The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…

1. That he professed himself of Calvins and Austins opinion: I hope this makes no more against Calvin and us, then it doth against Austin and all those that took part with him, against the Pelagians in his days, and the remnants of them afterwards. But if his opinion was, that men are not dealt withal secundum bona or mala opera, but that there are occultiores causae of mens Eternal conditions, will any sober Arminian impute this unto us? Do we say that God damns any man but for sin, or that God rewards any man of ripe years with Salvation but by way of reward, of their faith repentance and good-works? When the Remonstrants at the Hague conference proposed their doctrine of predestination and reprobation, after this manner, namely, That God from eternity did ordain to save believers and to damn unbelievers, (to this effect), Did any of the Contra-Remonstrants, or any of the Synod of Dort except against the truth of this? But whereas the Remonstrants and Arminians did acknowledge this to be the whole decree of predestination and reprobation: Against this exception was took both in the Hague conference, and in the Synod of Dort, and Theses also by divers foreign Divines laid down against it, & particularly by our Britain Divines amongst others; All of them maintaining that there was an other decree concerning the giving of the grace of regeneration, of the grace of faith and repentance unto some, and denying it unto others. And this decree, we willingly maintain, proceeds not, no not in the execution thereof, according to mens works good or evil, whatsoever be the end of any that maintain it. The contrary, namely, that grace is given according unto works, being a doctrine generally condemned in the Church from the year 415, at that time it was condemned in the Synod of Palestine, and Pelagius himself driven to subscribe unto it, otherwise himself had been anathematized. But this Author delivers it as the opinion of Hosuanus concerning mens Eternal conditions, whereby I take to be meant Salvation and Damnation. And indeed as here the doctrine is expressed, it is more agreeable with the doctrine of the Predestinarians, as Sigebert relates it, then with the doctrine either of Austin or Calvin: and the same Sigebert writes not that it was Austins doctrine, but that it rose out of the misunderstanding of Austins writings:

1. That he professed himselfe of Calvins and Austins opinion: I hope this makes no more against Calvin and us, then it doth against Austin and all those that tooke part with him, against the Pelagians in his dayes, and the remnants of them afterwards. But if his opinion was, that men are not dealt withall secundum bona or mala opera, but that there are occultiores causae of mens Eternall conditions, will any sober Arminian impute this unto us? Doe we say that God damnes any man but for sinne, or that God rewards any man of ripe yeares with Salvation but by way of reward, of theire faith repentance and good-workes? When the Remonstrants at the Hague conference proposed their doctrine of predestination and reprobation, after this manner, namely, That God from eternity did ordaine to save believers and to damne unbelievers, (to this effect), Did any of the Contra-Remonstrants, or any of the Synod of Dort except against the truth of this? But whereas the Remonstrants and Arminians did acknowledge this to be the whole decree of predestination and reprobation: Against this exception was tooke both in the Hague conference, and in the Synod of Dort, and Theses also by divers forraine Divines laid downe against it, & particularly by our Brittayne Divines amongst others; All of them maintaining that there was an other decree concerning the giving of the grace of regeneration, of the grace of faith and repentance unto some, and denying it unto others. And this decree, we willingly maintain, proceeds not, no not in the execution thereof, according to mens workes good or evill, whatsoever be the end of any that maintaine it. The contrary, namely, that grace is given according unto workes, being a doctrine generally condemned in the Church from the yeare 415, at that time it was condemned in the Synod of Palestine, and Pelagius himselfe driven to subcribe unto it, otherwise himself had been anathematized. But this Authour delivers it as the opinion of Hosuanus concerning mens Eternall conditions, whereby I take to be meant Salvation and Damnation. And indeed as here the doctrine is expressed, it is more agreable with the doctrine of the Predestinarians, as Sigebert relates it, then with the doctrine either of Austin or Calvin: and the same Sigebert writes not that it was Austins doctrine, but that it rose out of the misunderstanding of Austins writings: