Christ what other thing is thâ— then to enuiâ— at the benefits of Christ â—â—stowed vpon Christians Thus far Câ—stalio To this former learned man I may adioyne the authority of M. Perâ—ins herein though at other times he may seeme partly to fluctuare and wauer iâ— hit iudgment touching this point Hâ— thus plainly writeth a sentence 〈◊〉 where by me alleadged g In his reformed Catholike p. 26. Because Goâ— giues men commandement to repent and belieue therefore they haue power to repeâ—â— and belieue h V bi supr p. â—â— God with his commanâ—â—ment giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Molinaus the learned Protestant is so full in the doctrine of Freewill as that Peter Martyr rebuketh him therefore in these wordes i In his Epistles annexed to his common Places englished in his Epist. to Caluin pag. 99. Molinaus adiudâ—eth certaine thinges amisse touching Free-will In like sort Hemingius and Snecanus Protestants of good Note are charged by D. Willet for their maintayning of Freewill in this manner k In his Synops p. 808 810. They he meaning the former two Protestants â—re more erroneous concerning Freewill then are the Papists Brieflly this doctrine of Freewill is fully taught by l Cent. 16. pag. 814. Osiander and by certaine Protestants recorded by m Aâ—â— Mon. pag. 1533. 1605. M. Fox so strong and resolute we see are many learned Protestants in this doctrine Enthusiastus The Authority of these former Protestants doe not much sway with me â—â—oing that as your selfe cannot but know there are many other more in number and of equaâ—l learning at least with the former who wholy impugne the Doctrine of Freewill and to whose iudgments therein I had rather stryke â—ayle and yield Arminius Be it so Enthusiastus as you saâ— yet I vrge the testimonies of the Protestants to this end to wit that whereaâ— you rely perhaps ouermuch vpon thâ— authority of other Protestants our Aduersaries in this controuersy that yoâ— may see heerby that other Protestanâ— of eminency do with as strong a benâ— of iudgement defend the doctrine oâ— Freewill as yours do impugne it Anâ— therefore though I seeke not that thâ— ProtestaÌ„ts by me alledged should oueâ— ballance other Aduersary Protestants heerin yet I see no reason why they should not equally ballaÌ„ce with the said Protestants And thus it followeth that the matter in respect of this point is become eauen and indifferent as being neither much aduantaged or much preiudiced by yours or my producing of Protestants eyther for the impugning or defending of the doctrine of Freewill Yet heere I must aduertise you oâ— one thing to be considered It is this That seeing the former Protestants by me alledged do compart almost with all other Protestants in all Articles of â—â—otestancy this only of Freewill and â—ther points therof depending excepâ—ed it can hardly be coniectured that â—he sayd Protestants would diuide theÌ„â—elues in doctrine from all their other â—earned Brethren were it not that the weight of diuine and humane Authorities did ouersway their iudgmeÌ„ts thereâ—n seeing otherwise they might hould it as no small scarre to them being feâ—er in number to dispart themselues but vpon most weighty and forcing Reasons in iudgment from all other Protestants Againe we know that ProtestaÌ„ts and Papists are Aduersaries one to another in matters of Religion now the former alledged Protestants by me do conspire partly in doctrine touching Freewill with the Papists so as the Authorities of the sayd Protestants heerin are to be reputed as Confessions of the aduersary Now how forcible this kind of Argument drawne from the Confession of an Aduersary is appeares froÌ„â—he iudgement of the most learned D. Whitakers thus writing of this poynt o D. Whit. contra Bell. l de Eccles controuer 2. q. 5. c. 14. Efficaxest Aduersariorum ipsorum testimonium c. The testimony drawne froâ— the Aduersaries is most efficacious aâ— I ingenuously confesse that Truth is abâ— to extort testimony from its Enemies thâ— sayd Doctour borrowing his sentencâ— heerin from Irenaus to omit other Fathers thus writing p L. 4. c. 14. It is an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attâ—statiou froâ— the Aduersaries themselues But inougâ— of this poynt and now leauing to insâ—â— further in the Protestants iudgment herein I will ascend vp to those tyme of the Primitiue Church she being then Christs intemerate and incontaminate Spouse and see of what iudgment the Doctors and Fathers of those purer dayes were touching Freewill Enthusiastus I pray you Arminius rise vp to those times for I freely confes that thâ— authorities of those ancient Doctourâ— so long as they do not impugne Godâ— Holy Word and Scripture ought 〈◊〉 haue no small soueraignty ouer manâ— iudgment And the rather seeing wâ— fynd it thus written by our owne meâ— q Kâ—â—pnitius in exam Concil Trident. part 1. pag. 74. We doubt not but that the Primitiâ—â— Church receaued from the Apostles and 〈◊〉 postolicall men not only the text of the Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof Therefore Arminius you may proceed Arminius Now to beginne with those Centinels of Christs Church Though all of them I meane both of the Latin and Greeke Church be most luxuriant and ryotous as I may say in their testimonies for the proouing of Freewill yet because I will not cloy this presence with a fastidious aboundance of such their Authorities some few and those pertinent shall serue And first I fynd that Austin thus writeth r Tom. 3. de Spir. litera c. 34. It is in our power to consent to Gods calling or to dissent from it Againe he further thus enlargeth himselfe euen deliuering our doctrine in these expresse wordes s Austin tom â— epist. 47. Valentino I haue dealt with yours and our Brethren what I could that they would perseuere in the sound Catholike fayth which neither denieth Freewill whether to bad life or to good neither attributeth so much vnto it as that without grace it auayleth any thing And to omit other infinite lyke sayings he thus plainly teacheth t Aust l. de spirit liâ— c. 34. Consentire vocationi Dei vel ab illo dissentire propriae voluntatis est It is peculiar to thâ— will either to giue assent to the calling 〈◊〉 God or to reiect it But to proceed to others Ierome thus punctually writeth u Hiâ—roniâ—us Dial contra Pelagianos Hoc est quod tibi in principio dixer aâ—â— c. This is that which I spake to thee in the beginning to wit That it is in our power tâ— sinne or not to sinne that so we may keepâ— the freedome of our will Epiphanius accordeth to the former Fathers in these words x Epiphan Haeres 1â— Manâ— festum euidens indubium est vnicuiâ— liberum arbitrium concessum esse à Deo c. It is manifest euident and indubious thâ—â— God hath giuen Freewill to euery man who hath sayd by himselfe si
volueritis si nolueritis that so by these his wordes it may be in mans power eyther to worke well or â—â— worke badly But to contract this poynt Somâ— Protestants of the greatest Note and ranke do most fully charge the Fathers in generall with the doctrine of Freewil For thus D. Whitgift that learned Protestant confesseth of this point y D. Whitg in his defence of the Answere to the Admonition pag. 472. 473. Almost all the Bishops of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of Freewill c. And according to this Doctors iudgment we fynd that our Centurists z See Cent. â— c. 10. col 221. Cent. 3. c. 10. Col. 265. 240. Cent 4 Col. â—â—â—3 1â—44 1183. Cent. 5. Col. 969. c. do particularly charge and reprehend these Fathers following for their maintenance of Freewill to wit Iustin Irenaeus Cyprian Tertullian Origen Chrysostome Theodoret Cyrill Alexandrinus Prudentius Ambrose Hilary Epiphanius Gregory Nissene and Gregory Nazianzen And that three of these ancient Fathers to wit Origen Tertullian and Cyprian defended the doctrine of Freewill appeareth most euidently from this one consideration It is granted by the most learned Aduersaries that Austin Epiphanius and Ierome in regard of their most cleare sentences in that behalfe did iointly teach Freewill Well a Austin against Origen in haeres 414 Against Tertull. in haeres 86. â— Against Cypr. in tom 3. de Baptism l. 2. c. 7. Ierom. l. contr louin Vigil Epiph in Haeresibus These Fathers did charge the former three Fathers with these three peculiar Errours following and no other to wit Cyprian with Rebaptization Tertullian with denying second Mariages and Origen with belieuing that the Diuels should in the end be saued But now it is more then certaine that if Cyprian Origen and Tâ—rtullian had belieued and taught otherwise touching the doctrine of Freewill then thâ— said later Fathers did no doubt they had beene written against for this theâ—â— disagreement from Austin Ierome anâ— Epiphanius touching Freewill as theâ— were charged by them for their for mâ—â— acknowledged Errours But we do not fynd that the former three more ancient Fathers were contradicted by thâ— three later touching the doctrine of Freewill from which point it ineuitably followeth that Cyprian Origen and Tertullian did vnanimously agree in defence of Freewill with Austin Ierome and Epiphanius And thus far touching the Authorities of the Fathers in this question of Freewill assuring you Enthus and this worthy Presence that I haue not discerped the twentith part of those Testimonies which their Writings and Volumes do affoard of this Subiect Enthusiastus Learned Arminius for so I fynd you to be I will not be of that Aristarchian and Censuring disposition aâ—â— to recall the Authorities of those Ancient Fathers to be tryed by the touchstone of my owne iudgment I reuerence their Authority both for their learning vertues and their proximity to our Sauiours dayes Only I euer say I reuerence them with this presumed caution to wit whiles they write concordantly to the Holy Scriptures And therefore Arminius if so you can be able to produce out of Gods Holy Writ as euident Testimonies which I yet thinke you cannot for the fortifying of the doctrine of Freewill as your haue already done out of the Fathers writings I coÌ„fesse it may perhaps beget in me a certaine hesitation and doubtfulnes of iudgment herein But Arminius proceed in that kind of Methode as shall best seeme pleasing to your selfe and God I trust for refractory I will not be will second the euent Arminius I will in fitting tyme arriue to my proofes borrowed from the diuine Scriptures yet because I wil not ascend thereto in regard of my prescribed Methode ouer steepily or per saltum therefore I will take in my way the Ancient Iewes into my consideration and will see whether they stand affâ—cted to the doctrine of belieuing of Free-will or wholy disclaime from the same But this difficulty is easily dissolued For doe we not fynd Rabby Moyses fiâ—lius Maymon thus to instruct his Proselytes b Epist aduersus Astrologos Ac illud quidem intelligere debetis c. But this chiefe and principall foundation of our Law you ought to vnderstand that both I and all Philosophers do confesse That what actions are committed by men the same to be in their owne power c. So â—â— man serueth God if so man himselfe will c. And if he hath a desire to ioyne himselfe with the wicked c. he also doth thâ— same See further of this point Rabby Hâ—darsan vpon the fourth Chapter of Genesis And Rabby Selemo alleadged by c In lib. de Arcanis Catholica veritatis Printed at Frâ—nckfurd 1602 l. 6. c. 6. Petrus Galatinus Philo that learned Iew thus initiatech his Reader in this mistery d Philo. lib. quod Deus sit immutabius Man hath Freewill God created him free that being left to his proper will he might doe whatsoeuer he pleasâ— c. To which sentence is extant that Oraâ—â— in Deuteronomy Behould I haue placed before thee life and death good and 〈◊〉 choose lyfe Thus Philo. To concludâ— That the Ancient Iewes were Patronâ—â— of Freewill so euident and confessed is this point diuers of our learned Brethren do acknowledge For D. Fulk thus fully speaketh hereof e In his defence of the English I ranslation pag. 320. The Iewish Rabbins Patrones of Freewill do erre The like is acknowledged by f Vpon the words of Rabbi Aâ—iba Paulus Fagius the Protestant and by the Booke intituled g Printed Hannouiae 1604. pag. â—17 Synagoga Iudaica Enthusiastus The Iudgments of the Iewes by you alleadged I canot very much esteeme and this for two Reasons First because you knowe that vpon the comming of our Sauiour their Law and Religion was to be abrogated and disanulled as we see by the cessation of their Sacrifices and diuers other their Ceremonies then vsed Secondly some doubt that that Galatinus whom aboue you mention being but a late writer forged in his alleaged Booke certayne sentences sorting to his owne Religion and then with subtilty obtruded them or rather incorporated them in the former Iewes And therefore granting this for true D. Whitakers with more probability might answere his Aduersary producing the Testimonies of the Iewes out of this Galatinus in these wordes h L 9. contra Duraeum p. 818. Tuum in hac causa Petruin Galatinum miâ—nimè profectà desidero nec Hebraeorum Tâ—stimonijs illis indigemus But I pray yoâ— leauing these Authorities hasten to thâ— Holy Scriptures Arminius Before I ascend to Scripturall proofes you must giue me leaue to eneruate and weaken this your Answere And to the first part thereof I reply That those onely points of fayth arâ— now abrogated which did prefigure our Sauiours comming such were the Iewish Sacrifices diuers of their Ceremonies But now the doctrine
of Free-will beares no reference to our Sauiourâ— Incarnation since once graunting that man hath Freewill certaine it is that hâ— hath it from his first Creation Agayne if the Iewish Law doth nothing belong to vs now after the comming of the Mâ—ssias then it would follow that the Ten CoÌ„mandements do noâ— belong to vs Christians coÌ„sequently that we Christians as being disobligeâ— froÌ„ them may breake the same by worshipping many Gods by coÌ„mitting Adultery Theft with all Impunity and without feare And theÌ„ withal it would follow that our Sauiour who first became incarnated so humbling himselfe in our base nature and after suffered most opprobrious death for the expiating of Mans Sinne should be a meanes throgh which we might with more freedome sinne thus the Sonne should become to vs a sufficient warraÌ„t for the breach of the Fathers CommaÌ„demeÌ„ts The grosse absurdity of which most necessary Inference to weigh Enthusiastus I referre to your selfe this company Now to come to the second part of your reply touching Galatinus I am partly persuaded though stiffe and peremptory therein I will not be that the Sentences by him produced for coÌ„firmation of Christian Religion from the Ancient Iewes were not by him first forged and after fathered vpon the Iewes My motiue heerto is this I fynd that one Hieronymus de sanctafide who was a Iew but after conuerted to Christianity was Physitian to Pope Benedict the thirteenth which Benedict was a good tyme before the dayes of this Galatinus did compose a booke bearing the Title of Hebraeo mastix or vindex impietatis ac persidiae Iudaicae in which booke he laboureth to prooue diuers poynts of Christian Religion from the there alledged Authorities Testimonies of the sayd Iewes mentioned by Galatinus This Booke of the forsayd Hieronymus de Sancta fide was but lately printed at Franckford anno 1602. But inough of this Galatinus and of the former Iewes Authorities And now in this last place I will arriue vp to the Holy Scriptures Enthusiastus Arminius I would gladly intreate you thereto And as touching all your former proofes for the maintayning of Freewill drawne as you say from force of Reason and humane Authorities I do freely grant they partly sway with me and haue made a deeper impression in my iudgement then at the beginning of our dispute I euer expected they would But if the Diuine Authorities hereafter to be alleadged by you for the fortifying of the said dogmaticall point of Freewill be as punctuall without any detortion or wresting of the said Sacred passages for the proofe of Freewill as the former Authorities haue beene God only who searcheth the hart of man knoweth of what vnexpected force this our disputation may be Therfore delay no time but presently hasten thereto Arminius I am prepared thereto and now I begin And that these diuine Testimonies may seize vpon your iudgement more strongly and this with the lesse reluctation or repugnancy I will therefore marshall and range most of the said sacred Authorities vnder certaine Classes or Heads that so you may perceaue how euery branch of the said passages of Scripture prooue though by different meanes and respects the point here intended I meane the truth of the Doctrine of Freewill 1. And first I will incampe togeather diuers such chiefe texts of Holy Scriptures which do plainly affirme that it is in mans power either to practise Vertue or vice which point immediatly proueth Freewill Of this kinâ— may be alleaged i Ier. 32. Because they obeyed not thy voyce nor walked in thy Law therfore thou hast caused this plague to come vpon them Againe k Isa 5. Iudge I pray you betweene me and my vineyard what could I haue done to it that I haue not done Why haue I looked that it should bring foorth grapes and it hath brought foorth thornes And more l Math. 23. How often would I haue gathered thy children together c. and thou wouldst not m Act. 7. You haue alwayes resisted the Holy Ghost n Esa â—5 I spread out all the day my hands vnto a people that gainsaid me And in regard of Gods such proceeding he is said o Apoc. â— to stand and knockâ— at the doore of our Hart. These Texts affoard this Inference That touching man who sinneth either it is in his power not to sinne ors els he cannot but sinne Yf it be in his power to forbeare sinning then hath he Freewill Yf he cannot but of necessity must sinne then God doth in vaine complayne of man for sinning seeing it is not in his power not to sinne Enthusiastus To this it seemes it may be answered That God * So answereth caluin Instit l. 2. c. 5. doth not vndeseruedly complaine of man although he cannot but worke euill seeing men are become thus infirme through their owne fault and their Hereditary malice Agayne a second Reason may be giuen why God reprehendeth and admonisheth Sinners to wit that thereby they may haue a greater auersion and abhorring of their Sinne. Arminius These Answeres rather fortisy our alleadging of the former Texts then weaken it So the poore byrd by strugling to get out of the net doth more thereby intangle herselfe therein For first I say to your first point touching the Hereditary malice insisted vpon by you We iustify this malice to be a punishment but not a fault contrary to the iudgment of diuers of our Aduersaries in this Controuersy To the second part of your Answere I reply That your words include the Doctrine of Freewill For if Sinners through obiurgation and fynding fault with their Sinnes can be brought to haue a detestation of them and alter therby their course of life then followeth it that Sinners haue Freewill which is the point we vndertake to proue at this present And if these diuine Correptions cannot cause Sinners to forsake their sinfull course to what end then doth God vse these speeches as though it were in our power to sin or not to sinne But speaking no further of this point I will passe on forward to my second Classe of Testimonies which shal containe That man is commaÌ„nded therby to doe something or to forbeare the doing of something Of this nature are the Ten Commandements of God as Thou shalt not haue other Gods then me Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vayne Honour thy Father and thy Mother Besides infinite other precepts commanded and imposed vpon vs in Holy Scripture Now I will draw from these passages this Argument These holy passages containe a command or rule of liuing well but God who worketh nothing in vaine should idly and fruitlesly impose this rule or command of liuing vertuously if man wanted Freewill to obey or disobey such his CommauÌ„d Enthusiastus These places I must confesse seeme very pressing yet I answere thereto That the * So Calu. vbi supra Law is not giuen in vayne and consequently that God worketh not heere
Scripture produced by diuers for the impugning of Freewill they receauing their full satisfaction from the answerâ— giuen to these last The Texts are these l Isa 26. Thou O Lord hast wrought all our workes in vs. And againe m Matt. 10. One sparrow shall not fall vpon the ground without your Father And yet more Who worketh all things after the Counsell of his ownâ— will besides the like Text in Rom. c. 11 1. Cor. 12. And lastly where it is said * 3. Reg. â— Let our harts so encline to thee that they may keepe thy commandements Enthusiastus Well Arminius if this my first encounter hath not beene forcible inough to batter downe the walls of your innouations yet I trust my second charge shall proue more powerfull or rather irresistable what then say you to these following Comments of Texts for so in regard of their perspicuity I may rather tearme them then Texts themselues as where it is said n Ierem. 10. I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is it in man to walke or direct his steps And againe o Prou. 20. The steps of man are ruled by the Lord how can a man then vnderstand his owne way And more p Prou. 16. The hart of man purposeth his way but the Lord directeth his steps Lastiy to omit some others for breuity q Prou. 1â— The preparations of the Hart are in man but the answere of the tongue is in the Bord. See you not Arminius how these Texts as so many murthering Pieces do play vpon the weake fort of mans Freewill Arminius Good Enthusiastus I partly pitty you to see your iudgment thus sealed vp rather with preiudice then cleared with force of proofe For here againe I recurre as to my Asylum or Sanctuary to the state of the question and the Gautions aboue expressed and by vs both acknowledged For there we learne that there is great disparity betweene mans Freewill and the execution of that of which the Freewill maketh choyse to will The Execution of the thing which we will is not euer in our power and this only though to our purpose meerely impertinent these former sacred Scriptures do euict but the freedome of the will which is only in question betweene vs they do not at all touch much lesse ouerthrow Yea which is more some of these â—â—ry Texts by you vrged do rather proue the freedome of the will so often timeâ— it happens that a man finds a weapon by which another wounds him for where it is said The preparations of the Hart are in man And againe The Hart of man purposeth his way c what other construction can these receaue then that man through the freedome of his owne will prepares his hart and purposeth his way though the Execution actuall performance of those points are not euer in his owne power Therfore we must remember that only to will and not to will and noâ— actually to performe the thing willed or not willed is the true Obiect of Freewill Thus far Enthusiastus where you fynd your selfe deceaued in producing these former passages of Holy Writ since they in no sort proue any thing against the true Tenet of Freewill neither immediatly and expâ—essedly neither by any Inferentiall deductionâ— so certaine it is that your murthering pieces of which you afore â—auÌ„ted are charged but with certaine Paper-bullets of strayned and wrested Authorities But if it please you proceed further in this your offensiue war I meane in your assault against Freewill I shal vse the best meanes of defence I may Arminius I do assure you your answeres are vnexpected and make my mynd I will not say my iudgement a little to fall and let downe But I will proceed further for admitting that the former Texts do but idly diuerberate the ayre as aboue you said for want of true application yet if there be but any One Text of Scripture which in the true construction thereof doth clearly impugne the doctrine of Freewill then is your cause wholy become prostrate and leuelled with the ground These then other passages I vrge As first r 1. Reg. 10. Part of the army went with him viz. Saul whose harts God had touched In like sort s Prou. â—â— The Kings hart is in the hand of the Lord he turneth it whithersoeuer it shall please him To these places diuers others might be ranged as where it is said t Ezech. 36. I will giue vnto you a new hart and I will make that you shall walke in my precepts And that other passage u Psal 1â—8 Incline my hart to thy testimonies The liâ—â—â— text whereto is in the Booke of the * â— Reg. 8. Kings Now from all these it vnauoydably is inferred that it is God alone without any concurrence of our selues which worketh all good in vs so cleare are these sacred Testimonies for the taking away of all Freewill in man Arminius Enthusiastus It is the true application of Scripture and not a gallantry of vanting wordes which must ouercome me in this question And therefore as to the Texts aboue by you alledged so also to these last the answere is poteÌ„tially included in the former staâ—e of the question of Frâ—ewill and in the annexed Annotations For it is aboue expressed that God worketh in all our wils either for the desiring of any thing or for the flying from any thing but yet he so worketh without any impeachment to the liberty of our will for though God doth worke in vs yea sometimes infallibly yet our Freewill is in no sort end angered thereby the reason hereof being as is aboue intimated in that the infallibility ryseth not from the vehemency of Gods motion but from the preuision and foresight of the readines of the will to concurre with his inspiration For God enclyneth not the hart of man by forcing it but only by inuiting by his inspirations yet so as that it is in the power of the Will to consent or not consent to Gods inspirations But certaine it is that Gods preuision and freewill are compatible and the one is no bar to the other Now apply this Annotation to these last texts of Scripture and you shall fynd how easily your supposed difficulty touching the said Authorities and mans Freewill is loosed and dissolued Enthusiastus Well Arminius if I should grant that for the present I could not reply to your answeres giuen against all the former diuine Authorities which admitting I am rather to ascribe it to my owne defect then to any defect in the said Authorities for prooffe of the point intended Yet what answere can you shape to these seuerall Texts of Scripture by which we are taught theâ— we are dead to sinne and consequently that mans will is euer languide anâ— faynt through want of power anâ— freedome to rayse it selfe to any spirituall actioÌ„s as where it is said x Ephes 2 You who were dead in trespasses and
sinnes c And agayne we thus read y Ibidem When we were dead by sinne c. Arminius The transparency of this obiection euen an ordinary eye can pierce for aâ— the Text sayth We are dead by sinne so also it addeth in the places alleaged that we are quickned in Christ. Which addition importeth that though of our selues we are not able to performe any spirituall actions yet Christ hath so quickned vs with his preuenting Grace as that therby we are made able to produce the said spirituall actions thus this quickening in Christ implyeth only an infusion of Gods Grace which I willingly acknowledge but not a taking away of the freedome of manâ— will so wildly as I may say these twoâ— passages of Scripture are shot by you still glancing vpon one point or otheâ—â— impertinent to the controuersy ventilated betweene vs. But I pray you Enthusiastus proceed further in your Scripturall proofes Enthusiastus I must confesse that the most forcing authorities of sacred Scripture which either I or my partners can alleadge for the impugning of Freewill are already drawne out by me And though some other Texts might be insisted vpon yet I foresee the answere to them in your iudgment might be appropriated out of the former Animaduersions But Arminius grant for the tyme that the Scripture doth not expresly and articulately condemne the doctrine of Freewill for Heresy doth it therefore follow that the doctrine therof is Orthodoxall Most inconsequently inferred The Turkish Religion and the many Heresies registred by Epiphanius Austin Ierome and other Fathers of those early tymes are not punctually and literally condemned by Gods Holy Writ for hardly could they be condemned particulerly by the Scripture they rising many ages after the Scripture was written anâ— yet no man will from thence concludeâ— that those doctrines or Religions 〈◊〉 true The like we may say heere touching the doctrine of Freewill For the truth of the point hereis that a doctrine oâ— Article of fayth is to receaue its warrant not because the Scripture dotâ— not in particuler anathematize the said doctrine it by omission speaking nothing thereof at all but the said doctrine receaues its authority in that 〈◊〉 receaueth from the Scripture certainâ— euident and affirmatiue proofes for thâ— defence of the said doctrine in particuler Therfore Arminius except yoâ— be able as I presume you are not toâ— fortify and establish the Doctrine of Freewill with some cleare euident and vnanswerable Texts of Scripture your cause is nothing aduantaged thougâ—â— the former diuine passages aboue produced do not so vnauoydably as â— first perhaps expected they should confute the doctrine of Freewill Arminius This which you speake of the Scriptures passing ouer in silence any doctrine or confirming the contrary doctrine by euident proofes is in part true I grant though it be alleaged by you at this present meerly as a subterfugious euasion because you are not able to produce so much as One Text to impugne our doctrine withall Though at other times you and yours do cry out with great exaggeration in wordes that the doctrine of Freewill is most repugnant to the Holy Scripturs the maintayners therof being deadly wounded with euery splinter of the seuerall passages thereof so variable and seuerall is your comportment herein at seuerall tymes Now whereas you say it is more peculiarly incumbent vpon me affirmatiuely to fortify the doctrine of Free-will by euident Texts of Scripture or â—ls the doctrine therof to be abandoâ—ed as false and erroneous I do agree with you herein and am ready to fortify the sayd doctrine with choaking and Vnanswerable places of those diuine writings if so your selfe hath already finished your Scene of obiecting Enthusiastus I will presently surrender the fuâ—ction of OpponeÌ„cy to you For I granâ— that there ought to be according to 〈◊〉 methode of Schooles certaine vicissitâ—â— des alternations of turnes betweeâ— the parties disputant Neither is it 〈◊〉 reason iustifiable that the one 〈◊〉 should be forced to maintayne only defensiue and neuer an offensiue 〈◊〉 But before I end I must tell you thâ—â— the chiefe Doctor of Christs Churâ—â— since the Apostles I meane Austin 〈◊〉 most strong in the deniall of Freewill For thus he writeth y Lib. 6. de Genes ad literam cap. 15. Conditoris 〈◊〉 luntas rerum necessitas est The will and tâ—â— mynd of the Creator is the Necessity 〈◊〉 thinges Againe z Vbi supra c. 17. That is necessarily 〈◊〉 come to passe which God willeth and they are truly hereafter to be which God foreseeth And lastly omitting some otheâ— passages a In Enchirid c. 30. Libero arbitrio malè 〈◊〉 homo se perdidit seipsum Man meâ—ning our first parent by vsing Freewill badly did both loose therby himselfe 〈◊〉 Freewill Arminius How easily is the cloud heere disâ—elled For the meaning of the two first â—laces is that what God will haue to â—ome to passe is infallibly to come to 〈◊〉 yet speaking of mans actions it â—â—mmeth to passe with the freedome of mans will For God doth not destroy Nature first created by him but will that euery thing should be effected in â—â—ch manner as best sorteth to the Nature of the thing To the third place I answere That 〈◊〉 first Father is said to haue lost Free-will because by his fall the Freewill of man was made more feeble and faynt For that Austins meaning is not that Freewill was absolutely lost by Adam as though it neuer after were to be in rerum natura appeareth from those other wordes se perdidit For Adam did not loose himselfe by any extinguishment of himselfe or not after being but because Adam thereby was â—ade far more worse his Freewill being â—othing so vigorous and actiue as â—ore it was Enthusiastus I will not much labour in seekiâ—â— to eneruate these your answeres 〈◊〉 they shall passe as matters hanging 〈◊〉 suspense But there is one difficulâ— drawne from force of reason which euâ—â— arresteth my iudgment from giuiâ—â— assent to your doctrine And this is 〈◊〉 great repugnancy which is between Gods foreknowledge and Freewill For 〈◊〉 God do foresee such a thing will bâ— then certainly it must be and if ceâ—tainly it must be where then is maâ— Freewill in doing or not doing the saiâ— thing Arminius This doubt is partly aboue vâ—foulded but to answere more particulerly thereto The prescience and foresight of God is most certaine and 〈◊〉 that it importeth no necessity of thingâ— to come is thus proued euen from 〈◊〉 authority of Austin who thus dispâ—â—teth b De libero arhitrio l. â— c. â— Yf the foreknowledge 〈◊〉 God do impose a necessity to things fâ—ture this falleth out either as it is 〈◊〉 sutely a foreknowledge or els because it â—â— in particuler the foreknowledge of God Not the first because it would vpon the same ground follow that not only the â—oreknowledge of God but the foreknowledge of man should impose the â—ike
necessity to thinges But this later point is most false for example if it were reuealed by diuine power to a man that the next day it would rayne yet this mans foreknowledge is not the cause of the rayne and yet no doubt it would rayne but no lesse contingently then if the maÌ„ had not foreknowne the same at all Neither the foreknowledge or preuision of God I meane as it is particularly of God imposeth any necessity to thinges And the proofe hereof is this As God foreknoweth not only what man hereafter will do so also he foreknoweth what himselfe hereafter will doe And yet Gods prescience doth not force God to do that which he will do Neither therefore vpon the same reason doth his foreknowledge force man in his actions Againe God did foresee the fall of Adam and yet in the iudgmeÌ„t of the chiefest Deuines Adam had Free-will before his fall Enthusiastus But how commeth it to passe thaâ— those thinges which are certainly for 〈◊〉 knowne haue euer the euent when yet they are effected contingently as you say and may in that respect not be aâ— all Arminius The reason heerof is Because whâ— foreknoweth a thing heerafter to bâ— effected doth in his vnderstanding precurre or preuent the effecting of the thing and beholdeth it as done before it be done but that which is done cannot be vndone although it be effected voluntarily or contingently But to conclude this poynt the concordancy of Gods prescience with Free-will is so acknowledged euen by thâ— Deuines as that D. Willet thus plainâ—ly writeth heerof c D. VVillet in Synops p. 809. God foreseeth but willeth not sinne Enthusiastus Indeed there is no such repugnancy after the true ballancing of the difficulty betweene Gods prouision and Freewill as at the first it appeareth to be whereby we may learne that that sentence is true * SecuÌ„dâ—â— cogitationis prudentiores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I do find a farre greater labour to reconcile Gods Cooperation with mans Freewill so as they may both stand togeather and not exile and banish one the other For since God hath decreed from all eternity what shal be or what shall not be I see not how any place can heer be left for Freewill Arminius O Enthusiastus you must not measure the Mysteries of Christianity by the false yard of Naturall reason or maÌ„s capacity For though demonstratiuely we were not able to reconcile Gods cooperation Freewill yet neither of them are therefore to be denyed if so ech of them receaue their particuler warrant from the word of God Notwithstanding for your greater satisfaction Enthusiastus I will set downe one way among others by which in the iudgement of the greatest Deuines Gods cooperation and mans freedome of Will are reconciled For thus they teach To wit that the Diuine Cooperation doth beare it selfe with reference only to the Effect and not to the cause whereby is vnderstood that the concourse of God doth not determine our will neither doth it worke vpon the will but flowes only into the Effect produceth the Effect in the same moment in the which it is produced by our will And yet the same Effect could not be produced if eyther Gods Cooperation or Mans Will were wanting They illustrate this sentence from two which beare a great stone the which stone the of one them could not carry neither of those two men giueth force to the other nor impelleth the other and it is in the free choyce of them both to leaue this burden The like falleth out in the Cooperation of God and MaÌ„s-Wil in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thing And 〈…〉 this point only before I end I must tell you that it seemeth strange to me to obserue your humility as I may terme it in descending to the former Arguments drawne from humane Authorities and naturall reason Seeing diuers of your iudgement in the Question of Freewill and the inferentiall Conclusions resulting from thence will in great venditation brauery of speach vndertake to proue all such their assertions only from the sacred word scorning with a supercilious looke all other kind of proofes deduced either from the Fathers froÌ„ Naturall Reason or from any other humane authority whatsoeuer Enthusiastus Well Arminius I see heere what the iudgement of the chiefest Deuines are in this point But now I will proceed no further in producing any more kinds of proofes It then resteth vpon you to vndergoe the like labour by prouing from the Scriptures and other Authorities the Doctrine of Freewill Begin then at your pleasure Arminius I imbrace willingly that imposed labour in the prosecuting whereof I will draw my first proofes from Reason that done I will next ryse to human Authorities and lastly I will firmely entrench or anchour my cause vpon the infallible authority of Gods sacred Writ thus by ascending by degrees in proofes I will consequently ascend in the weight of the proofes produced from the said Authorities And to begin My first argument shall be this Let vs 1 August l. 14. de vera Religione take away by supposall Free will from man then with all we take away all punishment due for perpetrating of Sinne and rewards for the exercise of Vertue But this last point stands not with the practise not only of Priuate men but of all good Common wealths who euer retaliate Vertue with rewards and Vico with punishments Enthusiastus This your first argument is in my iudgment but diaphorous transparent For * So answereth Caluin l. Instit. 2. c. 5. it followeth not that man should not be punished if he hath not Freewill the reason heereof being in that the punishment is due to the offence which offence is yet remayning in vs and indeed taketh its whole emâ—nation from our selues Arminius Howsoeuer Enthusiastus you allâ—uiate and sleighten the force of this argument yet is it insisted vpon by Chrysostome Ierome and finally is grounded vpon force of Reason Now more particulerly to answere here to I say that in your Answere you offend in the Paralogisme or Fallacy in Logick commonly called Petitio Principij since you assume that as granted which yet is in controuersy For you in your dispute do presume that the fault doth remaine and flow from vs although we be forced through necessity to the working thereof and that it is not in our power to auoyde Sinne so fouly you see you are mistaken in this your seeming answere But I will proceed to a second Argument Exyle * Aug. l. de Vera relig â— 14. and banish from man Free-will â— exyle with all all kinds of Counsels and precepts among men as Exhortations and persuasions to Vertue all prayse due to the workers thereof as also on the contrary side all de hortations and rebukes touching the perpetrating of Vice and Impiety since to what end tend these exhortations persuasions reprehensions prccepts c. if so men can not do otherwise then they doe Enthusiastus I answere
f Marc. c. 10. 〈◊〉 loued the rich man who went away 〈◊〉 him and yet from this loue of our 〈◊〉 to the rich man we cannot 〈◊〉 that the Rich man was one of the 〈◊〉 Againe it is most true that God louetâ— all men as they are his Creatures though he hateth their Sinne For 〈◊〉 wiseman instructeth vs that g Sapieâ—â— c 11. God 〈◊〉 all thinges that are and hateth none 〈◊〉 them whom he hath made To the second place I answer 〈◊〉 that another like place of our Sauiouâ— words may well seeme to explane 〈◊〉 as where he said h Iohn 17. Those whom thou 〈◊〉 me I haue kept and none of them peâ—â—shed but the Sonne of perdition Now 〈◊〉 parallelling these two seuerall Tâ—xts â—â—geather it is euident that the 〈◊〉 of this place is not that euery onâ— whom the Father giueth perseueres to 〈◊〉 end for then the Son of perdition 〈◊〉 wit Iudas who as the Text sayth 〈◊〉 giuen should haue perseuered to the 〈◊〉 But rather that the Diuell by all 〈◊〉 temptations cannot perforce pull a 〈◊〉 from God except he giues his 〈◊〉 consent to yield to the diuels 〈◊〉 Secondly suppose these wordes to vnderstood of the Elect in generall â—â—ose finall repentance is knowne to 〈◊〉 of whom we all acknowledge at None do perish for God is not 〈◊〉 in his foreknowledge yet this forceth nothing seeing both the i Hier. in c. 26. Hier. sayth Non ex eo quod Deus scit futurum aliquid idâ—irâ—â— futurum est Sed quia futurum est Deus nouit See likewise Austin tom 7. de praedest gratia c. 15. â—â—thers and our owne learned k Hiperius in Method Theol. l. 1. pa. 319. sayth Neque quia praescit Deus hominem peccaturum ideo homo peccat sed quia peccaturus erat ideo Deus id praesciuit The like saying hath Amandus Polaâ—â—s in partit Theolog. l. 1 p. â— Breâ—â—ren do teach that things are not beâ—ause God doth foresee them but God doth â—â—resee therin because they are To the third Text I answere That â—od indeed doth neuer repent him of 〈◊〉 guifts bestowed vpon any man yet â—â—uertheles by reason that many do aâ—use his giftes applying them otherâ—ise then God intended he is said in â—oly Scripture as speaking to our Caâ—acity l Gen. â— 1. Samuel 15. to repent him Enthusiastus Well I will closâ—tlliâ— point 〈…〉 more Scipturall Authorities 〈◊〉 I see Arminius you are very 〈◊〉 in auoyding of them with there 〈◊〉 lowing which for greater 〈◊〉 I will a masse togeather We fynd 〈◊〉 Apostle thus to say Christ shall 〈◊〉 confirme you speaking to the â—â—â—thians vnto the end Iâ— like 〈◊〉 m 1. Cor. 1. said Apostle els where thus sayth 〈◊〉 n Ephes 1. He hath thosen vs before the foundatioâ— the world Agayne o Rom. 8. Who shall accuse â—gainst the Elect of God Finally we 〈◊〉 in the Gospell p Iohn 10. No man shall 〈…〉 sheepe out of my hand All which â—â—â—â—â—rities may seeme well to fortify the 〈◊〉 fallibility of Predestination Arminius These Texts though many 〈◊〉 number yet are small in force so 〈◊〉 they glance from the intended 〈◊〉 And as for the two first to which 〈◊〉 others of the same nature may 〈◊〉 ranged taking their answere from 〈◊〉 Answere giuen to thâ—se two thâ—â—postle only meaneth That he hop◠〈◊〉 well of the saluation of the Corinthians â—nd Ephesians but that he should be asâ—ured through a certainty of faith that â—ll the Corinthians and all the Ephesiâ—ns for the Apostle speaketh indefiâ—itely to them all should be saued is â—ost absurd to thinke To the two 〈◊〉 Authorities They only teach that â—he Elect cannot finally perish but they â—oe not teach that the Elect do know 〈◊〉 much of themselues in particular or â—hat they are of the nuÌ„ber of the Elect which poynt remaynes yet vnprooued Enthusiastus I will desist as I sayd afore from â—rging more places of Gods word For 〈◊〉 willingly grant I haue produced all â—uch Texts as I thought had been most â—reuayling for the proofe of the doctriâ—e for which they were vrged Onely â—efore I leaue the Scene of further opâ—osing I will insist in an Argument or â—wo drawne from force of reason â—hich Arguments preuayle strongly with diuers men of iudgment my first â—â—en shall be drawne from the efficacy â—f 〈◊〉 and Hope And thus I dispute The holy Scripture ascribeth to Fayth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most full 〈◊〉 in the tenth Chapter to the Hebreâ— In like sort in the eleauenth Chapter 〈◊〉 the Hebrews it is called in regard 〈◊〉 its Infallibility Coniunctio or Hypostaâ—â— a firme ground of things to be hoped for 〈◊〉 an infallible euidence of things we see 〈◊〉 Agayne in the Epistle of S. Iames 〈◊〉 1. Hesitation and wauering is opposed 〈◊〉 Fayth In like sort in the sixt to the Hâ—brews a steedy firmenes is attributed 〈◊〉 Hope or as the former greeke word 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which place Hope 〈◊〉 its stability and firmenes is comparâ—â— to an Anker Therefore in regard 〈◊〉 Gods promising a remission of 〈◊〉 Sinnes why should we rest doubtfuâ—â— thereof My second Argument shal be takâ—â— from the seeming absurdity * Vrged bv Kempâ—it in Exam. Concil Trid. accompanying this your doctrine since 〈◊〉 doctrine seemeth to be absurd which â—â—uer teacheth a doubtfull hesitation 〈◊〉 fluctuation of a mans fayth touchiâ—â— his owne saluation Arminius In soluing the first Argument 〈◊〉 must recurre partly to the state of 〈◊〉 Question aboue set downe True it is 〈◊〉 Fayth is most certayne neyther 〈◊〉 it be called Fayth by the which a 〈◊〉 giueth assent with any doubtfulâ—â—â—â— or feare to such thinges the which â—â—ought to belieue But our Aduersaâ—â—â—â— Paralogisme or Fallacy resteth in 〈◊〉 that they assume as graÌ„ted which 〈◊〉 can neuer prooue that remission Sinnes or iustification do properly 〈◊〉 â—oly belong to fayth Agayne I say â—â—â—ording to the state of the question 〈◊〉 granting a man to haue once true 〈◊〉 yet followeth it not that thereâ—â—â—e he shall finally dye in state of true 〈◊〉 and then it followeth that if he 〈◊〉 not certaine of his finall perseueâ—â—â—ce in fayth he therefore is not cerâ—â—â—ne of his Election or Predestination Touching Hope It is most certaine â—espect of God promising but in 〈◊〉 of mans indisposition and his â—â—â—kenes and frailty in performing the â—â—nditions imposed by God Hope is 〈◊〉 languid and accompanied with â—â—rtaine feare Touching your argument from 〈◊〉 supposed absurdity attending on 〈◊〉 doctrine herein I reply that the doctrine maintayned by vs thou 〈◊〉 taketh not away all feare yet it 〈◊〉 away all anxiety hesitation and 〈◊〉 doubtfulnes if he may be called 〈◊〉 who dare not giue assent to 〈◊〉 contrary part or opinion And as 〈◊〉 no good inference to argue thus 〈◊〉 man is not doubtfull nor anxious of the â—â—â—tainty of his Election therefore he is electâ—â—â— So
you Arâ—â—nius proceed to other of your propfes Arminius Before I proceed to other proofes I must subnect to this former discoursâ— one obseruation touching the iudgments of our owne learned and Reuerend Brethren either in this point 〈◊〉 in the doctrine of Freewill aboue disputed of or of any other point hereafter to be discoursed of betweene 〈◊〉 this tyme. The obseruation is this that whereas all these eminent Protestants already produced by me or hereafter 〈◊〉 be produced do with an vnaniâ—â—â— consent teach That no dogmaâ—â—â—â— point is to be belieued as an Article of â—ayth they wholy reiecting all Tradiâ—ions but what hath its proofe out of the Scripture either immediatly in expresse wordes or els by necessary infeâ—ence deduced from the Scripture that therefore we may truly inferre that all these Learned men doe ground themselues only vpon Scripture for their maintayning of the said doctrines and consequently that they conspire with me in the expositions of the said passages of Scripture already or hereafter to be alleaged by me And further seeing the Scripture cannot teach contrary doctrines it followeth that our said learned Brethren by me produced do interpret with vs and contrary to your construction giuen of them all such Countertexts of Scripture heretofore vrged or hereafter to be vrged by you Enthusiastus for the impugning of those our said doctrines And now this Aduertisement being premised I hasten in this next place to the Authority of the Ancient Fathers and Doctours of Christs Church And first Gregory the Great thus writeth k In primum Regum Quia 〈…〉 Dei imperscrutabile est c. Because 〈◊〉 iudgment of God is vnseâ—â—he able therof 〈◊〉 man knoweth not from whence be commeth or whither he goeth The Reason hereof being in that it cannot be knowne whether a man shall perseuere vnto his end in thâ—â— Grace which he receaueth Prosper l L. â— de vocatione Gentium cap. vltim De nullo ante ipsius 〈◊〉 c. We cannot pronounce before hand of 〈◊〉 any man that he shall be in the glory of the Elect. And this profitable feare doth preserue in man a perseuering humility that 〈◊〉 who standeth may take heed that he doe 〈◊〉 fall Austin is most full thus writing m De Ciuit. Dei l. 2. c. 12. 〈◊〉 Licet Sancti de suae perseuerantiae praemin 〈◊〉 certisunt de ipsa tamen perseuerantia suâ—â— reperiuntur incerti c. Although Holy men be assured of the reward of their perseuerance yet of their perseuerance it selfe they are found to be vncertaine For what man can know that he shall perseuere iâ— practise and progresse of Iustice till his end except it be made knowne to him by some Reuelation Againe the same Father thus further amplifyeth vpon this point n L. de Coâ—rept gratia c. 13. Quis ex multitudine fidelium c. Which of the multitude of the faythfull as long as he 〈◊〉 in this mortality can presume himselfe 〈◊〉 in the number of the predestinate And further speaking of Election he thus sayth o L. de bono perseuerantiae c. 13. Vtrum quis hoc munus c. It is vncertaine who hath receaued this gift as long as he leadeth this life Ierome subscribes to the same censure thus writing p L. 2. aduers Pelagium Ne beatum dixeris â—uempiam antemortem c. Thou shalt not tell any man blessed before his death for as long as we liue so long we are in battayle or sight And as long as we are in battayle so long there is no certaine Victory To contract this point touching the Fathers iudgements herein I will and with Chrysostome his wordes are these q Hom. 1â— in epist ad â— hâ—â—p Si Paulus qui tanta passus est c. Yf S. Paul who suffred so great matters was not yet secure of his Resurrection what then â—hall we say Thus far concerning the Fathers in the point of Vncertainty of manâ— Election or Predestination Enthusiastus I can reply little to these so cleare and euident places of the Fathers and indeed I cannot but confesse that the â—aid Fathers did wholy teach the doctrine which now you aâ— this 〈◊〉 do defend But I am deâ—â—rous to 〈◊〉 what Texts you can produce out 〈◊〉 Gods sacred Writ to fortify this thâ— Fathers and your doctrine Arminius Gods Holy word affoardeth plentifull store thereof those so illustrious and euident that both the Fatherâ— the former alledged Brothren mighâ— securely rest themselues thereon 〈◊〉 teaching and belieuing of this doctrinâ— And to beginne I will reduce my Authorities for aduantaging your memory vnto certaine Heads as in my former proofes I haue done Now my first â— Head shall contayne such Texts as teach that our Saluation doth partly depend vpon the CoÌ„dition of our workes but if it be vncertaine whether a man shall continue in the exercise of good workes then must it follow that our Saluation as partly resting vpon our workes must be most vncertaine Of this Nature among others are these r 2. Tim. 2. few Texts following No man shall crowned but who shall lawfully fight Againe s Math. 1â— Yf thou wilt enter into lyfe 〈◊〉 Commandements And more t Rom. 8. If so 〈◊〉 suffer with him that we may be also â—â—â—ifyed with him And lastly u Math. â— Except 〈◊〉 Iustice do abound more then the 〈◊〉 of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall not â—â—ter into the Kingdome of Heauen Enthusiastus To these Texts it may well perhaps be replyed that good workes are reâ—uired to Saluation not as a ConditioÌ„ vpon which eternall lyfe dependeth but only because true fayth cannot be without good workes since bad and wicked workes we obserue by experience do exile and banish away all true fayth Arminius I do not heere labour to search the reason why good workes are necessary since this to the present point is impertinent only I rest satisfyed if you grant that good workes are necessarily required and that without them we canot obtaine eternal life for once admitting this then it most consequeÌ„tly may be inferred that no man without speciall Reuelation can assure himselfe to be of the number of the Elect seeing no man euen in the iudgement of ouâ— Aduersaries in this doctrine can reâ—â— assured whether he performeth shaâ—â— to his liues end performe all such good workes as are prescribed by Christ to him to exercise My second branch of Scripturall â— Testimonies shall respect those Scriptures which counsell vs to Feare touching our spirituall state Among others these heer alledged shall serue x Philip. 2. Worke your Saluation with feare and trembling Againe the Prophet exhorteth thus saying y Psalm 2. Serue the Lord in feare and reioyce in trembling Apprehend discipline least the Lord be angry and you perish out of the iust way And more z Apec 3. Hold fast that thou hast least another take thy crowne And further a
former wordes r Austin l. 15. de Ciuitat Deâ— c. 7. Tulominaberis illius numquid fratris absit â—uius igitur nisi peccati thou shalt rule ouer it what ouer thy brother not so ouer what then but Sinne So conspiringly this Father agrees with our Interpretation heerein To come to the ancient Rabins s In his Hebrew Commentaries vpon Genesis c. 4. Aben Ersa affirment it to be a meer forgery to referre the Relatiue in the former Text to any other thing then to the word Sinne. Rabby Moyses Hadarsan sayth t In ca. 4. Genes quod scriptumest Adte concupiscentia peccati tu dominaberis illius Hoc est sivolueris praeualebis aduersus illud That is where it is written the desire of Sinne shal be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it The meaning heerofis that if thou wilt thou shalt preuayle ouer it Thus Rabby Hadarsan To be briefe the auncient Iewes are so plaine in expouÌ„ding the former passage in proofe of Freewill that D. Fulke taketh notice therof and thus answereth them u In the English Translat pa. 380. The Iewish Rabbins erre in this place To come lastly to our owne Brethren Their iudgments are here made manifest partly by their wrytings and partly by their like agreeable Transstion of this very Text in their versioâ—â— of their Bibles Touching their owne Authorities herein I will for greater expedition only cite the places of such their writings See then x In l. 2. Method Theolog. p 478. Hyperius y In Syntagm ex veteri Testam Colum. 489. Wigandus both no obscure ProtestaÌ„ts and euen z Tom. â— VVittenberg ann 1580 fol. 62. Luther himselfe As concerning their Publike Translations of the Bible answerable thereto see thâ— great English Bible of anno 1584 and see the Annotations annexed thereto all shewing that it is Sinne and not Abel ouer which Cain shall haue rule The same appareth from the Translation of the Bible by Castalio printed at Basill anno 1573. which Translation is much commended by a Derat Interpret l. 1. p. 62. 63. D. Humfrey And thus far for the more full vnfoulding and explicating of this most markable cleare and illustrious passage of Genesis for the confirmation of our Doctrine of Freewill And heere now I make my pause being in good hope that all the former Authorities both diuine and humane produced by me since the beginning of our dispute will winne some ground vpon your Iudgment Enthusiastus for your giuing assent to our most true ancient and Aâ—ostolicall doctrine herein Enthusiastus I do freely grant my iudgment is â—ouerborne with the streame of your most forcing Authorities and the rather since I must confesse I was much mistaken in the alleadging of my proofes for the impugning of Freewill seeing through your auoiding of them now vpon a second and more retired view I well discerne how they did rather but idly beate the wynd through my owne misapplyed detortioÌ„ of them then otherwise leuell at the intended marke So illustrious a truth now I confesse is the doctrine of Freewill as that the greatest doubt which thereof I shall hereafter perhaps make is only whether I can haue Freewill at any time hereafter to deny the doctrine of Free-will But learned Arminius though I doe much incline to belieue that man hath Freewill yet there are certaine other dogmaticall points in which I confesse as yet I do dissent from you And among the rest these two following To wit the first The doctrine of 〈◊〉 probation by which I belieue That Goâ— hath decreed some men euen from their mothers wombe without any preuision oâ— their workes to eternall damnation The sâ—cond The Infallible Certainty of a manâ— owne Election or Predestination in botâ— which points many learned Deuines oâ— our owne Country borrowing theiâ— doctrines from you do I grant hold the contrary Now I would see Arminius if you be as fully furnished with sufficient Answeres to what I shall obiect therein as also with good proofeâ— for the fortifying of your contrary Tenets heerein as you haue discouered your selfe to be for the Doctrine of Freewill Arminius Glad I am to heare Enthusiastus the hopefull eueÌ„t of this our discourse and in you I see that sentence verifyed b Math. â—â— Iustificata est sapientia à filijs suis And as touching the other points of doctrine mentioned by you wherein you and your party mainly differ from me you may take notice that our beliefe of them is necessarily and implicitly included so the Cause includes in it selfe the Eflect in the doctrine of Freewil For once granting the Doctrine of Freewill to be consonant to the Scriptures then â—t vnauoydably and most consequently followeth that euery man may be saued through the force of his Freewill cooperating with Gods Grace mercy as also it followeth from the Doctrine of Freewill that man enioyeth not an Infallibility of his Election seeing as enioying Freewill it is in his power of Vertuous to become wicked consequently to loose the benefite of Election Neuertheles seeing the reducing the warrant of the sayd two doctrines to the doctrine of Freewill is ouer generall and large therefore beginne at your pleasure Enthusiastus to impugne the sayd doctrines I shall shape particuler answeres to your particuler Arguments and that done then will I vndertake to make good the said doctrines both from diuine and humane Authorities Enthusiastus I will most willingly so desirous I am to receaue satisfaction heerin from your selfe 〈◊〉 I will 〈…〉 the doctrine of the Cortainty of 〈◊〉 Election or Predestination in the preseâ—ting whereof I will tread my forâ— tract of Methode to wit in giuing 〈◊〉 first place to diuine proofes and 〈◊〉 after I will descend to humane prooâ— being of an inferiour weight Arminius Well Sir proceede in your 〈◊〉 chosen Methode at your own pleasuâ—â— but before you enter into dispute 〈◊〉 me leaue as in the doctrine of Free 〈◊〉 aboue I did to set downe the true 〈◊〉 of this question with its due explicâ—â—â—on or restrictioÌ„ seeing by this meanâ—â— we no doubt shall find as in the foâ—mer Controuersy we did that souerâ—â— of your proofes from Scripture wilâ— receaue their full answere by recâ—ring to the true state of the Question Heer then we are to obserue 〈◊〉 whereas you and your fellowes 〈◊〉 maintaine that euery one that i◠〈◊〉 is assured infallibly of his 〈◊〉 Election by his owne ordinary and spâ—â—â— fayth which say you is most infâ—â—â—ble Now I and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me do teach as followâ—th First that so far forth as concernes Gods promise touching our Election we say his promise is on his part most certaine and infallible But yet seeing Gods promise therein is only conditionâ—â—â— implying euer some things to be performed on our part to wit the Conditions of beliefe of true repentance of finall perseuerance now the performance by Gods grace or not performance of these Conditions being in our
neither are you thus to dispute 〈◊〉 man hath no certainty of his fayth or 〈◊〉 therefore he is euer doubting 〈◊〉 troubled with feares touching the 〈◊〉 There is therefore a meane to be adâ—â—ted betweene these two extremes 〈◊〉 a morall certainty in respect o◠〈◊〉 Vnderstanding and a Hope and trus◠〈◊〉 respect of the Will Enthusiastus Arminius I must confesse you 〈◊〉 partly satisfyed me in displaying 〈◊〉 vnexpected weakenes and transpaâ—â—â—cy of my Arguments drawn◠〈◊〉 from the misapplication of Scriptâ—â—â—â— as also from Reason But seeing 〈◊〉 accomplished my taske of 〈◊〉 we are to change parts therefore 〈◊〉 may at your pleasure enter vpon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in seeking to warrant your conâ—â—â—ry doctrine with such proofes as 〈◊〉 shall be best armed therewith And â—â—deed I confes I partly begin to retire â—â—d giue back so little preuayling I â—â—d my former Arguments to be â—hich till now I accounted as many â—â—gines able to beat downe and leuell â—â—th the ground all contrary doctrine that for which they were vrged But â—rminius begin Arminius I am prepared thereto And for the â—ore exact discussing of this point I 〈◊〉 first ouerthrow by proofes the â—â—â—posed certainty of euery particular 〈◊〉 Iustice Now if a man be vncerâ—â—â—â—e of his Iustice which is a meanes 〈◊〉 the obtaining of HeaueÌ„ then much 〈◊〉 must he rest vncertaine of his â—â—â—â—ation When I haue discoursed fully of the 〈◊〉 â—ertainty of a Iustifying Fayth then 〈◊〉 I proceed to the impugning by â—â—â—ofes of the imaginary Certainty of 〈◊〉 Now touching the first point 〈◊〉 â—ill lay downe though it be in part 〈◊〉 shewed what is the true state thereof To wit it is in expresse 〈◊〉 thus Whether a man ought or can wit◠〈◊〉 speciall reuelation be assured through 〈◊〉 of diuine fayth that his sinnes are 〈◊〉 In which question Enthusiastâ—â—â— you and your party hould the Affâ—â—â—â—tiue I the Negatiue Now in disprouing this aâ—ry â—â—â—tainty I will keep in part my forâ—â— methode of profes and will draw 〈◊〉 Arguments first froÌ„ Reason My first Aâ—gument then shal be this Nothing 〈◊〉 be certaine câ—rtitudinâ— fidei throuâ—â— certainty of Fayth except it be conâ—â—â—ned eyther immediatly in the 〈◊〉 God or at least deduced out of 〈◊〉 word by euident consequence 〈◊〉 Fayth groundeth itselfe only vpon 〈◊〉 Authority of Gods word But we 〈◊〉 not find eyther immediatly or by â—â—cessary inference in the word of 〈◊〉 that this or that man is truly iustifyâ—â—â— except some few as Maâ—y 〈◊〉 the Paraliticall Maâ—â— to both whoâ—â— was sayd by our Sauiour Thy 〈◊〉 remitted thee If the Aduersary should reply 〈◊〉 to thus â—yllogizing The word 〈◊〉 teacheth that euery one who hath 〈◊〉 â—â—ntance of his sinnes is iustifyed but I 〈◊〉 true repentance of my Synnes thereâ—â—re I am iustifyed I answere heerto that â—he Assumption or second Proposition of â—his Argument is not only false but 〈◊〉 impossible except it be proued by â—iuine Reuelation Since we read q Ieremy c. 17. â—he hart of man is insâ—rutable and who â—â—oweth it Againe we obserue that many are â—ersuaded to haue that which indeed â—hey haue not This is euident from the â—xample of S. Peter who when he sayd * Luc. 22. I am prepared to be imprisoned and to â—â—ffer death was doubtlesly persuaded â—hat he would suffer death for Christ â—nd yet the euent shewed that he was â—ot truly prepared thereto Adde heerâ—o that the Anabaptist and Anti-trinitaâ—â—lan both manifest Heretikes do as confidently vaunt of their certainty of â—ustification as any Protestant can do â—nd yet it is most euident that both â—f them remaine in mortall Sinne as â—â—ng as they continue in such their Religion and consequently that they caÌ„â—ot be assured of their Election but raâ—her assured during such their state of Reprobation My second Argument is this 〈◊〉 by speciall benefit of God it is reuealâ—â— to some few that their Sinnes are â—â—mitted so on the contrary syde 〈◊〉 Authenticall Histories record that diuers most blessed and holy men at thâ— houre of their death through their 〈◊〉 certainty of iustificatioÌ„ did greatly feareâ— According heerto S. Ierome relateth how Hilarion a Holy man thus sayd at the poynt of death Goe out my Soule out of this body why art thou afrayd Seâ—uenty yeares thou hast serued Christ 〈◊〉 dost thou now feare And with this 〈◊〉 heere end touching this kind of Argument Enthusiastus I cannot deny but that your Arguments drawne from reason seeme to be very pressing but I pray you asoeâ—â— to other proofes Arminius My next Head of proofes shall be take froÌ„ the pens of diuers most learneâ—â—nd Ancient Fathers And I will satisfâ—â— my selfe with the sentences of somâ— few though chiefe among them Wâ—fynd Austin thus to write r L. de perfect Iustitiâ post medium Quatalibet â—â—titia c. with what iustice soeuer man is â—â—duâ—d he ought to thinke whether any â—â—ing be in him which is to be blamed â—hich himselfe seeth not And againe s Serm. 23. de verb. Domini â—â—rtasse tu nihil c. Perhaps thou fyndest nothing in thy conscience inuenit illâ— qui â—â—elius videt but he fyndeth in it who seeth â—etter meaning God And finally the â—ayd Father t In Psalm 4â— Noui quia iustitia Dei c I know that the iustice of God remaiâ—eth but whether it remaineth myne or not I know not The Apostles wordes feare me saying who thinketh himselfe to stand let him take heed he doth not fall Thus Austin Chrysostome u Homil. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 Multis de causis c. for many causes our iudgement is vncertaine of which one is because we know not what our workes are Ierome x Lâ—â— in â—erem exponens c. â—â— Homo vide tin face Deus in corde Man seeth only the face but God seeth the Hart and which seemeth to vs sometymes cleane is found to be most sorâ—ide and foule in his eyes Finally to omit many others Baâ—â—ll thus writeth of this poynt y In constit Mon c. â— Mulâ—a peccantes c. we sinning in many things many of such our sinnes we doe not appreâ—end or vnderstand wherefore the Apostle said I am not guilty to my selfe of any 〈◊〉 but neuertheles I am not iustifyed in thâ—â— as much as if he should say I sinne in many things but I doe not obserue such my sinnâ—â— Thus far of the Fathers iudgment touching the vncertainty of our Iustification Enthusiastus I should hardly haue byn persuaded that the Fathers had beene so strong in this point as now I must confesse they are but I pray you Arminius ryse to your proofes of Scripture since they are most preuayling Arminius Well then to come to the Holy Scripture I will restrayne my selfe only first to such passages thereof which in expresse words admonish vs not to be ouer certayne and confident of our obtayned Iustice Secondly to some of those places which teach that it is vncertayne whether that man
which performeth his Penitency do neuertheles obtayne remission of his sinnes or not and Lastly I will conclude thiâ— point with a demonstration for I 〈◊〉 terme it no lesse taken from the â—xample of Dauid And to begin with the first sort we thus read z 1. Pet 1. Passe the tyme of your dwelling here in feare Agayne a Philip. 2. Worke your Saluation with feare and trembling And finally b Prou. 2. Blessed is that man who is euer fearefull But if a man be infallibly assured of his Iustification how can he be fearefull thereof To come to the second branch of Texts teaching That a man performing sorrow and being penitent for his Sinnes notwithstanding is not assured of the remission of his Sinnes Now according hereto we read c Acts 8. Re pent of thy wickednes and pray to God si forte remittatur tibi if chance it may be forgiuen thee In like sort it is said d 〈◊〉 3. Who can tell if God will turne and pardon v. c. And the same words are in â—oâ—â— c. 2. And finally we further thus read e Dâ—niel 4. Perhaps God will pardon thine offences Now heere Enthusiastus I referâ—e euen to your iudgement and to the iudgment of all heere present whether this doubtfulnes of Romission of Sinnes and the former Admonition that we should not rest ouer secure of our Iustice both which points are prooued from the two former Classes of Scripture stand not wholy incompatible with our Aduersaries persumed infalliable certainty of their owne Iustification Enthusiastus I freely grant that these Texts do seeme to eneruate and weaken the doctrine of the certainty of Iustification But I pray you proceed to that example of the Prophet Dauid which aboue for it is conuincing you called a Demonstration Arminius Well I come to Dauid whose example is a sealing Argument closing vp this point and affordeth to vs a certainty of Truth touching the vncertainty of mans Iustification Thus then I vrge Yf Charity can be lost then fayth can be lost if Fayth can be lost then Iustification may be lost My first proposition is warranted by the doctrine of vs all f D. Fulke against the Rhem. Testament in 1. Cor. c. 3. sayth Fayth cannot be without Charity who teach that Charity doth as necessarily accompany a Iustifying fayth as heate doth the fyre That Charity may be lost is proued from the example of Dauid who killed Vrias seeing a voluntary pretended murther and such was that of Dauids is a meere priuation of Charity For how can we loue that man with true Charity whom we intend to murther and depriue of his life Now the Euangelist assureth vs that g 1. Iohn 3. Who loueth not his brother is not of God but abideth in death From hence then the vnauoydable resultancy is that Dauid in the murther of Vrias and during all the tyme before his repentance thereof was not of God but for the tyme abode in death and consequently neyther had Charity nor fayth for if he had fayth he had not abyded in death because it is written h 1. Iohn 3. By fayth the iust man liueth Enthusiastus I haue read some of our learned Brethren labouring to auoyd this Argument by answering that Dauids fayth was not lost in his murther of Vrias but only for the tyme slept And others doe affirme that Dauid when he committed murther and adultery i D. Fulke in the disputation in the Tower ann 1581. the second daves Conference was and remained the child of God did not fall from his fayth And another great man amoÌ„g vs affirmes that k Beza in respons ad Act. Colloq Montisbelgar part altera P. 73. at one and the samâ— time Dauid sinned and sinned not Arminius Tush Enthusiastus all this is but â— froath of words seruing only to blearâ— the eyes of the ignorant but it is wholy dissolued with the least touch of a iudicious finger And to the first and second part of your Answere Either Dauid had fayth at the tyme of his murthering of Vrias or he had it not for no Medium can be giuen betweene these two Extremes Yf he had fayth how then could his fayth be said to sleepe Agayne the Nature of true fayth requireth that â—â— should be euer l Galat. 5. Working with Charity and that without workes it is m Iacob â— dead Yf Dauid hath not fayth at that time then is that grated which I demanded to wit that Dauid in the murther of Vrias lost his fayth and consequently was not assured of his Iustification Thus you see that this yours euasion is nothing els then a poore begging of the point as granted which is still in controuersy to wit that Dauid still kept his fayth at the tyme hâ—â— killed Vrias Now to that other last kind of Answere to wit that at one and the same â—yme Dauid sinned and sinned not I â—uch wonder that it did euer fall from â— learned mans pen so phantasticall â—explicable and indeed absurd it is But to proceed this Answere implies â—hat Dauid sinned let it be in what â—espect soeuer the Author of this Answere will haue Yf then Dauid sinned â—hen Dauid by such his Sinne was the â—eruant of sinne and of the Diuell for we reade that n Iohn 8. He that committeth â—inne is the seruant of Sinne. And againe He that committeth Sinne is of the o 1. Iohn â— Deuill And thus far touching this Demonstration Enthusiastus I grant indeed that this your Argument drawne from the example of Dauid is most strong and I now well â—erceaue how sleightly my Answere â—hereto was wouen vpon seuerall â—reeds but all to illaqueate ensnare weake iudgment But Arminius you â—auing now finished as I take it all our proofes for the disprouing of the certainty of mans Iustification 〈◊〉 Methode requireth that you 〈◊〉 take the like labour touching the 〈◊〉 prouing the certainty of 〈◊〉 though I cannot but grant 〈◊〉 the impugning of this later 〈◊〉 vertually inuolued in the 〈◊〉 of the firster For let vs once grant 〈◊〉 man resteth vncertayne of his 〈◊〉 it then ineuitably from thence 〈◊〉 be inferred as your selfe aboue did iâ—timate that he also resteth vncertaâ—â— of his Election and Predestination 〈◊〉 Iustification is a necessary Mediâ—â— Election and Predestination for no 〈◊〉 are elected or predestinated by God 〈◊〉 such as are finally iustifyed Yet nâ—â—withstanding this most necessary â—â—terueniency of these two points 〈◊〉 would willingly heare your particulâ—â— proofes for the particular point of tâ—â— vncertainty of Election oâ— Predestinatiâ—â— Arminius I will satisfy your desire 〈◊〉 first not to lose tyme I will keep◠〈◊〉 former Methode in producing of 〈◊〉 proofes And therefore for the 〈◊〉 of Election and Predestinatiâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—gin with Arguments drawne â—rom Reason Of which my first Arâ—ument is this The knowledge by Fayth of a mans present Iustice is more 〈◊〉 then the knowledge by fayth of eternall
Predestination But it is aboue â—rooued that no man can tell whether â—e be worthy of hate or loue in respect of his present Iustice or state in this world much lesse can he be certayne whether he be worthy of hate or loue â—n respect of Gods decree which decree â—yeth in the Abismall depth of his owne â—udgment My second Argument We can haue no certaine knowledge of such â—hings as depend of the will of God â—ut only by manifest reuelation of God himselfe But Predestination doth depend of the will of God Therefore Predestination is to man vncertaine Yf you reply that God hath reuealed by â—is spirit in the Scripture that all those who rightly belieue and liue well shall haue eternall life and beatitude I grant â—his is true but I deny that God euer â—euealed in Scripture that all those who â—y they belieue do rightly belieue and liue 〈◊〉 they ought For if it were sufficient to say I do belieue and liue as I â—â—ght to 〈◊〉 then should all Heretikes be â—aued 〈◊〉 euery of them will say that he belieueth and liueth as he ought Thâ—â— much for some delibation and tast 〈◊〉 what Arguments omitting diuers others may be drawne from reason 〈◊〉 proofe of this verity But in this next place I will come to the Testimonies of many Protestantâ— accomplished in the highest degree with learning who through the weigâ—â— of diuine and humane Authority â—â—ged in proofe of so warrantable 〈◊〉 Truth haue in the end vpon their more retired and impartiall Iudgments paâ—sed thereupon wholy comparted with vs in the doctrine heere maintained And to begin with those who are commonly called Caluinists we fynd that Snecanus and Hemingius two learnâ—â— Caluinists are so full in this doctrine oâ— the vncertainty of Saluation ' that D. Wâ—â—let our Aduersary herein â— thus reâ—â—â—hendeth them p In his â—â—â—ops p. 8â—1 These Patrones of â—â—niuersall Grace and conditionall Election 〈◊〉 consequently hould that men may loose 〈◊〉 Election and Faith Hemingius p. 30. 〈◊〉 same is also maintayned by â—necanus ◠〈◊〉 â—hus far D. Willet D. Harsenet is so full 〈◊〉 our doctrine that he preached in proofe thereof a Sermo at Pauls Crosse â— M. Perkins though our Aduersary 〈◊〉 this doctrine yet through racke of â—â—uth is thus forced to confesse of the 〈◊〉 r M. Perkins in his foure Treatises necessarily to be considered of all Christians Treatise foorth sect 14. This Testimony of being persuaded that we are adopted chosen in Christ c. is weake in most men and can scarcely 〈◊〉 persuaded And of the Reprobate who â—ake themselues to be in the number of â—he Elect he further thus teacheth s In the epist to the Rendâ—r in the beginning of therfore said Booke They may do outwardly all things which 〈◊〉 Christians do They do willingly subiect theÌ„selues to the Ministry of the word are 〈◊〉 forward as any and as ioyfull in frequenâ—ing sermons c. They are also voyd of Hypocrisy and herein dissemble not that fayth â—â—ich they haue not but rather shew that â—ayth which they haue Thus a man being in this state may decâ—aue himselfe and the most godly in the world which haue the greatest gift of discerning how they and â—heir brethren stand be fore the Lord. Thus M. Perkins And according to this his doctrine â—he Anabaptists who were burned in â—mithfyeld euen at their death vaunted â—f the certainty of their Saluation and yet were therein deceaued 〈…〉 iudgment of t Calu. cont Anabaptist p. 110. 111. Caluin But to proceâ—â— to others Musculus the great Proâ—â—stant doth thus teach of this point u In loc Com. loc de Peccato sect â— 20. Yf he who hath beene made partaker of the Heauenly grace do fall from that Grace 〈◊〉 of a iust and faythfull man do became 〈◊〉 iust and vnfâ—ythfull c. this mans conscience the purity of fayth being lost 〈◊〉 made guilty vnto damnation And M. Robert Rollock once Rectour of the Vniuersity of Edenburgh a man muâ—â— esteemed by Beza thus writeth x In his booke of Lectures vpon the epist of Paul to the Colossianâ— Lect. 6. c. â— p. â—4 〈◊〉 tell thee that notwithstanding thou art râ—deemed and by this bloud of Christ fâ—eeâ— from Sinne and death yet if thou taâ—est delight in Sinne the greater shall be thy damnation Now to come to others commonly stiled Lutheranes And to passeouer y â—n Theolog. Caluâ—nist l. â— arâ— 14. Wâ—o there reproueth Caluin Zanâ—hius and the Diuines of Gâ—noua Conradus Schlussenburg z In loâ—iâ— Theolog. pag 188. â— 331. Haffâ—nreffensis Professour in the Vniuersity of Tubing a In disput 7 ex epist Pauli ad Cor. posteriori parte Thâ—fi 5. Rungius Professour in the Vniuersity of Wittemberg b In epitom Colloq Montisbelgar p. 47. 6â— Iacoâ—â— Andraeas c In disput 17. pro sanctissimo libro Concord disput 10. p. 650. Gesnerus Professour in Wâ—tâ—mberg and diuers other learned followers of Luther all maintayning 〈◊〉 vncertainty of Saluation we 〈◊〉 Mclancthon thus expresly to 〈◊〉 â—o d Melanctâ— in Concil Theolog. pag. 112. Excidunt homines à gratia c. Men do fall from Grace and do loose their iustifying grace c. In like sort e In the harmony of Confâ—ssions in English pag. â—24 the Confession of Auspurg condemneth the doctrine of Certainty of Saluation for Anabaptisme And accordingly f In his Disputat Theolog. p. 317. 318. Loâ—echius Doctor and Professour in the Vniuersity of Restocke defendeth our doctrine heerein and he alleadgeth in proofe thereof the Confession of Augusta and diuers Texts of Scripture charging the defendours of the contrary doctrine with Anabapticticall Errour In like sort Kempnitius writeth thus of this point g Kâ—mpnit in his Exâ—m Concil Trident. printed aâ—no 1578. part 2. p. 193. vide part â— pag 19â— True liuely iustifying fayth may be lost and the party made guilty of eternall damnation Finally not to charge your memory with a surplusage of the learned Protestants iudgment heerein the Protestant Diuines of Saxony do in their publike Confession thus teach h In the Harmony oâ— confessions in English p. 80. p. â—33 It is manifest that who are regenerate c. are agayne reiected by God â—nd made subiect to eternall punishment And further i Harmony c. p. 195. Iustification and regeneration may be shaken of and we lose eternall â—â—fe Thus much touching the most learâ—ed Protestants in this matter of Vncerâ—â—ty of Election and Predestination Enthusiastus Indeed I rest halfe amazed at the pregnant Testimonies of so many oâ— our owne learned Brethren in defencâ— of this your doctrine and I freely confesse I would neuer haue belieued that so many of them and of such eminency had with so strong an endeauoâ—â— maintayned the same but that I fyâ—â— you so punctuall and precise in alleadging their owne cleare wordes in 〈◊〉 halfe thereof But I pray
â—f him since in this later sense God â—â—ould be the cause and Authour of his â—â—ckednes whereas his wickednes is â—â—om himselfe And so if he be wicked â—â—en God ordayneth him to the day of Euill that is to the day of punishment â—nd this he doth for himselfe that is for 〈◊〉 owne glory The lyke saying by Anaâ—â—gy may be vsed of Princes who may 〈◊〉 a restrayned sense be sayd to orâ—aine Malefactours to punishments 〈◊〉 yet the Princes are neither willing â—or Authours of their Subiects offeÌ„ces This our exposition of the former place 〈◊〉 so naturall and genuine as that it is acknowledged for true by g In his Decads in English p. 404. Builinger h In Method Theolog. pag. 438. Hiperius and Philp i â—n his disput Theolog. de Prouidenâ—ia 〈◊〉 sect 1â—7 Marbachius all learned Protestants Enthusiastus What Answere Arminius can be giuen to that at least seeming pregnaÌ„t Text k Rom. 9. Hath not the Potter * M. Willeâ— iâ— Synops 554. power ouer the clay euen of the same lumpe to make one vessell vnto honour and another vnto dishonour What if God witâ—ing to shew his wrath c. suffered with long patience the vessels of wrath ordayned to 〈…〉 Now this place seemeth to â—â—ict 〈◊〉 God euen without any prouisioÌ„ 〈…〉 ordaineth some men being 〈◊〉 the Masse or Lumpe of mankind 〈◊〉 damnation Arminius I will be partly silent herein Aâ—stin with some learned Brethren of 〈◊〉 owne the Apostle himselfe shall 〈◊〉 were thereto for me And first I 〈◊〉 Austin to paraphrase this Text in 〈◊〉 wordes l Epist 10â— ad Paulinum epist 105. ad Sixtum Haec Massa c. Yf this 〈◊〉 he meaning the Masse or Lumpâ—â— whereof the Apostle speaketh were 〈◊〉 indifferent that as it deserued no good 〈◊〉 so it deserued no Euill not without cause iâ— might be thought iniquity that thereof there should be made certaine vessels to dishonour But seeing that by the Freewill of the first man the whole Masse did become guilty of Condemnation it is without doubt of Gods mercy that thereof are made certainâ— Vâ—â—sels to honour c. and of his Iudgâ—â—â—â— meaning his Iustice that other 〈◊〉 are made to dishonour Thus far Austin According to whose iudgment we 〈◊〉 that it is not Gods absolute 〈◊〉 without respect to mans wickednes â—râ—seene but it is Sinne which is the â—â—use why some vessels are made to â—â—â—honour or damnation Now Hyperius a learned Proteâ—â—ant shall further answere for me â—ho sayth That m In Method Theolog. l. 2. pag. 438. the long patience mentioned in the Text wherewith God suffred the Vessels of wrath demonstrateth that they were created good and afterward 〈◊〉 came euill of their proper will They being â—ade vessels of wrath because voluntarily they were to become Euill Thus Hiperius So certaine it is that their Creation of being Vessels was of God but being Vessels of wrath was from their sinnes foreseene I will conclude this point euen with the Apostles explanation of this place who expressely sayth That n 2. Tim. if a Vessel vnto dishonour shall cleanse it selfe it shall become a Vessel vnto Honour So far was the Apostle from iudging that God did absolutely ordayne any man to destruction and damnation without respect and reference to his Sinnes and Impiety Thus farre of this place illustrated by the Apostle Austin and the former learned Protestant And for the closure of all I will aâ—lâ—yne to 〈◊〉 Authorities my owne Obseru◠〈◊〉 touching our Aduersarius in this Câ—â—trouersy their traÌ„slating out of 〈◊〉 for their owne aduantage these worâ— Ordayned to destruction whereas it 〈◊〉 the Greeke only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Made apt to destruction And â—ccording hereto it is in the Latin Tâ—â— Apta ad interitum Enthusiastus I cannot nor will not reply again the Apostles iudgement herein But yâ—â— there remayne behind diuers 〈◊〉 passages of Scripture as I may tearâ—â— them that a man can hardly fall vpâ—â— them without danger As where wâ— read o Act. 1â— As many as were ordayned to â—ternall life belieued implying hereby 〈◊〉 the restraint of the former words that some were ordained to destruction Arminius This Argument may be takâ—â— away seuerall wayes First because 〈◊〉 speaketh only of the Predestinate 〈◊〉 touching at least in words the Repâ—â—â—bate Secondly that admitting the â—ords of the Text were by sequele to â—oncerne the Reprobate yet they prooue â—ot which is only the issuable point in â—his controuersy to be proued a reall Reprobation or ordaining to damnation without respect of Sinne foreseene but only a not ordayning to Mercy or a dust dereliction of the wicked for their owne Sinnes Thirdly and lastly I say That wheras these former wordes are deliuered by S. Luke withall whereas our Aduersaries Inference heer is That those who did not then belieue were ordayned to damnation now to dreame that the opinion of our Aduersaries should be the true meaning of S. Luke is I will not say improbable but most absurd My reason is this The Text there sheweth that p Act. 13. The whole Citty came togeather to heare viz that Sermon By which words it appeareth that this assembly consisted of all sorts of persons â—s yong old women men c. Now who is so stupid as to thinke that of all that great concourse they only were saued who at that tyme were conuerâ—ed by that Sermon For shall we think that all the rest of that assembly 〈◊〉 Reprobates and could not after be 〈◊〉 to the fayth of Christ So 〈…〉 you see Enthusiastus in a â—â—â—trutination of the wordes this 〈◊〉 alleadged But proceed further For â— assure myself I shall not meet in all this discourse with any one Text which will force my vnderstanding much lesse necessarily euict the point questioned Enthusiastus I take your Answere as partly â—â—tisfying but because there are some fâ—â— Texts behind which by my neere â—â—tercourse among my Brethren I 〈◊〉 heard them produced by them with great confidence in proofe of Repâ—â—bation Therfore I am loath to 〈◊〉 them ouer in silence without hearing from your selfe what Constructioâ—â— you and your party doe giue of them The next therefore shall be 〈◊〉 passage which my Brethren haue 〈◊〉 vanting wordes euer much prysed 〈◊〉 therfore I should be the more willing to receaue a sufficient and irrepliâ—â—â—â— answere therto The Tâ—â—â— iâ— this q Rom. ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serue the yonger I loued Iacob 〈◊〉 hated Esau From which wordes 〈◊〉 inferre that God euen from his â—â—others wombe hated Esau and thereâ—â—re without regard of his euill workes â—â—d reprobate him Arminius Indeed this is the Maister-peece in all your shopps But I hope Enthus shall be able to giue you full satisfaâ—tion herein wherby you may partly â—esemble this passage to lightning and thunder which are fearefull to the eye â—nd do but seldome hurt And first I â—ay that if there were no other Answere then
deformity in them is ascriâ—â—â—â— to God as the Authour thereof And 〈◊〉 b Swingl vbi supra The Theefe coactus est ad 〈◊〉 is forced to sinne And another 〈◊〉 c Beza in his foresaid display pag. 202. God exciteth the wicked will of 〈◊〉 Theâ—fe to kill another Where you see againe that the wickednes of the Will is â—â—â—ributed to God And a third sayth to â—â—mit diuers others that d Calu. Instit l. 1. c. 18. sect 2 Our sinnes 〈◊〉 not onâ—y by Gods permission but by his decree and will He so attributing both what is Materiall and the Deformity in euery Sinne to the decree and will of God and consequently maketh God the Authour thereof Add hereto That whereas diuers of our Aduersaries do maintayne that to deliuer it in their owne words * Calu. l. 3. c. â—3 sect 6. And by M. Perkins in his Treatise of Gods free grace pag. 148. Whatsoeuer thing God doth foresee the same he doth will decree and ordayne to be done so confounding his foreknowledge and prescience with his Predestination and Decree a point aboue reâ—â—â—ted Now I conclude from these mens doctrine that God is the Authour aswell of the Deformity and Sinne in euery wicked action as of what is Materiall and Positiue therin seeing he aswell foreknoweth the one as the other Now touching the other two â—â—â—ners of reconciling the former 〈◊〉 if so we but truly consider what 〈◊〉 the touch of the point herein the 〈◊〉 of those Answeres will instantly likâ— a clowd before the Sunne vanisâ— â—way Since thoâ—e euasions shew That God is not Authour of Sinne in himselfe which all men freely grant but they proue not that God is not the Aâ—thour of Sinne in vs for this they touch not at all which is the difficulty only heere to be salued and in which thâ—â— Controuersy consisteth But I will conclude this point and to shew how inexplicable or rather contradictory in it selfe it is to maintaine that God forceth causeth Sinne in man and yet is not the Authour thereof Caluin shall speake for me who is constrayned thus to acknowledgâ— hereof e De aeterna Dei praedest contra â—ighium pag. â—18 How God is not to be drawne into the fellowship of fault as being the Authour or allower of Transgression let vs not be ashamed to confesse our ignorance seeing it is playne that it is a secret far aboue manâ— vnderstanding And now hauing spoken what I hould conuenient to be said touching this foule aspersion of God being the â—uthour of Sinne how truly or vntruly 〈◊〉 against some of our owne Breâ—hren the Protestants I leaue to other 〈◊〉 indifferency and impartiality to â—ensure I would Enthusiastus know whether you haue finished your discourse in your obiecting or that you will draw other Arguments eyther froÌ„ the Authority of the Auncient Doâ—â—ours of Christ his Church or from any other Head of proofes For I am â—oath to encircle and confine your liberty within a lesser compasse then â—our selfâ— would desire Enthusiastus Indeed Arminius it may be that I could produce some appearing Arguments eyther from reason or Authority of the Primitiue Doctours which 〈◊〉 an vndiscerning eye might at the first perhaps seeme of some force but seeing I cannot fynd any one Text in Gods Holy word to fortify the doctrine of Reprobation if your former Answeres to them be true and solid therfore I must needs conclude that all such other Arguments which might be produced would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then those 〈◊〉 drawne from 〈◊〉 Writ In respect whereof I â—eer 〈◊〉 from fâ—r 〈◊〉 obieâ—â—ing the burden 〈◊〉 which labourâ—s passed vpon you Arminius I accept of the paine â— most will 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 will still perseueâ—d in my 〈…〉 thoâ— of 〈◊〉 by degrâ—â—â— to the 〈◊〉 Scripture Therefore my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authorities is taken 〈◊〉 the Prâ—â—â—stants themselues 〈◊〉 of great â—â—â—â—nency for learning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 second and more serious reuiew 〈◊〉 a great auersion of iudgment do whoâ—ly disauâ—â—â— and reiect thâ—â— Doctrine 〈◊〉 Reprobation as most 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Honour and Mercy The Protestants in so great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full in this poyâ—t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for orders sake I will alledg◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with vs in this doctrine 〈◊〉 as â—â—â—â—ching the Caluinists I will begin 〈◊〉 with the Caluinists of Englaâ—â— youâ— Country men First I 〈◊〉 M. 〈◊〉 thus waiting f In Apocalyps pag. 473. Seeing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redemption which taketh away the Sinnâ—s the world is an vniuersall thing it is deâ—anded whether the grace of this Redemâ—â—ion â—â— appertayne equally to all the posteâ—â—ty of Adam or be restrayned to a certaine â—umbers I answere that the incredulity of â—en and â—â— default of the Lambe maketh â—â—is restraint Thus M. Fox D. Couell thus teacheth g In his defence of M. Hooker p. â—â— 63. Surely 〈◊〉 hath a generall inclination to saue all c. And that with a conditionall Will he â—illeth all men to be saued who therefore â—â—at they are not saued is not his decree â—â—t their owne fault M. Hooker is no â—â—sse strong in this doctrine saying h In hiâ— Ecclesiast Policy p. 104. â—ods generall inclination is that all men â—ight be saued M. Gibbons discourseth â—ereof in this sort i M. Gibb in his quest disputat vpon Genes quaest 2. pag. 108. Surely there was no â—â—use in God either in his will or in his knowledge or decree that man should fall That the doctrine of Vniuersality â—f Grace which importeth that God afâ—â—ardeth to euery man sufficient Grace â—or his owne Saluation is entertayned â—y diuers worthy men of your owne â—â—â—lation Enthusiastus is so euident that 〈◊〉 Willet taketh notice complaineth thereof in this manner k D. Willet in his Synops pa. 784. Vniuersality â—â— grace seemeth much to be approued by 〈◊〉 Country men and hath 〈◊〉 gotten some â—airoâ—es in our Church But to come to the iudgment 〈◊〉 the learned Coluinicts of other Countries Hemingiâ—s that learned Caluiniâ—â—â— disâ—oursâ—th of Reprobation maintaynâ—â— by his Aduersaries in this full man 〈◊〉 l Heming lib. de Vniuersali gratis pag. â—â—â— Pugnat cum verbo Deivocanti c. Thâ—â— Doctrine fighteth with the Word of God calling and inuiting all men to repentanâ—â— It maketh man partly sluggish partly secure and partly desperate For many are 〈◊〉 to despayre whiles by this opinion is â—uerthrowne the doctrine of Vniuersall Grace in which all are commanded by fayth to include themselues For if we respect 〈◊〉 Cause which is the Mercy of God in Christâ— Grace is truly Vniuersall But if we respect the euent which dependeth vpon the fault of man it is particular Thus largly he disputeth hereof Bullinger as fully intreateth of this point saying m Vpon the Reuelat englished cap 5. fol. 79. The Lord dyed for 〈◊〉 but that all men are not made partakers of this Redemption is through their