ignorance and superstition under which they suffered yet I alwaies took them to be men Men as obnoxious unto error as subject unto humane frailty and as indulgent too to their own opinions as any others whatsoever The little knowledge I had gained in the course of story had preacquainted me with the fiery spirit of the one and the busie humour of the other thought thereupon unfit by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and others the chief agents in the Reformation of this Church to be employed as instruments in that weighty business Nor was I ignorant how much they differed from us in their Doctrinals and forms of Government And I was apt enough to think that they were no fit Guides to direct my judgement in order to the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church of Eâ—gland to the establishment whereof they were held unuseful and who by their practises and posiâ—ions had declared themselves Friends to neither Here 's plain downright dealing indeed sentence given impartially Luther and Calvin both 〈◊〉 by thâ—ir practises and positions declared themselves to be Friends neither to our Doctrine nor Discipline both much differed from us in their Doctrinals and Forms of Government both were thought unâ—it by Arch-Bishop Cranmer c. to be employed as instruments in the Reformation of this Church Luther was of a fiery spirit Calvin of a busie humour and yet the Doctor presently adds he was never Master of so little manners as to speak reproachfully of either Luther or Calvin All other men whatever I suppose think he hath spoken reproachfully of both those Reformers in sundry of his Books and in the passage before us he speaks not over respectfully concerning either of them and I believe vilely wrongs both and Cranmer too For where doth it appear that the Arch-Bishop thought either Luther because of his fiery spirit or Calvin because of his busie humour unfit to be employed in the Reformation of this Church Our Church was not reformed to any great purpose till Luther was in his grave for he died the 8 th of Feb. 1546 not a month after King Henry the eighth whose decease is placed by Iohn Speed 28 Ian. 1546. How far Reformation was advanced by that King may be collected from his Will signed Decemb. 30. 1546 in which Masses multitudes of Masses are appointed to be said for his Soul Indeed Mr. I. Fox acquaints us from A. Cranmer that the King the August before he died declared his purpose to abolish all Masses and in stead of them to set up the Communion Had he lived and performed that resolution and had Luther lived to hear of the Performance of it yet might not Cranmer perhaps have accounted it adviseable to keep any correspondence with him because he had written against his Soveraign more bitterly than was meet and had repented of that repentance which he sometime expressed for his bitterness
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
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
negligentia possit excidere quocunque enim modo se egerint non posse aliud erga eos quam Deus definivit accidere sub incerta spe cursum non posse esse constantem cum si aliud habeat praedestinantis electio cassa sit annitentis intentio 4. They wanted not a forehead to affirm that Austins Doctrine took away all use of preaching exhorting reproving praying Hil. ad Aug. Excludi putant omnem praedicationis vigorem fi nihil quod per eam excitetur remansisse dicatur Ibid. Si sic praedestinati sunt ad utramque partem ut de aliis ad alios nullus posset accedere quo pertinet tanta extrinsecus correptionis instantia To the same purpose Prosper But let us hear our Countrey man Faustus lib. 1. de grat lib. arb cap. 4. Qui unum ex origine perditum alterum in praedestinatione affirmat electum vide quo improba persuasione declinet Quid enim aliud dicit nisi quod adjutorio orationis neuter indigeat Nam jam praeordinatis ad vitam necessaria non erit deputatis ad mortem prodesse non poterit in isto supervacua in illo infirma judicabitur Beneficia supplicationis qui in acquisitione praedestinationis est non requirit qui vero in perditionis parte non recipit Quod si curam impendendam aestimat orationi indubitanter intelligat ea quae imminent posse mutari 5. They charged it upoâ— Austin that contraâ—y to the plain words of the Apostle he must needs hold that God would not have all men to be saved Quod non omnes velit Deus salvos fieri sed certum numerum praedestinatorum are the words of the Frenchmen or Massilians i. e. Semipelagians Cap. 8. Gall. Quod Deus nolit omnes salvare etiamsi omnes salvari velint is the second Vincentian Objection They said also that the blessed Fathers opinion was destitute of all Antiquity and contrary to the opinion of all that had written before him So Prosper in the very beginning of that Epistle which he did write to Austin Contrarium putant Patrum opinioni Ecclesiastico sensui quicquid de vocatione electorum secundum Dei propositum disputasti and a little after Obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt ea quae de Epistola Apost Pauli Romanis scribentis ad manifestationem Divinae gratiae praevenientis electorum merita proferuntur a nullo unquam Ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ut nunc sentiuntur affirmant It can scarse be doubted but that we who have the very same things objected against us that were objected against S. Austin are of the same mind that Austin was but because I am resolved to give not only full measure but also running over I shall make a parallel betwixt the Pelagian and Semipelagian Heresie and the opinions of Arminius and his Remonstrant crew Pelagius in this not followed by the Semipelagians did deny original sin That in this he and Arminians do not differ needs not much proof One of our own highly honoured by the men of his own party in a Book called Unum Necessar doth in most express terms deny original sin and take a great deal of unhappy pains to answer or rather elude all the arguments drawn either from Scripture or experience for the proof of it But perhaps Arminius and his more ancient Disciples were modester I must confess this Writer hath exceeded and gone beyond Arminius and all the Dutch Remonstrants but yet Corvinus hath told us Cont. Til. pag. 388. That with Arminius original sin hath not the nature of sin or fault properly so called I would feign have passed this as a Criticism and charitably have supposed that he had only meant that original sin was not a sin or fault in such a sense as actual sin is but that I find Arminius himself Answer to the ninth Question pag. 174 affirming that it is wrongfully said that original sin maketh a man guilty of death Had he said that none are actually damned for original sin it had been more tolerable but to say that it doth not make guilty or obnoxious unto death is to make it no sin at all and yet thus do the Remonstrants also speak in Apol. Cap. 7. Peccatum originis nec habent pro peccato proprie sic dicto quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat nec pro malo quod per modum proprie dictae paenae ab Adamo in posteros dimanet c. The Pelagians also were wont much to insist on this that Nothing could be both a sin and a punishment of sin because sin is voluntary punishment involuntary c. Austin to convince them used to produce that place which indeed carrieth great evidence in it Rom. 1. Against this Iulianus would say those speeches were Hyperbolical but yet the Father so pressed him that sometimes he could not but acknowledge that something might be peccatum paena peccati whence that lib. 5. cont Iulia. cap. 9. Meministine quamdiu disputaveris contrae lucidissimam quae per Apostolum deprompta est veritatem affirmans nullo modo esse posse aliquid quod peccatum sit paena peccati Quid est ergo nunc quod oblitus loquacitatis tuae c Doth not Arminius Pelagianize in this See but the one and thirtieth Article objected to him It will thence appear that he took exception against the publick Catechism because in it is said that Original sin is a punishment for if God did punish Adams sin with this then he must punish this with another and that other with another and so there will be a processus in infinitum My business is not now to answer the Objections of Arminius but only to discover his opinion yet least any one should think this subtlety unanswerable I refer him to the lately published Lectures of Doctor Samuel Ward de pâ—ccatâ— Originali pag. 8. where it is taken notice of and answered satisfactorily Our next parallel shall be in the Doctrine relating to Gods Decree and the absoluteness or conditionality thereof The opinion of Pelagius was that the well using of free-will and natural powers is the cause of predestination How much or how little the Massilians differed from him in assigning the cause of Predestination is shewn largely by Vossius Hist. Pel. lib. 6. pag. 533 534 c. and by Iansenius de Haeres Pelag. lib. 8. cap. 21. to whom I refer my Reader And shall now only take notice of Saint Prospâ—rs Epistle to Saint Austin in which I find the Semipelagians thus represented They hold that God before the Foundations of the World were laid did foresee who would believe and who would persevere in that Faith to this perseverance in saith they acknowledged the help of graâ—e was needful and predestinated those to his Kingdom of whom he foresaw that they would be worthy his vocation and go out of this World making a good end If their judgement was asked about infants dying in