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
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
of the Calvinists What is victory if this be not victory when did innocence triumph if not that day which was Aug. 1 An. 1608. For a conclusion of the fifth Chapter the Doctor takes a leap out of Holland into the City of Sedan and tells us that Dr. H. pag. 68. It is said that Franciscus Auratus was shamefully ejected out of that City for no other reason but because from Jam. 1.13 he largely declared that God was not the Author of Sin Answ. This is said but by whom or upon what grounds Were we promised that the Historical Narration should be collected out of the Publick Acts and Monuments of the several Churches and must we now be put off with a 't is said If I should write all that hath been said of Dr. Heylin and his Party the World till such calumnies were confuted would have but little charity for them It is said so perhaps by a Fellow of as little judgement as Mr. Cross or by some who had taught his tongue to utter lies That there was such a Minister as Auratus and that he was being a well meaning man but no deep Scholar inveigled by the eloquence of Daniel Tilenus Professor at Sedan to favour and to vent the Remonstrants Opinions I grant but that he was forced to leave his place only for preaching that God was not the Author of Sin is a story fit only to be reported by those who have learned from the Jesuits calumniari fortiter I was much concerned to know who it was that had so much abused the Doctor and at length I found him to be Episcopius in his Examen of the Theses of Iacobus Capellus In the first page of that Examen he relates this improbable story but neither tells where he read it nor from whom he heard it and we all know that Episcopius did never so regard his conscience but that he would sometimes defile it with a lye for he came into the Synod with a lye and went out of it with a lye On which account the Reader may be the less troubled to find in the same page the Reverend and Religious Peter Moulin accused as one that was feign to leave France not for his zeal in Religion but for pragmaticalness Indeed I have rarely observed Episcopius either to give a Contra-remonstrant his due praise or not to give a Remonstrant more than his due Vorstius in his Answer to Camero is a man than whom he had never met with one more modest and more studious of a good conscience in his Theological institutions he counts it not sufficient to vindicate the Latine Translation of Castalio from the censures of Albericus Gentilis and Thuanus but he must also commend the faithfulness and elegance of his French Translation whereas Doctor Rivet a more competent judge of the elegancy of a French Translation assures us that no French man can read it without indignation and laughter so foolish and ridiculous is it in many places Dr. H. Pag. 70. We are now come to the sixth and last Chapter of the first Part of the Quinquarticular History in which the Doctor goes about to enquire after the causes that might move the Synodists to use such cruelty severity he saith is too mild a word to express their rigor towards all those who did maintain the five Articles Answ. An enquiry which supposeth that which is not to be supposed viz. that the Remonstrants errour in the five Points was the sole ground of all the penalties that were inflicted on them All men who are any way acquainted with the History of the Belgick Churches do know that the Remonstrants were not proceeded against meerly for erring in these five Points but also for Socinianism and Scepticism of which to this day they have never been able to purge themselves Indeed the Holland Remonstrants are a Sect of men that are not fitted for communion with any Christian Churches except we will call the Assemblies of the furious Anabaptists or the blasphemous Socinians by the name of Christian Churches They can have no communion with any Church that is either idolatrous or that maketh any opinion necessary which they judge not necessary or that teacheth that the Magistrate may hinder and â—orbid the meetings of Sectaries by which means they exclude Papal Calvinistical Lutheran Churches from their communion and so separate from all Christendom Whatever they write about Moderation Toleration Syncretism is but hypocrisie for they cannot have communion with any Churches that will not deny the Magistrates power to repress Conventicles and the Churches power to define Heresies and determine what is necessary to be believed Arnoldus Poelenbergius in that little piece of his wherein he labours to prove that the Remonstrants cannot with a safe conscience joyn in communion with the Contra-remonstrants layeth the necessity of separation not on the Heterodoxy of the Contra-remonstrants in the five Points but on their tyranny in imposing Confessions to be subscribed and in going about to define what is necessary to be believed Episcopius in an Epistle to Grotius bearing date April 29 1631 saith Quinquarticulanam litem tanti non facerem nisi conjunctam sibi haberet eam quae est de discretione necessariorum dogmatum a non necessariis sive de mutua Christianorum tolerantia Video esse qui aliter sentiant intra quinque articulos rigide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consistendum esse arbitrantur at eorum sententiae ego non possum accedere Epist. Eccles. pag. 694. Among which Epistles also it may be seen how Andreas Reuchlinius doth school the incomparably learned Isaac Casaubon because in his Epistle to Cardinal Perron he let fall an expression commending the fact of the King and Archbishop in burning the Book of Vorstius de Deo Attributis But let us see how well the Historian can acquit the Remonstrants in the five Points Dr. H. Pag. 70. Their Doctrine saith he is impeached in these Points of no smaller crimes than to be destructive of God's grace introductory of Popery tending unto spiritual pride and to sedition or rebellion in the Civil Government Which Objections I shall here present as I have done the Arguments of most importance which were excogitated and enforced against the conclusions and determinations of the Synod in the said five Points and that being done I shall return such answers as are made unto them Answ. Here I cannot but observe 1. That whereas he drew up the Charge of the Remonstrants against the Contra-remonstrants and took no notice of any Answer that was or might be returned by the Contra-remonstants yet now that the Remonstrants are to be impeached he either finds or makes Answers for them which is not fair in an Historian 2. That one part of the impeachment is the creature and figment of the Doctor 's own brain viz. that of tendency to sedition or rebellion in the Civil Government No Contra-remonstrant chargeth this on the Doctrine of the
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