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…

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, ⟨p. 46⟩namely 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 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.

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 express Pelagianism, ¹and was as expressly condemned in the Council of Palestine above 1200 years ago, and Pelagius himself was driven to subscribe unto it, by shameful dissimulation so to prevent Anathematization of his own person.

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, ¹and 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.

1. 1Bellar. de grat. & lib. arbit. l. 6. c. 5.

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 ways of our Divines in maintaining the absoluteness of election and reprobation, to wit, that in the course of his discourse he might serve his turn with both, and where Antiquity served not his turn against the one, yet might it serve his turn, as he thought against the other. But the truth is, there was no such question at all ventilated in those days, as touching the object of predestination, no nor in Austins neither, nor many hundred years after, that I know. And no marvel; For it concerns the ordering of Gods decree aright, which is merely Logical, as I have showed in my Vind. Grat. Dei. Its true that St Austin doth usually accommodate that of St Paul, Rom. 9. 21. concerning the Mass, unto ⟨p. 47⟩mankind considered in Massa damnata as he commonly calls it, that is, in the corrupt Mass; but not always, but sometimes he speaks of it, and accommodates it clearly unto the Mass of mankind uncorrupt, yea, as yet not created, as there I have showed. 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 hardeneth, that is, he cures infidelity and hardness 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 Tenet (as it is commonly accounted) of making the Mass of mankind not created the object of predestination, I have already showed the vanity of that conceit and denomination; for as much as hereby neither is the decree of damnation made to precede the consideration of sin, no nor of final impenitency in any moment of nature, nor in any moment of nature is the decree of salvation made by me, to precede the consideration of final 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 sin both original and actual;

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 St Austin doth usually accommodate that of St Paul,

others who are most dissolute, make the decree of creating and permitting of sin, to precede the decree of saving some and damning others, My Opinion is equally removed from these extremes, 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 sin, and finally to persevere therein, and to damn them for their sin, 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 sin, and raise them out of sin by faith and repentance, and reward them with everlasting life, to the manifestation of his glory, in the way of mercy mixed with justice.

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 self, there was no question moved thereabouts in the Church of God, before the days 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 Heretics 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 ¹suâ semper eruditione instruitur, dumb Haereticorum quaestionibus impugnatur. And Austin in like manner, Didiscimus, saith he, singulas quasque Haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias questions, contra quas diligentius defenderetur scriptura divina, quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret. And on the other side, before question hath been moved on a point, the Fathers have delivered themselves somewhat improvidently, whereupon Heretics have taken advantage to countenance their errors by the writings of the Ancient. This Hierome observes in the point of Arianism, proving thereby, that the Ancient ²Writers before the Arian Heresy arose, were no competent judges in that point. 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. Mark it well, Before Arrius like a Devil from the South rose up, the Fathers delivered some things innocently, yet lose warily, and such as cannot avoid the calumny of perverse persons. Upon the same ground it is, that Austin excuseth Ticonius, and that in ³the same particular wherein he approached near to Pelagianism, 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 diligentioresque reddidit:

ut advérteremus in scripturis Sanctis, quod istum Ticonium minús attentum, minusque sine host sollicitum, fugit, etiam ipsam scilicet fidem donum illius ese, qui ejus mensuram unicuique partitur. Ticonius considered not that faith it self is the gift of God, neither was he so careful to look into the truth of this; and why? surely because he had no enemy to put him to it, as being not ⟨p. 48⟩acquainted with the error of Pelagius. But this Heresy, saith he, arising in our days, 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 watchful and diligent to observe, that even faith it self is his gift, who distributes to every one a measure thereof. Hence it is that the same Austin, when Prosper signified that those of Marseilles 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, returns 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 ¹to 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 himself thought that albeit holiness and good works consequent to faith together with salvation, were the work of God, yet faith it self he conceived to be the work of man; to wit, before he was exercised with Pelagius as appears, Liber Propositionum ex Epistolâ and Romanos.

ut advérteremus in scripturis Sanctis, quod istum Ticonium minús attentum, minusque sine hoste sollicitum, fugit, etiam ipsam scilicet fidem donum illius ese, qui ejus mensuram unicuique 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

Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusque 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 self to be the gift of God, Si scivissem fidem ipsam inter Dei munera quae dantur per Spiritum Sanctum reperiri. Nam quamvis credere & operari utrumque nostrum sit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non nisi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrumque 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 Chrysostom. 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 himself, 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 point 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 Latins who went before him, in the point of predestination. Histor. Pelag. pag. 655. Patres Graeci & Latinorum illi qui ante Augustinum vixerunt, ipseque 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 opinion 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.

Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusque 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 utrumque nostrum sit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non nisi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrumque 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, ipseque 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 Greek and Latin 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 himself, 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 terms to contend then this in Scholastical Divinity, whether this doctrine be not a most unsober invention without all ground. And ⟨p. 49⟩whereas Vossius acknowledgeth Austins opinion to be for the absoluteness of election (and he professeth himself to be of Austins opinion.) I dare appeal to any learned Divines sober judgement, whether this doctrine of Scientia Media doth not equally justify the absoluteness of reprobation, as the absoluteness 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 fairly 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 himself, of his own phrase of his own distinction, though he dreams not of the appliable 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 ¹God, to wit, Absoluta & Conditionalis. Now this Conditional will of God he interprets not quoad actum volentis, but quoad Res volitas: Like as Doctor Jackson professeth ²in express terms, 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 sin 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 absoluteness of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis. And unless we understand the Fathers thus, we must necessarily charge them with such an opinion, whereof Aquinas is bold to profess, That never any man was so mad as to affirm, 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 mad a thing to devise a cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis.

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 conditional and avoidable reprobation; but this is not the contrary conclusion here specified by this Author, but rather that damnation was avoidable, such is his loose discourse; whereas there is no question at all concerning damnation, whether it be conditional 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 final perseverance therein; so damnation is not ordained to be the portion of any, but upon their final perseverance in sin. In like sort as touching the possibility of salvation, not one Divine of ours, that I know, denies the possibility of any mans salvation while he lives in this World. Doctor Jackson indeed hath an opinion, that a man may proceed so far in sin in this life, that the door of repentance may be shut upon him. We have no such opinion; We acknowledge, that as God calls some at the first hour, so may some be called at the last hour of the day, yea the Thief upon the Cross, 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 evil, instructing them with meekness that be contrary minded, [Greek or Hebrew], 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 Devil, of whom they are taken Prisoners to do his Will. Here is clearly an acknowledgement of a possibility of repentance, sooner or later, but upon the gift of God, not otherwise.

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, , 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 allegeth not one Father for the proof of it, to give us some document of his judicious ⟨p. 50⟩carriage 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 persuaded are nothing to the purpose) are not collected out of Doctor Usher'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 perform somewhat; and so the grace of repentance shall be given according to mens works, which was condemned 1200 years ago in the Synod of Palestine, and ever since accounted no better then flat Pelagianism. And which is worse then this, as that which stands in opposition to common sense, they will be driven to profess, 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 here.

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. 50⟩carriage 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. Neque haec vulgò recepta opinio solius vulgi est; (saith Calvin) habuit enim saeculis omnibus magnos authores. To this I answer,

1. That this is far 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 St Austin. Though in all ages it had great Authors to impugn 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 do manifest to the contrary.

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 St 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.