their infancy they would reply that they were predestinated to life or death according to the good or bad life which God foresaw they would have lead if they had come to maturity of years Do the Arminians who are so angry when called Pelagians differ from them in this I confess Arminius doth not make a man to be predestinated from foreseen Works but from foreseen Faith nor doth he make Faith the cause but a condition or decent antecedent using a less suspected term but intending the very same thing for as our incomparable Davenant hath well observed Conditions are of two sorts common distinguishing these later he defineth to be such acts or qualities which being foreseen or preconsidered in the subject contrary Divine Acts are exercised about that subject Arminius when he makes Faith a condition of Divine Election infidelity a condition of reprobation takes the word condition in the later sense and so plainly makes it the same with a meritorious or motive cause for he every where maintains that posita side ponitur electio negata fide negatur electio that Faith is a means ordained and appointed by God for the obtaining of Election therefore as that Learned Professor well concludes pag. 119 120. Sunt merae verborum praestigiae cum aiunt praevisam fidem infidelitatem esse conditioones non modo quae praecedunt praedestinationem reprobationem communiter promiscue consideratam sed etiam ex quibus oritur distinctio electorum tamen negant habere aliquam causalitatem Consequently as the Pelagians and Semipelagians did hold that the number of Elect and reprobate was not definite but indefinite and indeterminate so also do the Anticalvinists or Arminians Illud pariter non accipiunt eligendorum rejiciendorumque esse definiâ—um numerum saith Hilary Epist. ad August of the Massilians Grevincov Thes. exhib p. 137 saith the same Electio incompleta potest interrumpi ac interdum interrumpitur suntqâ—e incomplete electi vere quidem electi sed possunt fieri reprobi ac perire numerusque electorum potest angeri ac minui 3. Our third parallel shall be in the Doctrine of grace the efficaciousness of grace Hilary in the so often quoted Epistle to Austin thus describes the Massiâ—ians They affirm the will to be so free that it can of its own accord admit or refuse Cure or Medicine and Faustus plainly tells us that Though it be of the grace of God that men are called yet the following the call is referred to their own will Are our Arminians any whit more careful to give grace the things that belong to grace do they not make converting grace to be nothing else but a gentle suasion do they not every where rant against those who hold that God doth by an Omnipotent and unresistable motion beget Faith and other Divine Graces in us I shall among many places that do occur for the confirmation of this make choice onely of two Hague conference pag. 282. A man may hinder his own regeneration even then when God will regenerate him and doth will to regenerate him And Arnold against Boyerm pag. 263. saith expresly that all the operation which God useth to the Conversion of men being already performed yet this Conversion still remaineth in mans power so that he can convert or not convert believe or not believe I had thought to have proceeded to the point of perseverance but that I considered the necessary dependance of that on the other two concerning Election and Grace By what hath already been laid down it is manifest that if the Pelagians and Semipelagians were in the right then are not the Arminians mistaken but if Austin Prosper Hilary and those others whom the Church of God hath been wont to grace with the Title of Orthodox were not in an errour then Mr. Calvin and those that follow him are in the right Obj. Here I may expect it will be said that the Doctrine most quarrelled at in the Calvinists is the Doctrine of absolute reprobation and in favour of that nothing hath yet been produced out of Orthodox antiquity Ans. To that I shall answer 1. By concession that if by reprobation absolute be meant a purpose to damn any man without consideration of or respect unto sin either actual or original such an absolute reprobation is indeed unknown to all antiquity but as yet I could never meet with that Calvinist that asserted such an absolute reprobation 2. But if by reprobation absolute be meant Gods purpose to deny Grace to some according to the pleasure of his will I then stick not to affirm that such reprobation absolute is not unknown to antiquity Indeed the Ancients do rarely speak of reprobation our Church in her Articles mentions it not at all both they she leave us to gather the nature of reprobation which is but Non-Election or Praeterition from what we find laid down concerning Election Now seeing the Fathers those of them that had to with the Pelagians and Semipelagians did constantly affirm that Gods own good will not any foresight of the good use of free-will was it which moved God to give converting grace unto some they must also hold that God did out of his own good pleasure and not from any fore-sight of an ill use of free-will purpose to deny this efficacious converting grace unto others Indeed it 's scarce rational to assert that God should purpose not to cure any one because he is sick not to enlighten any one because he was by him looked on as dark and blind But concerning the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter no more shall be said at present the Reader that desires further satisfaction is referred to the Learned Davenant in the close of his most accurate Dissertation concerning Election and Reprobation As for Vossius his judgement concerning reprobation it is considered in a Manuscript by Doctor Twisse which Manuscript may possibly in a short time be published From it the World will soon see how unjustly the absolute Decree is charged with Novelty Object 2. It may be further objected that about the year 415 there were a Sect of men called Praedestinati who were accounted and condemned for Hereticks whose opinions about the Divine Decrees seem to be the very same that are now maintained by the followers of Calvin Answ. This Objection were scarce worth the taking notice of if one R. B. Gentleman in his English Manual called a Muster roll of evil Angels had not placed the Praedestinati among the Capital Hereticks but since it hath pleased him so to do upon the credit and authority of Sigebert Monk of Gemblaux it will be needful to let the English Reader know that this Predestinarian Heresie is a meer figment and that there never were any such Hereticks as the Praedestinati So much this Mr. R. B. might have learned from Doctor Twisse Answer to Gods Love to Mankind Part 1. pag. 58 59. and more fully from Iansenius Tom. 1. pag. 219 220
from whom Prateolus must take what he brings if it be truth that he brings I shall let him enjoy his humour and not put my self to the trouble of an enquiry whether these furious men did affirm that sin was not from free-will Though there be some passages that render it probable that they thought that man when he sinned did propria voluntate peccare Though withal they seem to have been of this mind that the voluntas male agendi was not a thing we brought on our selves by the fall but something natural to us However without offence I hope the Doctor may be minded that Manes was not the first of that wicked sort of men for he first called not as Augus Urbicus but as Socrates Cubricus got into his hands the Books of one Terebynthus who had changed his name into Buddas and published them to the World as if composed by himself it being not likely that the World should be taken with any Books that did bear the name of Buddas who though pretending to be born of a Virgin and to be able to work great feats died not long before miserably being thrown from an high place and having his neck broke Nor was this Terebynthus or Buddas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had got into his custody the four Books entitled Evangelium Liber Capitum Mysteriorum Thesaurorum but the Books were composed by his Master one Scythianus a Saracen Merchant who to gratifie his wife lived in Egypt yet Scythianus himself did not excogitate these two Gods or first principles one good the other evil but sucked in that absurdity from such Writings or Fragments as he had met with of Empedocles and Pythagoras as Socrates tells us lib. 1. c. 21 whom in this whole matter I the more confidently follow because he faithfully alledgeth every thing out of the disputation of Archelaus a Mesopotamian Bishop who disputed with Manes face to face Wherefore seeing this is the undoubted and capital errour of the Manichees to assert two first Principles the one good the other bad I leave it to the serious consideration of our Historian Whether the opinion of Mr. Pierce and the English Tilenus concerning the positivity of sin do not border somewhat too neer that absurd blasphemy and Whether it would not sound better in the ears of Christians and Philosophers to say that the obliquity of the sinful act is but a privation and to be attributed to the defectible nature of the will but the Act which is the substratum of this obliquity is positive and to be ascribed to him who is the first and supreme Agent and Cause and Whether the admonition that Austin once gave to the Manichees de duabus anim contra Manich. cap. 6. in fine may not â—itly be given to the two forementioned Authors ut eos sequi mallent qui omne quicquid esset quoniam esset in quantumque esset ex uno deo esse praedicarent Dr. H. Page 4 5. Others not daring to ascribe all their sins and wickedness unto God himself imputed the whole blame thereof to the Stars and Destinies the powerful influence of the one and the irresistible Decrees of the other necessitating men to those wicked actions which they so frequently commit Thus we are told of Bardesanes quòd fato conversationes hominum ascriberet Ans. We are told of Bardesanes but where or by whom In the Margin I find Aug. de Haeres cap. 25. quoted But one would almost think that the Doctor was born under some such Planet as did either incline or necessitate him to mistake Nothing is by S. Austin said of Bardesanes cap. 25. Indeed in cap. 35. the words before mentioned are found but the Historian if he had not written in haste needed not have been ignorant that the Learned judge this passage to be the additament of some later Pen and they also affirm that it is wanting in most antient Copies of S. Austin Spondanus out of Baronius sticks not to affirm that nothing was ever more strenuously opposed by Bardesanes than the Doctrine of Fatality which he proves from the testimony of many yea all and from Bardesanes his own Dialogue of Fate written to Antoninus the Emperor and recorded by Eusebius lib. 6. de Praep. Evangelica Dr. H. Ibid. Page 5. And thus it is affirmed of Priscilianus Fatalibus astris homines alligatos That men were thralled to the Stars which last S. Austin doth report of one Colarbus save that he gave this power and influence only to the Planets Ans. Of any such fatalist as Colarbus did I never read In all Authors that mention him which I have met with he is called Colarbas or Colarbasus or bassus Where he was born or where he taught by all enquiry I have not yet found but he is commonly joyned with Marcus whose Heresie was raised out of the Greek Alphabet subjecting all Men and their Members to the Letters thereof so as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should rule the Head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Neck perhaps his School-fellow Colarbasus thought it less irrational to subject us to the Planets The History of Priscilianus is most exactly described by Sulpicius Severus in whom I have read it with care and delight and find that his Heresie did spread it self most stupendiously so as not only multitudes of Laicks but also sundry Bishops were carried away with it among the rest Hyginus or Iginus or Adyginus the Bishop of Corduba and Successor to Hosius though he was the very first man that set himself against it The Heresie it self was a mixture of Gnosticism and Manichaism Idacius and Ithacius called in the assistance of the secular powers to suppress it for which they are severely censured by Sulpitius However the Emperor did take cognizance of the cause put Priscilianus Felicissimus Armenius Latronianus and also Euchrocia a noted woman to death banished Instantius and Tyberianus into our Isle of Sylly But in all the accusations brought against Priscillianus I do not find him in that Author charged with Fatality yet seeing he was wont to pray naked and to keep night Meetings with base women let him upon Austins authority pass for a Fatalist and though he was after his death Celebrated for a Martyr and had in such honor by his followers as that they were wont to swear by him yet I hope that his name is abhorred by all professing Reformation and that nothing of Fatality hath been taught by any whom Protestants honour The Doctor thinks otherwise and I must see on what grounds Dr. H. Page 5. Amongst the Philosophical Heterodoxies of the Roman Schools that of the Manichees first revived by Martin Luther who in meer opposition to Erasmus who had then newly written a Book de libero arbitrio published a Discourse de servo arbitrio in which discourse he not only saith that the freedom ascribed unto the will is an empty nothing
as he can find In what doth the Doctor mean Nothing till now hath he quoted out of Calvin and that Chapter which he now refers us to viz. Chapter 23. lib. 3. Institut manifests that Mr. Calvin had some countenance from S. Augustin who is one of the ancient Writers for in all his Answers to the Objections of his Adversaries he fortifieth himself with the Authority of Augustin Well however we will consider the Objection made by Calvin against himself and his Answer to it Disertis verbis hoc extare negant decretum fuisse a Deo ut sua defectione periret Adam That 's the Objection which our Historian either would not or could not rightly translate What is the Answer Quasi vero idem ille Deus quem Scriptura praedicat facere quaecunque vult ambiguo fine condiderit nobilissimam ex suis creaturis Who seeth not that the Answer doth most fully enervate the Objection Who seeth not that Master Calvin doth here quote Scripture and Scripture from which if it be to be understood as he understands it it necessarily â—ollows that God did decree and will that Adam should fall and by his fall perish He advanceth another Objection against himself in the words immediately following They say he had Free-will to make his own Fortune and that God decreed nothing but only to handle or deal with him according to his dâ—serts If so cold a figment be received saith Calvin where will be that Omnipotence of God by which he moderates all things according to his hidden counsel which depends on nothing else But Predestination whether they will or no discovereth it self in the Posterity of Adam for it did not come to pass by any natural necessity that all should fall from happyness by the fault of one What makes them they will not confess that concerning one man which whether they will or no they must yield of all mankind Why should they lose their labour by tergiversation The Scripture proclaims that all Mortals in the person of one Man were adjudged to Eternal Death this seeing it cannot be ascribed to Nature comes plainly from the admirable Counsel of God c. What sayest Reader Was it not an immodest calumny to affirm that Mr. Calvin pretends not to have any ground for his Opinion in the holy Scriptures Dr. H. Pag. 36. Whereas others had objected on God's behalf that no such unavoidable necessity was laid on mankind by the will of God but rather that he was created by God unto such a perishing estate because he foresaw to what his own perverseness at the last would bring him He answereth that this Objection proves nothing at all or at least nothing to the purpose Which said he tells us further out of Valla though otherwise not much versed in the holy Scriptures that this Question seems to be superfluous because both life and death are rather the acts of God's will than of his prescience or foreknowledge c. Answ. For this and what follows we are referred to lib. 3. cap. 23. sect 6. That Section I have read and by reading of it have taken up this resolution that I will never trust the Historian more The Objection is framed in these words Si quis causetur nullam cis inferri neâ—essitatem ex Dei providentia sed potius ea conditione ab ipso esâ—â— creatos quoniam futuram eorum pravitatem praeviderit To which is answered Neque nihil dicit neque â—otum that is He neither saith nothing nor yet the whole Whose confidence besides Doctor Heylin 's would have sufficed to English Neque nihil dicit neque totum He either saith nothing or nothing to the purpose As for what is added out of Valla 't is undoubtedly a truth that To appoint or determine life or death is rather an act of God's will than of his prescience No wise man can think that life or death do depend on the Divine prescierce Dr. H. Ibid. Notwithstanding all these shifts he is forced to acknowledge the Decree of Adam 's fall to be Horribile Decretum a Cruel and Horrible Decree as indeed it is a Cruel and Horrible Decree to pre-ordain so many millions to destrâ—ction and consequently unto sin that he might destroy them Answ. The expression of Horribile Decretum is indeed Master Calvin's and glad I am that the Doctor takes notice of it because Master Pierce who drew him into the lists makes such a noise about it as also the Lutherans and Grotius had done long before him As for the Lutherans I should think Wendelin in his Divinity Cap. de Reprobatione had written enough to stop their mouths for he there produceth out of Luther whom his Followers will scarcely acknowledge ever to have written a word amiss several places in which the word Horribile is used in the same sense that here it is by Calvin As to Dr. Heylin and Mr. Pierce I wonder why they should go about to perswade the World that Calvin by Decretum Horribile intended a Cruel and Horrible Decree Are Horribile Crudele alway equivalent God is not cruel but righteous in all the torments that he hath laid on the fallen Angels yet I hope one might venture to call them Horribiles Cruciatus Who would construe Horribile supplicium which sometimes occurreth in good Authors Cruel Punishment The clamor that is made against Mr. Calvin for using the word Horribile brings to my mind a pranck that was plaid by some Sectaries in Bark-shire against their Minister a man of good parts and unblameable life They come and ask him What was the meaning of the Psalmist in that phrase so he giveth his Beloved rest He unawares replied It was a plaguy hard place meaning doubtless no more than that It was an huge hard place But upon this these malignant Sectaries betake themselves to the Commissioners for ejecting of ignorant and scandalous Ministers and put in a complaint against their Parson and make this one Article That he had spoken blasphemously or at least irreverently of the holy Scriptures Some colour had these Sectaries for their simplicity or malice because the word plaguy doth male sonare but so doth not Horribile signifying no more than that which doth incutere horrorem Therefore the outcries against Calvin for using it and applying it to the Decree of Reprobation are very vain and apparently â—rivolous and malicious Dr. H Ibid. A Doctrine so injurious to God so destructive of Piety of such reproach amongst the Papists and so offensive to the Lutherans of what sort soever that they profess a greater readiness to fall back to Popery than to give way to this Predestinarian pestilence by which name they call it to come in amongst them Answ. Whether the Doctrine of Reprobation or Rejection as stated by Calvin and his Followers be injurious to God and destructive to Piety shall be tried in the examination of what the Doctor hath compiled out of God's love to mankind Now we shall
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
And the Protestant cause was not credited by him for he plaid such a prank as any ingenuous Heathen would have been ashamed of his Keeper shewing him more favour than he deserved he ran away from him and brought him into great danger Thus you may see sayes Careless the fruits of our Free-will-men that make so much boast of their own strength but that house which is not builded surely upon the unmoveable rock will not long stand against the boisterous winds and storms that blow so strongly in these dayes of Trouble This is the only Sufferer I know of that held conditional Election and surely his carriage was not so commendable that we should envy him unto our Adversaries But whereas the Doctor thinks that the strong confidence which Careless had of his own salvation and of the final perseverance of all those who are the chosen Members of Christ's Church was a thought of his own unto which the Doctrine of the Church gave no countenance It will appear that this was no singular opinion of his but a kindly derivation from the Article of Religion concerning Predestination unto Life and it seems to be that which he had learned from holy Bradford who in a Letter to Mistress M. H. under great heaviness and sorrow teacheth her That we should use all God's benefits to confirm our faith of this that God is our God and Father and to assure us that he loveth us as our Father in Christ and that God requireth this faith and fatherly perswasion of his fatherly goodness as his chiefest service Adding that no suggestion of Satan grounded upon our imperfection frailty and many evils should make us doubt of God's savour in Christ and that obedience giveth us not to be God's children but to be God's children giveth obedience And finally that as certain as God is Almighty as certain as God is merciful as certain as God is true as certain as Jesus Christ was crucified is risen and sitteth at the right hand of the Father as certain as this is God's Commandment I am the Lord thy God so certain she ought to be that God was her Father pag. 327 328. To another Gentlewoman page 330 thus he writes If he had not chosen you as most certainly he hath he would not have so called you he would never have justified you he would never have so exercised your faith with temptations as he hath done and doth if I say he had not chosen you If he have chosen you as doubtless Dear heart he hath in Christ for in you I have seen his earnest and before me and to me they could not deny it I know both where and when if I say he hath chosen you then neither can you nor ever shall perish And in the same Letter page 331 he sayes Your thankfulness and worthiness are fruits and effects of your Election they are no causes If once you had a hope in the Lord as you doubtless had it though now you feel it not yet shall you feel it again for the anger of the Lord lasteth but a moment his mercy endureth for ever In another Letter page 349 the same blessed Martyr sayes that One man which is regenerate well may be called alwayes just and alwayes sinful just in respect of God's seed and his regeneration sinful in respect of Satan's seed and his first birth Betwixt these two men there is continual conflict and war most deadly the flesh and old man by reason of his birth that is perfect doth often for a time prevail against the new man being but a child in comparison and that in such sort as not only other but even the Children of God themselves think they be nothing else but old and that the spirit and seed of God is lost and gone away where yet notwithstanding the truth is otherwise the spirit and seed of God appearing again and dispelling away the clouds which cover the Sun of God's seed from shining as the clouds in the air do the corporal Sun Many things to like purpose follow in that Letter by all which and by several Treatises in the printed Works of Mr. Bradford it sufficiently appears that he favoured the Doctrine of absolute Predestination And let any man judge whether he thought the term of a man's life to be moveable or no by some passages in his Examination page 286. As for my death my Lord there are twelve hours in the day as I know so with the Lord my time is appointed and when it shall be his good time then shall I depart hence but in the mean season I am safe enough though all the People had sworn my death Page 291 he desires them to proceed on in God's name he looked for that which God appointed them to do Upon which the Chancellor le ts fall these words This Fellow is in another Heresie of Fate and necessity as though all things were so tied together that of meer necessity all must come to pass What replies Bradford Things are not by fortune to God at any time though to man they seem so sometimes I speak but as the Apostle said Lord See how Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Prelates are gathered together against thy Christ to do that which thy hand and counsel hath before ordained for them to do Consider we next the judgement of Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer who though Foreigners had a great hand in the English Reformation As to Peter Martyr methinks there should be no question made of his judgment In his Commentary on the Romans and in his Common places he hath gone as high in the matter of God's decree as ever Calvin did But the Doctor tells us that Dr. H. Part 2. page 110. It s more than probable that Peter Martyr was not Peter Martyr whilst he lived in England Answ. If he would prove it but probable he must prove that it hath seemed so to all or to the most or to the wisest or to the most famous among those that are wise which I despair of ever seeing him prove so far am I from thinking that he will prove more than this The London Edition of his Common places is not now in many mens hands yet it is to be found in England and elsewhere and never did any one that was a possessor of it so much as adventure to affirm that in that Edition any thing was delivered concerning Predestination that was in the least contrary or seemingly contrary to what we find in the Editions more commonly used This answer the Doctor himself was somewhat diffident of and therefore did not give it until he had before made way by disparaging Peter Martyr as one Dr. H. pag. 109. Of whom there was little use made in advising and much less in directing any thing which concerned the Articles and who having no authority in Church or State could not be considered as a Master-builder Ans. Is the Doctor of the Chair of no authority in Church or State
observe this Canon whose Libraries scarcely afford a Father of any Edition to be trusted to The best advice I can give them is to buy such Books as contain a Confession of Faith confirmed all along with Scriptures and Fathers in which I cannot but commend the Orthodoxus Consensus dedicated by Gasper Laurentius to the Prince Elector Palatine bound up with the Corpus Syntagma confessionum Fidei printed at Geneva 1654. There is also published by Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople a Confession of Faith as Calvinistical as if it had been extracted out of Calvin's own Institutions which is now extant confirmed all along by Scripture and Fathers Catholick and ancient in a little Piece put out by the learned Hottinger where also there is enough said of Cyril's life troubles and death to free him from the aspersions cast on him by the Iesuits and by Grotius We have brought off Mr. Fox and must now see whether the Historian do charge Mr. Perkins with more success of whom it is affirmed page 62 That he did open wider the great breach that had been made by Mr. Fox Sure it may easily be pardoned him that he made that breach wider which was made by the Church it self by putting so much honour upon the Acts and Monuments as did if we may believe this Doctor manifestly tend to the subversion of that Doctrine that she had about ten years before so solemnly ratified But as it may well be presumed that the Church would not consent to the picking out of her own eyes so we have great reason to think that Mr. Perkins did design all his Treatises only to commend that milk unto others which he had with so much delight and nourishment sucked from the Breasts of his Mother the Reformed Church of England The Treatise of his quarrelled at is called Armilla Aurea composed by the Author in Latine translated into English by Dr. Robert Hill at the request of Perkins himself saith our Historian but tells us not whence he had that information nor indeed is it probable that Mr. Perkins would request another to do a work that might easily be done and yet could be done so well by no hand as his own The Translator tells us plainly in his Epistle Dedicatory unto the Judge of the Admiralty Court that he made the Translation at the request of some well disposed that his own Countrey-men might by it reap some profit and perhaps also he had a design to reap some profit by his Countrey-men presaging that it would be of very quick sale as indeed it hapned being printed fifteen times in the space of twenty years Many of the greatest learning and judgment thought this left-handed Ehud did by this his Book wound the Pelagian Cause to the very heart Our Historian thinks not so and tells us page 64 that it found not like welcome in all places nor from all hands Parsons the Iesuite is brought in thus sleighting him By the deep humour of fancy he hath published and writ many Books with strange Titles which neither He nor his Reader do understand as namely about the Concatenation or laying together of the causes of mans Predestination and Reprobation And then Iacob van Harmin he acquaints us wrote a full discourse against it I know not what he means by it Arminius his Examen as we all know being not designed against Perkins his Armilla Aurea but against another Piece called a Treatise of Predestination and of the largeness of God's grace And that Examen of Arminius hath been so confuted by the learned Dr. Twiss that no Remonstrant hath as yet had confidence enough to rejoyn All the wind hitherto sent from the Doctor hath shaken no corn We can contemn Parsons and not value Arminius He therefore further acquaints us page 65 of a very sharp censure passed upon Mr. Perkins by the Doctor of the Chair in Oxford What is this censure No more but that Mr. Perkins otherwise a learned and pious Person therefore surely able to understand the Title of his own Books did err no light error in making the subject of Divine Predestination to be man considered before the fall adding also further that some by undertaking to defend Mr. Perkins in this opinion had given unnecessary trouble to the Church This censure is very gentle in comparison of what the same Reverend and Learned Professor afterwards Bishop of Salisbury thought meet to pass upon Arminius Bertius and all their Followers whom he accuseth of most detestable Sacriledge The same Doctor had before undertaken a Defence of Mr. Perkins his Reformed Catholick calling him a man of very commendable quality and well deserving for his great travel and pains for the furtherance of true Religion and edifying of the Church which Reformed Catholick also is learnedly defended by Mr. Wotton For a parting blow the Doctor tells us that Mr. Perkins scarce lived out half his days and that in the pangs of death he spake nothing so articulately as Mercy mercy which he hopes God did graciously grant him in that woful agony And I for my part do not at all doubt that God shewed him mercy and had shewed him the very riches of his mercy many years before for God is not unrighteous that he should forget that labour of love with which Mr. Perkins had laboured in Cambridge As little do I doubt that there are hundreds in Heaven blessing that Providence that placed a light so shining and burning in that University His dying so soon is not to be imputed to his bloud-thirstiness or deceitfulness but to his hard studies and unwearied diligence which must needs wast his natural spirits and bring him sooner to his grave than he would have come if he could have satisfied himself as some do to enter into the Pulpit no oftner than the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies He always desired that he might die praying for the pardon of sin and he had his desire If in his Sermon he pronounced the word damned with a more than ordinary Emphasis it was only to forwarn his Hearers to flee from the wrath to come If he so pressed the Law as to make the hair of the young Scholars stand upright it was only that being awakened oâ—t of their security they might seriously ask the question How they should do to be saved The Law was designed to be a School-master to bring us to Christ and would not have that effect if it should not be preached with some of that terror with which it was at first delivered But he made the infinitely greatest part of all mankind uncapable of God's grace and mercy by an absolute and irrespective decree of Reprobation So it is said page 66. but no such thing can be proved out of Mr. P's Writings Had he framed any such decree as made any one man or woman uncapable of grace and mercy he must needs have affrighted away his Disciples and Hearers which he was so far from doing
at Dort as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their i. e. the Remonstrants condemnation and have you now so soon forgot your self as to say that he instructed his Divines thither commissionated not to oppose the Article of Universal redemption which accordingly they performed and make this an argument that King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves Was that Universal redemption which you say King James instructed his Divines not to oppose and which they did not oppose an Arâ—inian Doctrine or was it not If it was nor how is King Iames his directing his Divines not to oppose it any evidence that he condemned not the Arminians opinions in themselves If it were and that our Divines did not condemn it why is the King charged with sending Divines that would be sufficiently active in condemning the Arminian opinions Again you say expresly pag. 107 that he gave command to his Divines sent to the Synod of Dort not to recâ—de from the Doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Universal Redemption by the death of Christ a point so inconsistent with that of the absolute decree of reprobation and generally of the whole Machina of predestination and the points depending thereupon as they are commonly maintained in the Schools of Calvin that fire and water cannot be at greater difference Sir I beseech you consider whether you do not contradict your self whilst you think you only contradict Calvin Universal redemption by the death of Christ overthrows the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination and the points thereon depending Thus I argue from this They that were sent with Order to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ were sent with order to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination Our Divines by King James were sent with Orders to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore Our Divines were sent with Orders to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination Again They that asserted Universal reâ—emption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of â—he Calvinian predestination Our Divines at the Synod of Dort asserted Universal Redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore Our Divines at the Synod of Dort destroyed the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination The premises in both Syllogisms are your own Yet I suppose you disown the conclusion naturally and necessarily flowing from them Or if you do not why did you say that our King thought it a piece of King-Craft to contribute to the suppression of the weaker i. e. Remonstrant party and sent Divines that would be active in their condemnation Finally you tell us that this point of Universal Redemption was together with the rest condemned in the Synod of Dort Now nothing was in that Synod condemned but what our Divines consented to they have subscribed to all the determinations of the Synod relating to the death of Christ Therefore either the Synod did not condemn Universal redemption of our Divines did not aâ—cording to their Orders The Reader by this time sees what terrible executions the Doctor hath done on himself and more need not be said about the Synod of Dort as it relateth to our English affairs Some things done in England and misrelated by the Doctor must be rectified Pag. 105 he essays to make a Salve for the Recantation imposed on Mr. Sympson for some passages in a Sermon before the King at Royston 1616 and he would fain have us think that the King took no offence at his saying that the committing any great Sin did for the present extinguish grace and Gods Spirit for in that he went no further than Overal had done This is very untrue for Overal never said so nor could say so according to his principles But what then did the King take exception at At nothing but the Preachers expounding the seventh to the Romans as Arminius had done or rather his Fathering the exposition on Arminius But either the Preacher did bring this exposition of Arminius to credit an Arminian notion or he did not If he did then it was the Arminianism of the exposition that gave distast If not would it not sound like tyranny in the King to injoyn a Learned man a Recantation meerly because he used such an exposition of a place of Scripture as Arminius had used Take the place of a Regenerate man Arminius his Doctrine cannot stand as the wise King well saw and therefore he sent to the two Professors of Cambridge to have their judgment in the case who sent their judgment in favour of St. Austins exposition But the Doctor observes that the Professors did not do this of their own Authority but as set on by the King pag. 106. I wonder how they could give their judgments to the King at Royston of a Sermon Preached before him until they were by his Majesty required so to do I But the Professors were not so forward as to move in it of themselves as may appear by their not answering of Tompsons Book de intercisione gratiae justificationis though the Author of it were a member of that University but leaving it to be coâ—futed by Dr. Abbot their Brother in the Chair at Oxford so great an alteration had been made in Cambridge since the first striking up of their heats against Baro and Barret O what superfoetations of Doctrines are here upon nothing or what is less than nothing First Dr. Abbot when he confuted Tompson was not Doctor of the Chair but Bishop of Salisbury and so no Brother to the Professors at Cambridge 1616. Secondly The Professors at Cambridge then were Dr. Richardson originally of Emanuel a Colledge that in those days afforded few Arminians and Dr. Iohn Davenant a very able and zealous opposer of Arminianism as all know Thirdly The Cambridge Professors might not count themselves concerned to confute Tompson because his Book was not Printed in their University nor indeed in England and because Tompson's life had confuted his Book at Cambridge He was a man of a most debauched conversation and confirmed himself in his debauchedness by his Arminianism for when men reproved him for his prophaness he would say My will is free I am a Child of the Devil to day to morrow I will make my self a Child of God this more than any Answer to the Book would confirm the Cantabridgians that he was not an enemy to perseverance as a Doctrine leading to impiety Well but Did not King James by his Directions to the University Jan. 18. 1619. require that young students in Divinity be appointed to study such Books as be most agreeable in Doctrine and discipline to the Church of England and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers and Councels School-men Histories and Controversies and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and Abbreviations making them the ground of their study in Divinity Really he did so and I heartily wish the direction had been observed for then had Arminianism been crushed
in the shell I think next to the study of the Holy Scriptures the reading of the Fathers is the best preservative against Arminianism which came into the Low-countrys with the contempt of the Fathers As for Calvinism it cannot be condemned if sentence be passed upon it out of the Fathers those I mean who professed to set themselves to handle the Controversies concerning grace and predestination Sure I am the Royal directions notwithstanding the University continued as highly or more highly Calvinistical than ever a manifest argument that the University looked upon the Kings directions as no way tending to root out Calvinistical Doctrine but rather as a means to confirm it and so indeed they were The Doctor will not yet give over but pag. 108 tells us of certain Orders sent out Anno 1622 August the fourth designed to put a bridle into the Calvinists moâ—ths These Orders it is notoriously known were put out at such a time when the Spanish match was driving on and common people began to have thoughts of heart whither the releasing of Recusants and the Articles of Marriage might tend In those Orders care was taken among other things that no undecent expressions should be used against Puritanes but it was also provided that no Preacher of what title soever under the degree of a Bishop or Dean at least should thenceforth presume to teach in any popular auditory the deep points of predestination c. but rather leave those points to be handled by learned men and that modestly and moderately by Use and application rather than by positive Doctrine And this was a right good Order for Calvinists who never suffer so much from any thing as the declamatory attempts of men in popular Sermons In the Schools where Syllogisms must be used their Doctrine is not in much danger because he who disputes must keep himself close to the State of the Question through not representing of which Arminians get all their Advantage Mr. Hoard did make choice of that piece of Calvinism which is most liable to exception the absolute decree of reprobation And I confess when I was a young proud Graduate I had read his Book and did think it perfectly unanswerable but when I had the good hap to meet with Bishop Davâ—nants answer to it I was marvelously altered in my opinion and estimation concerning the strength of the Book keeping still an high opinion of the Author of it for I found that the absolute decree of reprobation was quite another thing than it was represented There was in Oxford after the coming out of the aforesaid Orders of the King a Sermon Preached in the University Church by Mr. Gabriel Bridges against the absolute decree this saith the Doctor was a violating of the Kings Order you must pity him he had nothing else to say and this laid him open to the persecution of Dr. Prideaux and to the censure of the Vice-chancelor But all who have searched the Register do know that violation of the Kings Order was never so much as once laid to Mr. Bridges his charge He was accused for Preaching contrary to the Articles of Religion established among us and was Ordered to maintain in the Schools the Contrary to what he had Preached in the Pulpit and he did so and never altered his mind afterwards Indeed it had been most ridiculous once to imagine that a Sermon Preached in the University Church could violate the Kings Order manifestly restrained to popular Auditories in which number the University Auditories were never placed The Doctor hath one Card more left to play which if it hit not he will have a perfect Slam What is that It is his dear friend Mr. Mountague whom he imagineth in his Gagger to have disclaimed all the Calvinian tenents and to have asserted the Church to her primitive and genuine Doctrines Creditis an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt Well what of this Gagger Why information was prepared against him by two worthy men Mr. Yates and Mr. Ward A sign he was looked on as designing innovation What doth Mr. Mountague After he had got a copy of this information be flees for shelter to King James Poor man did he flee for shelter against the information of two Lecturers What shelter did he there find Why King Iames having now acted a Part at the Synod of Dort condemned the Arminians that he might save the Prince of Orange and Archbishop Abbot coming not at him and Dr. Iames Mountague being dead was Master of himself it seems before he had been a servant to others and Governed by the Light of his own most clear and excellent judgement took both Mountague and his Doctrines into his Protection and gave him a quietus est from all those Calumnies of Popery and Arminianism that were by the Informers laid on him commanded Dr. Francis White to see his Appeal he was in hand with Licenced for the Press and finally gave Order to Mountague to dedicate the Book when Licenced to his Royal self These things are very unlikely that a King should give command to have a Book Licenced before he had seen it or knew what would be in it and that he should give Order to have it Dedicated to himself and because they are unlikely I could be glad to see them confirmed by some irrefragable Authority but find no Authority alledged Wherefore I am a very unbeliever in all these matters so are most I meet with But these things I am certain of First That in Mr. Mountagues Appeal there be down-right untruths in matter of fact in which I do not find the Doctor going about to justifie or excuse him Secondly That never Book gave more discontent than his did for it was answered by no fewer than five or six all considerable in the Nation all agreeing that he had departed from the Doctrine of the Church The Book was also censured in Parliament as contrary to our Articles Archbishop Abbot indeavoured the stopping of it before it came to light Dr. White who had approved it did publickly complain what a trick the Bishops had served him promising to joyn with him in the approbation of the Book but yet cowardly slipping their necks out of the Collar and leaving him to bear the whole envy of the Midwifery of so distastful a Book Finally King Charles himself was feign both to pardon Mountague for all his Writings and at last to call in his Book as the great occasion of many unnecesâ—ary troubles So I let pass Mr. Mountague of whom Dr. Prideaux publickly said that he was more a Grammarian than a Divine As for King Iames we are sure from the Pen of Dr. Featly never used to wrong his Sovereign that not many weeks before his death he called the Arminians Hereticks and so we conclude that for all his and Queen Elizabeths days they were accounted Hereticks and their Doctrine Heresie And seeing they were then so accounted why now the broachers of that Doctrine should
negligentia possit excidere quocunque enim modo se egerint non posse aliud erga eos quam Deus definivit accidere sub incerta spe cursum non posse esse constantem cum si aliud habeat praedestinantis electio cassa sit annitentis intentio 4. They wanted not a forehead to affirm that Austins Doctrine took away all use of preaching exhorting reproving praying Hil. ad Aug. Excludi putant omnem praedicationis vigorem fi nihil quod per eam excitetur remansisse dicatur Ibid. Si sic praedestinati sunt ad utramque partem ut de aliis ad alios nullus posset accedere quo pertinet tanta extrinsecus correptionis instantia To the same purpose Prosper But let us hear our Countrey man Faustus lib. 1. de grat lib. arb cap. 4. Qui unum ex origine perditum alterum in praedestinatione affirmat electum vide quo improba persuasione declinet Quid enim aliud dicit nisi quod adjutorio orationis neuter indigeat Nam jam praeordinatis ad vitam necessaria non erit deputatis ad mortem prodesse non poterit in isto supervacua in illo infirma judicabitur Beneficia supplicationis qui in acquisitione praedestinationis est non requirit qui vero in perditionis parte non recipit Quod si curam impendendam aestimat orationi indubitanter intelligat ea quae imminent posse mutari 5. They charged it upoâ— Austin that contraâ—y to the plain words of the Apostle he must needs hold that God would not have all men to be saved Quod non omnes velit Deus salvos fieri sed certum numerum praedestinatorum are the words of the Frenchmen or Massilians i. e. Semipelagians Cap. 8. Gall. Quod Deus nolit omnes salvare etiamsi omnes salvari velint is the second Vincentian Objection They said also that the blessed Fathers opinion was destitute of all Antiquity and contrary to the opinion of all that had written before him So Prosper in the very beginning of that Epistle which he did write to Austin Contrarium putant Patrum opinioni Ecclesiastico sensui quicquid de vocatione electorum secundum Dei propositum disputasti and a little after Obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt ea quae de Epistola Apost Pauli Romanis scribentis ad manifestationem Divinae gratiae praevenientis electorum merita proferuntur a nullo unquam Ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ut nunc sentiuntur affirmant It can scarse be doubted but that we who have the very same things objected against us that were objected against S. Austin are of the same mind that Austin was but because I am resolved to give not only full measure but also running over I shall make a parallel betwixt the Pelagian and Semipelagian Heresie and the opinions of Arminius and his Remonstrant crew Pelagius in this not followed by the Semipelagians did deny original sin That in this he and Arminians do not differ needs not much proof One of our own highly honoured by the men of his own party in a Book called Unum Necessar doth in most express terms deny original sin and take a great deal of unhappy pains to answer or rather elude all the arguments drawn either from Scripture or experience for the proof of it But perhaps Arminius and his more ancient Disciples were modester I must confess this Writer hath exceeded and gone beyond Arminius and all the Dutch Remonstrants but yet Corvinus hath told us Cont. Til. pag. 388. That with Arminius original sin hath not the nature of sin or fault properly so called I would feign have passed this as a Criticism and charitably have supposed that he had only meant that original sin was not a sin or fault in such a sense as actual sin is but that I find Arminius himself Answer to the ninth Question pag. 174 affirming that it is wrongfully said that original sin maketh a man guilty of death Had he said that none are actually damned for original sin it had been more tolerable but to say that it doth not make guilty or obnoxious unto death is to make it no sin at all and yet thus do the Remonstrants also speak in Apol. Cap. 7. Peccatum originis nec habent pro peccato proprie sic dicto quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat nec pro malo quod per modum proprie dictae paenae ab Adamo in posteros dimanet c. The Pelagians also were wont much to insist on this that Nothing could be both a sin and a punishment of sin because sin is voluntary punishment involuntary c. Austin to convince them used to produce that place which indeed carrieth great evidence in it Rom. 1. Against this Iulianus would say those speeches were Hyperbolical but yet the Father so pressed him that sometimes he could not but acknowledge that something might be peccatum paena peccati whence that lib. 5. cont Iulia. cap. 9. Meministine quamdiu disputaveris contrae lucidissimam quae per Apostolum deprompta est veritatem affirmans nullo modo esse posse aliquid quod peccatum sit paena peccati Quid est ergo nunc quod oblitus loquacitatis tuae c Doth not Arminius Pelagianize in this See but the one and thirtieth Article objected to him It will thence appear that he took exception against the publick Catechism because in it is said that Original sin is a punishment for if God did punish Adams sin with this then he must punish this with another and that other with another and so there will be a processus in infinitum My business is not now to answer the Objections of Arminius but only to discover his opinion yet least any one should think this subtlety unanswerable I refer him to the lately published Lectures of Doctor Samuel Ward de pâ—ccatâ— Originali pag. 8. where it is taken notice of and answered satisfactorily Our next parallel shall be in the Doctrine relating to Gods Decree and the absoluteness or conditionality thereof The opinion of Pelagius was that the well using of free-will and natural powers is the cause of predestination How much or how little the Massilians differed from him in assigning the cause of Predestination is shewn largely by Vossius Hist. Pel. lib. 6. pag. 533 534 c. and by Iansenius de Haeres Pelag. lib. 8. cap. 21. to whom I refer my Reader And shall now only take notice of Saint Prospâ—rs Epistle to Saint Austin in which I find the Semipelagians thus represented They hold that God before the Foundations of the World were laid did foresee who would believe and who would persevere in that Faith to this perseverance in saith they acknowledged the help of graâ—e was needful and predestinated those to his Kingdom of whom he foresaw that they would be worthy his vocation and go out of this World making a good end If their judgement was asked about infants dying in