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…

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?