neither are you thus to dispute 〈◊〉 man hath no certainty of his fayth or 〈◊〉 therefore he is euer doubting 〈◊〉 troubled with feares touching the 〈◊〉 There is therefore a meane to be adâ—â—ted betweene these two extremes 〈◊〉 a morall certainty in respect o◠〈◊〉 Vnderstanding and a Hope and trus◠〈◊〉 respect of the Will Enthusiastus Arminius I must confesse you 〈◊〉 partly satisfyed me in displaying 〈◊〉 vnexpected weakenes and transpaâ—â—â—cy of my Arguments drawn◠〈◊〉 from the misapplication of Scriptâ—â—â—â— as also from Reason But seeing 〈◊〉 accomplished my taske of 〈◊〉 we are to change parts therefore 〈◊〉 may at your pleasure enter vpon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in seeking to warrant your conâ—â—â—ry doctrine with such proofes as 〈◊〉 shall be best armed therewith And â—â—deed I confes I partly begin to retire â—â—d giue back so little preuayling I â—â—d my former Arguments to be â—hich till now I accounted as many â—â—gines able to beat downe and leuell â—â—th the ground all contrary doctrine that for which they were vrged But â—rminius begin Arminius I am prepared thereto And for the â—ore exact discussing of this point I 〈◊〉 first ouerthrow by proofes the â—â—â—posed certainty of euery particular 〈◊〉 Iustice Now if a man be vncerâ—â—â—â—e of his Iustice which is a meanes 〈◊〉 the obtaining of HeaueÌ„ then much 〈◊〉 must he rest vncertaine of his â—â—â—â—ation When I haue discoursed fully of the 〈◊〉 â—ertainty of a Iustifying Fayth then 〈◊〉 I proceed to the impugning by â—â—â—ofes of the imaginary Certainty of 〈◊〉 Now touching the first point 〈◊〉 â—ill lay downe though it be in part 〈◊〉 shewed what is the true state thereof To wit it is in expresse 〈◊〉 thus Whether a man ought or can wit◠〈◊〉 speciall reuelation be assured through 〈◊〉 of diuine fayth that his sinnes are 〈◊〉 In which question Enthusiastâ—â—â— you and your party hould the Affâ—â—â—â—tiue I the Negatiue Now in disprouing this aâ—ry â—â—â—tainty I will keep in part my forâ—â— methode of profes and will draw 〈◊〉 Arguments first froÌ„ Reason My first Aâ—gument then shal be this Nothing 〈◊〉 be certaine câ—rtitudinâ— fidei throuâ—â— certainty of Fayth except it be conâ—â—â—ned eyther immediatly in the 〈◊〉 God or at least deduced out of 〈◊〉 word by euident consequence 〈◊〉 Fayth groundeth itselfe only vpon 〈◊〉 Authority of Gods word But we 〈◊〉 not find eyther immediatly or by â—â—cessary inference in the word of 〈◊〉 that this or that man is truly iustifyâ—â—â— except some few as Maâ—y 〈◊〉 the Paraliticall Maâ—â— to both whoâ—â— was sayd by our Sauiour Thy 〈◊〉 remitted thee If the Aduersary should reply 〈◊〉 to thus â—yllogizing The word 〈◊〉 teacheth that euery one who hath 〈◊〉 â—â—ntance of his sinnes is iustifyed but I 〈◊〉 true repentance of my Synnes thereâ—â—re I am iustifyed I answere heerto that â—he Assumption or second Proposition of â—his Argument is not only false but 〈◊〉 impossible except it be proued by â—iuine Reuelation Since we read q Ieremy c. 17. â—he hart of man is insâ—rutable and who â—â—oweth it Againe we obserue that many are â—ersuaded to haue that which indeed â—hey haue not This is euident from the â—xample of S. Peter who when he sayd * Luc. 22. I am prepared to be imprisoned and to â—â—ffer death was doubtlesly persuaded â—hat he would suffer death for Christ â—nd yet the euent shewed that he was â—ot truly prepared thereto Adde heerâ—o that the Anabaptist and Anti-trinitaâ—â—lan both manifest Heretikes do as confidently vaunt of their certainty of â—ustification as any Protestant can do â—nd yet it is most euident that both â—f them remaine in mortall Sinne as â—â—ng as they continue in such their Religion and consequently that they caÌ„â—ot be assured of their Election but raâ—her assured during such their state of Reprobation My second Argument is this 〈◊〉 by speciall benefit of God it is reuealâ—â— to some few that their Sinnes are â—â—mitted so on the contrary syde 〈◊〉 Authenticall Histories record that diuers most blessed and holy men at thâ— houre of their death through their 〈◊〉 certainty of iustificatioÌ„ did greatly feareâ— According heerto S. Ierome relateth how Hilarion a Holy man thus sayd at the poynt of death Goe out my Soule out of this body why art thou afrayd Seâ—uenty yeares thou hast serued Christ 〈◊〉 dost thou now feare And with this 〈◊〉 heere end touching this kind of Argument Enthusiastus I cannot deny but that your Arguments drawne from reason seeme to be very pressing but I pray you asoeâ—â— to other proofes Arminius My next Head of proofes shall be take froÌ„ the pens of diuers most learneâ—â—nd Ancient Fathers And I will satisfâ—â— my selfe with the sentences of somâ— few though chiefe among them Wâ—fynd Austin thus to write r L. de perfect Iustitiâ post medium Quatalibet â—â—titia c. with what iustice soeuer man is â—â—duâ—d he ought to thinke whether any â—â—ing be in him which is to be blamed â—hich himselfe seeth not And againe s Serm. 23. de verb. Domini â—â—rtasse tu nihil c. Perhaps thou fyndest nothing in thy conscience inuenit illâ— qui â—â—elius videt but he fyndeth in it who seeth â—etter meaning God And finally the â—ayd Father t In Psalm 4â— Noui quia iustitia Dei c I know that the iustice of God remaiâ—eth but whether it remaineth myne or not I know not The Apostles wordes feare me saying who thinketh himselfe to stand let him take heed he doth not fall Thus Austin Chrysostome u Homil. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 Multis de causis c. for many causes our iudgement is vncertaine of which one is because we know not what our workes are Ierome x Lâ—â— in â—erem exponens c. â—â— Homo vide tin face Deus in corde Man seeth only the face but God seeth the Hart and which seemeth to vs sometymes cleane is found to be most sorâ—ide and foule in his eyes Finally to omit many others Baâ—â—ll thus writeth of this poynt y In constit Mon c. â— Mulâ—a peccantes c. we sinning in many things many of such our sinnes we doe not appreâ—end or vnderstand wherefore the Apostle said I am not guilty to my selfe of any 〈◊〉 but neuertheles I am not iustifyed in thâ—â— as much as if he should say I sinne in many things but I doe not obserue such my sinnâ—â— Thus far of the Fathers iudgment touching the vncertainty of our Iustification Enthusiastus I should hardly haue byn persuaded that the Fathers had beene so strong in this point as now I must confesse they are but I pray you Arminius ryse to your proofes of Scripture since they are most preuayling Arminius Well then to come to the Holy Scripture I will restrayne my selfe only first to such passages thereof which in expresse words admonish vs not to be ouer certayne and confident of our obtayned Iustice Secondly to some of those places which teach that it is vncertayne whether that man
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
prepare in the â—â—â—tionall Soule the way to vice c. Therefore it remayneth to be considered that God is the cause only of good but not of any Euill And againe he thus further discourseth u Lib. de Profugis Therefore let â—o wicked act being perpetrâ—ted by affected diligence of man be repâ—tâ—d or said to proceede from the sentence of God but from our owne proper will And thus briefly touching the iudgment of the Iewes in this Controuersy Enthusiastus Well Arminius You haue riuetted the truth of your doctrine herein by many humane Testimonies the which I greatly presume are not capable of any sufficient Reply admitting the said Testimonies to be sortable to the word of God Therefore I much couet that you hasten to your Scripturall proofes since they are to preponderate all other kinds of proofes whatsoeuer Arminius Now I come to them and as I said 〈◊〉 of humane Authorities aboue alledged in coÌ„firmation of Freewill that they did consequently impugne our aduersaries doctrine touching Reprobation â—o with much more reason may I say that al the former diuine passages heertofore produced to maintaine the doctrine of Freewill do by necessary inference deduction ouerthrow the aduersaries sayd doctrine of Reprobation Therefore passing ouer all such former diuine Authorities touching Freewill I will neer insist in such Texts of Scripture as do immediatly and expressely impugne this your doctrine of Reprobation And first I will insist in those Texts which teach that God would haue all men saued That done I will desceÌ„d to such passages which shew that God was incarnated and suffered death for the sauing of All mankind And to beginne with the first sort of proofes The Prophet Ezechiel in most full manner and in seuerall places contesteth the truth heereof thus saying x Ezech. 18. Haue I any desire that the wicked should die 〈◊〉 the Lord Againe y Ezech. vbi supra Cast away from 〈◊〉 all your Transgressions c. for I desire 〈◊〉 the death of him that dyeth Yea 〈◊〉 this Prophet deposeth as it were 〈◊〉 intention heerein with aâ— moâ—â— vehâ—ment ingemination in these 〈◊〉 z Ezech. 3â— As I liue sayth the Lord God I desire not the death of the wicked but that 〈◊〉 wicked turne from his wayes liue 〈◊〉 you turne you from your â—uill wayes 〈◊〉 why will you die O yee house of Israel Agayne to leaue this Prophâ—â— do we not find the Prophet I say to 〈◊〉 in the like Dialect a Isa 5. Text aboue 〈◊〉 god saying in the person of God 〈◊〉 Iudge I pray you betweene my Vine 〈◊〉 what more could I haue doâ—e for it that I haue not done Wherefore then hath it giuen thornes and I looked for grapes In lyke sort the Euangelist to shew 〈◊〉 nothing is wanting on Gods syde 〈◊〉 mans saluation thus speaketh of 〈◊〉 b Reuelat 2. He gaue her a tyme that she mighâ— repent and she will not repent And 〈◊〉 this end it is sayd I meane that mâ—â— by leauing their sinnes might purchaâ—â— saluation by the former Euangelist that c Reuelat â— God standeth at the doore vi◠〈◊〉 our harts and knocks if any will open â—â— will enter into him and supp with him And therefore in respect of Gods proâ—â—eding herein it is no wonder that S. Peter speaketh thus of all men in generall d 2. Petr. 3. and see 1. Thessal c. 5. God is not willing that any perish but that all returne to repentance Now to come to the second kind of Texts which shew that the end of Gods Incarnation and Passion was the saluation of All men sorting here to we read That e Iohn 1. God tooke away the sinâ—â—â— of the World f Iohn 4. That He was a Saâ—â—our of the World That g 1. Tim. 2. He gaue himselfe a Redemption for All That h Hebr. â— He â—â—sted death for All. Finally that i â— Iohn â— He 〈◊〉 a reconciliation for our Sinnes and not â—or ours only but also for the Sinnes of the â—hole world Now whither tend all these â—ost forcing and indeed most comforâ—â—ble passages of Scripture but to â—â—oue that God for his part createth â—ot any man to damnation but would â—â—ue all men saued and that for the acâ—omplishing of the same end if so sinâ—ers themselues would he became inâ—arnated and suffred death And that no man shall thinke that Christ died only for the Elect and Christs 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 〈…〉 sayth k â— Cor. â— 8. Rom. â—4 The 〈◊〉 brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whom Christ 〈◊〉 And agaynâ— l 1. Tim. 4. Christ is the 〈◊〉 of All men espetially 〈…〉 m 2. Pet. â— yet more speaking of 〈…〉 They deny hi◠〈…〉 bringing vpon them speedy 〈…〉 also n Esay â—â— Thâ— Angell of 〈…〉 thâ—m and in 〈…〉 c. But they 〈…〉 Spirit and therefore he 〈…〉 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 o Heb. â—0 Whâ— hath trode◠〈…〉 of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and esteeme◠〈◊〉 blâ—ud of 〈…〉 i◠〈…〉 don◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Yeâ— then the Wickâ—◠〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 then the bloud of the 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 for the Wicked Thus you see Enthusiastus 〈…〉 these passages of Scripture do assure that Christs passion was 〈◊〉 not only for the Elect but also 〈◊〉 Wicked if so the wicked will not through their continuance in their â—innes depriue themselues of the beneâ—â—t thereof and consequently that God doth not out of his absolute decree Reâ—robate any man to damnation Enthusiastus Worthy Arminius I will not forbeare to relate what I haue heard answered or rather obiected by some of our owne learned Brethren to most of these Texts touching Gods will to haue all men saued They haue shaped a double Answere hereto First they demand * So vrged by Kimmedonâ—ius in his Redemption of Mankind p. â—â—â— how commeth it to passe that â—f so God would haue all men saued why then are not all men saued since it â—s said of God p Psalm â—â—5 He doth whatsoeuer he â—will Secondly my Brethren do answere to the former Testimonies by distinguishing of the will of God For they teach that God hath a double Will q So teacheth Beza in his display of Popish c. p. 18â— 190. 191. Danaeus in Isagoge Christiana part 4. l. 3. c. 38. And Kimedonâ—ius in his Redemption of Mankind englished pag. 170 â— 162. The one say they secret fearefull and vnsearcheable the other the reuealed Will of God in his Word They vpon this distinction further teaching That r Kimedoncius vbi supra God willeth not the death of a Sinner in his Will reuealed in his Word but 〈◊〉 his vnsearchable Will And in proofe 〈◊〉 this double kind of Will in God a lâ—â—ned man on our syde alledgeth 〈◊〉 two seeming different sentences 〈◊〉 * Esay 45. Ego Deus creans malum And Non Dâ—volens iniquitatem Tu es Thus frâ—â— hence inferring s M. Willee in
by the ancient Church of Christ then I iustify that the hatefull name of Arch-Heretike cannot in any sort be appropriated vnto me But seing you are determined to enter into a serious dispute as you say touching the former Articles I would willingly know what Method you intend to keep herein That is where yoâ— will begin and whether your selfe wilâ— first oppose and obiect or answere thâ— choyse whereof for the greater satisfaction of these Gentlemen your worthy Associates I freely giue to you And lastly I would know whether you would rather dispute priuatly or publikely Yf Priuatly then if it please you and these Gentlemen to accompany me to my house you shall enioy if nothing els yet better priuacy of discourse Enthusiastus O no. Our dispute shal be open and publike I meane in these your owne publike Schooles This shal be the place of our Conflict that so in the Theater and view not only of these English GeÌ„tlemen comming with me but also of this Presence your owne daily Anditory you may disauow that fayth to the which you haue hitherto beene so pitifully enthralled Here within these Walls the Hurt hath bene committed and within these walles I trust by dint of Argument and by assistance of the Highest who euer affoardeth his peculiar Illuminations to his Elect of which number I am ascertayned to be â—ne to force you to disclayme from your former Positions and thereby partly to repayre the dâ—mage Yet before we come to dispute you must giue me leaue therby to affoard â— more full passage to my griefe to tell you that I much feare your defence of these interwounding Controuersies proceeds in you from a thirsty desire to be much spoken of by the tongue of Fame so to become Vir Theâ—tralis as placed vpon the stage of the Worlds Eye The which I am the rather induced to thinke since you are not content to confyne your said doctrines within the compasse of these Walles to your owne Auditory But withall to diuulge them in your discoursing Papers the immateriall wellings of your Pen. I will not say how for better but I may well say how lesse hurtfull in respect of others it is to be a secret Adiaphorist or Neutrall in Religion so keeping his poyson to himselfe then with a certaine Magistrality assumâ—â— Authority to frame mould such doctrines which stand so aduerse to thâ— Word of the Lord as that I may iustlyâ— style theÌ„ to be Hyper-hereticall 〈…〉 ceÌ„ding the nature of ordinary 〈◊〉 Now then Arminius you being the Architect of such straÌ„ge doctrines the beliefe whereof doth threaten an interminable perdition to the belieuers it is euident that your Sinne in Teaching is farre more reprouable then it is in your followers in their Belieuing The reason being in that wheras the ignorant Sectary meerly Priuatiuely belieueth not that which is True the learned such as you are belieueth with a formed and positiue Fayth to speake in a restrayned sense that which is false I heere passe ouer with a gentle touch how in defence of your former doctrines to the dishonour of your owne Cause you ouer neerely interleague with the Papists who as it should seeme by some of their Bookes equally maintayne with you the said Paradoxes But I will stay my selfe from launcing further in my Reproualls hauing paid in these my speaches some Tribute and Duty to the Truth and to my owne feruour 4 Psal â—â— Zelus domus tuâ— comedit me Arminius This your long I will not say tedious Discourse discouereth 〈◊〉 your Name well comports with your owne comportment but you may take notice that my Scene is not fruitlesly to wast the tyme in vaunting Words the froath of speach Where you say that the defence of my doctrines riseth from a certaine VeÌ„tuosity and windy desire of Prayse It seemes you tast euery thing through your owne enuenomed spitle but I do assure you to speake in my owne defence I do little prize this poore weake breath of Mens mouthes Where you charge me with inter-leaging as you call it with the Papists I reply heerto True it is that the Papists do hold the sayd Articles with vs but not with the same Conditions I take it and in the same manner Agayne admit there were no disparity betweene them and vs touching the belieuing yet what doth this inforce Can it be inferred that because the Papists belieue them Therefore we ought not to belieue them Most inconsequently inferred since by this forme of arguing we should not belieue that there are any Scriptures that Christ dyed for mans Redemption that there are three Persons and but one God seeing the Papists do belieue these Articles But Syr be not lauish of time but without futher surpluzage of vnnecessary discourse which doth but obtund mens eares hasten to dispute And what I shall be able to produce eyther in defence of my owne PositioÌ„s or in assaulting of yours though these two points be partly coincident interueyre the one the other the Euent will proue Therefore I intreat you to beginne And Gentlemen if it please you you may take your Seates Enthusiastus Well then we will proceed therto And seeing you leaue it to my Election I will first dispute and obiect will produce most Vnanswerable Testimonies of sacred Writ deliuered without the least doubt by me in the intended sense of the Holy Ghost Spiritus vbi a Ioan 3. vult spirat And I will begin with the Article of Freewill in that the Question of Freewill is a Cardinall supreme Point being indeed the hynge whereupon the other Questions following by necessary inference do rest and relye Arminius I like well of your Method And you say truly in calling the Question of Freewill a supreme Point at this present since it being once proued that man wanteth Freewill it the followeth that there is a certainty of our Reprobation Election or Predestination As also on the contrary part if it can be demonstrated that man hath Freewill then of necessity from thence may be inferred that there is no certainty of Predestination or Reprobation But now to come to the subiect of which in the first place you vndertake to dispute I hold it expedient that we first both agree of the definition of Freewill and of other cautions necessarily conducing to euery act flowing from Freewill the which being set downe afore and circumstanced with due restrictions and so acknowledged by vs both my presaging thoughts foretell me that you will but idly diuerberate the ayre in alleadging the most of your Scripturall Authorities since the Answeres to them you shall fynde to be vertually inuolued in the said definition cautions and explications And first to begin with the definition The Deuines b Aug. in Enâ—hirid c. â—0â— do defyne Free-will to be A faculty of Reason and the Will by the which Good is chosen through Gods grace assisting or Euill through the absence of the same Grace Now for the
Christ what other thing is thâ— then to enuiâ— at the benefits of Christ â—â—stowed vpon Christians Thus far Câ—stalio To this former learned man I may adioyne the authority of M. Perâ—ins herein though at other times he may seeme partly to fluctuare and wauer iâ— hit iudgment touching this point Hâ— thus plainly writeth a sentence 〈◊〉 where by me alleadged g In his reformed Catholike p. 26. Because Goâ— giues men commandement to repent and belieue therefore they haue power to repeâ—â— and belieue h V bi supr p. â—â— God with his commanâ—â—ment giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Molinaus the learned Protestant is so full in the doctrine of Freewill as that Peter Martyr rebuketh him therefore in these wordes i In his Epistles annexed to his common Places englished in his Epist. to Caluin pag. 99. Molinaus adiudâ—eth certaine thinges amisse touching Free-will In like sort Hemingius and Snecanus Protestants of good Note are charged by D. Willet for their maintayning of Freewill in this manner k In his Synops p. 808 810. They he meaning the former two Protestants â—re more erroneous concerning Freewill then are the Papists Brieflly this doctrine of Freewill is fully taught by l Cent. 16. pag. 814. Osiander and by certaine Protestants recorded by m Aâ—â— Mon. pag. 1533. 1605. M. Fox so strong and resolute we see are many learned Protestants in this doctrine Enthusiastus The Authority of these former Protestants doe not much sway with me â—â—oing that as your selfe cannot but know there are many other more in number and of equaâ—l learning at least with the former who wholy impugne the Doctrine of Freewill and to whose iudgments therein I had rather stryke â—ayle and yield Arminius Be it so Enthusiastus as you saâ— yet I vrge the testimonies of the Protestants to this end to wit that whereaâ— you rely perhaps ouermuch vpon thâ— authority of other Protestants our Aduersaries in this controuersy that yoâ— may see heerby that other Protestanâ— of eminency do with as strong a benâ— of iudgement defend the doctrine oâ— Freewill as yours do impugne it Anâ— therefore though I seeke not that thâ— ProtestaÌ„ts by me alledged should oueâ— ballance other Aduersary Protestants heerin yet I see no reason why they should not equally ballaÌ„ce with the said Protestants And thus it followeth that the matter in respect of this point is become eauen and indifferent as being neither much aduantaged or much preiudiced by yours or my producing of Protestants eyther for the impugning or defending of the doctrine of Freewill Yet heere I must aduertise you oâ— one thing to be considered It is this That seeing the former Protestants by me alledged do compart almost with all other Protestants in all Articles of â—â—otestancy this only of Freewill and â—ther points therof depending excepâ—ed it can hardly be coniectured that â—he sayd Protestants would diuide theÌ„â—elues in doctrine from all their other â—earned Brethren were it not that the weight of diuine and humane Authorities did ouersway their iudgmeÌ„ts thereâ—n seeing otherwise they might hould it as no small scarre to them being feâ—er in number to dispart themselues but vpon most weighty and forcing Reasons in iudgment from all other Protestants Againe we know that ProtestaÌ„ts and Papists are Aduersaries one to another in matters of Religion now the former alledged Protestants by me do conspire partly in doctrine touching Freewill with the Papists so as the Authorities of the sayd Protestants heerin are to be reputed as Confessions of the aduersary Now how forcible this kind of Argument drawne from the Confession of an Aduersary is appeares froÌ„â—he iudgement of the most learned D. Whitakers thus writing of this poynt o D. Whit. contra Bell. l de Eccles controuer 2. q. 5. c. 14. Efficaxest Aduersariorum ipsorum testimonium c. The testimony drawne froâ— the Aduersaries is most efficacious aâ— I ingenuously confesse that Truth is abâ— to extort testimony from its Enemies thâ— sayd Doctour borrowing his sentencâ— heerin from Irenaus to omit other Fathers thus writing p L. 4. c. 14. It is an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attâ—statiou froâ— the Aduersaries themselues But inougâ— of this poynt and now leauing to insâ—â— further in the Protestants iudgment herein I will ascend vp to those tyme of the Primitiue Church she being then Christs intemerate and incontaminate Spouse and see of what iudgment the Doctors and Fathers of those purer dayes were touching Freewill Enthusiastus I pray you Arminius rise vp to those times for I freely confes that thâ— authorities of those ancient Doctourâ— so long as they do not impugne Godâ— Holy Word and Scripture ought 〈◊〉 haue no small soueraignty ouer manâ— iudgment And the rather seeing wâ— fynd it thus written by our owne meâ— q Kâ—â—pnitius in exam Concil Trident. part 1. pag. 74. We doubt not but that the Primitiâ—â— Church receaued from the Apostles and 〈◊〉 postolicall men not only the text of the Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof Therefore Arminius you may proceed Arminius Now to beginne with those Centinels of Christs Church Though all of them I meane both of the Latin and Greeke Church be most luxuriant and ryotous as I may say in their testimonies for the proouing of Freewill yet because I will not cloy this presence with a fastidious aboundance of such their Authorities some few and those pertinent shall serue And first I fynd that Austin thus writeth r Tom. 3. de Spir. litera c. 34. It is in our power to consent to Gods calling or to dissent from it Againe he further thus enlargeth himselfe euen deliuering our doctrine in these expresse wordes s Austin tom â— epist. 47. Valentino I haue dealt with yours and our Brethren what I could that they would perseuere in the sound Catholike fayth which neither denieth Freewill whether to bad life or to good neither attributeth so much vnto it as that without grace it auayleth any thing And to omit other infinite lyke sayings he thus plainly teacheth t Aust l. de spirit liâ— c. 34. Consentire vocationi Dei vel ab illo dissentire propriae voluntatis est It is peculiar to thâ— will either to giue assent to the calling 〈◊〉 God or to reiect it But to proceed to others Ierome thus punctually writeth u Hiâ—roniâ—us Dial contra Pelagianos Hoc est quod tibi in principio dixer aâ—â— c. This is that which I spake to thee in the beginning to wit That it is in our power tâ— sinne or not to sinne that so we may keepâ— the freedome of our will Epiphanius accordeth to the former Fathers in these words x Epiphan Haeres 1â— Manâ— festum euidens indubium est vnicuiâ— liberum arbitrium concessum esse à Deo c. It is manifest euident and indubious thâ—â— God hath giuen Freewill to euery man who hath sayd by himselfe si
volueritis si nolueritis that so by these his wordes it may be in mans power eyther to worke well or â—â— worke badly But to contract this poynt Somâ— Protestants of the greatest Note and ranke do most fully charge the Fathers in generall with the doctrine of Freewil For thus D. Whitgift that learned Protestant confesseth of this point y D. Whitg in his defence of the Answere to the Admonition pag. 472. 473. Almost all the Bishops of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of Freewill c. And according to this Doctors iudgment we fynd that our Centurists z See Cent. â— c. 10. col 221. Cent. 3. c. 10. Col. 265. 240. Cent 4 Col. â—â—â—3 1â—44 1183. Cent. 5. Col. 969. c. do particularly charge and reprehend these Fathers following for their maintenance of Freewill to wit Iustin Irenaeus Cyprian Tertullian Origen Chrysostome Theodoret Cyrill Alexandrinus Prudentius Ambrose Hilary Epiphanius Gregory Nissene and Gregory Nazianzen And that three of these ancient Fathers to wit Origen Tertullian and Cyprian defended the doctrine of Freewill appeareth most euidently from this one consideration It is granted by the most learned Aduersaries that Austin Epiphanius and Ierome in regard of their most cleare sentences in that behalfe did iointly teach Freewill Well a Austin against Origen in haeres 414 Against Tertull. in haeres 86. â— Against Cypr. in tom 3. de Baptism l. 2. c. 7. Ierom. l. contr louin Vigil Epiph in Haeresibus These Fathers did charge the former three Fathers with these three peculiar Errours following and no other to wit Cyprian with Rebaptization Tertullian with denying second Mariages and Origen with belieuing that the Diuels should in the end be saued But now it is more then certaine that if Cyprian Origen and Tâ—rtullian had belieued and taught otherwise touching the doctrine of Freewill then thâ— said later Fathers did no doubt they had beene written against for this theâ—â— disagreement from Austin Ierome anâ— Epiphanius touching Freewill as theâ— were charged by them for their for mâ—â— acknowledged Errours But we do not fynd that the former three more ancient Fathers were contradicted by thâ— three later touching the doctrine of Freewill from which point it ineuitably followeth that Cyprian Origen and Tertullian did vnanimously agree in defence of Freewill with Austin Ierome and Epiphanius And thus far touching the Authorities of the Fathers in this question of Freewill assuring you Enthus and this worthy Presence that I haue not discerped the twentith part of those Testimonies which their Writings and Volumes do affoard of this Subiect Enthusiastus Learned Arminius for so I fynd you to be I will not be of that Aristarchian and Censuring disposition aâ—â— to recall the Authorities of those Ancient Fathers to be tryed by the touchstone of my owne iudgment I reuerence their Authority both for their learning vertues and their proximity to our Sauiours dayes Only I euer say I reuerence them with this presumed caution to wit whiles they write concordantly to the Holy Scriptures And therefore Arminius if so you can be able to produce out of Gods Holy Writ as euident Testimonies which I yet thinke you cannot for the fortifying of the doctrine of Freewill as your haue already done out of the Fathers writings I coÌ„fesse it may perhaps beget in me a certaine hesitation and doubtfulnes of iudgment herein But Arminius proceed in that kind of Methode as shall best seeme pleasing to your selfe and God I trust for refractory I will not be will second the euent Arminius I will in fitting tyme arriue to my proofes borrowed from the diuine Scriptures yet because I wil not ascend thereto in regard of my prescribed Methode ouer steepily or per saltum therefore I will take in my way the Ancient Iewes into my consideration and will see whether they stand affâ—cted to the doctrine of belieuing of Free-will or wholy disclaime from the same But this difficulty is easily dissolued For doe we not fynd Rabby Moyses fiâ—lius Maymon thus to instruct his Proselytes b Epist aduersus Astrologos Ac illud quidem intelligere debetis c. But this chiefe and principall foundation of our Law you ought to vnderstand that both I and all Philosophers do confesse That what actions are committed by men the same to be in their owne power c. So â—â— man serueth God if so man himselfe will c. And if he hath a desire to ioyne himselfe with the wicked c. he also doth thâ— same See further of this point Rabby Hâ—darsan vpon the fourth Chapter of Genesis And Rabby Selemo alleadged by c In lib. de Arcanis Catholica veritatis Printed at Frâ—nckfurd 1602 l. 6. c. 6. Petrus Galatinus Philo that learned Iew thus initiatech his Reader in this mistery d Philo. lib. quod Deus sit immutabius Man hath Freewill God created him free that being left to his proper will he might doe whatsoeuer he pleasâ— c. To which sentence is extant that Oraâ—â— in Deuteronomy Behould I haue placed before thee life and death good and 〈◊〉 choose lyfe Thus Philo. To concludâ— That the Ancient Iewes were Patronâ—â— of Freewill so euident and confessed is this point diuers of our learned Brethren do acknowledge For D. Fulk thus fully speaketh hereof e In his defence of the English I ranslation pag. 320. The Iewish Rabbins Patrones of Freewill do erre The like is acknowledged by f Vpon the words of Rabbi Aâ—iba Paulus Fagius the Protestant and by the Booke intituled g Printed Hannouiae 1604. pag. â—17 Synagoga Iudaica Enthusiastus The Iudgments of the Iewes by you alleadged I canot very much esteeme and this for two Reasons First because you knowe that vpon the comming of our Sauiour their Law and Religion was to be abrogated and disanulled as we see by the cessation of their Sacrifices and diuers other their Ceremonies then vsed Secondly some doubt that that Galatinus whom aboue you mention being but a late writer forged in his alleaged Booke certayne sentences sorting to his owne Religion and then with subtilty obtruded them or rather incorporated them in the former Iewes And therefore granting this for true D. Whitakers with more probability might answere his Aduersary producing the Testimonies of the Iewes out of this Galatinus in these wordes h L 9. contra Duraeum p. 818. Tuum in hac causa Petruin Galatinum miâ—nimè profectà desidero nec Hebraeorum Tâ—stimonijs illis indigemus But I pray yoâ— leauing these Authorities hasten to thâ— Holy Scriptures Arminius Before I ascend to Scripturall proofes you must giue me leaue to eneruate and weaken this your Answere And to the first part thereof I reply That those onely points of fayth arâ— now abrogated which did prefigure our Sauiours comming such were the Iewish Sacrifices diuers of their Ceremonies But now the doctrine
f Marc. c. 10. 〈◊〉 loued the rich man who went away 〈◊〉 him and yet from this loue of our 〈◊〉 to the rich man we cannot 〈◊〉 that the Rich man was one of the 〈◊〉 Againe it is most true that God louetâ— all men as they are his Creatures though he hateth their Sinne For 〈◊〉 wiseman instructeth vs that g Sapieâ—â— c 11. God 〈◊〉 all thinges that are and hateth none 〈◊〉 them whom he hath made To the second place I answer 〈◊〉 that another like place of our Sauiouâ— words may well seeme to explane 〈◊〉 as where he said h Iohn 17. Those whom thou 〈◊〉 me I haue kept and none of them peâ—â—shed but the Sonne of perdition Now 〈◊〉 parallelling these two seuerall Tâ—xts â—â—geather it is euident that the 〈◊〉 of this place is not that euery onâ— whom the Father giueth perseueres to 〈◊〉 end for then the Son of perdition 〈◊〉 wit Iudas who as the Text sayth 〈◊〉 giuen should haue perseuered to the 〈◊〉 But rather that the Diuell by all 〈◊〉 temptations cannot perforce pull a 〈◊〉 from God except he giues his 〈◊〉 consent to yield to the diuels 〈◊〉 Secondly suppose these wordes to vnderstood of the Elect in generall â—â—ose finall repentance is knowne to 〈◊〉 of whom we all acknowledge at None do perish for God is not 〈◊〉 in his foreknowledge yet this forceth nothing seeing both the i Hier. in c. 26. Hier. sayth Non ex eo quod Deus scit futurum aliquid idâ—irâ—â— futurum est Sed quia futurum est Deus nouit See likewise Austin tom 7. de praedest gratia c. 15. â—â—thers and our owne learned k Hiperius in Method Theol. l. 1. pa. 319. sayth Neque quia praescit Deus hominem peccaturum ideo homo peccat sed quia peccaturus erat ideo Deus id praesciuit The like saying hath Amandus Polaâ—â—s in partit Theolog. l. 1 p. â— Breâ—â—ren do teach that things are not beâ—ause God doth foresee them but God doth â—â—resee therin because they are To the third Text I answere That â—od indeed doth neuer repent him of 〈◊〉 guifts bestowed vpon any man yet â—â—uertheles by reason that many do aâ—aâ—use his giftes applying them otherâ—ise then God intended he is said in â—oly Scripture as speaking to our Caâ—acity l Gen. â— 1. Samuel 15. to repent him Enthusiastus Well I will closâ—tlliâ— point 〈…〉 more Scipturall Authorities 〈◊〉 I see Arminius you are very 〈◊〉 in auoyding of them with there 〈◊〉 lowing which for greater 〈◊〉 I will a masse togeather We fynd 〈◊〉 Apostle thus to say Christ shall 〈◊〉 confirme you speaking to the â—â—â—thians vnto the end Iâ— like 〈◊〉 m 1. Cor. 1. said Apostle els where thus sayth 〈◊〉 n Ephes 1. He hath thosen vs before the foundatioâ— the world Agayne o Rom. 8. Who shall accuse â—gainst the Elect of God Finally we 〈◊〉 in the Gospell p Iohn 10. No man shall 〈…〉 sheepe out of my hand All which â—â—â—â—â—rities may seeme well to fortify the 〈◊〉 fallibility of Predestination Arminius These Texts though many 〈◊〉 number yet are small in force so 〈◊〉 they glance from the intended 〈◊〉 And as for the two first to which 〈◊〉 others of the same nature may 〈◊〉 ranged taking their answere from 〈◊〉 Answere giuen to thâ—se two thâ—â—postle only meaneth That he hop◠〈◊〉 well of the saluation of the Corinthians â—nd Ephesians but that he should be asâ—ured through a certainty of faith that â—ll the Corinthians and all the Ephesiâ—ns for the Apostle speaketh indefiâ—itely to them all should be saued is â—ost absurd to thinke To the two 〈◊〉 Authorities They only teach that â—he Elect cannot finally perish but they â—oe not teach that the Elect do know 〈◊〉 much of themselues in particular or â—hat they are of the nuÌ„ber of the Elect which poynt remaynes yet vnprooued Enthusiastus I will desist as I sayd afore from â—rging more places of Gods word For 〈◊〉 willingly grant I haue produced all â—uch Texts as I thought had been most â—reuayling for the proofe of the doctriâ—e for which they were vrged Onely â—efore I leaue the Scene of further opâ—osing I will insist in an Argument or â—wo drawne from force of reason â—hich Arguments preuayle strongly with diuers men of iudgment my first â—â—en shall be drawne from the efficacy â—f 〈◊〉 and Hope And thus I dispute The holy Scripture ascribeth to Fayth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most full 〈◊〉 in the tenth Chapter to the Hebreâ— In like sort in the eleauenth Chapter 〈◊〉 the Hebrews it is called in regard 〈◊〉 its Infallibility Coniunctio or Hypostaâ—â— a firme ground of things to be hoped for 〈◊〉 an infallible euidence of things we see 〈◊〉 Agayne in the Epistle of S. Iames 〈◊〉 1. Hesitation and wauering is opposed 〈◊〉 Fayth In like sort in the sixt to the Hâ—brews a steedy firmenes is attributed 〈◊〉 Hope or as the former greeke word 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which place Hope 〈◊〉 its stability and firmenes is comparâ—â— to an Anker Therefore in regard 〈◊〉 Gods promising a remission of 〈◊〉 Sinnes why should we rest doubtfuâ—â— thereof My second Argument shal be takâ—â— from the seeming absurdity * Vrged bv Kempâ—it in Exam. Concil Trid. accompanying this your doctrine since 〈◊〉 doctrine seemeth to be absurd which â—â—uer teacheth a doubtfull hesitation 〈◊〉 fluctuation of a mans fayth touchiâ—â— his owne saluation Arminius In soluing the first Argument 〈◊〉 must recurre partly to the state of 〈◊〉 Question aboue set downe True it is 〈◊〉 Fayth is most certayne neyther 〈◊〉 it be called Fayth by the which a 〈◊〉 giueth assent with any doubtfulâ—â—â—â— or feare to such thinges the which â—â—ought to belieue But our Aduersaâ—â—â—â— Paralogisme or Fallacy resteth in 〈◊〉 that they assume as graÌ„ted which 〈◊〉 can neuer prooue that remission Sinnes or iustification do properly 〈◊〉 â—oly belong to fayth Agayne I say â—â—â—ording to the state of the question 〈◊〉 granting a man to haue once true 〈◊〉 yet followeth it not that thereâ—â—â—e he shall finally dye in state of true 〈◊〉 and then it followeth that if he 〈◊〉 not certaine of his finall perseueâ—â—â—ce in fayth he therefore is not cerâ—â—â—ne of his Election or Predestination Touching Hope It is most certaine â—espect of God promising but in 〈◊〉 of mans indisposition and his â—â—â—kenes and frailty in performing the â—â—nditions imposed by God Hope is 〈◊〉 languid and accompanied with â—â—rtaine feare Touching your argument from 〈◊〉 supposed absurdity attending on 〈◊〉 doctrine herein I reply that the doctrine maintayned by vs thou 〈◊〉 taketh not away all feare yet it 〈◊〉 away all anxiety hesitation and 〈◊〉 doubtfulnes if he may be called 〈◊〉 who dare not giue assent to 〈◊〉 contrary part or opinion And as 〈◊〉 no good inference to argue thus 〈◊〉 man is not doubtfull nor anxious of the â—â—â—tainty of his Election therefore he is electâ—â—â— So
the hand In like sort those other most pernicious Theorems depending of the want of Freewill I meane the Positions of Certainty of Saluation and Reprobation what most dangerous effects doe they worke in mans Soule Do we not see by daily experience that they open the sluce to all turpitude of manners and Sensuality That man who is persuaded that he wanteth Freewill and that he is already and vnalterably from all Eternity eyther Predestinated or Reprobated what should stay him for ingulfyng himself in all enormous Crimes May he not vpon the grounds of his owne fayth thus iustly apologize for himselfe I want Freewill The ten q M. Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1â—35 and D. Willes in Synops Pap. pag. 564. Commandements of God do not belong to me I am already either Predestinated to Heauen or Reprobated to Hell A vertuous life if I be of the number of the Reprobate cannot aduantage me nor the most facinorous course can preiudice me being Predestinated Why then should I be so vnkynd as deny my selfe the fruition of Pleasures though neuer so much prohibited in Gods word So thrall mancipated must such a man be to all Sinne and flagitious Impiety This no doubt is the Dialect or language in the which most men belieuing the former doctrines do expostulate with themselues in the secret of their owne Soules And daily experieÌ„ce doth depose and sweare the certainty hereof And you the Learned Auditory here gathered together Happy you are in enioying the dayly Conference of this worthy man who hath indoctrinated you in the Truth of these former dogmaticall Points You see how affluently and abundantly he hath fortified these his doctrines from so many vnanswerâ—â— word and besyd 〈…〉 oâ— Reason and of the most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestants from all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 word which 〈◊〉 〈…〉 hand oâ— Time hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truth thereof to Posterity Keepe 〈◊〉 this Depositum with an vnalterable â—â—solution and thinke that man to be 〈◊〉 a merâ—tricious and frontlesse bold 〈◊〉 who daâ—e oppose himselfe against 〈◊〉 foresaid both diuine and Humane â—â—thorities And England my most noble 〈◊〉 deare Country O that it were in 〈◊〉 power to dis-inchant their iudgmenâ— liuing in thee of these pernicious â—â—ctrines with which they stand yet â—â—witched Is it not a point deseruing 〈◊〉 commiseration and pitty to obseruâ— how many men in our owne Country of most eleuated Wits and furnishâ—â— with all variety of literature do 〈◊〉 their full consent for their belieuing 〈◊〉 such exitiall and despeâ—tâ— doctrinâ—â—â— Desperate I call them in regard of 〈◊〉 most desperate attempts and 〈◊〉 which diuers of the Belieuers of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnnaturally perpetrated against 〈…〉 O how many through persuasion 〈◊〉 themselueâ— are wholy Reprobated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is not in their owne freedome of Will to concurre with 〈◊〉 Grace for the changing of their 〈◊〉 liues haue become their owne 〈…〉 Thy selfe My deare Country 〈…〉 it with vnutterable griefe 〈◊〉 become the sable and mournfull 〈◊〉 Theater vpon which diuers 〈◊〉 lamentable Tragedies haue beene â—â—â—cted But alas why should man seeke to conâ—ine Gods Mercy which is like himselfe Infinit Endles and Interminable 〈◊〉 r Psalm 102. aterâ—s vsque in aternum misericordia eius super â—â—mentes se And what can discourage man from making his attonement with God with whom by truly and penitently confessing our 〈◊〉 be Sinners we cease to be Sinners Are any Persons here exempted No. For we reade Whosoeuer s Ezech. â—â— shall depart from his wicked wayes and turne to 〈…〉 him Is any tyme limited or prefixed for receauing his Mercy grant and â—ndulgence of 〈…〉 lesse Yf 〈◊〉 u Esay â—◠〈◊〉 were 〈…〉 they shall be 〈…〉 Sâ—ing 〈…〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 nor Sinne is excluded 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 large and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why 〈◊〉 nâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen 〈◊〉 thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 despayring doctrine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much 〈…〉 the boundles Mercy of God 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 to him 〈◊〉 〈…〉 k 2. Cor. ◠〈…〉 But I â—â—â—re 〈…〉 your â—ares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy 〈◊〉 with a tedious â—â—â—course and therefore â—â—ing the day 〈◊〉 far 〈◊〉 we must 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—eruing 〈…〉 for the 〈◊〉 of your 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 back to the 〈◊〉 Arminius Good Enthusiastus â— much 〈◊〉 that my speaches haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 I pray God that 〈…〉 company heere 〈◊〉 yet 〈◊〉 aduerse in doctrine to 〈…〉 the lyke benefit by this our discourse That you are to depart so soone I much grieue and rest much â—oubtfull whether we shall euer see 〈◊〉 another agayne during this tyme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pâ—regâ—ination But if so you be â—â—lling thereto after your returne into England we will in part supply the want of corporall familiarity by intercourse of mutuall and friendly letâ—â—rs by meanes whereof we may enioy as absently present the one the other y Virg. 〈◊〉 absentem video audio Enthusiastus Most willingly I accord thereto and with this these Gentlemen and I take of you and of this your Auditory our last Farewell Nay 〈…〉 you 〈◊〉 〈…〉 of Worthy I will take my 〈…〉 you to your 〈…〉 Enthusâ—â—stus Once more the◠〈…〉 Company and I giue you 〈…〉 well FINIS God saue the King