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…

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 subjoined 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 grey hairs of Faustus, and those grave assemblies mentioned by him whereof we have no certainty; but how honoureth he the greyer hairs of Austin, & of all the Assemblies against the Pelagians, that you may guess, though he concealeth it. And herein his devotion to this kind of Antiquity, where he thinketh it will serve his turn, 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 pass by as not savouring so much of piety in his judgement, but the Massilienses zeal 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. 58⟩Writings were condemned by 70 Bishops, he makes no mention. And before Austins days, and the days 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 himself 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 Councils then Arelatense 3d, and Lugdunense.

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. 58⟩Writings 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 3d, 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 do as a man that is a thirst when he takes the cup to drink, for he drinks what will serve his turn, and sets the rest by: so you must give this Author leave to represent his devotion to grey hairs, so far as they serve his turn, and no farther. Yet I have showed how Austin maintains, 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.

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.

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 refer it to the Adrumetine Monks hand over head, when as it is clear by the relation of them, that came over to Austin to complain thereof, and to confer with him thereupon; that they were but few, who were carried away with that error, whereof they complained, ⟨p. 59⟩and 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 clear this. And I would gladly be beholding to this Author, that pretends so much zeal 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 me off from mine error, 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 ago. I have been apt to conceive that this Heresy from the first, was but a mere 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;

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,

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 himself, but plainly this, Haec Haeresis ab Augustino orta est, and that learned Bishop hath showed out of two Manuscripts of Tyro, the one in Bennet College in Cambridge, the other in our Kings Library: and this he farther confirms 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 withal the same learned Bishop makes it appear, 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, omnique see 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 pains to prove, that this pretended Predestinarian Heresy was indeed received to be an Heresy by the Catholic Church, and not rather a fiction of the remnants of the Pelagians, wherewithal to reproach the doctrine of S. Austin in the point of Predestination.

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, omnique 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 Tenet. I come to the consideration of that which follows.

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

DISCOURSE. The Second Motive.

ITS unwillingness to abide the Trial. I find that the Authors and Abettors of it, have been ¹very backward to bring it to the Standard, not only when they have been called upon by their Adversaries to have been weighed, but also when they have been entreated thereto by their chief Magistrates who might have commanded them. A shrewd argument (me thinks) that it is too light.

ITS unwillingnesse to abide the Tryall. I find that the Authors and Abettors of it, have been ¹very backward to bring it to the Standard, not only when they have been called upon by their Adversaries to have been weighed, but also when they have been intreated thereto by their chief Magistrates who might have commanded them. A shrewd argument (mee thinks) that it is too light.

1. 12dò.

In the Disputation at Mompelgard Anno 1586 held between Beza and Jacobus Andreas with some Seconds on both sides, Beza and his company having disputed with the Lutherans about the person of Christ, the Lords Supper &c. When they came to this Point, did decline the sifting of it, and ¹gave this reason among others, that it could not then possibly be disputed of, sine gravi eorum offendiculo, qui tanti mysterii capaces non sunt, without the great scandal and hurt of the ignorant, and unacquainted with these high mysteries.

In the Disputation at Mompelgard Anno 1586 held between Beza and Jacobus Andreas with some Seconds on both sides, Beza and his company having disputed with the Lutherans about the person of Christ, the Lords Supper &c. When they came to this Point, did decline the sifting of it, and ¹gave this reason among others, that it could not then possibly be disputed of, sine gravi eorum offendiculo, qui tanti mysterii capaces non sunt, without the great scandall and hurt of the ignorant, and unacquainted with these high mysteries.

1. 1Beza in Col. Mompelg. pag. 375. Vide etiam Osiander. Brand. Collog. Hagh. pag. 57.

The Contra-Remonstrants also in their Conference with their Adversaries at the Hague in the year 1611 could not be drawn to dispute with them about this point, but delivered a Petition to the States of Holland and Westfrizland that they might not be urged to it, resolving rather to break off the Conference, then to meddle with it.

In the Synod likewise of Dort, in the year 1618, and 1619. the Remonstrants were warned by the President of the Synod ut de Electione potius quàm de odiosâ Reprobations materiâ agerent, that they ¹should rather dispute of the point of Election, then the odious point of Reprobation.

1. 1Act. Sin. p. 1. pag. 133.Act. Syn. p. 1. pag. 133.

Can this Doctrine be a truth, and yet blush at the light, which makes all thing manifest? especially considering these things.

1. That Reprobation is a principal Head of Practical divinity by the ill, or well stating of which, the glory of God, and good of Religion is much promoted, or hindered.

1. That Reprobation is a principall Head of Practicall divinity by the ill, or well stating of which, the glory of God, and good of Religion is much promoted, or hindered.

2. That there is such a necessary connection between the points of Election and Reprobation (both being parts of predestination) that the one cannot well be handled without the other.

2. That there is such a necessary connexion between the points of Election and Reprobation (both being parts of predestination) that the one cannot well be handled without the other.

3. That Reprobation was the chief cause of all the uproars in the Church at that time.

3. That Reprobation was the chief cause of all the uproares in the Church at that time.