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…

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.

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?

Again, their opposites doctrine, was it never received or preached 'till those days? Or was there any uproar made thereupon, 'till Arminius his innovating? And is that the chief cause of an uproar, which hath no such consequent ensuing until it meets with some turbulent spirits, which begin to stir as innovators in a Church or State. And yet was reprobation that alone, whereupon they stirred? Is it not apparent, that about the five Articles commonly so called, they conferred alike? But he saith it was the chief cause, and only saith it, yet Molinaeus professing reprobation to proceed, upon foresight of final impenitency, as in truth it cannot be denied, but that as the Contra-Remonstrants professed, as well in that Conference at the Hague, as in the Synod of Dort, that God did never intend to damn any man ⟨p. 78⟩of ripe years, but for final perseverance in infidelity and impenitency. Did their contentions hereupon, either totally cease or in part? But such criminations are nothing strange. We know after what manner of greeting wicked Ahab saluted the holy Prophet Elijah. Art thou he that troubleth Israel? but he spared not to answer him, I am not he that troubleth Israel, but Thou and thy Fathers house. In the like manner were Paul and Silas entertained Act. 16. 20. when being caught and brought before the Magistrates, heard such an accusation made against them, These men which are Jews trouble our city: and preach Ordinances which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, seeing we are Romans. And no marvel if the Devil roars, when he falls from heaven, like lightning, and his kingdom is shaken. But because he putts us to it in this crimination, I think it fit to give a taste of the violent proceedings in those parts, as I find them ordered in the Preface to the Synod. Dordrac. set forth by the authority of the States. And because uproars concern insurrections against government in Church or State; The first particular I observe of this nature is, Fol. 3. pag. 1. where after Arminius had been much suspected, and divers times urged to declare his opinion, upon certain points which hitherto he had declined, saving in a false manner, his protestation in the issue, proving directly contrary to his practice.

Againe, their opposites doctrine, was it never received or preached 'till those daies? Or was there any uproare made thereupon, 'till Arminius his innovating? And is that the chief cause of an uproare, which hath no such consequent ensuing untill it meets with some turbulent spirits, which begin to stirre as innovators in a Church or State. And yet was reprobation that alone, whereupon they stirred? Is it not apparent, that about the five Articles commonly so called, they conferred alike? But he saith it was the chiefe cause, and only saith it, yet Molinaeus professing reprobation to proceed, upon foresight of finall impenitency, as in truth it cannot be denied, but that as the Contra-Remonstrants professed, as well in that Conference at the Hague, as in the Synod of Dort, that God did never intend to damne any man

The Rectors of particular Churches, soured with the leaven of his doctrine, openly refuse to subscribe the Confession of the Catechism, though the Synod of South-Holland commanded them. Pastores Arminii sententiam amplexi passim in Classibus recusabant mandato Synodi de subscriptione Confession is, ac Catecheseos morem gerere. Here we have the beginning of a manifest schism. Now consider we the progress hereof. Hereupon a resolution was made (it being high time) by the States, for the calling of a National Synod, in the year 1605. about November 26. the execution whereof, was by divers practises of the Arminian Faction, delayed, and put off from time to time, for the space of 13 years. Fol. 5. pag. 2. Arminius himselfe acknowledgeth, de Heterodoxiâ suâ varios rumores omnes jam ecclesias pervasisse, incendiumque à se suscitatum ipsa Ecclesiae tecta super are dici. Fol. 8. pag. 1. In the mean time, Anno 1608. the States declared their purpose was, to call a Provincial Synod in October following, and signification hereof being made, the Rectors of particular Congregations, as many as were addicted to Arminius, being admonished to manifest their considerations in their several Deaneries, that so they might be fairly sent to the Synod that approached. They put this off also. Illi vero ut antea, ita nunc quoque singuli consuetis tergiversationibus pariter hoc detrectarunt. The like refusal was afterwards made in the Synod of South-Holland, though they were urged by the Synod to declare themselves (for as for the Provincial Synod, that was deferred two months longer.) Whereupon the Synod decreed, that they should give up their considerations within a Months space, or be obnoxious to Censure Ecclesiastical. Hereupon was means made by Utenbogard, for letters from the States unto those Pastors, to send up unto them their considerations sealed, that so they might reserve them to the Provincial Synod shortly to be held. In these proceedings a man may easily smell Barnavells hand all along. Hereupon came forth at length Arminius his Declaration before the States. In answer whereunto Gomarus riseth up, as there we may read, Fol. 6. pag. 2.

The Rectors of particular Churches, sowred with the leaven of his doctrine, openly refuse to subscribe the Confession of the Catechisme, though the Synod of South-Holland commanded them. Pastores Arminii sententiam amplexi passim in Classibus recusabant mandato Synodi de subscriptione Confession is, ac Catecheseos morem gerere. Here we have the begining of a manifest schisme. Now consider we the progresse hereof. Hereupon a resolution was made (it being high time) by the States, for the calling of a Nationall Synode, in the yeare 1605. about November 26. the execution whereof, was by divers practises of the Arminian Faction, delayed, and put off from time to time, for the space of 13 years. Fol. 5. pag. 2. Arminius himselfe acknowledgeth, de Heterodoxiâ suâ varios rumores omnes jam ecclesias pervasisse, incendiumque à se suscitatum ipsa Ecclesiae tecta super are dici. Fol. 8. pag. 1. In the mean time, Anno 1608. the States declared their purpose was, to call a Provinciall Synode in October following, and signification hereof being made, the Rectors of particular Congregations, as many as were addicted to Arminius, being admonished to manifest their considerations in their severall Deanaries, that so they might be fairely sent to the Synod that approached. They put this off also. Illi vero ut antea, ita nunc quoque singuli consuetis tergiversationibus pariter hoc detrectarunt. The like refusall was afterwards made in the Synod of South-Holland, though they were urged by the Synod to declare themselves (for as for the Provinciall Synod, that was deferred two months longer.) Whereupon the Synod decreed, that they should give up their considerations within a Months space, or be obnoxious to Censure Ecclesiasticall. Hereupon was means made by Utenbogard, for letters from the States unto those Pastors, to send up unto them their considerations sealed, that so they might reserve them to the Provinciall Synod shortly to be held. In these proceedings a man may easily smell Barnavells hand all along. Hereupon came forth at length Arminius his Declaration before the States. In answer whereunto Gomarus riseth up, as there we may read, Fol. 6. pag. 2.

And amongst other courses of Arminius, makes relation of this, as how Spretis Synodorum Classium & Prebyteriorum judiciis ac decretis ad supremi Magistratus tribunal prima instantia prosiluisse, ibique querelas atque accusationes suas adversus Ecclesiarum doctrinam proposuisse, artibusque aulicis favorem sibi Ecclesiis verò odium consiliare diligenter studiisse. And hereupon besought the States, that seeing Contentions gliscerent, Ecclesiae turbarentur, Civesque in parts distraherentur, the National Synod which they had promised might be gathered together with the first; which yet by the practice of Utenbogard and others was still delayed. Hereupon Arminius his Faction grew so bold, as publicly to Preach against the received Doctrine, as Bertius spared not to declare himself; but wherein? Mark I pray the Article well, because this Author draws all to reprobation. Now the Articles whereupon Bertius declared himself, to differ from the Doctrine received, were, De justificatione hominis coram Deo, De Praedestinatione, De Gratiâ Dei, & libero arbitrio, De Perseverantiâ fidelium; and upon these very points afterwards, proceeded the Conference between Arminius and Gomarus before the States. And one Venator spared not publicly to broach Pelagian and Socinian errors. Whereupon he was suspended by the Churches of North-Holland. In spite of whom notwithstanding, he continued his courses of Preaching. Now whereas the Orthodox Pastors in the Deanery of Alomar considering he was lawfully suspended, and withal ⟨p. 79⟩a man of impure life, refused to admit him into their company. Hereof complaint was made to the States, and by Utenbogards practice a Mandate obtained from them, that they should admit him. Now when the States considering the present exigent, were easily like to condescend to a Provincial Synod, the Arminians moved, that the Deputies to be sent thither, should not be appointed thereunto by the Churches, according to the usual course, but only by the States, presuming hereby, that either none, but such as favoured their cause should be sent, or at least such as were less alienated from their Opinion. fol. 8. p. But though they could not effect this, yet by their practice it came to pass, that the calling, not only of a Provincial Synod, but of the yearly Synods were hindered.

And amongst other courses of Arminius, makes relation of this, as how Spretis Synodorum Classium & Prebyteriorum judiciis ac decretis ad supremi Magistratus tribunal prima instantia prosiluisse, ibique querelas atque accusationes suas adversus Ecclesiarum doctrinam proposuisse, artibusque aulicis favorem sibi Ecclesiis verò odium consiliare diligenter studiisse. And hereupon besought the States, that seeing Contentiones gliscerent, Ecclesiae turbarentur, Civesque in partes distraherentur, the Nationall Synod which they had promised might be gathered together with the first; which yet by the practice of Utenbogard and others was still delayed. Hereupon Arminius his Faction grew so bold, as publiquely to Preach against the received Doctrine, as Bertius spared not to declare himselfe; but wherein? Mark I pray the Article well, because this Author drawes all to reprobation. Now the Articles whereupon Bertius declared himselfe, to differ from the Doctrine received, were, De justificatione hominis coram Deo, De Praedestinatione, De Gratiâ Dei, & libero arbitrio, De Perseverantiâ fidelium; and upon these very points afterwards, proceeded the Conference between Arminus and Gomarus before the States. And one Venator spared not publiquely to broach Pelagian and Socinian errours. Whereupon he was suspended by the Churches of North-Holland. In spite of whom notwithstanding, he continued his courses of Preaching. Now whereas the Orthodox Pastors in the Deanary of Alomar considering he was lawfully suspended, and withall

Shortly after this, finding what liberty they had, they met together of their own accord privily, Sine Magistratus Supremi authoritate magno numero. Atque ibi inter se initâ per subscriptionem nominum confaederatione seu conspiratione, manifestum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Schisma instituunt. That year came forth the Remonstrance. Upon this by the practice of the Remonstrants, Vorstius is brought in to be a Professor in the place of Arminius. For as touching the exceptions taken against him, the Remonstrants professed before the States, he had given them good satisfaction, Fol. 10. pag. 2. Then follow their practises for the removing of such Rectors from their Churches, as were their opposites, and obtruding upon the people such as were of their own Party. At Alcmar, Adolphus Venator, a man of impure life and faith, moved the people to Arms against the Magistrate, whereby he was driven to relinquish his place, and others brought in of Venator his Faction. Fol. 12. pag. 1. Hereupon the Elders and Deacons of that place were removed, and two Pastors, the one having formerly executed his Ministry amongst them for fifty years continuance. Grevincovius in like sort, with the Magistracy of Rotterdam, to deprive his Colleague there Cornelius Geselius of his Ministry first, and then by their Sergeants to cast him out of the City. Utenbogard sends Remonstrants into Utrecht, and amongst others, Jacobum quendam Taurinum hominem turbulentum & saevum. Fol. 12. pag. 2. In Gelderland also the ordinary and annual Synodical Assemblies were hindered by the practice of Utenbogard, like as still they continued withal their art to hinder the calling of a National Synod, so often promised by the States, and so many years deferred. William of Nassau moved both Utenbogard on the one side, and Festus Hommius on the other side, to consider of a course how these stirs might be pacified. To which motion Festus Hommius makes answer, that in case the Remonstrants differed from the Churches only in five Articles, he could think of a course whereby some peace might be made in the interim, until a National Synod were gathered. This is the more observable, because this Author layeth all the cause of those uproars (as he calls them) upon Reprobation. But he professeth they had great cause to suspect the Remonstrants differed from them in greater points of moment.

Shortly after this, finding what liberty they had, they met together of their own accord privily, Sine Magistratus Supremi authoritate magno numero. Atque ibi inter se initâ per subscriptionem nominum confaederatione seu conspiratione, manifestum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Schisma instituunt. That year came forth the Remonstrance. Upon this by the practice of the Remonstrants, Vorstius is brought in to be a Professor in the place of Arminius. For as touching the exceptions taken against him, the Remonstrants professed before the States, he had given them good satisfaction, Fol. 10. pag. 2. Then follow their practises for the removing of such Rectors from their Churches, as were their opposites, and obtruding upon the people such as were of their own Party. At Alcmar, Adolphus Venator, a man of impure life and faith, moved the people to Armes against the Magistrate, whereby he was driven to relinquish his place, and others brought in of Venator his Faction. Fol. 12. pag. 1. Hereupon the Elders and Deacons of that place were removed, and two Pastors, the one having formerly executed his Ministry amongst them for fifty years continuance. Grevincovius in like sort, with the Magistracy of Rotterdam, to deprive his Colleague there Cornelius Geselius of his Ministry first, and then by their Sergeants to cast him out of the Citty. Utenbogard sends Remonstrants into Utrecht, and amongst others, Jacobum quendam Taurinum hominem turbulentum & saevum. Fol. 12. pag. 2. In Gelderland also the ordinary and annuall Synodicall Assemblies were hindred by the practice of Utenbogard, like as still they continued withall their art to hinder the calling of a Nationall Synod, so often promised by the States, and so many years deferred. William of Nassau moved both Utenbogard on the one side, and Festus Hommius on the other side, to consider of a course how these stirres might be pacified. To which motion Festus Hommius makes answer, that in case the Remonstrants differed from the Churches only in five Articles, he could think of a course whereby some peace might be made in the interim, untill a Nationall Synod were gathered. This is the more observeable, because this Author layeth all the cause of those uproares (as he calls them) upon Reprobation. But he professeth they had great cause to suspect the Remonstrants differed from them in greater points of moment.