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…

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, join thereunto traditions to make up a complete Rule of Faith.

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 nearness to the Apostles, they may be better acquainted with the meaning of the word written.

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 mouths, or by relation from others. Of any that report what they heard from the Apostles own mouths, they allege 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 foul every way as the former, considering that soundness of faith, is grounded upon the soundness 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 far less 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.

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.

Now to the contrary we have these reasons.

1. 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 nearer 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.

1. 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 add nothing thereunto; especially considering that Veritas was wont to be accounted temporis filia: and Aristotle accounts it an easy thing to add; Any man saith he may do that, [Greek or Hebrew], and thus, saith he, Arts come to their perfection [Greek or Hebrew]. A tall man is able to discover much farther then a Dwarf, but let a Dwarf be advanced upon the shoulders of that tall man, and he will discover much farther then he. Let then those Ancients go for tall fellows in the discovery of Christian truth, let the Divines of modern ages be but Dwarfs, as the Children of Israel seemed to be, but Grasshoppers in comparison of the Canaanites, especially to the sons 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 Dwarfs, be enabled hereby to discover somewhat more then they? The Eagle is a fowl of great strength and soareth high, the highest of all Kites and Hawks, yet let her carry a Wren along with her on her shoulders in her aerial ascensions, when she is weary and can fly no higher, can it seem strange, if the Wren carried thus high by this Anakim of fowls, presumes of her own strength to fly a little higher then she? or is this any glory to the Wren, or disparagement to the Eagle?

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, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, and thus, saith he, Arts come to their perfection 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. 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 helps of Art then they, especially as touching the knowledge of the Tongues, and Logical resolutions of the Text. The Latin Fathers most of them were little acquainted with the Greek; neither Latin nor Greek Fathers were usually much acquainted with the Hebrew: Origen amongst the Greek, and Hierom amongst the Latin, had not their fellows for this.

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 days were not so put unto it as the latter; Nothing did more quicken them, or doth us, then contentions with Heretics. 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 Heretics. 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 days, 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 ¹Fathers that contended with him, gave themselves chiefly to the maintenance of Gods grace.

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 ¹Fathers that contended with him, gave themselves chiefely to the maintenance of Gods grace.

1. 1Bibl. l. 5. annot. 101.

And now am I come to the treating of Ancients no longer in general, but in a special 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 confess 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.

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

Again consider. The decrees of predestination and reprobation are secret, neither do they appear of what condition they are, but by the manner of their executions. Now their executions do 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 profess, that the salvation of men of ripe years, doth always presuppose Faith and perseverance therein; and the damnation of others doth always presuppose final perseverance in sin unrepented of. But we deny that herehence it followeth, that either faith precedes the decree of salvation, or sin precedes the decree of damnation, or the prescience of either. That faith cannot precede election, nor sin reprobation, is evident; For as much as election and reprobation are eternal, but faith and sin are things temporal: but that with is temporal cannot precede that which is eternal. 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, unless it be some such as maintain with Vorstius, that Gods decrees are not eternal. In like sort, it is sin existent in time, that precedes damnation; but no wise Divine will say, that sin existent in time precedes Gods decree of damnation; the former being a thing temporal but this decree eternal. Lastly, neither will it follow that because faith precedes salvation and sin damnation, therefore the foresight of faith, is antecedanious to the decree of salvation, and the foresight of sin is antecedent to the decree of damnation. For no Enthymeme of this nature is sound, but so far forth as it is reducible into a good Categorical Syllogism, whereof these Enthymemes are uncapable. For Enthymemes reducible unto good Syllogisms must agree, either in their Subjects or in their Predicates, but these do not. Again all the terms in a good Enthymeme must be expressed in that Syllogism whereunto it is reduced▪ But each of these Enthymemes consisteth manifestly of four terms; as in the first, the•e, Faith, and the Foresight of faith, Salvation and the Decree of salvation;

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, thee, Faith, and the Foresight of faith, Salvation and the Decree of salvation;

Of the second, these, Sin, and Foresight of sin, Damnation and the Decree of damnation; and consequently that Syllogism whereunto either of these quaternary of terms is clapped, cannot be good; For no Categorical Syllogism is good that consisteth of four terms. As for the reducing of them into a Syllogism Hypothetical, such Reductions were never heard of in the Schools of the learned and that for just reason; because that is no course to justify the soundness of the Enthymemes, but a mere 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 Hypothetical Syllogism, 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 mere begging of it. Yet notwithstanding we do 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 sin. 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 far as professedly to deny that Christ merited it) therefore let the question proceed about the manner how God bestows it, as namely, whether he bestows it of his mere pleasure on some, denying it to others, or, Whether the reason why God bestows it on some and not on others, be, because God finds some good work in one, which he finds not in another. This question being decided, it will clearly appear, whether predestination proceeds upon the foresight of ought in man, yea or no. For if God of his mere pleasure doth bestow faith on one, and not on another, it follows undeniably, that God predestinated him hereunto absolutely, and of his mere pleasure, without consideration of any future work of man.

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 bestows faith on man upon consideration of some precedent work of his, which was ⟨p. 45⟩not 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 absoluteness of predestination, we should state the question as touching Predestination unto faith, and not as touching Predestination unto salvation. For we all confess 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 himself in the bestowing of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others; as namely, Whether on his mere pleasure he hath not mercy on some, giving them faith and repentance, and of his mere pleasure, denies 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 Synod 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 days consent, as ¹touching Gods concourse to the substance of every act of the creature whether good or evil. 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.

But if God bestowes faith on man upon consideration of some precedent work of his, which was ⟨p. 45⟩not 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

He cannot find absolute and inevitable reprobation to have any footing in Antiquity. Belike he can find reprobation evitable; a strange phrase either way. These attributes applied to damnation do carry a fair 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 eternal as God himself, and how that should be fancied to be of an avoidable condition for the time to come, I cannot comprehend, unless 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 phrase it.

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 Laics, 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 error of those grounds, whereupon formerly it was builded; and the discovery hereof alone, were chiefly to the present purpose, ⟨p. 46⟩namely to show just cause of change of mind, & alteration of judgement, but no such course do I find taken here.

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,

These motives and reasons here proposed, may carry a show of reason, why a man being yet to choose his faith in these particulars, possessed with neither way, but indifferent, might prefer one way before another, one opinion before another, but nothing sufficient to justify a change, unless the weakness 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 shipwreck of his errors (pardon my boldness 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 shipwreck of his errors, let him take heed least he make shipwreck of a good conscience.

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.