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…

Now I come to the Synod of Dort.

4. This Author saith the Remonstrants were there warned by the President of the Synod, Ut de electione potius quàm de odiosâ reprobationis materiâtagerent. And truly at first I wondered not a little, that the President of that Synod should account, the matter of reprobation (which is as much as to say, the doctrine of reprobation) an odious matter, an odious doctrine. For we commonly signify hereby, such a doctrine as deserves to be hated; but I thought withal, that they might express rather, what is the condition of it in the event, namely, that it is entertained with hatred, not of all neither, nor of any of those, that submit their judgements to the word of God; but rather of those, and of those only, who follow the judgement of flesh and blood. Yet I thought good to enquire into the truth of the fact here mentioned; and I find it in the page mentioned, and how the Remonstrants themselves do express this, even as here it is expressed, thus, A Reverendo Praeside moniti sumus ut à negativis enunciationibus abstineremus & de electione potius quàm odiosâ reprobationis materiâ ageremus. Yet I confess this did not satisfy me; For why should this Author make choice to express it in the Remonstrants terms, rather then in the words of the President himself. Therefore I turn to the beginning of that Session, being Sess. 32. There I find this particular, Submonuit & Praeses ut potius quaestionibus illis inhaererent, quae circa suavem de electione doctrinam versarentur, quàm ut d• odiosè doctrinam de reprobatione exagitarent. Now I find a great deal of difference between professing the matter of reprobation, or the doctrine hereof to be odious, and admonishing to spare the exagitation thereof after an odious manner. This indeed being their usual course, to make it as odious as they can, like as Arminius, Doctrinam de praedestinatione odiosam reader conabatur, as it is professed in the Preface to those Act. Synod. fol. 7. pag. 2. and fol. 8. pag. 2. They profess in like manner of the Remonstrants, namely, that in their Remonstrance they endeavoured, Illust. Ordd. odiosam reader doctrinam Ecclesiarum Reformatarum, and that not only, de divinâ predestinatione, but also de Gratiâ Dei & Sanctorum Perseverantiâ, but all this malâ fide, nec sine apertis, atrocibusque calumniis. Moreover I find, Sess. 39. pag. 151.

4. This Author saith the Remonstronts were there warned by the President of the Synod, Ut de electione potius quàm de odiosâ reprobationis materiâtagerent. And truly at first I wondered not a little, that the President of that Synod should account, the matter of reprobation (which is as much as to say, the doctrine of reprobation) an odious matter, an odious doctrine. For we commonly signify hereby, such a doctrine as deserves to be hated; but I thought withall, that they might expresse rather, what is the condition of it in the event, namely, that it is entertained with hatred, not of all neither, nor of any of those, that submit their judgements to the word of God; but rather of those, and of those only, who follow the judgement of flesh and bloud. Yet I thought good to enquire into the truth of the fact here mentioned; and I find it in the page mentioned, and how the Remonstrants themselves doe expresse this, even as here it is expressed, thus, A Reverendo Praeside moniti sumus ut à negativis enunciationibus abstineremus & de electione potius quàm odiosâ reprobationis materiâ ageremus. Yet I confesse this did not satisfy me; For why should this Author make choyce to expresse it in the Remonstrants termes, rather then in the words of the President himselfe. Therefore I turne to the beginning of that Session, being Sess. 32. There I find this particular, Submonuit & Praeses ut potius quaestionibus illis inhaererent, quae circa suavem de electione doctrinam versarentur, quàm ut d• odiosè doctrinam de reprobatione exagitarent. Now I find a great deale of difference between professing the matter of reprobation, or the doctrine hereof to be odious, and admonishing to spare the exagitation thereof after an odious manner. This indeed being their usuall course, to make it as odious as they can, like as Arminius, Doctrinam de praedestinatione odiosam reddere conabatur, as it is professed in the Preface to those Act. Synod. fol. 7. pag. 2. and fol. 8. pag. 2. They professe in like manner of the Remonstrants, namely, that in their Remonstrance they endeavoured, Illust. Ordd. odiosam reddere doctrinam Ecclesiarum Reformatarum, and that not only, de divinâ predestinatione, but also de Gratiâ Dei & Sanctorum Perseverantiâ, but all this malâ fide, nec sine apertis, atrocibusque calumniis. Moreover I find, Sess. 39. pag. 151.

this decree of the Synod gratifying the Remonstrants, and yielding to their motion made, which was, that they might have liberty to treat as well of reprobation as of election, thus, Quoniam Remonstrantes aliquoties professi sunt, se per conscientiam in Synodo subsistere ulterius non posse, nisi prius caveatur ipsis fore, ut de electione & reprobatione, eâ ratione quam in Thesibus & Scriptis suis hactenus exhibitis proposuerunt, in posterùm agatur. Synodus quò magis ipsis fiat satis, publice ac coràm omnibus declarat, statuisse sese ac statuere sententiam ipsorum, non de electione modò, verum etiam de reprobatione expendere atque examinare. Quantum nempe in conscientiâ ad Dei gloriam, aedificationem & tranquillitatem Ecclesiae, omniumque conscientiarum posse ac debere satis esse, ipsa judicaret. Ad agendi verò modum, qui hic est servandus & ordinem quod attinet, suum esse de eo dispicere, non autem fratrum Remonstrantium qui huc sunt citati, quicquam praescribere, existimat. This decree being read to the Remonstrants, they refused to give way unto it. The 40 Session contains the altercation thereabout, between the Synod and them. They forsooth would prescribe to the Synod de modo Agendi, the Synod must not prescribe to them. And they profess against it Sess. 41. pag. 155. in this manner, Nec satisfit nobis si dicatur Synodum permissuram, ut nostram de reprobatione sententiam tractemus quoad illa ipsa ad gloriam Dei, aedificationem Ecclesiarum, conscientiarum tranquillitatem fore judicabit. Nam hâc ipsâ restrictione, nobis praeciditur libertas & plenaria sententiae nostrae defensio, & contrariae Impugnatio. Praeterquam quòd non levis suspicandi nobis data sit occasio, Synodum, ubi nos de electione disserentes audiverit, nequaquam permissuram ut Contra-Remonstrantium & eorum quos illi pro Orthodoxis habent, de reprobatione sententiam prout necessarium judicabimus, ad incudem revocari. Hereupon the Synod entreats the judgement of Foreign Divines; and they all with one consent profess, Tantam Remonstrantibus libertatem ad defensionem causae suae concessam esse, quantâ ex ratione & dignitate Synodi Citatis concedi posset. Ac proinde nullam esse causam cur Synodicum decretum mutandum videretur, aut cur Remonstrantes querelam instituerent, vel authoritatem hujus Synodi subterfugerent.

this decree of the Synode gratifying the Remonstrants, and yeelding to their motion made, which was, that they might have liberty to treat as well of reprobation as of election, thus, Quoniam Remonstrantes aliquoties professi sunt, se per conscientiam in Synodo subsistere ulterius non posse, nisi prius caveatur ipsis fore, ut de electione & reprobatione, eâ ratione quam in Thesibus & Scriptis suis hactenus exhibitis proposuerunt, in posterùm agatur. Synodus quò magis ipsis fiat satis, publice ac coràm omnibus declarat, statuisse sese ac statuere sententiam ipsorum, non de electione modò, verum etiam de reprobatione expendere atque examinare. Quantum nempe in conscientiâ ad Dei gloriam, aedificationem & tranquillitatem Ecclesiae, omniumque conscientiarum posse ac debere satis esse, ipsa judicaret. Ad agendi verò modum, qui hic est servandus & ordinem quod attinet, suum esse de eo dispicere, non autem fratrum Remonstrantium qui huc sunt citati, quicquam praescribere, existimat. This decree being read to the Remonstrants, they refused to give way unto it. The 40 Session contains the altercation thereabout, between the Synod and them. They forsooth would prescribe to the Synod de modo Agendi, the Synod must not prescribe to them. And they professe against it Sess. 41. pag. 155. in this manner, Nec satisfit nobis si dicatur Synodum permissuram, ut nostram de reprobatione sententiam tractemus quoad illa ipsa ad gloriam Dei, aedificationem Ecclesiarum, conscientiarum tranquillitatem fore judicabit. Nam hâc ipsâ restrictione, nobis praeciditur libertas & plenaria sententiae nostrae defensio, & contrariae Impugnatio. Praeterquam quòd non levis suspicandi nobis data sit occasio, Synodum, ubi nos de electione disserentes audiverit, nequaquam permissuram ut Contra-Remonstrantium & eorum quos illi pro Orthodoxis habent, de reprobatione sententiam prout necessarium judicabimus, ad incudem revocari. Hereupon the Synod entreats the judgement of Forraine Divines; and they all with one consent professe, Tantam Remonstrantibus libertatem ad defensionem causae suae concessam esse, quantâ ex ratione & dignitate Synodi Citatis concedi posset. Ac proinde nullam esse causam cur Synodicum decretum mutandum videretur, aut cur Remonstrantes querelam instituerent, vel authoritatem hujus Synodi subterfugerent.

5. Upon the former bald and base pretences, as if, Conclusum esset contrà Manichaeos, the Author proceeds crowing magnificentissimè, and demanding in this manner.

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

1. That Reprobation is a principal Head of practical Divinity by the well, or ill stating, or ordering 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 well, or ill stating, or ordering 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 be well 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 be well handled without the other.

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

3. That Reprobation was the chiefe cause of all the uproares in the Churches of that time.

4. That it was accused with open mouth and challenged of falsehood, and therefore bound in justice to purge it self of the crimination.

4. That it was accused with open mouth and challenged of falshood, and therefore bound in justice to purge it selfe of the crimination.

5. That it may easily be defended, if (as some say) it be such an apparent truth. For, Nihil est ad defendendum puritate facilius, saith St Hierome.

Now albeit for the discovery of the vile vanity of this conclusion, I need take no other pains, then to appeal to your, or any sober mans due consideration of the premises duly examined according to my former answer; yet I think good not to pass it over without such particular consideration as it deserves. First, I pray consider, what is that light that makes all things manifest? Is it the light of Conference? In the Conference of Mompelgard there were diverse other things disputed of, besides this of predestination. Now is the truth manifested hereby in all those particulars? If it be, I pray, let him signify on whose side, whether on the part of Jacobus Andreas, or on the part of Beza? To whom is it made manifest? To either side, or only to that side, on whose side this Author conceives the truth to stand? Do you not manifestly perceive the crudity of this conceit? Nay, who seeth not, that it is not the condition of conference, but the quality rather and ability of the conferrers, that is apt to manifest the truth. And such men are able to manifest, as well out of conference in their discourses, either Positive, or Controversial, as in conference; yea, and far better; Those discourses being more quietly carried, and more free from altercation, then conferences; especially in case they meet with malignant opposites. And indeed it is the Word of God alone, which is that spiritual light, which giveth manifestation to all spiritual truth. And consequently neither are they to be censured as blushing at the light, that prefer to write quietly of these controversies, then to confer about them in some cases; or that prefer conference by the pen as Beza did, before conference by word of mouth, though this better pleased the lips of Jacobus Andreas. Yet neither Beza did refuse to yield to Andreas his own way, neither did either the Contra-Remonstrants at the Hague Conference, or the Divines of Dort, refuse to treat of reprobation, as well as election, as formerly I have showed by authentical evidences. But suppose Beza and his fellows, whether two or three had altogether declined to confer at all, as in my judgement they had good reason to refuse, must this be censured their blushing at the light? Austin professeth as I have formerly vouched him, that there may be many causes of forbearing to deliver the truth at some times.

Now albeit for the discovery of the vile vanity of this conclusion, I need take no other pains, then to appeal to your, or any sober mans due consideration of the premises duely examined according to my former answer; yet I think good not to passe it over without such particular consideration as it deserves. First, I pray consider, what is that light that makes all things manifest? Is it the light of Conference? In the Conference of Mompelgard there were diverse other things disputed of, besides this of predestination. Now is the truth manifested hereby in all those particulars? If it be, I pray, let him signify on whose side, whether on the part of Jacobus Andreas, or on the part of Beza? To whom is it made manifest? To either side, or only to that side, on whose side this Author conceives the truth to stand? Doe you not manifestly perceive the crudity of this conceit? Nay, who seeth not, that it is not the condition of conference, but the quality rather and ability of the conferrers, that is apt to manifest the truth. And such men are able to manifest, as well out of conference in their discourses, either Positive, or Controversiall, as in conference; yea, and farre better; Those discourses being more quietly carried, and more free from altercation, then conferences; especially in case they meet with malignant opposites. And indeed it is the Word of God alone, which is that spirituall light, which giveth manifestation to all spirituall truth. And consequently neither are they to be censured as blushing at the light, that prefer to write quietly of these controversies, then to conferre about them in some cases; or that preferre conference by the penne as Beza did, before conference by word of mouth, though this better pleased the lipps of Jacobus Andreas. Yet neither Beza did refuse to yeeld to Andreas his own way, neither did either the Contra-Remonstrants at the Haghe Conference, or the Divines of Dort, refuse to treat of reprobation, as well as election, as formerly I have shewed by authenticall evidences. But suppose Beza and his fellowes, whether two or three had altogether declined to conferre at all, as in my judgement they had good reason to refuse, must this be censured their blushing at the light? Austin professeth as I have formerly vouched him, that there may be many causes of forbearing to deliver the truth at some times.

He little dreamed of exposing the truth thereby to such a censure, as if it blushed at the light. And if some few might be justly censured as blushing at the light, must all for their sakes, by the rules of justice, be made obnoxious to the same censure, and not the Doctors only, but the Doctrine it self? Is it not apparent that a true and sound doctrine, may be weakly apprehended by many, though learned, and Veritas est temporis filia, and the accurate handling and maintaining of the truth ⟨p. 77⟩in plainer points then this of reprobation, comes not to perfection, but by degrees, and after much ventilating of it in a ruder manner. Thus I think I have cracked the crown of this conclusion; I may proceed with the greater facility to the rest.

He little dreamed of exposing the truth thereby to such a censure, as if it blushed at the light. And if some few might be justly censured as blushing at the light, must all for their sakes, by the rules of justice, be made obnoxious to the same censure, and not the Doctors only, but the Doctrine it selfe? Is it not apparent that a true and sound doctrine, may be weakly apprehended by many, though learned, and Veritas est temporis filia, and the accurate handling and maintaining of the truth ⟨p. 77⟩in plainer points then this of reprobation, comes not to perfection, but by degrees, and after much ventilating of it in a ruder manner. Thus I think I have crackt the crowne of this conclusion; I may proceed with the greater facility to the rest.

1. That Reprobation is an Head to any part of practical Divinity, I never read, nor heard till now. But yet in every theoretical point, as touching the nature of God and his attributes, by the true doctrine thereof, the glory of God, and good of Religion is promoted, & by the erroneous doctrine thereabouts it is as much impaired. For like as it is blasphemy, to attribute that unto God, which doth not become him; so is it blasphemy also, to deny unto him that which doth become him. As for the entertaining or refusing conference thereabouts, I have already spoken sufficiently; yet two particulars more I have to deliver, which I purpose to subjoin to the end of those five considerations here distinguished, as remarkable ones, if my memory fails me not.

1. That Reprobation is an Head to any part of practicall Divinity, I never read, nor heard till now. But yet in every theoreticall poynt, as touching the nature of God and his attributes, by the true doctrine thereof, the glory of God, and good of Religion is promoted, & by the erronious doctrine thereabouts it is as much impaired. For like as it is blasphemy, to attribute that unto God, which doth not become him; so is it blasphemy also, to deny unto him that which doth become him. As for the entertaining or refusing conference thereabouts, I have already spoken sufficiently; yet two particulars more I have to deliver, which I purpose to subjoyne to the end of those five considerations here distinguished, as remarkable ones, if my memory failes me not.

2. A Connection I grant there is, between election and reprobation, and the clearing of the truth in the one, doth give light unto the other. But which of these is to be handled first, that the clearing of the truth therein, may give light to the stating of the other, I should think no sober man would make question. Yet the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, were eager to begin with Reprobation, but were therein generally censured by the consent of foreign Divines that assisted there. But that one of them cannot be handled without the other, is a palpable untruth, as appears by the very practice of this Author himself, and his own carriage in this business. For he undertakes only the point of reprobation.

2. A Connexion I grant there is, between election and reprobation, and the clearing of the truth in the one, doth give light unto the other. But which of these is to be handled first, that the clearing of the truth therein, may give light to the stating of the other, I should think no sober man would make question. Yet the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, were eager to begin with Reprobation, but were therein generally censured by the consent of forraine Divines that assisted there. But that one of them cannot be handled without the other, is a palpable untruth, as appears by the very practice of this Author himselfe, and his own carriage in this businesse. For he undertakes only the poynt of reprobation.

3. As touching the third particular, in charging the doctrine of reprobation, with being the chief cause of all the uproars in the Church at that time; this author takes to himself a strange liberty of discourse. We read and hear of no small stirs in the Church of Rome, between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; but I never read that the Jesuits laid to the Dominicans charge, that their Doctrine as touching the predetermination of the creatures will to every act thereof, was the cause of any uproar in the Church of Rome: But to the contrary rather. I read that in the contention between the Dominicans and Jesuits in Rome it self, wherein Valentianus through some heat in disputation, caught a fever whereof he dyed within three days after; of the relation whereof, made by one Pet (that had been a Priest) in Oxford I was sometimes an ear witness. The Jesuits were rather taxed for their heterodoxy in the poynt de auxiliis, as Petrus Mattheus in his History reports it. And from D. Jacksons mouth, I have heard what a Spaniard should deliver upon the mention of Molina the Jesuit, namely, that he was the man, qui tantos tumultus excitavit, to wit, in Spain. But as for Churches Protestant, he doth well to limit his crimination to a certain time. For the stir that was raised by Huberus in the Lutheran Churches, was neither caused nor occasioned by our doctrine concerning reprobation. Huberus his cause was, a pertinacious standing for an universal Election. It seems he hath relation only to the Hague conference, and the uproars, as he calls them, amongst the States only, and their particular, or provincial congregations alone (as it seems) he denominates the Churches. Now let us consider, Who made those uproars, were they the Contra-Remonstrants, or the Remonstrants only? If he chargeth this upon the Contra-Remonstrants, let him prove it, least he be justly censured for one of those wild beasts, an Emperor was sometimes warned to beware of, they were the slanderers. If the Remonstrants were the authors of these uproars, how doth he prove that the doctrine of reprobation, was the chief cause of them, Were not those Arminians voluntary agents in those uproars? If they conceived their opposites doctrine to be unsound, could they not oppose it without uproars, without violent proceedings?

3. As touching the third particular, in charging the doctrine of reprobation, with being the chiefe cause of all the uproares in the Church at that time; this author takes to himselfe a strange liberty of discourse. We read and heare of no small stirres in the Church of Rome, between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; but I never read that the Jesuits laid to the Dominicans charge, that their Doctrine as touching the predetermination of the creatures will to every act thereof, was the cause of any uproare in the Church of Rome: But to the contrary rather. I read that in the contention between the Dominicans and Jesuits in Rome it selfe, wherein Valentianus through some heat in disputation, caught a feaver whereof he dyed within three daies after; of the relation whereof, made by one Pet (that had been a Priest) in Oxford I was sometimes an eare witnesse. The Jesuits were rather taxed for their heterodoxy in the poynt de auxiliis, as Petrus Mattheus in his History reports it. And from D. Jacksons mouth, I have heard what a Spaniard should deliver upon the mention of Molina the Jesuit, namely, that he was the man, qui tantos tumultus excitavit, to wit, in Spain. But as for Churches Protestant, he doth well to limit his crimination to a certain time. For the stirre that was raised by Huberus in the Lutheran Churches, was neither caused nor occasioned by our doctrine concerning reprobation. Huberus his cause was, a pertinacious standing for an universall Election. It seems he hath relation only to the Haghe conference, and the uproares, as he calls them, amongst the States only, and their particular, or provinciall congregations alone (as it seems) he denominates the Churches. Now let us consider, Who made those uproares, were they the Contra-Remonstrants, or the Remonstrants only? If he chargeth this upon the Contra-Remonstrants, let him prove it, least he be justly censured for one of those wild beasts, an Emperour was sometimes warned to beware of, they were the slanderers. If the Remonstrants were the authors of these uproares, how doth he prove that the doctrine of reprobation, was the chiefe cause of them, Were not those Arminians voluntary agents in those uproares? If they conceived their opposites doctrine to be unsound, could they not oppose it without uproares, without violent proceedings?