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…

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