657. But cap. 29. p. 484. he falleth also on our most Learned and Judicious Dr. Field, because in his lib. 3. c. 3. of the Church he contradicteth his opinion; and it must move just indignation in the Reader that he addeth [idque probare conatur contra reformatas Ecclesias.] Unworthy injury to the Reformed Churches, more than to the worthy Dr. Field! How falsely are they interested in your unhappy cause! See the Synod of Dort, where there is not a word for it. Is one Twiss with his Rutherford, or Maccovius, or a few such, the Reformed Churches? Let the Reader peruse the Articles of the Churches of England, Scotland, France, and all the rest, and see where he can find your Doctrine of Predetermination unto sin. Even Jansenius himself is against it among the Papists, when his Dominican Predecessors are the Fathers of it. Nothing more common with English Divines than (as you did before your self) to explicate Gods causing the acts of sinners, by the similitude of the Riders spurring a halting Horse, or the Suns making a Dunghill stink; which only speak the cause which we call universal, and is the very thing which we assert. ⟨p. 114⟩And it is most unsavourily done, to get into the Chair and magisterially say [Fieldus vir alioqui doctus, in his controversiis minime se versat•• esse prodit—& Zumelem *non satis intelligit, quippe non satis g•• rus controversiarum Arminianarum, & scripsit dumb aulam Armini•• plus aequo faventem haberent. †] But how easy is it for a man to overvalue himself, and contemn another? I highly value the piety in Mr. •• therfords Letters. I am no fit arbiter ingeniorum: But when I hear other men say that one Field was more Judicious than many Rutherfords, I c•• fess by reading their several writings I find no temptation to deny it; And why should Field and consequently Davenant, Usher, Carlton, M• ton, Hall, the Synod of Dort, and I think the far greatest part of Protestants (I verily think fifty if not an hundred for one) who are against you, be made odious by the supposition of being not far enough from Arminians, rather than Maceovius, Twice and Rutherford take it for a disgrace, to hold the same opinions against Gods Holiness, which the D•• nican Friars hold, who have been the bloody Masters of the Inquisition, and murdered so many thousand Protestants or Waldenses and Alligenses?
657. But cap. 29. p. 484. he falleth also on our most Learned and Judicious Dr. Field, because in his lib. 3. c. 3. of the Church he contradicteth his opinion; and it must move just indignation in the Reader that he addeth [idque probare conatur contra reformatas Ecclesias.] Unworthy injury to the Reformed Churches, more than to the worthy Dr. Field! How falsly are they interessed in your unhappy cause! See the Synod of Dort, where there is not a word for it. Is one Twiss with his Rutherford, or Maccovius, or a few such, the Reformed Churches? Let the Reader peruse the Articles of the Churches of England, Scotland, France, and all the rest, and see where he can find your Doctrine of Predetermination unto sin. Even Jansenius himself is against it among the Papists, when his Dominican Predecessors are the Fathers of it. Nothing more common with English Divines than (as you did before your self) to explicate Gods causing the acts of sinners, by the similitude of the Riders spurring a halting Horse, or the Suns making a Dunghill stink; which only speak the cause which we call universal, and is the very thing which we assert. ⟨p. 114⟩And it is most unsavourily done, to get into the Chair and magisterially say [Fieldus vir alioqui doctus, in his controversiis minime se versat•• esse prodit—& Zumelem *non satis intelligit, quippe non satis g•• rus controversiarum Arminianarum, & scripsit dum aulam Armini•• plus aequo faventem haberent. †] But how easie is it for a man to overvalue himself, and contemn another? I highly value the piety in Mr. •• therfords Letters. I am no fit arbiter ingeniorum: But when I hear other men say that one Field was more Judicious than many Rutherfords, I c•• fess by reading their several writings I find no temptation to deny it; And why should Field and consequently Davenant, Usher, Carlton, M• ton, Hall, the Synod of Dort, and I think the far greatest part of Protestants (I verily think fifty if not an hundred for one) who are against you, be made odious by the supposition of being not far enough from Arminians, rather than Maceovius, Twisse and Rutherford take it for a disgrace, to hold the same opinions against Gods Holiness, which the D•• nican Fryars hold, who have been the bloody Masters of the Inquisition, and murdered so many thousand Protestants or Waldenses and Alligenses?
- *Zumel in Disp. 1. Thom. de Voluntat. hom. & lib. arb. pag. 219, 220. Quod D••s non sit causa peccati, though he speak cautesously and as in other mens names, yet concludeth plainly, that God is but the Causa Universalis of sin, and that man is the specifying determining cause, even que universalem determinat ad speciem concursus & actus ipsius, sive solum determinet eam formaliter ad speciem, &c. Yet this is a high Thomist and defender of absolute grace.
- †Thus magisterially did good Dr. Twice censure Junius and Vossius (his Son-in-law) as men unskilled in Scholastic Divinity, who were both most excellent men, and hit upon the reconciling truth, above most in their age. Junius his Discourse of predetermination is one of the first that ever I found that excellency in, and with his Irenicon is most worthy of great esteem.Thus magisterially did good Dr. Twisse censure Junius and Vossius (his Son-in-law) as men unskilled in Scholastick Divinity, who were both most excellent men, and hit upon the reconciling truth, above most in their age. Junius his Discourse of predetermination is one of the first that ever I found that excellency in, and with his Irenicon is most worthy of great esteem.
