deny the Consequent then hath the Jansenist field-room enough and is as far from being proselyted as if nothing had been determined against Jansenism In the mean time it were heartily to be wished that Protestant Ministers would vâ—ry sparingly in their Preaching touch upon those pâ—ints wherein they differ amâ—ng themselves The day is yet to come that ever I preached Sermon about Election or Reprobation and I look upon it as a great affliction that I have been by the daring provocations of others put upon it to write about them I could easily have born it that Dr. Heylin should trample upon my self but could not so well endure it that for my sake the honour of some of our best Reformed Writers should be laid in the dust If Zuinglius Calvin Beza may still be read without prejudice and quoted in the Pulpit with due respect If I can but perswade young Scholars that those who composed our Articles did understand them and would not enjoyn men to recant such tenents as were agreeable to them then have I obtained what I principally aimed at And so good Reader I commend thee to the love of God and to the hatred of Popery and Superstition and every opinion that hath a natural tendency thereunto THE CONTENTS AN Introduction giving an account of the undertaking Page 1 2. Of the Blasphemy of Florinus and whether Eusebius charge Blastus with it p. 3. Irenaeus his Arguments against Florinus p. 4. The Arguments of other Fathers against his Blasphemy p. 5. Of the Libertines and Calvin p. 6 7 8. Of Mr. Archers Book and its burning p. 9 10. Of Manes Bardesanes Colarbas Priscilianus p. 11 12 13. Luther no Manichee p. 14 15. Calvin no Bardesanist nor Priscilianist p. 16. Of Socinus denying Gods Prescience and the Iesuits Scientia media p. 19 to 23. Of Pelagius his Heresie c. p. 23 24 25. Of the Sâ—mipelagians p. 26 27. The Arminians follow the Pelagians and Semipepelagians Calvin Austin p. 27 to 35. Of Godescalk p. 35 to 38. Of the Councel of Trent p. 38 to 43. Of the Condemnation of Jansenius p. 43 to 46. The Opinion of the Piedmont Churches concerning Predestination and Grace p. 46 47. Of the Augustan Confession by whom made p. 49. not relished by the Papists ib. drawn up in hast p. 50. subscribed by Calvin and Zanchy ibid. Melancthon not against Calvin in the point of Predestination p. 51 to 55. Luther retracted not his Book De servo arbitrio p. 55. An Article of the Confession explained p. 55 56 57. Of the Liber Concordiae p. 57 58 59. Of the Conference betwixt Beza and Andraeas p. 59 60 61. Calvin not proved to make God the Author of Sin p. 62 to 66. Of his Horribile Decretum p. 66 67. Reprobation as stated by him not of such reproach among Papists nor of such offence among the Lutherans as the Doctor pretends 68 to 71. Iustified as to Castalio 71 72. No Supralapsarian at least not the first p. 72 73. Of the different opinions concerning the object of Predestination p. 73. Supralapsarians abused by the Doctor p. 74 75. Sublapsarian Opinion stated out of the Synod of Dort p. 76 to 79. Answers to Mr Hoards objections against it p. 79. to 91. Of the Remonstrants and Arminians p. 9â— to 104. The Doctor 's Parallel betwixt the Synod of Dort and the Councel of Trent disproved p. 104 to 112. Of the Deputies of Utrecht and Maccovius p. 112 113. 〈◊〉 Remonstrants not used cruelly p. 114. 〈◊〉 made the Author of Sin by those who charge others to make him such p. 116 to 120. The City of Sedan abused p. 120. Episcopius his humour described p. 121. The Remonstrants cannot joyn with any Christian Church p. 122. The Charge against the Remonstrants made good p. 123 to 127. Whether their Opinions tend to Popery p. 127 to 138. Wickliff defended p. 139 to 146. Tindal Barnes Frith justified and commended p. 146 147. Dr. Heylin's mistakes about our Reformation and Reformers in England rectified p. 148 to 157. The English Article about Predestination laid down and its sense p. 157 to 160. The Historians Observations therefrom considered and confuted p. 160 to 165. Of the Liturgy p. 165. K. Edw. Catechism ib. Of the Iudgment of our Martyrs Mr. Rogers p. 166 167. Cranmer Ridley p. 167 to 170. Philpot p. 170. Bradford p. 170 to 175. Of Peter Martyr and Bucer p. 175 to 178. Of the Geneva Bible p. 178 179. Hooper and Latimer no Friends to Arminianism p. 179 to 182. Calvin's Reprobation misrepresented by Dr. H. p. 182. as also his Doctrine concerning Perseverance p. 184. Of the sixteenth Article of our Church p. 185. to 191. Calvinists no new Gospellers p. 192 193. Of Campneys Veron Crowley p. 193 194. Of Queen Elizabeths Articles p. 196 197. Of Mr. Nowels Catechisme p. 197 to 200. Of Queen Elizabeths Homilies p. 20 0 201. Of Mr. Harsnet and Bishop King p. 202 203. Of Mr. Fox His Martyrology vindicated p. 205 206. Mr. Perkins cleared p. 206 to 209. Of Whitaker Baro Barret p. 209 c. Of the Lambeth Articles p. 211 c. Of the Questions and Answers put betwixt the Old and New Testament in former Bibles p. 214. Of the Hampton-Court Conference p. 217. Of the Irish Articles p. 219. A Catalogue of Bishops preferred by King James p. 221. Of Overal Vorstius our Divines at the Synod of Dort Sympson Tompsom K. James his directions Bridges Mountague p. 221 to the end A Postscript concerning Barret p. 232 c. HISTORIA Quinq-Articularis Exarticulata OR ANIMADVERSIONS ON Doctor Heylin's QUINQUARTICULAR HISTORY IT is an happiness rather to be wished than hoped for that the Church of God should stand in need of no. Polemical Divines for whilst Satan is Satan and Men Men and whilst the Righteous Judge of all Mankind sees meet to punish those who receive not the truth in the love of it by giving them up to strong delusions there will be Hereticks wresting the Scriptures and opposing the Faith once delivered to the Saints Against these as many as had any regard of mens precious and immortal souls have in all Ages thought themselves obliged to contend earnestly and that with two sorts of weapons The first Apodictical proving the truth and refelling the errors opposite to it by evidence of Scriptures and strength of Reason the second Historical confirming Truth by the Testimonies and Authority of men renowned for Learning and Piety The former are the weapons mighty through God to the throwing down of strong holds but the later have also been used with good success and indeed he must be a perfect stranger to all modesty and humility who doth hastily embrace any assertion opposed by all or the greatest part of the Fathers Martyrs and Reformers of the Church With these later Weapons I intend he assisting who worketh in us both to will and to do to encounter the Reverend Doctor Peter Heylin thought it seems by the many
will rejoyn Can you give me any Promise that I shall live long enough to shew sorth my Faith by my Works If you cannot there 's but small encouragement to believe for to a late though serious Believer you say there is no certain promise of Salvation But let us leave the Remonstrants to reconcile themselves to their own Decree and take notice that at the Conference the Remonstrants were further asked 1. Whether they made this Article to contain the whole and entire Decree of Predestination 2. Whether they made Faith and Perseverance in Faith causes or conditions which did antecede Election unto Salvation or fruits which grow out of Election and so follow it After some tergiversation they said 1. That they acknowledged no other Predestination than that which they had in their first Article expressed 2. That Faith did in the consideration of God precede Election to Salvation and was not a fruit of it This is their opinion about the Decree which now that it is opened appears to be as repugnant to Scripture as before when it was wrapped up it seemed agreeable Were this Opinion true it should not be said that we are elected that we may be holy but because we were holy nor would the Holy Ghost have said as many as were ordained to eternal life believed but as many as believed were ordained to eternal life The second Article as translated by the Doctor pag. 50 is That Iesus Christ suffered death for all men and in every man that by his death upon the Crossâ— he might obtain for all mankind forgiveness of sins c. with this condition notwithstanding that none but true Believers should enjoy the benefit of the reconciliation and forgiveness of sins I have if I forget not in the Pamphlets of some Quakers read this phrase of Christ's suffering death in every man and looked upon it as non-sense so I do still and therefore will hope it never dropped from the Doctor 's Pen but is to be put among the Errata's of the Printer As to the Article it self I can easily grant it to be a truth though all Contra-remonstrants do not but it is not all the truth Christ died not with an intent onely to make man reconcileable and salvable but also to purchase for some whom the Scriptures call Elect the very graces of Faith and Repentance Here therefore is the Question betwixt us Whether Christ died with the same intention for all Remonstrants affirm Contra-remonstrants deny Christ hath procured that whoever comes to the Father through him shall be saved but there are also some for whom he hath procured that they shall come to the Father The third and fourth Articles are so worded as to contain nothing but the truth though not all the truth save that in the end of the fourth it is said that As for the manner of the co-operation of Grace it is not to be thought irresistible in regard that it is said of many in the holy Scriptures that they did resist the Holy Ghost Act. 7 and in other places Which is a very rude Assertion either impertinent or false If the meaning be that some operations of the Holy Spirit are resisted some of his motions quenched who ever denied this If the meaning be that the converting work of the Spirit may be resisted in some degree and measure that will not be gainsaid neither But this we say that converting Grace doth determine the Will that Grace effectual doth not leave the Will at liberty utterly to resist it or not but taketh away that which would resist or make head against the Spirit As for the fifth Article it seems they did not know their own minds They profess that such as are ingrafted into Christ by a lively Faith may be Conquerours Christ is ready to assist them if for theâ—â— parts they prepare themselves to the encounter and beseech his help and are not wanting to themselves in performing duties But they say it is first to be well weighed and proved by the holy Scripture Whether they may not by their own negligence forsake those Principles of saving Grace by which they are sustained in Christ before they can publickly teach these Doctrines with any sufficient tranquility or assurance of mind All which is no more than may be said of that fundamental Doctrine concerning the Trinity for it must first be well weighed Whether the Scriptures do hold forth a Trinity of Persons before a man ventures publickly to Preach that Mystery I think that if we search the Scriptures it will soon be found that though the Regenerate may lose the Spirit of God and would soon lose him if they were left to themselves yet there is a promise by which God hath engaged himself not to let sin so far prevail in them as quite to extinguish the Spirit totally to destroy the new Creature and workmanship of God One would think that the Remonstrants who thus poorly sought to hide their Opinions should not have much reason to brag of the success of the Conference yet Dr. Heylin is resolved to tell us that Dr. H. Pag. 54. The Contra-remonstrants had the worst and finding themselves not to have thrived much better by their Pen-combats than in that of the Tongue they betook themselves to other courses vexing and molesting their Opposites in their Classes or Consistories endeavouring to silence them from Preaching in their several Churches or otherwise to bring them to Publick Censure Answ. It would better have beseemed the Doctor to have answered Dr. Ames his Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem than thus to have boasted of an imaginary success especially seeing the States ordered to leave these Articles just in the same state that they were in before the Conference After this Conference I find the States enjoyning both parties to give in their judgements what they thought the best way for the composing of the Controversies that were in the Church which did much endanger the Peace of the Commonwealth The Remonstrants in order to accommodation propounded that there might be a Toleration both Parties being permitted freely to Teach and Publish their Opinion The Contra-remonstrants judged the best way for the composing of the Differences was this that a National Synod should be called in which it might be determined which Opinion was most agreeable to Scripture and to the common judgement of the Reformed Churches These two ways being propounded to the States they were divided in their Opinions and so nothing could be determined only they enjoyned in order to the crushing of the Vorstian Party that none should teach otherwise concerning Christ's Satisfaction for our Sins the Iustification of Men before God Saving Faith Original Sin Certainty of Salvation than had been taught in other Reformed Churches and in those Provinces If ever men forsook the Word and betook themselves to the Sword the Remonstrants did Adolphus Venator when Magistrates were chosen that favoured not his Opinion stirred up the common Rabble against
in the Life of Iewel c. This nevertheless I grant that in Queen Elizabeths time there were no disputings ex animi sententia against Calvinism in Oxford Schools No Oxford man during her Reign declared himself for conditional decrees or any thing else opposite to Mr. Calvin in these poinâ—s but many did as they had occasion declare themselves strenuously for Calvin in Queen Elizabeths daies We find the whole Convocation appointing Calvin's Institutions to be read by Tutors unto their Pupils and other Books also as Calvinistical as the Institutions can be by which means our Divines there became prepared against the adversary as soon as he should dare to shew himself Anno 1597 Robert Abbot proceeded Doctor and being alarummed from Cambridge gave these two Theses Aeterna Dei predestinatione continetur aliorum electio ad vitam aeternam aliorum ad mortem reprobatio Electorum certa est salus ut perire non possint Dr. Field qualis quantus vir gave these Theses Doctrina Praedestinationis olim tradita ab Augustino nostris temporibus a Calvino eadem est nec quicquam continet Catholicae veritati aut Fidei regulae contrarium Praescientia Dei aeterno decreto omnia ordinantis non puâ—navit cum arbitrii libertate primis parentibus conâ—essâ— Orthodoxi Patres qui liberum arbitrium esse dixâ—runt qâ—â— bodiâ— sâ—rvum esse docent idem sentiunt Five such Thesis as these laid down by two such Scholars were enough to let the new Pelagianizers see there was no quarter for them in Oxford Nor can I find that they sought any Calvin being there all Qu. Elizabeths days in as much honour as at Geneva And of this the Historian seems sensible confessing that even Barnabas was carried away into Calvinism only he labours to prove that it was but in one point that of the not total or final falling away of Gods Elect. And that is indeed the only point for which Mr. Hooker was quoted but that is such a point as with which the other are necessarily twisted and so defended by him as that he appears Calvinistical to the utmost For whereas there be that maintain the certain perseverance of only the Elect judging it not impossible that some might be believers who were not Elect Hooker plainly makes all true believers Elect to eternal life and therefore sure to persevere in the Faith and he is so confident in this point as in none more prefacing his assertion thus In this I am sure I am not deceived nor can I deceive you At last the Doctor is faign to fly to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that his Discourse of Iustification might be altered by the Publisher of it or it might be written by him as as an Essay of his younger years pag. 90. Had he not better have said It is true that Hooker also was a Doctrinal Calvinist but I could heartily wish he had not been such And then I should have better liked him What then will the Doctor let go the whole University of Oxford No. Ibid. Some there were who spared not to declare their dislike of the Calvinian tenents and secretly trained up their Scholars in other principles An answer that may indifferently serve for any Novellists by whatsoever names dignified or distinguished The absurd Quakers may say that there have been in the University many that never bowed their Knees to Baal and thereupon charge flesh to be silent and not object singularity to them and they may further add that sundry great Scholars will be as free to joyn with them as Buckeridge and Houson were to joyn with Mountague if â—ver there come a time in which it shall be no more â—â—â—â—rdous to own their friends than it was in 1626 to â—wn Mountague There is only one thing in which the Doctor can hope to out-shoot them and that is this that Bishop Bancroft when Baro died at London three or four years after his leaving Cambridge took Order to have most of the Divines in and about London to attend his Funeral This plainly shews thinks he that there were many of both Universities that openly favoured Baro 's Doctrines pag. 90. But do we indeed favour and plainly declare that we favour the opinions of those whose Funerals we attend If so then must we never go to the Funeral of a Roman Catholick then did Queen Elizabeth and her Bishop Grindal plainly discover themselves friends to Popery when they so magnificently celebrated the Funerals of the Emperour Besides the Historian would do well to consider that when the Prophet Elijah thought himself to be alone Israel was manifestly apostatized from the God of her Fathers and had committed Whoredom with Idols and so in Athanasius his time the world was become Aâ—â—an If the Doctor also will grant that in Queen Elizabeths time the Church was become Calvinistical he grants the very thing we are contending for As for the truth of the Calvinistical opinions that we are ready to try with him by Scripture when he pleaseth In this History we search not what ought to be held but what hath been held not of what mind our Reformers should have been but of what they were If Calvinism be truth it will be truth though it had never found entertainment in the Church of England If it be error it will be error though all the Church of England be for it for the Church cannot make truth or falsehood but only declare what is truth and falsehood Whether the Church have declared Calvinism or Anti-calvinism to be truth that is the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing we have found Anti-calvinism discountenanced by the Church in Queen Elizabeths Reign let us now follow the Historian to her Successors dayes that we may see whether it were more countenanced then The first thing we are led to Pag. 96 97 98 99 100 is the Hampton Court Conference in which he shall find nothing for him but much against him Dr. Reynolds calls the Lambeth Articles Orthodoxal no one intimated that they were Heterodoxal Dr. Overal declares against the total and final Apostasy of the Saints no one declared for it His Majesty determined that Predestination and Election depend not upon any Qualities actions or works of Men which be mutable but upon Gods Eternal and immutable decree and purpose no one said or whispered any thing against this determination 'T is only said that the Bishop of London told his Majestie how very many in these daies neglecting Holiness of life presumed too much of persisting in grace Calvinists would say such fellows never had grace to persist in laying all their Religion on Predestination If I shall be saved I shall be saved which he termed a desperate Doctrine and so the Calvinists term it also an hundred times over shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity and the true Doctrine of Predestination wherein we should rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo thus I live in obedience to God in love
him with more than could be proved I should afterwards make use of this Charge as a Picture to draw Dr. Heylin by A dispassionate Heathen would have had more candor than to Father upon any party of Men every Brat which a provoked Adversary had laid at their door What evidence is there that the Opinion laid down by the Doctor page 38 is the Opinion of the Supralapsarian Divines Have all of them or the most famous of them either jointly or severally declared it to be their Opinion The Writings of some Antelapsarians I have read and have not found that they have simply and without distinction asserted that God ordained certain to eternal life certain to eternal death without any regard had to their righteousness or sin to their obedience or disobedience Nay they seem to me plainly to say that God never decreed to bestow salvation on any adult person but as a reward of obedience nor to inflict damnation upon any person but as a reward of disobedience Only they say If Election be considered quoad actum elgientis and Reprobation quoad actum reprobantis then there can be no cause assigned either of Election or Reprobation but only the will and pleasure of the Almighty Res volita actus volendi should not be confounded in a Disputation so mysterious as this about the eternal Decrees Whereas therefore Dr. Heylin page 39 adds That the Supralapsarian Doctrine first makes God to be the Author of Sin as both Piscator and Macarius I suppose it should be Maccovius and many other Supralapsarians as well as Mr. Perkins have positively and expresly affirmed him to be and then concludes him for a more unmerciful Tyrant than all that ever had been in the World were they joyned together I do with some confidence aver that this is a most manifest and malicious Calumny exceeding I think all the Calumnies that ever were uttered by any Arminian Mr. Mason in his Additions to Mr. Hoard had said That none of the Supralapsarians Piscator only and a few more of the blunter sort excepted had said directly and in terminis that God is the cause of sin The Doctor hath changed Mr. Mason's few into many and names Maccâ—vius and Mr. Perkins whereas Mr. Mason had only named Piscator But this is strange that neither Mr. Mason nor Dr. Heylin should direct us to any one place of these Authors in which any such phrase or speech doth occur Do they think that their Readers have leisure to turn over all the Writings of these blunter Supralapsarians or any divining faculty to find out who are intended by the few others and the many others For my part I will not think that any one Supralapsarian ever affirmed God to be the Author of Sin unless I see the very place in which such affirmation is contained But should I see any such thing in the Writings of Mr. Perkins I should be under a temptation to turn Cartesian and disbelieve my eyes so improbable and and almost impossible doth it seem to me that a Person of his piety and learning should leave upon Record a Position so sensless absurd impious I shall expect that the Doctor in some good convenient time do gather together those expressions of Piscator Maccovius Perkins in which God is expresly made the Author of Sin and publish them to the World or else he must give the World leave to think that he hath too much communion with the Father of Lies Further I say that it doth not from any Principle of the Supralapsarian follow either that God is the Author of Sin or that he is a verier Tyrant than ever lived upon earth though I shall grant that for man to do as God doth would be the highest cruelty I believe with the Supralapsarian that God hath decreed not to bestow converting Grace upon many whom he could easily had he so pleased have converted Should any man who could convert millions not convert them and afterwards punish them with eternal torments for not being converted he would be more cruel than ever Nero was But is God therefore cruel in not giving his converting Grace to those millions who perish eternally for want of it Not at all because he is not under a Law to contribute all that in him lieth towards the conversion of Souls but so would man be if he had such a converâ—ing power Suppose we that the Doctor had been endued with a power to work those wonderful things in Tyre and Sidon which would have made the Inhabitants repent in dust and ashes he would have been cruel with a witness had he not caused those wonders to be wrought but I trow so was not God though he never did nor ever intended to work Miracle in either of those places Dr. H. pag. 39. Well but the Doctor proceeds further and tells us that this extremity being every day found more indefensible the more moderate and sober sort of the Calvinians forsaking the Colours of their first Leaders betook themselves into the Camp of the Rigid Lutherans and rather chose to joyn with the Dominican Friers than to stand to the Dictates of their Master Calvin Answ. It would be endless to discover all the weaknesses of this period 1. Calvin was a Sublapsarian therefore surely not the Master of the Supralapsarians 2. The Dominican Friers do not all make the object of Predestination massam corruptam nor yet the Rigid if rigid Lutherans 3. Those that are Sublapsarians do not judge the Supralapsarian way indefensible Witness Davenant who hath defended the Supralapsarian way against the impertinent Objections of the Author of God's Love to Mankind and yet was himself of the other perswasion Thus of the Supralapsarians Now follows the Evidence brought in against the Sublapsarians and the Dreadful Sentence pronounced upon them Witnesses against them are the Remonstrants in the Hague Conference published by Bertius and Daniel Tilenus which our Historian hath taken word for word out of a supposititious Tilenus who hath troubled himself and the world with an empty piece called Arcana Dogmata Contraremonstrantium or the Calvinists Cabinet unlocked Printed for Richard Royston 1659 having also Printed an Examination of Tilenus before the Triers of Utopia Mr. Baxter in his Discovery of the Grotian Religion charged this Gentleman with giving a false and odious account of the Doctrines of the Synod of Dort He in his Defence alledgeth that he never tied himself to the Decrees and Canons of that Synod Yet Dr. Heylin page 41 calls them the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort which is to be conceived to have delivered the genuine sence of all the Parties as being a Representative of all the Calvinian Churches in Europe except those of France some few Divines of England being added to them The truth is Not one of his five Conclusions pag. 41 42 are the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort nor as they are worded are they so much as agreeable to the Conclusions of that
he might have mercy upon all What can hence be collected Why The two All 's are of equal extent How many Unbelievers there be on so many God hath a Will of shewing Mercy and if every Man be under Mercy then there is no precise Will of shutting out any from possibility of Mercy Well 1. Let it be remembred that here it is granted that God hath shut up all under unbelief Which is as high an expression concerning God's providence about and concurrence unto evil as any used by Mr. Calvin 2. When it is said that God hath a Will of shewing Mercy on all Unbelievers If by Mercy be understood a general Mercy we can grant it All Men are not only under a possibility of this Mercy but also have some actual participations of it But 3. It is plain that the Mercy intended in the Text is not a general Mercy common to all Mankind but such a Mercy as was never vouchsafed to some whole Nations much less to every individual Member of those Nations V. 30 For as ye i. e. the Gentiles in times past have not believed God yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief even so have these also now not believed that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy Doubtless the mercy that the Gentiles obtained by the unbelief and hardness of the Jews was the hearing of the word and that which comes by hearing even Faith The mercy also that the Jews obtained through the mercy of the Gentiles was the being provoked to jealousie the seeing of him whom they had crucified and being in bitterness the turning of them away from iniquity and the turning of iniquity from them Now doth Dr. Heylin indeed think that God did shut up every Jew and Gentile in unbelief with a design and purpose to have the Gospel preached to the singula generum If so he must unavoidably grant that the Almighty is marvelously frustrated in his design and purpose for he is too good a Geographer and Historian to think that the Gospel was ever preached or entertained by all men that have lived or do now live in the World 3. Iohn 3.16 God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life From hence it undeniably follows that God will not damn any man meerly for not coming up to the terms of the old Covenant of Works and that none shall perish whose heart is brought to believe in Christ. Nor have the Contra-remonstrants denied this and more than this cannot hence be inferred For whereas Mr. Hoard argueth God loveth the whole lump of mankind and loved it fallen into a gulf of sin and misery He did not therefore hate the most of them lying in the fall for love and hatred are contrary acts in God and cannot be exercised about the same objects He sure could not but think that we would reply that God doth not love the whole lump of mankind with the same degree measure and kind of love and that a less degree of love is sometimes in Scriptures called by the name of hatred God had not such a love for the whole lump of mankind as to decree to bestow upon every particular person that special grace which shall infallibly bring him to eternal life and glory Any love less than this many consist with absolute eternal Non-election or Preterition Nay God did never so love the World as to purpose to bestow on all the parts of it the very means of knowledge How many notwithstanding the love this Text speaks of are everlastingly punished who never heard of the way to Salvation 4. 1 Tim. 2.4 Who would have all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth In these words the Apostle delivers two things 1. That it is God's will that all men should obtain an happy end 2. That it is his will also that they should use and enjoy the means which is the knowledge of his truth that they might attain the end There is no let in God but that all men may believe and be saved and therefore there is no absolute will that many thousands of men shall never believe nor be saved The thing that should be proved is That there is a will in God to save all men and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth and we have here a Scripture brought to prove that God would have all men to be saved as if there were no difference betwixt these two Propositions Deus vult omnes salvos fieri Deus vult omnes salvos facere If a man should lay down this assertion that Dr. Heylin hath a mind or purpose to bestow an hundred pounds per annum on Abingdon and when he is called to make good that assertion should only prove that Dr. Heylin could be well pleased that an 100 per annum were given to the Town and that there is no let in him why it hath not been given would he not become ridiculous Never did sober Sublapsarian say that there is any let in God but that all men may believe and be saved but they do not think that a man must presently believe and be saved if God do not hinder his faith and salvation 'T is required that God should remove all the leâ—s and hindrances of faith cure us of our unbelief and put his fear into our inward parts else we shall never believe or be saved Let any Arminian prove that God hath willed and purposed to do all this for every one 5. 2 Pet. 3.9 Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance This is a negative Proposition and must be taken distributively and therefore it flatly contradicteth absolute Reprobation Here is Logick that may well make younger men than Dr. Heylin and I to smile 1. The Scripture produced is not one Proposition but two and if the first be negative the second is affirmative 2. What if it be taken distributively Is there no distribution but only into the singula generum I thought that there might be a distribution into genera singulorum 3. I could notwithstanding any thing brought by Mr. Hoard to the contrary hold that the words are to be restrained to the Elect. 4. But because I can be not only honest but also liberal I will grant that God is not willing that any one should perish that he is willing that every one should repent But then I deny that either of these two Propositions do contradict Gods decree of Reprobation which as hath been often said is his decree to permit that many shall perish in their impenitence Mens being under this decree doth not hinder but that God may voluntate complacentiae will their conversion and patiently expect it and afford them such means as will leave them without excuse though such as he foreknew they would frustrate and receive in vain The conditional Texts of Scripture that follow are so
Mr. Calvin For granting this yea and granting further that they had been through-paced Remonstrants it need not be yielded that the Belgick Churches were Lutheran for there might be at the same time men every way as famous and as likely to draw Disciples after them that were Calvinistical It is a truth known to all that are not altogether unacquainted with the Stories of the Low-Countries that though in the dawning of Reformation the Preachers were not all of a mind yet as things grew to a settlement the Pelagian Leaven was purged out a Confession of Faith published which was afterwards called Belgica Confessio in which the Doctrine of Predestination is so explained as Mr. Calvin explained it at Geneva this was in the year 1566 or 1567. Dr. H. Ibid. Object This Confession was ratified in a forcible and tumultuous way Answer 1. This is said not proved out of any Record 2. There is usually something of disorder cleaving to the best things that are done in dissetled times 3. Anno Christi 1571 there was a full Synod at Embden the Town eâ—â—olled by the Doctor in which it was ordained That none should be admitted for a Minister till he had been examin'd and subscribed this Confession and the Catechism of Heidelberg Which Deâ—ree was confirmed in the ensuing Synods of 1576 and 1586 and approved of by the States of Holland Yet not so practised but that in the want of others more Orthodox there crept in some that taught things contrary both to the Confession and Catechism whose hard names I will not fill my papers with These men had not notwithstanding all their restless endeavours any great success all things were reasonable quiet till Arminius came to be Divinity Professor at Leyden which was Anno 1603. Concerning which Arminius or Van Harmine we must give a short account He was at first a Tapster or Chamberlain in a common Inn from whence by the care of some Guests who were pleased even to admiration with his prompt wit he was removed and set to School maintained there out of the Publick Treasury of Amsterdam where in process of time he was by the Magistrates of the City made Pastor and preached with that accurateness and solidity that every one thought him for his parts meet to be a Professor Indeed magnus esse potuit si minor esse voluit he might have been high enough had he not thought meet to raise himself higher by trampling upon those whom the Churches of Christ have most deservedly had in the greatest admiration The learned Iunius being dead Utengobard thought none so meet to succeed him as Van Harmine but the Belgick Churches knew him too well to let him easily come to such a place in which he might influence all that were Candidates for the Ministry The Deputies of the Churches did admonish Utengobard that he would cease to commend a man so suspected to the Curators of the University of Leyden but he too proud to regard such admonitions desisted not to commend Arminius till he had brought him in to Iunius's Chair But first a dismission must be obtained from Amsterdam which could not easily be got the Inhabitants of the City being taken with his Eloquence the Presbytery at least the wiser part of them thinking that he did far less hurt at Amsterdam than he would do at Leyden a place where Youth was formed and where there was more liberty of teaching and prophecying than in a particular Church However dismissed he was at last buâ— upon this condition that he should first have a Conference with the Learned Gomarus and in that Conference by a most free and open declaration of his Opinion free himself from all suspition of Heterodoxy and that he should promise if he had any singular Opinions he would not discover them to the disturbance of the Churches Arminius if we may judge of his mind by what he writes to Utengobard was not unwilling to come to this Conference for these are his words from Amsterdam to Utengobard 4. Martii 1603 Non vereor in Arnoldi Helmichii Gomari quorumvis aliorum qui istarum rerum peritissimi habentur conspectu praesentia de illis disserere probe mihi conscius de sententiae meae veritate illorum censuram minime reformidans quod tibi idcirco dico ne hoc ipse timidius urgeas Haesi quidem aliquando circa nonnullos articulos non eousque tamen ut quae de illis creditu necessaria ex Scripturis probari possunt non adprobaverim sed jam per diuturnas assiduas meditationes id consecutus mihi videor ut de omnibus singulis rationem reddere non extimescam Accordingly a Conference there was before the Curators of the University and the Deputies of the Synod in which Arminius most expresly denied and condemned the Opinions of the Pelagians concerning Grace Free-will Original Sin Perfection in this Life Predestination adding that he approved all that Augustin and other Fathers had written against Pelagius promising also to read nothing dissonant to the received Doctrine Hereupon he was admitted Professor and for some time he defended the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches in the Points of Christ's Satisfaction Iustifying Faith Iustification by Faith Perseverance in Faith Certainty of Salvation and such other matters as afterwards he denied and which he then as is acknowledged by his good Friend Corvinus maintained against his conscience He seems by all his carriage to be one that was resolved not to venture any further into the sea than thaâ— he might have opportunity to step when he pleased upon the shore Would Barnevelt have publickly undertaken his Patronage then he would have ventured to proclaim defiance to all Dissenters but Barnevelt not daring so to do the valiant Professor contented himself mostly to instil his Notions and Principles into some of his Confidents magnifying Castalio Cornhertius Suarezius and as much vilifying Calvin Beza Martyr Zanchy Ursin yet when he was accused so to do he peremptorily denieth himself to be in the least guilty of discommending Calvin or commending Cornhert as may be seen in his Epistle to Sebastian Egbert bearing date May 3. 1607 pag. 236. Which is the usual way and method of Hereticks he expressed himself in such terms as would serve to insinuate his own private Heterodox Opinions and yet if he were questioned for them he knew how to reconcile them to the Confessions and Catechism contrary to which he pretends in a Letter to Utengobard that he never did say any thing in publick He dreaded a Synod as the shadow of death and thereupon set himself to make the Authority of the Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs to be all in all and when he saw that all his Policy notwithstanding a Synod was like to be called and he in that Synod like to be made answer for himself seised upon with sorrow and overwhelmed with grief he fell sick and died Anno 1609 Octob. 19. Two things more
will and to do which the Remonstrants cannot The Remonstrants must needs if they will not contradict themselves affirm that God doth pari gradu modo in the like degree and measure will and work antecedently the conversion of those who are converted and of those who are not converted If so what ground for fear sith man can convert himself when he pleaseth and restore the lost habits when he listeth The Apostle Paul one of the rarest examples of humility did sure best know what 's most likely to quel and subdue high thoughts and proud imaginations and what weapons doth he make use of to this end Why two such interrogations as must needs prick the bladder with the Contra-remonstrant but not with the Remonstrant Let it be demanded of a Calvinist What hast thou that thou hast not received He will answer Nothing Let it be enquired Who made thee to differ He will reply The meer undeserved omnipotent grace of God But a Grevincovius will say He made himself to differ But perhaps no Arminian else will say so Yes Mr. Playser in his Appello Evangelium hath said so and all Remonstrants must say so that will not fly from their principles To manifest which I shall only English something out of the Declaratio sententiae Remonstrant circa Articul cap. 3 4. pag. 21 If it be enquired why this man is converted and another not We answer this man is converted because God converts him not opposing any new contumacy the other is not converted because he doth oppose new contumacy But you will enquire why this man opposeth new contumacy not the other We answer this man opposeth because he will oppose the other opposeth not because he is moved by grace ne velit opponere to have no mind to oppose If you enquire whether he who opposeth not new contumacy and by consequent is converted hath greater grace than he that opposeth and by consequent is not converted We answer that antecedent and preventing grace may be equal but the former hath co-operating the latter hath not Hence it is plain that it is man according to the Remonstrants who makes sufficient grace to be effectual and by necessary consequence man doth make himself a penitent a believer a regenerate person than which Pelagius himself could not write or speak higher or more proudly Dr. H. Page 72. The Historian is pleased to mention another charge against the Remonstrants Opinions viz. That they symbolize so much with the Church of Rome that they serve onely as a bridge for Popery to pass over into any Church into which they can obtain admission And further tells us that this clamor being first raised in Holland was afterwards much cherished and made use of by the Puritan or Calvinian party among us in England Answ. Where I take notice 1. That he gives a false account of the rise and first beginning of this charge that These points do where they are entertained dispose mens minds for the reception and entertainment of Popery For before the troubles raised by Barnevelt our Divines did suspect conditionate election and falling away from grace c. to be an inlet to Popery as is manifest from the Letter of the Heads of the University of Cambridge to their Chancellor written upon the occasion of Baret's and Baro's preaching or reading things agreeable to the Opinions that are now called Arminian in which Letter bearing date March 8. 1595 't is affirmed that if passage were permitted to those Errours the whole Body of Popery would by little and little break in upon them to the overthrow of Religion and consequently the withdrawing of many there and elsewhere from true obedience to her Majesty and therefore in the close they humbly beseech his Lordships good aid and assistance for the suppressing in time not only of these Errours but even of gross Popery like by such means in time easily to creep in among them as they found by late experience it had dangerously begun Unto this and many other testimonies alledged by Mr. Hickman in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctor will yield no assent but answereth three things Dr. H. Pag. 73. 1. Why should not a general compliance with the Friers of S. Dominick be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery as any such compliance with the Friers of S. Francis Answ. To which the Answer is easie Because the Dominicans opinions do much tend to the exaltation of grace and the subjection of carnal reason to Faith so do not the Tenents of the Franciscans or Jesuits Now where grace is exalted and carnal reason is subâ—ected there Popery which hath its foundation in carnal reason and pride doth not so easily prevail or obtain This the Pope understood well enough which made his Bull to roar so loud against the in this point Orthodox Iansenians Dr. H. Ibid. 2. The Melancthonian or moderate Lutherans which make up infinitely the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches agree in these points with the Iesuits or Franciscan Friers and yet are still as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome as when they made the first separation from it Answ. Where 1. It is strange that one pretending to History should represent the infinitely far greater part of the Lutheran Churches as Melancthonian or moderate Lutherans When as it is known that a very great if not the greatest part of the Lutherans are as far from being Melancthonians or moderate as Dr. Heylin is from being a Presbyterian or Puritan But it seems if men be never so violent for Ubiquity Consubstantiation Images if they be but against Predestination they shall pass for meek and moderate and Melancthonians 2. It may a little be questioned Whether the present Lutherans be as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome as were those Lutherans who made the first separation from it I know not how much there may be of truth in the talk that hath lately filled our ears concerning Unions and accommodations betwixt the Lutheran and Roman Churches It would be very strange if the Lutherans having all this while been bred up among Images should be as averse from Image-worship as were the first Reformers 3. It is as false as what is most false that the Lutherans do agree with the Franciscans or Jesuits in these Points Micraelius in his Heterodoxia Calviniana disput 5. par 15 rejecteth both the Dominicans and Jesuits the Dominicans as inclining to the Stoicks the Jesuits as falling in with the Pelagians Afterwards he rejects the Jesuits Scientia media confessing that Voetius doth well and unanswerably prove against them that there is nothing knowable but what is the object either of the knowledge of simple intelligence or vision Speaking also of Arminius he will not undertake for him Tarnovius openly rejects the Arminians as of a contrary judgement from the Lutherans Miscel. Sacrorum lib. 2. pag. 710 Vorstiniani Arminiani similes in Belgio quando aiunt fide nos praedestinari ad
him also among those worthy Persons who subscribed a Declaration sent abroad May 8. 1554. all whose names are to be seen in Mr. Fox his third Volume pag. 102 of the London Edition 1631. which Edition I shall still follow having not the last Edition by me The purport of that I eclaration is to shew Reasons why they will not otherwise â—ispute than before indifferent Judges In the Declaration also is couched a Confession of their Faith worthy to be â—ead by all who would understand the spirit of our Martyrs aright The fourth branch of that Declaration is concerning Justifâ—cation by Faith only Of which having delivered their mind they add in the close By this we disallow Papistical Doctrine of Free-will of Works of Supererogation of Merits of the Necessity of Auricular Confession and Satisfaction to God-wards If they disallowed the Papistical Doctrine of Free-will whose Doctrine did they allow but the Doctrine of Calvin and Luther who in this matter perfectly agreed Luther's high flown expression being abated All that I shall more observe concerning this Mr. Rogers is 1. That he was a Non-conformist even to excess his zeal out-running knowledge unless he had some reasons proper to those times for he never went otherwise than with a round Cap and would not agree to use the Attire proper to the Order of Priesthood unless the Popish Priests might be enjoyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice with an Host. 2. That he was very zealous to put to death the two Hereticks condemned by Archbishop Cranmer and burnt 1550 1551. A familiar Friend of his came to him and desired him to make use of his interest with Cranmer that they might not be put to death or if they were put to death that they might not be burnt because that kind of death seemed not so agreeable to Evangelical meekness He answered that the punishment of burning men alive was not so tormenting but mild enough His Friend replied with a great ardor of spirit holding his right hand and striking his own against it Go too perhaps it will come to pass that your selves may have your hands full of so mild burning And he was indeed as I before suggested the first that tasted of the Marian Meekness A. B. Cranmer must needs be supposed to have a great stroke in the framing of the Articles of Religion agreed on 1552. So must Bishop Ridley also for though Cranmer was Metropolitan in Title yet Ridley seems to be the greater Stickler of the two especially in the matter of Rites and Ceremonies He forced Hooper to be Canonically Ordained against his inclination against the King's Letter and the Earl of Warwick's Letter the one bearing date Iuly 23. 1550 the other August 5. Yea so violent was he that he threatned or caused to be threatned death to Hooper if he persisted in refusal Haec Theologomachia sic tandem exiit vincentibus Episcopis Hooperus vel ad palinodiam vel ad eas conditiones adactus est ut semel saltem in concione publica se ostenderet populo more caeterorum Episcoporum insulatus Quod ni fecisset sunt qui putant Episcopos ultimum supplicium ei molituros nam ita audivi a famulo ipsius Ducâ—m Suffolciensem clam Hooperum qui eorum conatus non ignorabat monuisse Fox in his Latine Commentary pag. 280. I much wonder what stirred up this heat in Ridley and much doubt it was some personal pique against Hooper because of his popularity and boldness in reproving the manners of the time and the corruptions of the Church Marvelously was Hooper flocked after Saepe adfui saith Fox quum in templi fores nemo ingredi concionante Hoopero potuerit tanta ejus diligentia fuit ut nullum diem sine binis aut ternis quandoque concionibus praeteriret Rursus ea in Scripturis promptitudo ut si sexies ei faciendum esset tempore ciâ—ius quam materia eguissâ—t pag. 279. I say I doubt there was somewhat of a pique because I find that the same Ridley did ordain Iohn Bradford a Deacon without any of those Canonical Rites that were then in use as appeareth Acts and Monuments pag. 280. But Ridley acknowledged his fault and God forgave him and so must man too In the Letter in which this acknowledgement is made he also accquaints Hooper that he understood by his works which he had superficially seen that they throughly agreed and wholly consented in those things which are the grounds and substantial points of our Religion against which the world so furiously raged in those days By which works in all probability he means some Trearises Hooper composed against Transubstantiation which are exemplified in Fox his Latine Commentary Certain it is that Ridley could not approve all Doctrines in Hooper's works unless he disapproved one Article of our Religion For Hooper in his Commentary on the Creed doth most expresly declare against the local descent of Christ into Hell which is asserted as a truth grounded on Scripture in the Articles of Religion And as certain is it that Ridley could not joyn with him if he condemned the absolute decree of Election I shall shew hereafter that he did not or determining grace in conversion The Article of Election I have already both transcribed and argued from let us now see what may be collected from the Articles of Free-will and Grace which I will present as they were Printed by Iohn Day with the King's Authority 1553. The words of the former are these We have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working in us when we have that will Of the latter these The Grace of Christ or the holy Ghost by him given doth take away the stony heart and giveth aâ— heart of flesh And although those that have no will to good things he maketh them to will and those that would evil things he maketh them not to will the same yet nevertheless he enforceth not the will And therefore no man when he sinneth can excuse himself as not worthy to be blamed or condemned by alledging that he sinneth unwillingly or by compulsion If this be not Calvinism and Anti-arminianism I know not what is All power to good works pleasant and acceptable to God without grace preventing and co-operating is denied to us Grace also is said to take away the stony heart and give an heart of flesh to make us to will not only able to will good things And when it comes to be explained what it doth not it is only said it enforceth not and sinners are only said not to act by compulsion which may well consist with some necessity This is the summ of what the Calvinists alledge when charged to destroy Free-will But now the Arminians say there is no liberty where no indifference and that the grace of God leaves a man indifferent to turn or not to