The Riches of Gods Love, Part 1 · Treatise · Discourse · Part 1 · Section 1

The Riches of Gods Love · Part 1 · Treatise · Discourse · Part 1 · Section 1

p. 40DISCOURSE. SECT. I.

THe Reaſons of the firſt ſort are theſe foure which follow.

1. The Novelty of it. I can not find abſolute and inevitable reprobation to have any footing in Antiquity. The upper way was never taught or approved by any of the Fathers The firſt Motive.(even the ſtoureſt defenders of grace among them againſt the Pelagians) for the ſpace of 600 years after Chriſt: nor the Lower way till the time of S. Auſtin, which was above 400 years after him.

They did all generally agree upon the contrary Concluſion, and taught men in their times, That it was poſſible for them to be ſaved, which in the event were not ſaved, and to have repented which repented not, and that there was no decree of God, which did lay a neceſſity of periſhing upon any ſonne of Adam.

This that I ſay M. Calvin himſelfe doth ingeniouſly acknowledge, ſpeaking of election, and reprobation, according to Gods foreknowledge, Ne que haec vulgo recepta opinio ſolius vulgi eſt, habuit enim ſaeculis Lib. 3. Inſtit. c. 22. ſect. 1.omnibu magnes Authores; The Opinion of a conditionall decree hath had great Authors in all ages.

Reverend Beza ſpeaking likewiſe of the ſame opinion, ſpeaks to the ſame effect in theſe words; In quem errorem ſanè turpiſſimum. Origenes Veteres pleroſ que tum Graecos, tum Latinos adegit, Into which moſt Beza in Rom. 11. v. 37. Proſper in epiſt. ad Auguſt.Rom 11:37foule errour Origen drew many of the Ancients both Greeks and Latines. But Proſper amongſt the reſt S. Auſtins Scholler doth very cleerly witneſſe it, Pen è omnium (ſaith he) parem inveniri & unam ſententiam qua propoſitum eſt, Praedeſtinationem Dei ſecundum praeſcientiam receperunt, ut ob hoc Deus alia vaſa contumeliae; alios honor is vaſa fecerit, quia finem uniuſcujuſ que praeviderit, & ſub ipſo gratiae adjutorio in qua futurus eſſet voluntate & actione praeſcierit. All did grant with one conſent, that God decreed mens ends according to his foreſight of their actions, not otherwiſe.

To theſe Teſtimonies let me adde two or three particular inſtances for the farther clearing of the newneſſe of it.

Minutius Faelix brings in the Pagans objecting to the Chriſtians, that they hold an inevitable event of things, and did feigne and frame to themſelves an unjuſt God, who did puniſh in men their unavoidable deſtinies, and not their ill choyces in theſe words. Quicquid agitis ut alii Fato, ita vos Deo additis: Iniquum igitur Deum fingitis, qui ſortem in hominibus puniat, non voluntatem. The objection he thus anſwers. Illud Fatum eſt quod de unoquo que Deus fatus eſt. Chriſtians hold no other Fates then Gods decrees, Qui cum univerſam praeſcit materiam pro meritis & qualitatibus ſingulorum etiam fata determinat; & ita in nobis non genitura plectitur, ſed ingenii natura punitur. God that foreknew all men and their actions did accordingly determine their retributions.

S. Hierome an eager oppoſer of the Pelagians in many places of his writings hath the ſame thing: Ex praeſcientiâ dei evenit ut quem juſtum futurum ſcit prius diligat quam oriatur ex utero & quem peccatorem Hier. ad Gal. cap. 1. 15. Idem ad cap. 1 Mal. Id. lib. 3. contr. Pelag.Gal 1:15aderit antequam peccet. To the ſame purpoſe he ſpeaks in another place, Dilectio & Odium Dei vel ex praeſcientiâ naſcitur futurorum, vel ex operibus, alioqui novimus quod omnia Deus diligat, nec quicquam eorum oderit, quae creavit. And in his Book againſt Pelagius he ſaith, Elegit Deus quem bonum cernit. The ſumme of all which ſpeaks is but this, that there is no decree of damning or of ſaving men, but what is built upon Gods foreknowledge of the evill and good actions of men.

p. 41I will ſhut up my inſtances with the judgement of the Councell of Arles againſt the Pelagians in Synod. Arelat. 3a. contra Lucedum. Bin. Tom. 2. part. 2. fol. 639.the yeare 490. or thereabout. This Councell ſubſcribed to the Letter which was written by Fauſtus againſt Lucidus the Praedeſtinarian, and made the Anathema's and curſes which he therein denounceth againſt him and ſuch like, to be their own; ſome of which were theſe, Anathema illi qui dixerit, illum qui peri it non accepiſſe ut ſalvus eſſe poſſit, and againe, Anathema illi qui dixerit, quòd vas contumliae non poſſit aſſurgere ut ſit vas in honerem.

By this and the like ſpeeches which I have met with in the Ancients being convinced, that the doctrine of abſolute reprobation (and election too) was unknown unto them, I begin to call it into queſtion. For albeit I make not the deciſions and determinations of the Fathers or Councells the rules of my Faith (becauſe they are but men and therefore ſubject unto errour) yet I honour their gray haires, and their grave aſſemblies, and doe vehemently miſtruſt thoſe doctrines which they never approved or taught, but diſliked and condemned.

TWISSE Conſideration.

AS touching the pretence of Antiquity; I find many are very apt to make plauſible uſe of this, when either indeed, or at leaſt in their imagination, it ſeems to ſerve their turnes. And becauſe I am put upon it, I will ſpeak ſomewhat of it in generall, and then proceed to conſider it as it is appyable to the preſent occaſion.

As concerning the firſt, I find no ſmall equivocation in the word Ancient: For if we compare an ancient man with a younger, in all probability the ancient is likely to be more wiſe then the other; becauſe he hath more experience, by reaſon of the length of his daies, according to that of Job. 12. 12. Amongſt the ancient is wiſdome, and in length of daies is underſtanding. But this holds not of that which is ancient, as it ſignifies that which goes before another. For it is well known, that youth goeth before old age; yet no man will ſay, that the opinions of men in their youth, are more likely to be ſound, then the opinions of riper age. Neither doth any man call or account youth Antiquity. Yet our Fathers we call our Ancients, becauſe they have gone before us, but little reaſon there is in my judgement, to count their faith the more ſound by reaſon of ſuch Antiquity; no more then why the opinions of man in his youth, ſhould be reputed more ſound, then the opinions of his age. For as there is a youth in man; ſo there is to be acknowledged a youth of the world; and ſo likewiſe of the Chriſtian World, even of the Church of God. The Holy Ghoſt ſpeaks in this language. For even they who were the great Anceſtors of the Jews in the daies of Jeremy, are called the youth of Iſraell, as the youth of Gods Church. Jerem. 2. 2. I remember thee with the kindneſſe of thy youth, and the love of thy marriage, when thou wentſt after me in the wilderneſſe, in a land that was not ſowen. Iſrael was as a thing hallowed unto the Lord, &c Ezech. 16. 60. I will remember my Covenant made with thee in the daies of thy youth. In like ſort the Ancients counting them immediately from the Apoſtles daies, are the very youth of the Church Chriſtian. Now like as it is not to be exſpected that a man ſhould have as great perfection of knowledge in his youth, as in his age; ſo neither is it to be ſuppoſed, that the Church of Chriſt ſhould have as great perfection of knowledge in her youth as in her age. This is to be underſtood caeteris paribus; otherwiſe there lies a double exception againſt it: the One in the way of Gods extraordinary mercy, the Other in the way of Gods extraordinary judgement. For God may extraordinarily inſpire a young man with the ſpirit of Prophecy, and ſo make him wiſer then the aged. Such was the condition of Gods exuberant grace in the daies of the Apoſtles, enduing them with power from on high, not only to inſtruct them with all ſpirituall wiſdome and underſtanding in the myſteries of the Goſpell, but enabling them alſo to expreſſe it in diverſe languages, that ſo they might be able Miniſters of Chriſt, to carry the glad tidings of ſalvation over all the World. On the other ſide, the ſinnes of the Chriſtian world not embracing Gods Truth with p. 42love, may deſerve at the hands of God, that he ſhould give them over to illuſions to believe lies. Then no marvaile if our former light ſet in obſcure darkneſſe, and degenerate daies come in place of better and more noble times; which may more eaſily come to paſſe, conſidering that the light of the Goſpell is a ſpirituall light of faith, no naturall light of reaſon; though even this naturall light of reaſon comes to be amended and perfected by that light of grace.

But it may be ſaid, that They who lived neer the Apoſtles daies, are like to be better acquainted with the truth of God then wee. I have found ſome to pleaſe themſelves in this conceit, and it runns ſmooth and glibb, and it ſeems very plauſible to winne approbation. But as Auſtin ſaith of ſome things, that acutule ſonant, but diſcuſſa reperiuntur obtuſa: ſo many times it falls out, that reaſons plauſible at firſt, when exploration comes, prove very unſound; like the fruit Solinus writes of, which grew about Sodome, Faire to the eye, but being cruſhed in cineres abeunt & vanam fuliginem. And for the diſcovering of the emptineſſe of this reaſon, I proceed thus.

When you ſay of thoſe Ancients, that they were neer to the Apoſtles. I demand whether the meaning be, they were neer to the times of the Apoſtles, or neer to the Perſons of the Apoſtles, or neer to the word of the Apoſtles. The former two, doe nothing at all conduce to the perfection of Chriſtian knowledge, or ſoundneſſe of faith. For certainly both Jews and Heathens profeſſed enemies to the croſſe of Chriſt were as neer to their Times and Perſons as believing Chriſtians, but they were not ſo familiarly acquainted with their word. But as touching familiar acquaintance with the word of the Apoſtles; as alſo the embracing of it by faith: Nothing I truſt hindereth us from being as neer to the Apoſtles, as the Ancients were. Nay it is well known, that as touching divers peeces of the books of the New Teſtament, we receive them for Canonicall, which many of the Ancients doubted of. And as touching divers books concerning the times of the Old Teſtament, they are diſcovered unto us to be Apocryphall, which to many of the Ancients were not.

But it may be ſaid, that theſe Ancients to whom they pretend ſo much reverence (which indeed is but reverence to themſelves, and to ſerve their own turnes) were ſo neer to the Apoſtles, that they not only were partakers of their writings, but of their Preaching alſo by word of mouth? To this I anſwer.

1. That it is a very rare thing to meet with any ſuch now adaies, unleſſe it be ſome counterfeit Author: neither doe I find any ſuch alleadged by any, leaſt of all by any Arminian, who yet upon my knowledge doe diſcourſe after this manner, as touching their neerneſſe to the Apoſtles.

2. But ſuppoſe there were any ſuch, and they ſhould tell us what they heard preached by the Apoſtles, ſhall we take their relations for Oracles, and make the word of God to conſiſt, partly of that which is written by them, and partly of that which is not written, but delivered by word of mouth, and commended unto us by tradition? Then farewell the doctrine of Proteſtants concerning the rule of faith, that it is only the written-word; and let us with the Papiſts, joyne thereunto traditions to make up a compleat Rule of Faith.

It may be farther ſaid, that by reaſon of their neerneſſe to the Apoſtles, they may be better acquainted with the meaning of the word written.

To which I anſwer; if ſo, then either from the Apoſtles own mouthes, or by relation from others. Of any that report what they heard from the Apoſtles own mouths, they alleadge none. If they did, what were this other then to bring in Tradition to be a Rule, if not of faith, yet of interpretation of Gods word, which is as foule every way as the former, conſidering that ſoundneſſe of faith, is grounded upon the ſoundneſſe of interpretation of Gods word. If only by relation from others, the ſame exceptions lye againſt this and over and above, this muſt be of ſomewhat farre leſſe authority then the former: it being ſo difficult a matter to report from another without adding ſomewhat of his own, whether it be much or little, as Chaucer ſpeaketh.

Laſtly, let the Commentaries of theſe daies, be compared with the Commentaries of the Ancients, and let the indifferent reader judge, which of them are moſt true, moſt learned, moſt ſubſtantiall. So that I ſuppoſe, I may be bold to conclude, that this reaſon drawn from the neerneſſe of the Ancients to the Apoſtles, how plauſible ſoever it ſeems at firſt ſight, yet indeed is of no force.

Now to the contrary we have theſe reaſons.

p. 431. Like as it is fit every man ſhould profit in the knowledge of God more and more, as long as he lives: ſo in all likelihood, the Chriſtian world doth profit more and more, as they draw neerer to the end of the world, excepting thoſe times of Gods judgements in giving the world over to illuſions to believe lies. Auſtin did profit, as in other points of Chriſtian knowledge, ſo in this as concerning Predeſtination, and blames the Maſſilienſes for not profiting with him. De Praedeſtin. lib. 1. cap. 4. Videtis quid tunc de fidei & operibus ſentiebam, quamvis de commendandâ dei gratiâ labor arem; In qua ſententia iſtos fratres nostros eſſe nunc video: quia non ficut legere libros meos, ita curaverunt proficere mecum.

2. We have more means and helps for our furtherance in Chriſtian knowledge, then they had, and that in divers reſpects. Firſt, becauſe we enjoy their labours, they enjoyed not ours, nor the like before them. So that by the reading of their writings we ſoon attain to that knowledge which they had, they communicating it unto us; and it were very ſtrange we ſhould adde nothing thereunto; eſpecially conſidering that Veritas was wont to be accounted temporis filia: and Ariſtotle accounts it an eaſy thing to adde; Any man ſaith he may doe that, foreign, and thus, ſaith he, Arts come to their perfection foreign. A tall man is able to diſcover much farther then a Dwarfe, but let a Dwarfe be advanced upon the ſhoulders of that tall man, and he will diſcover much farther then he. Let then thoſe Antients goe for tall fellowes in the diſcovery of Chriſtian truth, let the Divines of moderne ages be but Dwarfes, as the Children of Iſrael ſeemed to be, but Grashoppers in compariſon of the Canaanites, eſpecially to the ſonnes of Anack; yet if by their pious labours and induſtries, which they have with much ingenuity communicated unto us, they ſuffer us to get upon their ſhoulders, ſhall not we though Dwarfes, be enabled hereby to diſcover ſomewhat more then they? The Eagle is a fowle of great ſtrength and ſoareth high, the higheſt of all Kites and Haukes, yet let her carry a Wren along with her on her ſhoulders in her aëriall aſcentions, when ſhe is weary and can fly no higher, can it ſeem ſtrange, if the Wren carried thus high by this Anakim of fowles, preſumes of her own ſtrengh to fly a little higher then ſhe? or is this any glory to the Wren, or diſparagement to the Eagle?

2. Secondly Have not we better helpes of Art then they, eſpecially as touching the knowledge of the Tongues, and Logicall reſolutions of the Text. The Latine Fathers moſt of them were little acquainted with the Greek; neither Latine nor Greek Fathers were uſually much acquainted with the Hebrew: Origen amongſt the Greek, and Hierom amongſt the Latine, had not their fellows for this.

3. Laſtly, the Ancients in their daies were not ſo put unto it as the latter; Nothing did more quicken them, or doth us, then contentions with Heretiques. And therefore look how they were exerciſed with Hereſies, ſo it is to be expected they were beſt ſeen in thoſe Articles of Faith, which were moſt ſhaken by Heretiques. This both Auſtin and Gregory take notice of; and Auſtin is moſt frequent herein, ſome paſſages to this purpoſe I ſhall relate hereafter. Now before Pelagius his daies, the Fathers were much exerciſed in oppoſing the Manichees, and accordingly gave themſelves to the maintenance of Free-will, as Aniarius obſerves by the relation of Sixtus Senenſis. But Pelagius was the firſt that oppoſed Gods grace; and therefore thoſe Bibl. l. 5. annot. 101.Fathers that contended with him, gave themſelves chiefely to the maintenance of Gods grace.

And now am I come to the treating of Ancients no longer in generall, but in a ſpeciall reference to the doctrine of predeſtination. Now herein the Papiſts themſelves (who in other points labour to beat us down with nothing ſo much as with the noiſe of Antiquity) are willing to confeſſe that in the point of grace and predeſtination we need not trouble our ſelves, with inquiry after the doctrine of the Ancients before Pelagius roſe, and that upon the ground before mentioned, to wit, becauſe they were nothing exerciſed hereabouts. As for example Bellarmine, De Grat. & lib. Arbitr. lib. 1. c. 14. having propoſed diverſe paſſages of the Fathers favouring, as it ſeemed, the doctrine wherewith Pelagius troubled the peace of Gods Church, makes Auſtin to anſwer for him, Veteres Patres qui ante Pelagium floruerunt, quaeſtionem iſtam nunquam accuratè tractaſſe, ſed incidentèr ſolum, & quaſi per tranſitum illam attigiſſe. Addit verò (ſaith Bellarmine) in fundamento hujus ſententiae, quod eſt, Gratiam Dei non praevenire ab ullo opere noſtro, ſed contrà ab illâ omnia opera noſtra praeveniri, ita ut nihil omnino boni quod attinet ad ſalutem ſit in nobis, quod non ſit nobis ex Deo, convenire Catholicos omnes & ibidem citat Cyprianum, Ambroſiſium p. 44& Nazianzenum: yet he takes a courſe to reconcile them to the truth; ſo doth Sixtus Senenſis Bibl. Sanct. lib. 6. Annota. 251. ſo doth Alvarez. de Auxil. lib. 5. diſp. 37.

Again conſider. The decrees of predeſtination and reprobation are ſecret, neither doe they appeare of what condition they are, but by the manner of their executions. Now their executions doe conſiſt partly in beſtowing ſalvation on ſome, and inflicting damnation on others; partly in beſtowing the grace of faith and repentance on ſome, and denying it unto others. As touching ſalvation and damnation we willingly profeſſe, that the ſalvation of men of ripe years, doth alwaies preſuppoſe Faith and perſeverance therein; and the damnation of others doth alwaies preſuppoſe finall perſeverance in ſinne unrepented of. But we deny that herehence it followeth, that either faith precedes the decree of ſalvation, or ſinne precedes the decree of damnation, or the preſcience of either. That faith cannot precede election, nor ſinne reprobation, is evident; For as much as election and reprobation are eternall, but faith and ſinne are things temporall: but that wich is temporall cannot precede that which is eternall. Neither doth it follow, that becauſe faith precedes ſalvation, therefore faith precedes the decree of ſalvation. For it is faith exiſtent in time that precedes ſalvation; but no Divine will ſay that faith exiſtent in time, precedes Gods decree of ſalvation, unleſſe it be ſome ſuch as maintaine with Vorſtius, that Gods decrees are not eternall. In like ſort, it is ſinne exiſtent in time, that precedes damnation; but no wiſe Divine will ſay, that ſinne exiſtent in time precedes Gods decree of damnation; the former being a thing temporall but this decree eternall. Laſtly, neither will it follow that becauſe faith precedes ſalvation and ſinne damnation, therefore the foreſight of faith, is antecedanious to the decree of ſalvation, and the foreſight of ſinne is antecedent to the decree of damnation. For no Enthymeme of this nature is ſound, but ſo farre forth as it is reducible into a good Categorical Syllogiſme, whereof theſe Enthymems are uncapable. For Enthymems reducible unto good Syllogiſmes muſt agree, either in their Subjects or in their Predicates, but theſe doe not. Again all the termes in a good Enthymeme muſt be expreſſed in that Syllogiſme whereunto it is reduced▪ But each of theſe Enthymemes conſiſteth manifeſtly of four termes; as in the firſt, the…e, Faith, and the Foreſight of faith, Salvation and the Decree of ſalvation; Of the ſecond, theſe, Sinne, and Foreſight of ſinne, Damnation and the Decree of damnation; and conſequently that Syllogiſme whereunto either of theſe quaternary of termes is clap'd, cannot be good; For no Categoricall Syllogiſme is good that conſiſteth of foure termes. As for the reducing of them into a Syllogiſme Hypotheticall, ſuch Reductions were never heard of in the Schooles of the learned and that for juſt reaſon; becauſe that is no courſe to juſtify the ſoundneſſe of the Enthymemes, but a meer begging of that which is in queſtion. As in caſe a man ſhould reduce it thus; If faith be precedanious to ſalvation, then the foreſight of faith is precedanious to the decree of ſalvation; But faith is precedanious to ſalvation, Therefore it is precedanious to the decree of ſalvation. In this Hypotheticall Syllogiſme, the conſequence of the Major is the very Enthymeme which is in queſtion, for the ſubſtance of it and conſequently no proving of it, but a meere begging of it. Yet notwithſtanding we doe not deny, but that God did decree that no man ſhould be ſaved, but ſuch as being of ripe years, ſhould be found to perſevere in faith unto death none ſhould be damned, but ſuch as ſhould be found finally to perſevere in ſinne. The other execution of theſe decrees conſiſts (as I ſaid) in the beſtowing of the grace of faith and repentance on ſome, and denying it unto others. Now the queſtion is, Whether God be indeed the author of faith and repentance, yea, or no; and becauſe the Arminians dare not profeſſedly deny this. (though lately they are come ſo farre as profeſſedly to deny that Chriſt merited it) therefore let the queſtion proceede about the manner how God beſtowes it, as namely, whether he beſtowes it of his meer pleaſure on ſome, denying it to others, or, Whether the reaſon why God beſtowes it on ſome and not on others, be, becauſe God findes ſome good work in one, which he findes not in another. This queſtion being decided, it will clearly appeare, whether predeſtination proceeds upon the foreſight of ought in man, yea or no. For if God of his meer pleaſure doth beſtow faith on one, and not on another, it followes undeniably, that God predeſtinated him hereunto abſolutely, and of his meer pleaſure, without conſideration of any future work of man. But if God beſtowes faith on man upon conſideration of ſome precedent work of his, which was p. 45not the work of God, then (and not otherwiſe neither) it will follow, that upon the conſideration of that future work of man, God did elect him unto faith, or predeſtinate faith unto him. So that if we deſire ſincerely and ingeniouſly to inquire what was the opinion of the Ancients about the abſoluteneſſe of predeſtination, we ſhould ſtate the queſtion as touching Predeſtination unto faith, and not as touching Predeſtination unto ſalvation. For we all confeſſe that God predeſtinated no man unto ſalvation, but ſuch as he foreſaw, coming unto ripe years, would believe ſooner or later. And therefore the main queſtion between the Remonſtrants and Contraremonſtrants was, whether this decree were the whole decree of Predeſtination, and whether there were not another decree of Predeſtination beſides, as namely, whether God did not decree to beſtow faith on ſome, and deny it unto others. And ſecondly to inquire, Whether this decree of beſtowing faith on ſome, did not proceed according to Gods good pleaſure, without conſideration of any different work in man. And the moſt compendious reſolution hereof, is to inquire of the manner how God carrieth himſelfe in the beſtowing of faith and repentance on ſome, and denying it unto others; as namely, Whether on his meer pleaſure he hath not mercy on ſome, giving them faith and repentance, and of his meer pleaſure, denyes the gift of faith and repentance unto others. Now let the Fathers, (whoſoever thinks good) be admitted to bring in their ſuffrages on this Article, and remember what was decreed in the firſt Synode that was gathered, to make peace in the Church after Pelagius had diſturbed it, namely, Gratiam non dari ſecundum merita, that is, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, Gratiam non dari ſecundum opera. Laſtly, all of us now a daies conſent, as De Grat. & lib. Arbitr. l. 6. c. 5.touching Gods concourſe to the ſubſtance of every act of the creature whether good or evill. Now let this Author or any other, repreſent unto us, what footing he finds in Antiquity concerning this. But I come to anſwer particularly, according to this Authors text.

He cannot find abſolute and inevitable reprobation to have any footing in Antiquity. Belike he can find reprobation evitable; a ſtrange phraiſe either way. Theſe attributes applied to damnation doe carry a faire ſenſe with them, damnation being a work of God wrought in time, and undoubtedly may be avoided, may be incurred for the time to come. But reprobation is eternall as God himſelfe, and how that ſhould be fancied to be of an avoidable condition for the time to come, I cannot comprehend, unleſſe this Author be of their opinion, who deſire to ſhape Gods decrees of a revocable nature, as being both to impute unto him an impotent immutability, as ſome are pleaſed to phraiſe it.

But leave we reprobation unavoidable, take we the abſolute nature of it into conſideration: this he cannot find in all Antiquity. But conſider I pray, he pretends theſe motives, as inducements to change his former opinion: ſo then belike, he ſtood ſometimes for reprobation abſolute; but did he find any footing in Antiquity for it, what time he embraced it? if he did formerly embrace it, notwithſtanding he found no footing in Antiquity for it, why ſhould he now relinquiſh it, for finding no footing in Antiquity for it? Belike the older he waxeth, the more he groweth in love with Antiquity. Again when formerly he did embrace the doctrine of abſolute reprobation, upon what grounds did he embrace it? was it becauſe he was in hope he ſhould hereafter find Antiquity for it? or was it only for the authority of them who brought him up in this opinion? What ſorry grounds are theſe to build a mans faith upon? Yet this is not our courſe to impoſe Articles of faith on any, but rather to endoctrinate them out of the word of God. If then a mans Chriſtian faith be built upon the Word of God, is it a Chriſtian courſe to renounce it, or to queſtion the integrity of it, becauſe he finds no footing in Antiquity for it? What then ſhall become of the faith of Laicks, and ſuch as are unlearned? Muſt the writings of the Fathers be tranſlated into all vulgar Languages, and the unlearned addict themſelves to the ſtudy of them, leaſt otherwiſe their faith prove a wavering faith, for want of finding Antiquity to favour it? Belike the writings of the Prophets and Apoſtles, are no part of Antiquity, in this Authors more mature judgement. But if formerly the doctrine of abſolute reprobation were received upon the evidence of Gods word, as it is fit the faith of every Chriſtian ſhould be grounded thereupon, eſpecially the faith of a Divine called to be a Teacher of others; I ſhould think there were no juſt cauſe of alteration, but upon diſcovery of the errour of thoſe grounds, whereupon formerly it was builded; and the diſcovery hereof alone, were chiefly to the preſent purpoſe, p. 46namely to ſhew juſt cauſe of change of mind, & alteration of judgement, but no ſuch courſe doe I find taken here. Theſe motives and reaſons here propoſed, may carry a ſhew of reaſon, why a man being yet to chuſe his faith in theſe particulars, poſſeſſed with neither way, but indifferent, might preferre one way before another, one opinion before another, but nothing ſufficient to juſtify a change, unleſſe the weakneſſe of former grounds be laid open. For it may be that the former grounds might be ſuch as upon due compariſon would be found to overweigh theſe pretences. For upon view that I have taken of the diſcourſe following, I find not one argument drawn from thoſe places of Scripture that treat of election and reprobation; theſe I find are purpoſely declined as ſo many rocks, as if the Author feared to make ſhipwrack of his errours (pardon my boldneſſe in ſo naming them, Auſtin is my precedent in this ſaying, Hoc ſcio contra istam praedeſtinationem quam ſecundum ſcripturas defendimus, neminem niſi errando diſputare poſſe) but in the mean time while he fears to make ſhipwrack of his errours, let him take heed leaſt he make ſhipwrack of a good conſcience.

But proceed we with him about the inquiry what footing this doctrine finds in Antiquity. Aug. de den. Perſev. c. 19.He ſaith he cannot find it; but it is more then I find that ever he made any convenient ſearch after it, his whole diſcourſe hereupon is of ſo hungry a nature. The abſoluteneſſe of election and reprobation, we conclude in Chriſtian reaſon from Gods abſolute carriage in giving and denying grace, underſtanding thereby the grace of regeneration. Now the abſoluteneſſe herein, as we ſuppoſe, conſiſts in beſtowing this grace on ſome, and denying it to others, according to the meer pleaſure of the Lords will. Now hath not the Apoſtle (more ancient then all the Antiquity he ſpeaketh of) profeſſed in expreſſe termes, that God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth? What need we ſeek farther amongſt the Ancients for the iuſtification Rom. 9. 18.Rom 9:18of this? And that mercy here is meant, ſuch a mercy in beſtowing faith on ſome, which is denied to others, in converting the wills of ſome unto good, when others are not converted, I could prove by variety of places out of Auſtin, whoſe authority in this caſe is farre more worthy, then all the authority this Author produceth. Neither is this the voyce of Auſtin only, but of Ambroſe alſo in that famous ſaying of his Quem vult religioſum, facit, ſo much magnified by Auſtin. And not Ambroſe alone, but Nazianzen De dono Perſev. 19.alſo, and Cyprian are alleaged by him, as concurring with him in the foundation of the doctrine of predeſtination, which he makes to be the freedome of Gods grace in converting whom he will. And which is farre more then this, yea farre more then all that can be produced to the contrary, by the very Prayers of the Church every where in uſe, he iuſtifies the generall concurrence in that which he accounts the foundation of predeſtination. As when their common courſe was to pray unto God, that he would be pleaſed to convert unto the faith of Chriſt the hearts of Heathens; and wherein did this converſion conſiſt, but in giving them faith and repentance: manifeſtly giving us to underſtand thereby, that the whole Catholique Church did concurre in this Article of Faith, that it was in the power of God according to his free grace, to convert whom he would unto the faith of Chriſt, and conſequently not to convert whom he would. For if there were any cauſe on mans part, why he doth not convert ſome converting others, then there were alſo on mans part, a cauſe why God doth convert ſome not converting others, and conſequently grace ſhould be given according unto works, that is in the phraſe of the Ancients, Gratiam dari ſecundum merita (as Bellarmine acknowledgeth) which was ever accounted expreſſe Pelagianiſme, Bellar. de grat. & lib. arbit. l. 6. c. 5.and was as expreſſely condemned in the Councel of Paleſtina above 1200 years agoe, and Pelagius himſelfe was driven to ſubſcribe unto it, by ſhamefull diſſimulation ſo to prevent Anathematization of his own perſon.

But the upper way (ſaith this Author) was never taught or approved by any of the Fathers for 600 years. Here breaks forth another reaſon of this Authors (or his that directed him) cunning carriage in diſtinguiſhing the two waies of our Divines in maintaining the abſoluteneſſe of election and reprobation, to wit, that in the courſe of his diſcourſe he might ſerve his turne with both, and where Antiquity ſerved not his turne againſt the one, yet might it ſerve his turne, as he thought againſt the other. But the truth is, there was no ſuch queſtion at all ventilated in thoſe daies, as touching the obiect of predeſtination, no nor in Auſtins neither, nor many hundred years after, that I know. And no marvell; For it concernes the ordering of Gods decree aright, which is meerly Logicall, as I have ſhewed in my Vind. Grat. Dei. Its true that S^t Auſtin doth uſually accommodate that of S^t Paul, Rom. 9. 21. concerning the Maſſe, unto p. 47mankind conſidered in Maſſa damnata as he commonly calls it, that is, in the corrupt Maſſe; but not alwaies, but ſometimes he ſpeaks of it, and accommodates it cleerely unto the Maſſe of mankind uncorrupt, yea, as yet not created, as there I have ſhewed. And as for the right ordering of Gods decrees, and the right ſtating of the object of predeſtination and reprobation, We deſire no better, nor other ground then that of the Apoſtle, God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth, that is, he cures infidelity and hardnes of heart in whom he will, by beſtowing faith and repentance upon them, and leaves it uncured in whom he will by denying faith and repentance unto them. And as for the rigour of this Tenent (as it is commonly accounted) of making the Maſſe of mankind not created the object of predeſtination, I have already ſhewed the vanity of that conceit and denomination; for as much as hereby neither is the decree of damnation made to precede the conſideration of ſinne, no nor of finall impenitency in any moment of nature, nor in any moment of nature is the decree of ſalvation made by mee, to precede the conſideration of finall perſeverance in faith and repentance. But whereas ſome, who are moſt rigid indeed in their diſcourſe, make the decree of ſaving ſome and damning others to precede the decree of creating and permitting of ſinne both originall and actuall; others who are moſt diſſolute, make the decree of creating and permitting of ſinne, to precede the decree of ſaving ſome and damning others, My Opinion is equally removed from theſe extreames, and conceives none of theſe decrees to be either way ſubordinate, but all coordinate and ſimultaneous, as being decrees only of various means, tending to one and the ſame end; thus God doth decree both to create ſome, and to permit to ſinne, and finally to perſevere therein, and to damne them for their ſinne, to the manifeſtation of his glory in the way of juſtice vindicative. On the other ſide, God doth decree to create others, and permit them to ſinne, and raiſe them out of ſinne by faith and repentance, and reward them with everlaſting life, to the manifeſtation of his glory, in the way of mercy mixed with juſtice.

Farther conſider that as touching predeſtination it ſelfe, there was no queſtion moved thereabouts in the Church of God, before the daies of Pelagius; and what credit can they get, who conſult with them in ſuch points, wherein they were not exerciſed. For we find by experience, that to contend with Heretiques hath been an ordinary means in the courſe of Gods providence, for the more diligent inquiſition after the truth of God and happy diſcovery thereof. Sancta Eccleſia (ſaith Gregory) in Epiſt. lib. 7. epiſt. 3. De don. Perſ. cap. 20.ſuâ ſemper eruditione inſtruitur, dum Haereticorum quaeſtionibus impugnatur. And Auſtin in like manner, Didiſcimus, ſaith he, ſingulas quaſ que Haereſes intuliſſe Eccleſiae proprias quaeſtiones, contra quas diligentius defenderetur ſcriptura divina, quam ſi nulla talis neceſſitas cogeret. And on the other ſide, before queſtion hath been moved on a poynt, the Fathers have delivered themſelves ſomewhat improvidently, whereupon Heretiques have taken advantage to countenance their errours by the writings of the Ancient. This Hierome obſerves in the poynt of Arrianiſme, proving thereby, that the Ancient Apolog: 2. adv. Ruffin.Writers before the Arrian Hereſy aroſe, were no competent judges in that poynt. Si me cauſas vitiorum (ſaith he) in Patrum Scriptis neſcire reſpondero non ſtatim illos Haereticos judicabo. Fieri enim poteſt ut vel ſimpliciter erraverint, vel alio ſenſu ſcripſerint, vel a Librariis imperitis eorum paulatim ſcripta corrupta ſunt, vel certè antequam in Alexandriâ quaſi daemonium Meridianum Arrius naſceretur. Innocenter quaedam & minus cautè locuti ſunt & quae non poſſunt perverſorum hominum calumniam declinare. Marke it well, Before Arrius like a Devill from the South roſe up, the Fathers delivered ſome things innocently, yet leſe warily, and ſuch as cannot avoid the calumny of perverſe perſons. Upon the ſame ground it is, that Auſtin excuſeth Ticonius, and that in Aug. de doctr. Chriſt. l. 3. c. 33.the ſame particular wherein he approached neere to Pelagianiſme, to wit, before the Church of God was acquainted with that Hereſy; his words are theſe, Sed non erat expertus hanc Haereſin Ticonius quae noſtro tempore exorta multum nos, ut gratia Dei quae per Dominum nostrum Jeſum Chriſtum eſt adverſus eos defenderemus, exercuit; & ſecundum id quod ait Apoſtolus, Oportet Haereſes eſſe ut probati manifesti fiant in vobis, multò vigilantiores diligentioreſ que reddidit: ut advérteremus in ſcripturis Sanctis, quod iſtum Ticonium minús attentum, minuſ que ſine hoſte ſollicitum, fugit, etiam ipſam ſcilicet fidem donum illius eſe, qui ejus menſuram unicui que partitur. Ticonius conſidered not that faith it ſelfe is the gift of God, neither was he ſo carefull to look into the truth of this; and why? ſurely becauſe he had no enemy to put him to it, as being not p. 48acquainted with the errour of Pelagius. But this Hereſy, ſaith he, ariſing in our daies, hath put us upon the defence of the grace of God, which is given us through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and hath made us more watchfull and diligent to obſerve, that even faith it ſelfe is his gift, who diſtributes to every one a meaſure thereof. Hence it is that the ſame Auſtin, when Proſper ſignified that thoſe of Marſeiles would reſt contented if he could make good the opinion which he maintained in the point of predeſtination, out of the Writings of the former, and more ancient Divines, returnes for anſwer, that there was no need hereof, conſidering that They living before this Hereſy was known, (to wit, of Pelagius) were not at all put upon the diſcuſſing of this queſtion, which ſurely they would have done, had they been conſtrained Aug. de Praed. ſanct. l. 1. cap. 14.to make anſwer to any ſuch as the Pelagians were. See his own words, Si hujus ſententiae defenſionem ex divinorum eloquiorum nos praecedentibus Catholicis tractatoribus promerem, profectò hi Fratres quibuſcum nos agimus, acquieſcerent. Hoc enim ſignificaſtis Literis veſtris. This was Proſper's motion; now mark Auſtin's anſwer. Quid igitur opus eſt ut eorum ſcrutemur opuſcula, qui priuſquam iſta Haereſis oriretur, non habueruni neceſſitatem in hac difficili ad ſolvendum quaeſtione verſari, quod proculdubio facerent, ſi reſpondere talibus cogerentur. Charity did ſuggeſt unto him, this would have been their courſe, had they been exerciſed with Pelagius, as he was. For it was his own caſe. For there was a time when himſelfe thought that albeit holineſſe and good works conſequent to faith together with ſalvation, were the work of God, yet faith it ſelfe he conceived to be the work of man; to wit, before he was exerciſed with Pelagius as appears, Liber Propoſitionum ex Epiſtolâ and Romanos. Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujus que in praeſcientiâ, ſed fidem elegit in praeſcientiâ, vel quem ſibi crediturum eſſe praeſcivit, ipſum elegit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando eriam vitam aeternam conſequeretur. For he profeſſeth in the words following that he then conceived, Noſtrum eſſe credere, to believe was a work of our own. Afterwards he retracteth this, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 25. profeſſing, I had never ſaid this, had I known faith it ſelfe to be the gift of God, Si ſciviſſem fidem ipſam inter Dei munera quae dantur per Spiritum Sanctum reperiri. Nam quamvis credere & operari utrum que noſtrum ſit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non niſi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrum que Dei donum eſt qui & credere, & velle, & perficere ſubminiſtrat. The Papiſts themſelves, notwithſtanding the great devotion they pretend towards the Ancients, yet are driven to deviſe what may be ſaid to excuſe them; as in the very point of Free-will they deſire to excuſe Chryſoſtome. Sixtus Senenſis, Biblioth…. lib. 5. annotat. 101. Uel dicendum est ſicut etiam Annianus in Praefatione Commentariorum Chryjoſtomi in Math. annotavit Chryſoſtomum interdum naturae noſtrae vires plus aequo extuliſſe ex contentione diſceptandi cum Manichaeis & Gentilibus, qui hominem aſſerebant vel naturâ malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum compelli. Nay what think we of Voſſius himſelfe, from whoſe labours it is, and nothing of their own, that our Arminians would ſeem to breath ſo much Antiquity. This Voſſius profeſſeth, they miſtake him that taketh him to be of any other opinion in the poynt of predeſtination, then Auſtin was of. De Hiſtoricis Lat. lib. 2. cap. 17. Yet doth he acknowledge that Auſtin did reject the opinion of the Ancients both Greeks and Latines who went before him, in the point of predeſtination. Hiſtor. Pelag. pag. 655. Patres Graeci & Latinorum illi qui ante Auguſtinum vixerunt, ipſe que aliquandiu Auguſtinus, verba Apoſtoli interpretari ſolent de electione quorundam ad ſalutem ſecundum fidem & pietatem praeviſam; & aliorum reprobatione aeterna ob praeſcientiam malorum operum quae in vita acturi eſſent. Sed Auguſtinus (here comes in the Adverſative) rejectâ hâc opinione exiſtimabat Apoſtolorum loqui de quorundam electione ad vitam, aliorum item praeteritione, non habitâ vel in his vel in illis ratione, ſive bonorum, ſive etiam malorum quae perſonalia forent. And which is more then this, Pag. 653. profeſſeth a third interpretation of that paſſage Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13. differing both from Auſtins interpretation, and from that of the Fathers Greeke and Latine that went before him, and makes it diſputable, which is trueſt, though this third opinion hath no footſtep amongſt the Ancients, and thus he carrieth himſelfe, notwithſtanding all the pretence of his reverence of Antiquity. And to vindicate Auſtins interpretation, as well as the reſt, from countenancing abſolute reprobation, he calls in to help at a dead lift, the doctrine of the Jeſuits, concerning Scientia Media. And I deſire upon no better termes to contend then this in Scholaſticall Divinity, whether this doctrine be not a moſt unſober invention without all ground. And p. 49whereas Voſſius acknowledgeth Auſtins opinion to be for the abſoluteneſſe of election (and he profeſſeth himſelfe to be of Auſtins opinion.) I dare appeale to any learned Divines ſober judgement, whether this doctrine of Scientia Media doth not equally juſtify the abſoluteneſſe of reprobation, as the abſoluteneſſe of election. Yet after all this, I would not have any think, that I reject any of theſe ancient Fathers, that ſeem to be moſt oppoſite to Auſtins opinion in the point of predeſtination. I think they may be fairely and Scholaſtically reconciled without acknowledging ſo much difference between them, as Voſſius maketh, and that by ſuch an interpretation as ſometimes is admitted by Voſſius himſelfe, of his own phraiſe of his own diſtinction, though he dreames not of the applyable nature of the ſame to the will of God in predeſtination. His diſtinction is of Voluntas Dei antecedens, & voluntas conſequens; and this he makes equivalent to that other diſtinction of the will of Hiſt. Pelag. lib. 7.God, to wit, Abſoluta & Conditionalis. Now this Conditionall will of God he interprets not quoad actum volentis, but quoad Res volitas: Like as Doctor Jackſon profeſſeth Of Providencein expreſſe termes, that the former diſtinction of voluntas antecedens & conſequens, is to be interpreted, namely, quoad res volitas, and not quoad actum volentis. Now according to this conſtruction, there is no difference between them and Auſtin, nor the leaſt impediment to the making of the will of God, both in predeſtination and reprobation to be moſt abſolute. For though ſinne be acknowledged to be the cauſe of the will of God in reprobation quoad res volitas, that is, in reſpect of the puniſhment willed thereby, this hinders not the abſoluteneſſe of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis. And unleſſe we underſtand the Fathers thus, we muſt neceſſarily charge them with ſuch an opinion, whereof Aquinas is bold to profeſſe, That never any man was ſo madde as to affirme, to wit, that any merits ſhould be the cauſe of Predeſtination quoad actum praedeſtinantis. And why ſo? to wit, becauſe predeſtination is the act of Gods will, and there can be no cauſe of Gods will quoad actum volentis. Now who ſeeth not that by the ſame reaſon there can be no cauſe of divine reprobation quoad actum reprobantis; for even reprobation is the act of Gods will, as well as predeſtination, and every way it muſt be as madde a thing to deviſe a cauſe of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis.

They did all generally agree, ſaith this Author, upon the contrary concluſion. Now the contrary Concluſion to abſolute and unavoidable reprobation is to maintain conditionall and avoidable reprobation; but this is not the contrary concluſion here ſpecified by this Author, but rather that damnation was avoydable, ſuch is his looſe diſcourſe; whereas there is no queſtion at all concerning damnation, whether it be conditionall or abſolute. We all confeſſing, that like as ſalvation is not ordained to befall any man of ripe years, but upon the performance of faith and repentance and finall perſeverance therein; ſo damnation is not ordained to be the portion of any, but upon their finall perſeverance in ſinne. In like ſort as touching the poſſibility of ſalvation, not one Divine of ours, that I know, denyes the poſſibility of any mans ſalvation while he lives in this World. Doctor Jackſon indeed hath an opinion, that a man may proceed ſo farre in ſinne in this life, that the doore of repentance may be ſhut upon him. Wee have no ſuch opinion; We acknowledge, that as God calls ſome at the firſt houre, ſo may ſome be called at the laſt houre of the day, yea the Thiefe upon the Croſſe, yea, inter Pontem & Fontem. In a word, We ſay plainly, that it is poſſible for any man at any time to be ſaved by grace giving repentance: without repentance none can be ſaved; which is, I preſume, without queſtion between us. In like ſort it is poſſible for any man to repent, provided that God be pleaſed to give him repentance, and whether God will give him repentance or no we know not. Therefore the Apoſtle inſtructs Timothy after this manner, The ſervant of the Lord muſt not ſtrive, but muſt be gentle towards all men, apt to teach, ſuffering the evill, inſtructing them with meekneſſe that be contrary minded, foreign, if at any time God may give them repentance, that they may acknowledge the truth and come to amendment out of the ſnare of the Devill, of whom they are taken Priſoners to doe his Will. Here is clearely an acknowledgement of a poſſibility of repentance, ſooner or later, but upon the gift of God, not otherwiſe. The contrary opinion whereunto, this Author ſeemeth in this paſſage very ſtrongly to ſavour of, but alleageth not one Father for the proofe of it, to give us ſome document of his judicious p. 50carriage in the ſurvey of the Fathers which here he pretends to have been made by him, and that with very great oſtentation; Yet I ſeem to be very well acquainted with the ſpirit that breatheth here; and I wonder the paſſages of the Ancients to this purpoſe (which yet I am perſwaded are nothing to the purpoſe) are not collected out of Doctor Uſhar's diſcourſe In cauſa Godaeſchalci inſcribed to Gerardus Voſſius; and I doubt not but the iſſue will be this, that God is ready to give all men repentance in caſe they performe ſomewhat; and ſo the grace of repentance ſhall be given according to mens works, which was condemned 1200 years agoe in the Synod of Paleſtine, and ever ſince accounted no better then flat Pelagianiſme. And which is worſe then this, as that which ſtands in oppoſition to common ſenſe, they wil be driven to profeſſe, that God is ready to give a reprobate repentance, in caſe he will repent, yea the very will to repent, in caſe he will repent. This deſperate reſolution I have already found by experience, and if I be not deceived, breathed by the very ſame ſpirit that breatheth heere.

At length we are like to receive an account of this Authors judicious ſurvey of the Ancients out of Calvin and Beza. Ne que haec vulgò recepta opinio ſolius vulgi eſt; (ſaith Calvin) habuit enim ſaeculis omnibus magnos authores. To this I anſwer,

1. That this is farre from juſtifying, that abſolute reprobation, and abſolute election had no footing in Antiquity, that the Upper way was never taught for the ſpace of 600 years, nor the Lower way till the time of S^t Auſtin. Though in all ages it had great Authors to impugne it, yet it might alſo have in all ages as great Authors to maintain it, and more too, for ought theſe words of Calvin in his opinion doe manifeſt to the contrary.

2. Albeit not ſome but all had maintained election and reprobation to proceed according to foreknowledge of mens works, yet this nothing hinders the abſoluteneſſe either of election or reprobation. For conſider, it is one thing to ſpeak of election unto grace, another to ſpeak of election unto glory; one thing to ſpeak of reprobation, as it ſignifies a purpoſe to deny grace, another thing to ſpeak of it, as it ſignifies a purpoſe to inflict damnation. It was never known I think, that any maintained, that God upon the foreſight of mens faith, did elect them unto faith, or purpoſe to give them faith; or that God foreſeeing men would not believe, nor repent, did decree that they ſhould neither believe nor repent. Upon which brainſick conceit our Arminians are caſt now a daies, and all the embracers of Scientia Media: But many of them profeſſed indeed that God did decree to beſtow ſalvation upon them whom he foreſaw would finally perſevere in faith and repentance; and to damne thoſe whom he foreſaw would finally perſevere in infidelity or impenitency. We acknowledge as much as they, but ſtill the way is open to enquire of the order of theſe, namely, Whether the foreſight of faith and repentance were before the decree of ſalvation, or after it, or ſimultaneous with it: Whether the foreſight of infidelity and impenitency were before the decree of damnation, or after it, or ſimultaneous with it; but where is any ſuch queſtion to be found amongſt the Ancients? We willingly profeſſe that God did not purpoſe to beſtow eternall life on any of ripe years, but as a reward of their faith and repentance and good workes; that God did not purpoſe to inflict damnation on any of ripe years, but as a condigne puniſhment of their finall infidelity and impenitency; and the Ancients who maintained that God decreed to ſave ſome and damne others, according to his preſcience of the piety of the one, and impiety of the other, had no other meaning that I know, or this Author is able to make good, or any other, as I am perſwaded.

3. But let us farther enquire what thoſe Ancients thought concerning faith and repentance; as whether they thought them to be the gifts of God, or no; dares this Author or any Arminian deny, they maintained them to be the gifts of God, the Scripture being ſo full and expreſſe for this? Secondly, enquire what their opinion was concerning the manner how God gave faith to one, and not to another, as 'tis manifeſt he did not, he doth not give it to all; as namely, whether it was of the meer pleaſure of God, that he converted ſome, and not others; or whether he beſtowed faith on ſome, and not on others, becauſe he found thoſe ſome to have prepared themſelves for the receiving of faith, not ſo others. If it was of the meer pleaſure of God, it manifeſtly followeth, that election unto grace and reprobation from grace, was abſolute: which is the main thing in queſtion in theſe our daies. For we who are accounted moſt rigid herein, doe not affect to ſay, That God decreed to ſave p. 51whom he will, or to damne whom he will; but to the contrary we ſay, God decreed to ſave none, but ſuch as believe and repent, and to damne none, but ſuch as dye in infidelity or impenitency: but we profeſſe willingly, that God decreed to beſtow faith and repentance on whom he would, and deny it to whom he would, the Scripture being expreſſe, that God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth. And Auſtin is moſt frequent in this profeſſion, and this is that Grace which he acknowledgeth to be the foundation of predeſtination, and wherein both Cyprian, and Nazianzene, and Ambroſe did agree with him. And Ambroſe in ſpeciall ſort he magnifies for this profeſſion. And Calvin hereupon obſerves, that whereas the Pelagians charged him, with differing from the ancients herein. Valet Auguſtini teſtimonium, ſaith he, apud eos, qui libenter in Patrum authoritate acquieſcunt. Quanquam non patitur Auguſtinus ſe a reliquis diſjungi, ſed claris testimoniis divortium hoc cujus invidia gravabant eum Pelagiani, oſtendit falſum eſſe. Citat enim ex Ambroſio (lib. de Praedeſtin. ſanct. cap. 19.) Chriſtus quem dignatur vocat (here is the criticall point of this queſtion concerning the abſoluteneſſe of election and reprobation) Item ſi voluiſſet ex indevotis feciſſet devotos. Sed Deus quos dignatur vocat, & quem vult religioſum facit. Si ex Auguſtino integrum volumen contexere libeat, lectoribus oſtendere promptum eſſet mihi non niſi ejus verbis opus eſſe: ſed eos prolixitate onerare nolo. This was Calvins judgement, as touching the judgement of Antiquity in this.

4. Yet I confeſſe there was a time when Auſtin did not conceive faith to be amongſt the gifts of Gods ſpirit, but being exerciſed with the Pelagians, he came to acknowledge the ſpeciall grace of God in this; and hereupon made faith an effect of predeſtination, and not any precedent thereunto, and doubts not, but the Fathers would have expreſſed as much, had they been exerciſed with the Pelagians as he was; for ſo much he ſignifies unto Proſper as before I ſhewed, and withall ſhewes how in the foundation of predeſtination they agreed with him, in as much as they agreed in the nature of grace, acknowledging the converſion of the heart to be the gift of God; And not they only, but the whole Catholique Church, as appeared by their common prayers, that God would convert the hearts of Infidells; and to ſay, that God doth not convert the hearts of men according to the meer pleaſure of his will, but according to mens preparations, is clearly to maintaine that God gave grace according unto works, which doctrine was generally exploded as meer Pelagianiſme.

5. Suppoſe they did all acknowledge the decree of election and reprobation, to be conditionall, yet if they interpreted this conditionally, not quoad actum Volentis, but quoad Res volitas, this is nothing oppoſite to the abſoluteneſſe of election and reprobation quoad actum elegentis and reprobantis, but only quoad res volitas, to wit, ſalvation on the one ſide, and damnation on the other ſide. And we willingly acknowledge that God hath not ordained that ſalvation or damnation ſhall befall any man but in caſe they believe and repent, or refuſe to believe, or repent. Now that the Ancients did in this manner underſtand voluntas conditionata in God, Voſſius himſelfe (upon whom our Arminians doe moſt depend as touching the authority of the Ancients) doth improvidently, and ere he is a ware, confeſſe. Hiſt. Pelag. pag. 638. his words are theſe. Aliqua abſolutè vult & ſimpliciter: quomodo creare mundum voluit & extremo die volet reſurrectionem carnis. De qua voluntate intelligi debet illud, Pſal. 115. 3. Deus noster in coelo, quaecun que voluit facit. & Apoſt. ad Rom. 9. 19. Voluntati ejus quis reſiſtit? Aliqua item vult cum conditione quae idcirco in effectum non prodeunt niſi conditione impletâ: quomodo omnes homines ſalvari vult, ſed per & propter Chriſtum fide apprehenſum. Atqui non omnes fide aphrehendunt Chriſtum, ſed abſ que paenitentiâ ac fide plurimi de hoc mundo decedunt. Quo reſpectu tales in aeternum ſtatuit damnare. De conditionatâ illâ voluntate extant longè plurima apud Veteres Scriptores. Aliqua hoc loco aſcribemus.

Such indeed are Beza's words upon that of the Apoſtle, Who hath given firſt unto God? Rom. 11. 35. Eſt autem etiam hic locus (ſaith he) diligenter obſervandus adverſus eos qui fidei, vel operum praeviſionem faciunt electionis cauſam. In quem errorem ſanc turpiſſimum. Origenes veteres pleroſ que tum Graecos tum Latinos adegit donec; tandem Dominus Auguſtinum per Pelagianos ad hunc agnoſcendum & corrigendum errorem excitaret. The firſt part this Author conceales, it being by Beza delivered as touching election; and this Author deales purpoſely on reprobation only. The latter part likewiſe he paſſeth by; for Beza confines this which he ſaith of the Ancients to a certain time, namely, the time preceding the troubles raiſed by Pelagius. But this Author had rather it ſhould runne at randome without any determination; and then againe, the mentioning of Auſtin raiſed by God p. 52upon occaſion of Pelagius his doctrine, to take notice of this errour, and correct it, he well ſaw was like enough to blaſt all the ſhew he makes of the Ancients, eſpecially conſidering how that Pelagian faction was not by Auſtin only, but by the Catholique Church of thoſe daies beaten down. And it is well known how the writings of Auſtin were countenanced, and how many Councells of thoſe daies, made decrees againſt the Pelagian Hereſy. And for both theſe paſſages, it ſeems he was beholding to Voſſius in his Pelagian Hiſtory, Lib. 6. Theſ. 8. which is this, Graeci Patres ſemper, Patrum verò Latinorum illi qui ante Auguſtinum vixerunt, dicere ſolent, eos eſſe praedeſtinatos ad vitam, quos Deus p…e recte que victuros praevidit, ſive ut alii loquuntur quos praevidit credituros, & perſeveraturos, &c. Quod ita interpretatur ut praedeſtinatio ad gloriam facta dicitur, ſecundum praeſcientiam fidei & perſeverantiae. And next unto ſome paſſages alleadged out of Origen he brings in theſe two paſſages of Beza and Calvin. Now it liked not this Author to take his courſe to begin with Clemens Alexandrinus, and his Scholler Origen, as Voſſius doth: For albeit Origen was a man for his learning of great authority in the Church of God, in ſuch ſort that it was wont to be ſaid, that Origenis ingenium Eccleſiae Sacramentum, and no marvail if many followed him, and 'tis uſuall even with Hierome in his Commentaries to follow him. Yet after his death, his Writings were found at length to have a very ill ſavour in the Catholique Church. And amongſt other foul opinions found in him, one nearly concerning this very particular we have in hand, was that which Voſſius there delivers in this manner, Veterum multorum opinio eſt, putâſſe eum animas corporibus vel praedeſtinatorum, vel reproborum uniri pro iis quae bene vel male egiſſent ante conditum corporeum hunc mundum. Judge I pray whether here be not a ſweet noſegay for the Divill, as touching the foreſight of works, not to come, but of works paſt before they were borne, and thereupon their ſoules united either to bodies predeſtinated unto life, or reprobated unto death. Yet Voſſius would not have us think either Origen deceived by Clement (which no man ever ſaid that I know, neither doth Voſſius pretend any ſuch thing) or that Chryſoſtome was deceived by them, or thoſe that followed, by him, all this ſeems to be delivered only to croſſe Beza, who profeſſed the Greek and Latine Fathers were deceived by Origen. Yet it is well known of what eſtimation Origen was in the Church, none of the others like him, but what is his reaſon? becauſe forſooth Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 76. profeſſeth that God did deſtinate heaven to them that ſhould believe; and to them which ſhould not believe, hell. But could he be ignorant that Fulgentius profeſſeth the ſelfe ſame, lib. 1. ad Monimum; namely, Deum praedeſtinaſſe ad regnum quos ad ſe praeſcivit miſericordiae praevenientis auxilio redituros, & in ſe miſericordiae ſubſequentis auxilio eſſe manſuros. Yet this very Author in his Preface profeſſeth that Fulgentius amongſt others, albeit they maintained that God did deſtinate no others to ſalvation, then ſuch as whom he foreſaw by the pure gift of his grace, would have the beginnings of faith, and a good will, and perſevere in good, yet notwithſtanding they withall maintained, that this preſcience divine of their faith and perſeverance, did flow from Gods abſolute decree to ſave them. Nay Auſtin himſelfe in Joan. Tract. 42. (as Hunnius and others alleage him, and I find it true) hath theſe words of thoſe of whom our Saviour ſaith, Therefore you heare not, becauſe ye are not of God; Praecogniti erant quòd non fuerant credituri eâ fide quâ ſolâ poſſint a peccatorum obligatione liberari; and afterwards ſaith, ſecundum hanc praedeſtinationem loquutus eſt Dominus. But will it herehence follow that Auſtin did deny abſolute predeſtination? Voſſius himſelfe acknowledgeth the contrary of him, as Praef. in Hiſt. Pelag.well as of Fulgentius, namely, that Gods foreknowledge of perſeverance in good, proceeded from Gods abſolute decree of ſaving them. And let every ſober reader judge whether upon the ſame grounds it doth not follow, that Gods foreknowledge of mans perſeverance in infidelity, doth not likewiſe follow from Gods abſolute decree of reprobating him. For what is the ground of the former, but this, that God had abſolutely decreed to give faith unto ſome? Now doth it not herehence follow, that God abſolutely decreed to deny faith unto others? For as Ambroſe ſaith, and as Auſtin alleageth out of him, ſi voluiſſet ex indevotis feciſſet devotos. Yet am not I of Voſſius his opinion in this. I ſay rather, Gods foreknowledge of one mans faith, proceeds from his decree not of ſaving him, but of giving him faith; and Gods foreknowledge of another mans finall perſeverance in infidelity, proceeds from Gods decree, not of damning him, but of denying him grace to cure his infidelity. And as for the decree of ſalvation, I deny it to be in any moment of nature, before the decree of giving grace; in like ſort, I deny the decree of damnation to be in any moment p. 53of nature before the decree of permitting mans infidelity to continue uncured unto the end. And the criticall queſtion in this point conſiſts in this, Whether the granting of grace, or deniall of grace, be not meerely of the pleaſure of God, and not according to any different diſpoſitions in man; by grace underſtanding grace effectuall to the working of faith and true repentance. And unleſſe the Ancients be ſhewed to have maintained, either that faith, and repentance, are not the gifts of God; or, that if they be the gifts of God, that God diſpenſeth his effectuall grace for the working of them, not according to the meer pleaſure of God, but according to the different diſpoſitions of men; all that they talke of the Ancients in this point, is meerly vaine and to no purpoſe.

But I come to Proſper, whoſe relation, I doubt not, this Author takes to be of greateſt moment. Now to this I anſwer.

1. To ſay that, Penè omnium par invenitur & una ſententia, qua propoſitum & praedeſtinationem Dei ſecundum praeſcientiam receperunt, doth not prove that there is no footing amongſt the Ancients for abſolute predeſtination. Neither doth Voſſius alleage halfe ſo many Fathers for this opinion, as were thoſe Biſhops who joyned with Cyprian in decreeing the Rebaptization of Hereticks.

2. This ſeems to be related by Proſper, not ſo much out of his own opinion, as by way of an objection propoſed by the Maſſilienſes, deſiring Auſtin to ſhew how it is to be anſwered. Illud etiam (ſaith he) qualiter dilucitur quaeſumus demonſtres quod retractatis Priorum hac de re opinionibus, penè omnium invenitur par & una ſententia, &c. And this is farther evidenced by theſe words of Proſper. Obſtinationem ſuam vetuſtate defendunt ut ea quae de Epiſtolâ Pauli Romanis ſcribentis, ad manifeſtationem divinae gratiae praevenientis Electorum merita proferuntur, a nullo unquam Eccleſiaſticorum ita eſſe intellecta ut nunc ſentiuntur, affirment.

3. Obſerve, When Proſper urged them to expound thoſe paſſages in S^t Paul, after what meaning they thought beſt, they forthwith profeſſed ingeniouſly that they found nothing in the Fathers that gave them content: their words related by Proſper are theſe, Nihil ſe inveniſſe quod placeret.

4. Bellarmine, De Grat. & liber. Arbit. lib. 2. cap. 14. takes notice of this objection drawn out of Proſper and anſwereth it, according unto Auſtin in this manner, Auguſtinus ipſe in libr. de Bono Perſev. cap. 20. dicit Veteres Patres, qui ante Pelagium floruerunt, quaeſtionem iſtam nunquam acuratè tractaſſe ſed incidenter ſolùm & quaſi per tranſitum illam attigiſſe. Addit verò in fundamento hujus ſententiae quod eſt, Gratiam Dei non praeveniri ab ullo opere noſtro; ſed contrà, ab illo omnia opera noſtra praeveniri, ita ut nihil omninò boni quod attinet ad ſalutem, ſit in nobis quod non ſit nobis ex Deo, convenire Catholicos omnes; & ibidem citat Cyprianum, Ambroſium, Nazianzenum. So that it appears hereby, that Auſtin did not acknowledge the former Writers to have embraced this opinion, though the Maſſilienſes pretended ſo much. And herewithall he openeth unto us, a way how to conceive aright of their opinion in predeſtination; namely, that as many as acknowledge Gods grace preventing us in every good work, they all are to be accounted to agree with him in the doctrine of predeſtination. For it is apparent, that in the contrary doctrine Pelagius grounded his opinion concerning predeſtination. And Auſtin himſelfe ſometime thought that God, quem ſibi crediturum eſſe praeſcivit, ipſum elegit, cui ſpiritum ſanctum daret, ut bona operando vitam aeternam conſequeretur: and why ſo? becauſe forſooth he at that time conceived it to be mans work to believe, which ſaith he, I had never ſaid, had I known faith it ſelfe to have been amongſt the gifts of the holy Ghoſt. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 25. and therefore De Praedeſti. Sanct. cap. 1. in his anſwer to the Letter of Hilarius, mark what courſe Auſtin takes for the juſtifying of his own doctrine concerning predeſtination. Prius fidem quâ Chriſtiani ſumus donum Dei eſſe debemus ostendere. And Bellarmine in the place above cited profeſſeth, that Auſtin did herehence rightly collect out of the Fathers, Gratuitae praedeſtinationis ſententiam & fidem in Eccleſiâ Catholicâ ſemper fuiſſe. Ne que olim (ſaith he) defendi poteſt praedeſtinatio ex operibus praeviſis, niſi aliquid boni ponatur in homine juſto, quo diſcernatur ab impio quod non ſit illi à Deo; quod ſanè (ſaith he) Patres omnes cum ſummâ conſenſione rejiciunt. In like ſort, Junius in his anſwer to Baro for the juſtifying of gratuitous predeſtination, counts it ſufficient to prove, Fidem eſſe donum praedeſtinantis & miſerentis Dei ex praedeſtinatione ipſius. And adds ſaying, Hoc omnes Patres uno conſenſu ex Chriſto & Paulo agnoverunt. Ipſe Juſtinus Martyr Apolog. 2. & alii. Graviſſimè verò Clemens Alexandrinus (in hac alioqui paleſtrâ non ita exercitatus) ut ſequentia ſaecula. Stromat. lib. 2. Baſilidis & Valentimi dogma eſſe dicit, quod fides p. 54à naturâ ſit. In my poor judgement, the Fathers, as many as ſtated predeſtination according to the preſcience of mens works, had no other meaning but this, that God did predeſtinate no man to eternall life, but ſuch as coming to ripe years ſhould believe in Chriſt and repent; no man unto eternall death, but ſuch as ſhould finally perſevere in infidelity and impenitency; ſo making works foreſeen the cauſe of ſalvation, but not of Gods decree. And Aquinas was bold to profeſſe that, Nemo fuit it a inſanae mentis qui diceret merita eſſe cauſam praedeſtinationis divinae quoad actum praedeſtinantis. And 'tis a good rule that Gerſon gives, that holy mens Writings are not to be urged preciſely according to the letter, De Vitâ Spirituali animae Sect. 1. co. 11. Notet his quód Doctores etiam ſancti ſunt magis reverenter gloſſandi in multis, quàm ampliandi: quoniam non omnes ſemper adverterunt, aut advertere cogitaverunt ad proprietatem locutionis. Improprietas autem non ampliari debet, ſed ad proprietatem reduci, alioquin quid mirum ſi augetur deceptio.

5. We know what anſwer Auſtin himſelfe makes unto this, De Praedeſtin. Sanct. cap. 14. Quid igitur opus eſt ut eorum ſcrutemur opuſcula, qui priuſquam iſta Haereſis oriretur, non habuerunt neceſſitatem in hac difficili ad ſolvendum quaeſtione verſari, quod proculdubio facerent ſi reſpondere talibus cogerentur.

6. As before I ſhewed, Fulgentius himſelfe maintaines predeſtination to be ſecundum praeſcientiam; yet Voſſius acknowledgeth him as well as Auſtin, to have maintained the abſoluteneſſe of predeſtination.

7. Laſtly, this paſſage concerneth predeſtination alone, as it ſignifies the divine decree of conferring glory; but who ever was known to maintaine the divine decree of conferring grace to have been ſecundum praeſcientiam, according to foreſight of any work in man? For this is plainly to maintain, that grace is given according unto works, which in the Ancients phraiſe is all one, as to acknowledge, that grace is given according unto merits, which is direct Pelagianiſme, and condemned 1200 years agoe in the Synod of Paleſtine.

As for that of Minutius Foelix, We deny that God doth, ſortem in hominibus punire, non voluntatem. We doe not ſay, Genitura plectitur; we ſay that in every one who is puniſhed by God, ingenii natura punitur; Wee confeſſe that Fatum illud est quod de unoquo que Deus fatus eſt; and that pro meritis & ſingulorum qualitatibus, etiam fata determinat. Yet the holy Ghoſt profeſſeth in the mouthes of all his Apoſtles, that both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles, and People of Iſrael, were gathered together againſt the holy ſonne of God, to doe that which Gods hand, and Gods councell predetermined to be done; and yet this predetermination divine, I ſhould think, was nothing prejudiciall to the liberty of their wills.

As for Hierome, this Author ſaith that he was an eager oppoſer of the Pelagians, but no where doth it appeare, that the point of predeſtination comes in queſtion between them. Theſe very paſſages out of Hierome are propoſed by Grotius in his Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae, and anſwered by Gratianus Civilis punctually, and long before by Bellarmine Lib. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. cap. 14.

I anſwer, what is this any other, but that which the Fathers many of them have profeſſed in ſaying, that predeſtination is ſecundum praeſcientiam; And doth not Fulgentius affirm the ſame? Yet is he acknowledged by Voſſius, a maintainer of the abſoluteneſſe of predeſtination as well as Auſtin. Did Hierome deny faith to be the gift of God? or granting it to be the gift of God, did he maintaine, that God gave it according unto works? If not, but according to the meer pleaſure of his will, having mercy on ſome, while he hardned others; the caſe is cleare, that he maintained abſolute election unto faith. As for Gods decree of ſalvation and damnation, we willingly profeſſe, that God decreed to ſave no man but upon his finall perſeverance in faith and piety; to damne none, but ſuch as finally perſevere in infidelity and impenitency. Now compare we theſe decrees together, the decree of giving faith, and the decree of ſaving; which of theſe are moſt likely to be the foremoſt; it is apparent that ſalvation is more likely to be the end in reſpect of faith, and faith the means in reſpect of ſalvation, then the contrary. And the generall and moſt received rule of Schooles is, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. I think the glory of God in the way of mercy, mixed with juſtice is the end of both; and that the decrees of giving faith and ſalvation are ſimultaneous, as decrees of means tending to the ſame end, and ſo neither before the other. But Hierome ſaith, that, ex Praeſcientia futurorum naſcitur dilectio vel odium. I confeſſe he doth in a disjunctive manner thus, vel ex praeſcientia vel ex operibus. And we know that paſſions ſuch as Love and Hatred, are p. 55commonly ſaid to be attributed to God, not quoad affectum but quoad effectum, and ſo they may fairely ſtand for ſalvation and damnation, which proceed ex operibus in Hieroms phraiſe. But admit he means hereby, decretum ſalvandi which riſing expraeſcientia fidei, muſt preſuppoſe the decree of giving faith to precede. I anſwer then, there is to be acknowledged an impropriety of ſpeech, and here is place for Gerſons rule, Sancti non ſemper adverterunt ad proprietatem locutionis. And the rather becauſe Hierome we never find exerciſed in this Controverſy. And it is againſt common reaſon, that faith ſhould be intended before ſalvation. And laſtly, this were to impute unto him to acknowledge 2 motive cauſe of Predeſtination quoad actum praedestinantis: which Aquinas profeſſeth againſt, as a thing impoſſible; namely, that there ſhould be a cauſe of Gods will quoad actum volentis; Nay he is bold to ſay that, No man was ſo mad to ſay that merits are the cauſe of Predeſtination quoad actum praedeſtinantis.

The laſt part of this Authors performance in the poynt of Antiquity is the Councell of Arles, ſubſcribing as he ſaith, the letter which was written by Fauſtus againſt Lucidus the Predeſtinarian (for ſo he ſtyles him) and in his Epiſtle he inſiſts upon two Anathema's, the one this, Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepiſſe ut ſalvus eſſe poſſit. The other this, Anathema illi qui dixerit quod vas contumcliae non poſſit affurgere, ut ſit vas in honorem.

Firſt, I will anſwer as touching the Anathema's themſelves, then as touching the credit and authority of this ſtory.

1. As touching the Anathema's. The firſt proceeds as well of him that is baptized and afterwards periſheth, as of him that is a Pagan and never was baptized, and periſheth in his Paganiſme, as the Anathema it ſelfe witneſſeth, if it be repeated at full, thus, Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepiſſe, ut ſalvus eſſe poſſit, id eſt, vel de baptizato, vel de illius aetatis Pagano, qui credere potuit & noluit. By which latter clauſe it appears, that accipere ut ſalvus eſſe poſſit, is no other then to receive Poſsibilitatem credendi (I ſay Poſſibilitatem not Potentiam, becauſe I find this is Faustus his uſuall phraiſe, as it was the phraiſe of Pelagius before him) and this is as much as to ſay, that every man hath power to believe if he will. Now obſerve I pray, This kind of power is meerely nature, not that which we commonly call Grace, whereby we underſtand ſomething diſtinct from nature. And Auſtin acknowledgeth both, De Gen. contr. Manichae. lib. 1. cap. 3, that all men, poſſunt credere ſi velint; and that this is no more then is ſignified by that naturall illumination wherewith God enlightens every man, when he comes into the world, Iohn. 1. 9. And, De Praedeſt. Sanct. cap. 5. Poſſe habere fidem, ſicut poſſe habere charitatem, naturae eſt hominum. Fidem verò habere, ſicut & charitatem habere gratiae eſt fidelium. And more then this, the ſtate of the queſtion between Pelagius and the Catholiques of thoſe daies is ſo propoſed by Auſtin, as not at all to conſiſt about the poſſibility of believing or doing any good work, but meerly about the willing & doing of it. In ſo much that Auſtin profeſſeth, that if Pelagius would acknowledge the will and doing of good to be from God, as he did the poſſibility hereof to be from God, there ſhould be an end of all controverſy between them, and Pelagius ſhould be received as a good Catholique. This appears in his book, De Gratiâ Chriſti contra Pelagium & Caeleſtium cap. 6. Pelagius his words were theſe ſpeaking of God Qui ipſius voluntatis & operis poſſibilitatem dedit. Hanc autem poſſibilitatem (ſaith Auſtin) in naturâ eum ponere de verbis ejus ſuperioribus clarum eſt. Sed, ne nihil de gratiâ dixiſſe videretur, adjunxit, qui que ipſam ipſam voluntatem gratiae ſuae adjuvat ſemper auxilio. Now this adjutorium poſſibilitatis, in what ſence he delivered it, Auſtin profeſſeth to be obſcure, both as touching the nature of it, and as touching the manner how he conceived the nature of man to be aided thereby; but in other places, ſaith he, where he ſpeaks more plainly, it appears to conſiſt in giving a law, and affording inſtruction. Now by the way mark Auſtins obſervation upon theſe words of Pelagius, Qui que ipſam poſsibilitatem gratiae ſuae adjuvat ſemper auxilio; non ait, ſaith Auſtin, ipſam voluntatem vel ipſam operationem, quod ſi diceret, non abhorrere à doctrinâ Catholicâ videretur. Now, voluntatem adjuvari, in Auſtins meaning, is, Voluntatem praeparari à Domino ut velit; & operationem adjuvari is, voluntatem corroborari ne fruſtrà velit. The one operation he calls grace prevenient, the other ſubſequent, according to that, Nolentem praevenit ut velit, volentem ſubſequitur ne fruſtrà velit. And cap. 25. of the ſame Book, Non ſolum Deus poſſe nostrum donavit at que adjuvat, ſed etiam velle & operari operatur in nobis, whereby it appears that Voluntatem at que operationem noſtram adjuvari à Deo, is Deum operari in nobis & velle & operari quod bonum eſt; which if Pelagius had acknowledged he had been received for a Catholique. So that p. 56he excepted not againſt him for acknowledging Poſsibilitatem volendi, at que agendi quod bonum eſt.

As touching the ſecond Anathema, I ſay that Vas contumeliae may be taken in a double ſenſe: either to ſignify a veſſel deſerving contumely, deſerving wrath; or to ſignify a Veſſell ordained to contumely, and to the ſuffering of eternall wrath. In the firſt ſenſe, there is no queſtion but a man may change from being a veſſell of contumely, or a veſſell of wrath, into the condition of a veſſell of honour; but in the ſecond ſenſe, it is as impoſſible there ſhould be any ſuch change, as it is impoſſible there ſhould be any change in God, whereof I think there is no queſtion: and both Fauſtus and Lucidus might take the phraiſe in the former ſenſe: but if they did take it in this latter ſenſe, dares this Author juſtify them?

2. Now I come to the credit and authority of this ſtory concerning the Councell of Arles; and

1. I ſay, ſuppoſe it be a truth; yet about the yeare 494. there was a Roman Councell wherein Gelaſius and 70 Biſhops with him juſtify the writings of Auſtin, and Proſper, and condemne the writings of Caſſian and Fauſtus, by whoſe procurement it is here pretended the Biſhops of Arles ſubſcribed this Epiſtle of Fauſtus unto Lucidus. And the Fathers of this pretended Councell of Arles are not reckoned up above ſixteen.

2. The credit of this ſtory lyeth wholly upon Fauſtus his relation and his honeſty therein, a man infamous in the Church for oppoſing Auſtin and his doctrine of grace and predeſtination, as appears by the Writings of Fulgentius, Petrus Diaconus, Alchimus Avitus and others. Ado Viennenſis in Chron. ad ann. 492. writes of him thus. Fauſtus ex Abbate Monaſterii Licinenſis apud Regem Galliae Epiſcopus facius, Pelagianorum dogma deſtruere conatus (which yet may be made apparent to have been meerly in pretence) in errorem unde qui ejus ſenſus in hac parte Catholicos praedicant, ſicut Germadius de Viris illuſtribus ſcribens, omninò errant. Ita enim liberum arbitrium tàm Auguſtinus quam caeteri Catholici in Eccleſia Dei docent ut illuminatio, virtus & ſalus illi à Chriſto, per Chriſtum, & in Chriſto ſit. Fauſtus verò iſte ita liberum Chriſtianorum arbitrium docere conatur, ut illuminatio, virtus & ſalus non à Chriſto, ſed a naturâ ſit. Contra hunc ſcribit beatiſſimus Avitus Viennenſis Epiſcopus lucidiſſima fide ejus redarguens errorem; ſimiliter & Joannes vir eruditiſſimus Antiochenus Presbyter. Iſidore in his Book De Viris illuſtribus, teſtifies that Fulgentius wrote ſeven Books againſt Fauſtus, Qui mirâ calliditate Catholicus videri volebat cum Pelagianus eſſet. Auctor quo que Vitae 5^ti Fulgentii teſtatur à Sancto Fulgentio refutatos libros duos Fauſti de Grat. & Liber. Arbitrio. And Petrus Diaconus in his Book De Incarnatione & Gratiâ Chriſti cap. ultim. Anathema dicit Libris Fauſti, And this Bellarmine, de Script. Eccleſ. writes to admoniſh them, who in theſe Letters contend, that Fauſtus was a Catholique.

Farther obſerve the Biſhops who are pretended to have ſubſcribed Fauſtus his Epistle to Lucidus are numbred theſe.

Auxianus.

Claudius.

Euphronius.

Eutropius.

Fauſtus.

Julianus.

Leucadius.

Megetius.

Patiens.

Paulus.

Pragmatius.

But the Biſhops that were aſſembled at the Councell of Arles are Theſe.

Agricii nomine Cataphronius.

Caeleſtinus.

Caeſarius.

Conſtantini nomine Leontius.

Contumelioſius.

Cyprianus.

Eucherius.

Florentius.

Galliani nomine Melerius.

Joannis nomine Deſiderius.

Julianus.

Maximus.

Philagrius.

Praetextatus.

Proitianus.

Severi nomine Cataphronius.

Thus they are reckoned up on both ſides by Voſſius, amongſt whom there is but one name common. To help this, Voſſius deviſeth a 4^th Councel of Arles and that the Biſhops mentioned to have ſubſcribed Fauſtus his Epiſtle, to be the Biſhops aſſembled in the 4^th Councel of Arles, and not thoſe whom we read to have been aſſembled p. 57at the Third. But that any ſuch Biſhops were aſſembled at a 4^th Councell of Arles he brings no evidence, that I find; but his own conjecture is the beſt ground for this. And all this pains is taken to ſalve Fauſtus his reputation in this. And the reaſon that moves Voſsius to conceive that this ſubſcription was not a meer fiction of Fauſtus, is this; Becauſe forſooth if this had been a meer fiction of Fauſtus, ſurely Maxentius in oppoſing him, would not have failed to have caſt this in his teeth. Binius is eager in the defence of theſe Epiſcopall ſubſcriptions, but withall confeſſeth, that either Fauſtus himſelfe, or ſome in his name, practiſed to countenance his Books alſo by the authority of thoſe Biſhops. In fine (ſaith he) hujus Commentarii & Libelli, ipſe Faustus, vel alius quis dolosè addider at haec verba, In quo quidem opuſculo poſt Arelatinſis Concilii ſubſcriptionem, novis erroribus deprehenſis adjici aliqua Synodus Lugdunenſis exegit, ut ſcilicet (ſaith Binnius) aliquo fuco venditari poſſet quaſi ſcriptum de gratiâ & libero arbitrio Commentarium duae Synodi recepiſſent & approbaſſent. Now if ſuch were the diſhoneſt art of Fauſtus in counterfeiting this, why might he not be as diſhoneſt in counterfeiting the former Epiſcopall ſubſcriptions alſo? And if Voſſius his reaſon to ſalve Fauſtus his credit, were of force in this, why ſhould it not be in force in the other alſo? For Maxentius we doe not find to have excepted againſt his fidelity, more in the one then in the other? And why might not Maxentius be ignorant of them both? And in Biblioth. Sanct. Patrum. there is an admonition added to Fauſtus his Epiſtle to Loentius, ex Indice Expurgat. M. Script. Pelatii, wherein though Fauſtus his epiſtle to Lucidus, is acknowledged to have been approved by the Epiſcopall ſubſcriptions in the Councell of Arles, yet as touching Fauſtus his mendicating authority from thoſe Fathers to his books, De Grat. & Lib. Arbit. The Author thereof ſpares not in plain termes to give Fauſtus the lye in theſe words. Neutiquam tamen ullus ob id exiſtimet ab utro que Concilio approbatos tres libros Fauſti de Gratiâ, ut ipſe mendaciter innuere videtur in ea quae his ſubjicitur, praefatoriâ Epistolâ ad Epiſcopum Leontinum &c. But can Voſſius ſhew that Maxentius did caſt this jugling courſe of Fauſtus in his teeth?

But it ſeems that Voſſius had no great need to trouble himſelfe in the vindicating of Fauſtus his reputation in pretending the ſubſcription of Biſhops to his Epiſtle written to Lucidus. For how doth it appeare that Fauſtus is the author of any ſuch pretence? It is true, in the Epiſtle it ſelfe that he wrote to Lucidus, he profeſſeth that he kept a copy of it, to ſhew to that aſſembly of Biſhops, Hujus Epiſtolae exemplar mecum retineo in conventu Sanctorum Antiſtitum, ſi ita neceſſe fuerit, proferendum: by the way obſerve that this reſolution of his, was not abſolute, but ſi ita neceſſe fuerit, and this neceſſity he ſignifies wherein it did conſiſt, namely in caſe Lucidus by his ſilence, did give teſtimony of his continuance in his errour, as he calls it, His words are theſe, Quod ſi eam ſubſcriptam tranſmittere nolueris, aperte adhuc te in errore perſiſtere ipſo ſilentio comprobabis, ac perinde iam neceſſitatem mihi facies ad perſonam tuam publicis conventibus exponendam. Now as for that which followes after the end of the Epiſtle, Et ſubſcripſerunt Epiſcopi, qui ordine ſubſequuntur qui in eâ quo que Synodo adfuerunt.

Auxanius in Chriſti nomine Epiſcopus, Relegi & ſubſcripſi

Fauſtus exemplar Epiſtolae meae Relegi & ſubſcrip.

Paulus Epiſcopus in Chriſti nomine, Rel. & ſubſcrip.

Eutropius &c.

Obſerve the admonition ſubjoyned by Henricus Caniſius. Theſe ſubſcriptions, ſaith he, are not in the Manuſcript. Hae ſubſcriptiones non ſunt in Manuſcripto Codice. Conſider I pray the fair iſſue of this Authors learned pretence of Antiquity, he honoureth the gray haires of Fauſtus, and thoſe grave aſſemblies mentioned by him whereof we have no certainty; but how honoureth he the grayer haires of Auſtin, & of all the Aſſemblies againſt the Pelagians, that you may gueſſe, though he concealeth it. And herein his devotion to this kind of Antiquity, where he thinketh it will ſerve his turne, he is content you ſhould conceive it doth exceed the devotion of Calvin and Beza, yea and of Auſtin alſo; whoſe anſwer to Proſper he is content to paſſe by as not ſavouring ſo much of piety in his judgement, but the Maſſilienſes zeale of the Ancients repreſented by Proſper unto Auſtin, that is ſuitable to his humour, he reliſheth that well, and ſo well that he thinks it fit vehemently to miſtruſt thoſe doctrines which they never approved, but diſliked and condemned. Yet of any condemnation other then what is implied by Fauſtus, a man infamous, and whoſe p. 58Writings were condemned by 70 Biſhops, he makes no mention. And before Auſtins daies, and the daies of Pelagius, the Ancients were not exerciſed with any controverſy hereabouts. And was their non-approbation of his doctrine, concerning abſolute predeſtination, any motive to Auſtin vehemently to miſtruſt the truth thereof? I think he will not ſay it was; and therefore I hope he will give Calvin and Beza leave, never a whit the more for that cauſe, to miſtruſt the ſame doctrine, in granting the Ancients to have conceived predeſtination to proceed ſecundum praeſcientiam according unto foreknowledge, he is content to conform himſelfe to their judgement; but in miſtruſting the contrary doctrine, hereupon you muſt give him leave to follow his own, or any, rather then not Calvins or Beza's, but even Auſtins alſo, though never ſo much magnified by the Church of God, and his writings countenanced eſpecially againſt the Pelagians, and the contrary condemned, by other manner of Councells then Arelatenſe 3^d, and Lugdunenſe. I remember when Epicurus was demanded why, ſeeing he followed Leucippus ſo much, he did not follow him throughout, made this anſwer ſaying, I doe as a man that is a thirſt when he takes the cup to drink, for he drinks what will ſerve his turne, and ſets the reſt by: ſo you muſt give this Author leave to repreſent his devotion to gray haires, ſo farre as they ſerve his turne, and no farther. Yet I have ſhewed how Auſtin maintaines, as touching the Ancients that went before him, that they concurred with him in fundomento praedeſtinationis, which he accounted the the doctrine of Free grace, and cites to this purpoſe Cyprian, Ambroſe, and Nazianzen, and by the common prayers of the Church, that God would convert the unbelievers unto the faith of Chriſt; that the ſame doctrine, which was in his judgement the foundation of predeſtination, as he maintained it according to the Word of God, was generally received in the Church of God.

Before I part from this, I think fit to adde ſomething concerning the ſtile here given to Lucidus, before the revocation of his pretended error; for here I find him ſtiled the Predeſtinarian. Now I preſume this Author, that pretends ſo great reverence to gray haires, and ſo much preferres Antiquity before Novelty, hath good ground for this his denomination of him, and that out of Antiquity. Now I deſire he would be pleaſed to communicate unto us, his learned reading in Antiquity for this; and the rather, becauſe in the whole ſtory of the buſineſſe between Fauſtus and Lucidus, I find no mention of any ſuch attribute given to his perſon, or to the doctrine (reputed by Fauſtus erroneous) maintained by him. The terme Praedeſtinatus qualirying a perſon, I find firſt in Arnobius junior, and from that time I find not the Praedeſtinati, or Praedeſtinatians mentioned till the daies of Hinemarus, about the year of our Lord God 850. And as for the ſtory of the Predeſtinarian Hereſy, which this Author licks his lipps at, the originall whereof is referred to the yeare 415 by Sigibertus; it is very ſtrange, that in Auſtins daies it was not known unto him, or being known, not taken notice of by him, nor by Proſper neither after him. And Alphonſus à Caſtro in his Book contra Haereſes, profeſſeth that the Author of this Hereſy he found not, neither in Sigibert, nor in any other; becauſe indeed not one of thoſe who wrote of Hereſics makes mention of this Hereſy, beſides Bernard of Lutzenburg in his Catalogue of Heretiques; and he ſaith no more of it, then what Sigibert mentioneth in his Chronicle. And withall he addes, that after this errour was buried, by the ſpace of almoſt a thouſand years, it was revived by John Huſſe the Bohemian. Whereby it appears, that Alphonſus was not of this Authors opinion in cenſuring this Lucidus for a Predeſtinarian. And the firſt that I find to intimate ſo much is Hincmarus about the yeare 850. In like ſort Prateölus acknowledgeth that, Quis corum Dux & inſtitutor fuerit, neſcitur. But Gerardus Voſſius hath herein helped us with this conjecture, referring the originall of this Hereſy to the Monks of Adrumetum; and Biſhop Uſher in his Hiſtoriá Godeſcalci ſaith, Voſſius was the firſt that charged thoſe Adrumetine Monks to be the author thereof. Yet if I be not deceived, he might be beholding to Coccius for helping him to this conceit. But this makes the matter more ſtrange another way, namely that Auſtin ſhould not take notice of this Predeſtinarian Hereſy, ſeeing none was ſo well acquainted with the opinion of thoſe his neighbour Monks, as he, being the man, whom they conſulted about the difference that roſe thereabouts, and wrote two Books thereupon and compoſed all. And yet I ſee no reaſon why Voſſius ſhould referre it to the Adrumetine Monks hand over head, when as it is cleer by the relation of them, that came over to Auſtin to complaine thereof, and to conferre with him thereupon; that they were but few, who were carried away with that errour, whereof they complained, p. 59and that it was but one, that troubled the place of their Monaſtery herein, who was as it were the Ringleader to the reſt; of which Voſſius could not be ignorant. And therefore I ſee no cauſe why he ſhould charge them all indifferently, or that party either, who were tainted herewith, as is pretended; ſeeing there was an Anteſignanus who led the reſt, of whom Voſſius ſpeaks nothing at all; and I ſuppoſe he knew ſome good cauſe why. Beſides, the Predeſtinarian Hereſy is pretended to have riſen Ab Auguſtini libris malè intellectis. Now I find no colour of evidence hitherto, that theſe Monks of Adrumentum, whom Voſsius makes the founders of this Hereſy, were led awry by the miſunderſtanding of Auſtins writings. Neither doth Voſſius any where, that I know, take any pains to cleare this. And I would gladly be beholding to this Author, that pretends ſo much zeale unto, and skill in the knowledge of Antiquity, and ſo boldly ſtileth Lucidus a Predeſtinarian, for communicating unto us his rare evidences concerning this point, out of his great obſervations. And ſo much the rather, to take mee off from mine errour, who ſince the firſt time that I travelled in the ſearch after this Predeſtinarian Hereſy in dealing with Corvinus, which is now ſome three years agoe. I have been apt to conceive that this Hereſy from the firſt, was but a meer fiction of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, cunningly to diſgrace thereby the doctrine of St Auſtin. And ſince the coming forth of Dr Uſhers Hiſtory in the cauſe of Godeſcalcus, I have been confirmed herein; as wherein he gives to underſtand, that whereas Tyro Proſper wrote hereof before Sigibert, although the Printer hath made him to ſpeak as Sigibert doth, namely, that Haec Haereſis orta eſt ab Auguſtini libris malè intellectis: yet that is not the language of Tyro himſelfe, but plainly this, Haec Haereſis ab Augustino orta eſt, and that learned Biſhop hath ſhewed out of two Manuſcripts of Tyro, the one in Bennet Colledge in Cambridge, the other in our Kings Library: and this he farther confirmes by comparing the deſcription which Gennadius makes of that, which he calls the Predeſtinatian Hereſy, with the doctrine of Auguſtin. lib. 5. cont. Julian. Pelag. cap. 4. & de Bono Perſev. cap. 15. And withall the ſame learned Biſhop makes it appeare, that look what doctrine Sigebertus aſcribes to the Predeſtinatians, the ſame doctrine was charged upon Auſtin, and ſuch as concurred with him therein. This I ſay that learned Biſhop proves out of the beginning of the 6 Book Hypemneſticon. Credere nos vel praedicare ſugillatis quod Deus quoſdam hominum ſic praedeſtinet ad vitam regni caelorum, ut ſi nolint or are, aut jejunare, aut in omni opere divino vigiles eſſe, eos omninò perire non poſſe, nec prorſus ſui debere eſſe ſollicitos quos Deus quia voluit ſemel jam elegendo praedeſtinavit ad vitam: quoſdam verò ſic praedeſtinavit in Gehennae paenam ut etiam ſi credere velint, ſi jejuniis & or ationibus, omni que ſe voluntati divinae ſubjicerent, in his Deum non delectari & vitam illis aeternam in totum dari non poſſe, &c. Now this in effect is the very Hereſy of the Predeſtinatians related by Sigebert. Therefore I much deſire this Author would take the paines to prove, that this pretended Predeſtinarian Hereſy was indeed received to be an Hereſy by the Catholique Church, and not rather a fiction of the remnants of the Pelagians, wherewithall to reproach the doctrine of S. Auſtin in the poynt of Predeſtination.

Thus have I examined this Authors pretence of the Novelty of our Tenent. I come to the conſideration of that which followes.