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…

The Manichees held, that all mens actions, good or evil, were determined too: Good actions by a good God, who was the author of all good things created, and of all good actions that fell out in the World: Evil actions by an Evil God, who was the primum principium malt, the first and principal author of all evil things that were extant in the world.

The Manichees held, that all mens actions, good or evill, were determined too: Good actions by a good God, who was the author of all good things created, and of all good actions that fell out in the World: Evill actions by an Evill God, who was the primum principium malt, the first and principall author of all evill things that were extant in the world.

The Maintainers of the absolute decree, do say one of these two things; either that all actions natural and moral, good and evil, and all events likewise are absolutely necessary, or that all mens ends (at least) are unalterable and undeterminable by the power of their wills, which is upon the matter all one. For in vain is our freedom in the actions, if the end which they drive at be pitched and determined, sith, Omnis actio est propter finem, All actions are done for the ends sake, that it might be obtained by them, which without them could not.

The Maintainers of the absolute decree, doe say one of these two things; either that all actions naturall and morall, good and evill, and all events likewise are absolutely necessary, or that all mens ends (at least) are unalterable and undeterminable by the power of their wills, which is upon the matter all one. For in vain is our freedome in the actions, if the end which they drive at be pitched and determined, sith, Omnis actio est propter finem, All actions are done for the ends sake, that it might be obtained by them, which without them could not.

Now in these three Opinions, we may note two things.

2. The Circumstances or the grounds of their Opinions. The Stoics derive this necessity from the Stars or first matter, the Manichees from duo prima principia aeterna & coeterna, and these last from the peremptory decree of Almighty God, so that in this they differ, but in this difference, the Stoics and the Manichees in some respects have the better. For it is better to derive the necessity of evil actions, or unhappy events from an evil God, or from the course of nature, then from the decree of that God who is infinitely good. The substance of their Opinions is all one, the ground wherein they differ is but accidental to their error.

2. The Circumstances or the grounds of their Opinions. The Stoicks derive this necessity from the Starres or first matter, the Manichees from duo prima principia aeterna & coeterna, and these last from the peremptory decree of Almighty God, so that in this they differ, but in this difference, the Stoicks and the Manichees in some respects have the better. For it is better to derive the necessity of evill actions, or unhappy events from an evill God, or from the course of nature, then from the decree of that God who is infinitely good. The substance of their Opinions is all one, the ground wherein they differ is but accidentall to their errour.

If it be so, for this very reason alone may this doctrine of absolute reprobation be suspected, because these dreams of the Stoics were exploded by the best Philosophers of all sorts: and this of the Manichees was generally cried down by the Fathers, not only as foolish, but as impious and unworthy of entertainment in a Christian heart, or Christian Commonwealth, not so much for any thing circumstantial in it, but because it made all things and events necessary, and so plucked up the roots of virtue, planted vice, and left no place for just rewards or punishments.

If it be so, for this very reason alone may this doctrine of absolute reprobation be suspected, because these dreams of the Stoicks were exploded by the best Philosophers of all sorts: and this of the Manichees was generally cryed down by the Fathers, not only as foolish, but as impious and unworthy of entertainment in a Christian heart, or Christian Commonwealth, not so much for any thing circumstantiall in it, but because it made all things and events necessary, and so plucked up the roots of virtue, planted vice, and left no place for just rewards or punishments.

These are my Reasons of the first sort.

TWICE Consideration.

TWISSE Consideration.

OUR Doctrine I see is cried down, not only as infamous, but also as Stoical, and Manichaicall. Now I had thought the infamy of it had consisted only in the Stoicality of it, and it is no way fit to coordinate the Genus with the Species, in multiplying criminations. But I remember what the Poet observes to fall out sometimes, namely, that,

OUR Doctrine I see is cryed downe, not only as infamous, but also as Stoicall, and Manichaicall. Now I had thought the infamy of it had consisted only in the Stoicality of it, and it is no way fit to coordinate the Genus with the Species, in multiplying criminations. But I remember what the Poet observes to fall out sometimes, namely, that,

Accedit fervour capiti numerusque lucernis.

Accedit fervor capiti numerusque lucernis.

It calls to my remembrance a story that Mr Bastard sometimes told my good friend D. Hoskins, it was of a neighbour that came to him complaining of a friend of his, that had lost all his five Senses; as for example, his sight and his seeing, and so proceeded in his amplification: with whom Mr Bastard as it were, condoling, answered, Though he had lost his fight, yet if he had retained his seeing, there had been some comfort. True Sir quoth the plain fellow. In like sort, I might say, that though our Doctrine in this point be Stoical, yet if it were not infamous there were some comfort in it, but the heavy crimination laid to our charge is, that it is not only Stoical, but infamous also. But let this be our comfort, that nothing herein is laid to our charge, which was not laid to the charge of Austin, many hundred years ago. This Prosper testifies after Austins death, to have been the practice of the Pelagians. Prout sibi obnoxias aliquorum aures opportunasque repererint, scripta ejus quibus error Pelagianorum impugnatur, ¹infamant, dicentes, eum liberum arbitrium peni•ùs submovere & sub gratiae nomine necessitatem praedicare fatalem. Neither was he free from this reproach while he lived, as appears by divers passages; as Contr. duas Epistol. Pelagiani. lib. 2. cap. 5. Sub nomine, inquiunt, gra••ae ita fatum astruunt, ut dicant, quia nisi Deus invito & reluctanti homini in•piraverit boni & ipsius imperfecti cupiditatem, nec à malo declinare, nec bonum posset arripere. This is the objection; His Answer followeth in these words. Nec sub nomine gratiae Fatum asserimus, quia nullis hominum meritis dicimus Dei gratiam antecedi. Si autem quibusdam omnipotentis Dei voluntatem placet Fati nomine nurcupari, profanas quidem verborum novitates evitamus, sed de verbis contendere non amamus. And cap. 6. Fatum qui affirmant de syderum positione ad tempus quo concipitur quisque vel nascitur, quas Constellationes vocant, non solùm actus & eventa, veram etiam ipsas nostras voluntates pendere contendunt. Dei verò gratia non solùm omnia sydera & omnes caelos, utrum etiam omnes Angelos supergreditur. Deinde Fati assertores & bona & mala hominum Fato tribuunt. Deus autem in malis hominum meritis eorum debita retributione prosequitur; bona verò per indebitam gratiam misericordi voluntate largitur:

It calls to my remembrance a story that Mr Bastard sometimes told my good friend D. Hoskins, it was of a neighbour that came to him complaining of a friend of his, that had lost all his five Senses; as for example, his sight and his seeing, and so proceeded in his amplification: with whom Mr Bastard as it were, condoling, answered, Though he had lost his fight, yet if he had retained his seeing, there had been some comfort. True Sir quoth the plain fellow. In like sort, I might say, that though our Doctrine in this poynt be Stoicall, yet if it were not infamous there were some comfort in it, but the heavy crimination laid to our charge is, that it is not only Stoicall, but infamous also. But let this be our comfort, that nothing herein is laid to our charg, which was not laid to the charg of Austin, many hundred years agoe. This Prosper testifies after Austins death, to have been the practice of the Pelagians. Prout sibi obnoxias aliquorum aures opportunasque repererint, scripta ejus quibus error Pelagianorum impugnatur,

utrumque faciens non per stellarum temporal consortium, sed per suae severitatis & bonitatis aeternum altumque consilium. Neutrum ergò pertinere videmus ad Fatum. And cap. 8. Jam de Gratia & Fato quàm inani alloquuntur ostendimus. Nunc illud est quod debemus advertere, utrum invito & reluctanti homini Deus inspiret boni cupiditatem, ut jam non sit reluctans, non sit invitus, sed consentiens bono, & volens bonum. In like sort, the Pelagians charged Austin with Manicheisme, De Nupt. & Concupisc. lib. 2. cap. 3. to whom he answereth thus, Quid obtendis ad fallendum communis dogmatis tegmen, ut operias proprium crimen, unde vobis inditum est nomen, atque ut nefario vocabulo terras imperites, dicis, ne igitur vocentur Haeretici, fiant Manichaei. And more at large, Contr. duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium, cap. 2. Manichaei dicunt Deum bonum non omnium natuarrum esse creatorem: Pelagiani dicunt, Deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, salvatorem, liberatorem. Catholica utrosque redarguit, & contra Manichaeos defendens Dei creaturam ne ab illo instituta negetur ulla creatura; & contrà Pelagianos ut in omnibus aetatibus perdita requiratur humana natura.

utrumque faciens non per stellarum temporale consortium, sed per suae severitatis & bonitatis aeternum altumque consilium. Neutrum ergò pertinere videmus ad Fatum. And cap. 8. Iam de Gratia & Fato quàm inani alloquuntur ostendimus. Nunc illud est quod debemus advertere, utrum invito & reluctanti homini Deus inspiret boni cupiditatem, ut jam non sit reluctans, non sit invitus, sed consentiens bono, & volens bonum. In like sort, the Pelagians charged Austin with Manicheisme, De Nupt. & Concupisc. lib. 2. cap. 3. to whom he answereth thus, Quid obtendis ad fallendum communis dogmatis tegmen, ut operias proprium crimen, unde vobis inditum est nomen, atque ut nefario vocabulo terras imperites, dicis, ne igitur vocentur Haeretici, fiant Manichaei. And more at large, Contr. duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium, cap. 2. Manichaei dicunt Deum bonum non omnium natuarrum esse creatorem: Pelagiani dicunt, Deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, salvatorem, liberatorem. Catholica utrosque redarguit, & contra Manichaeos defendens Dei creaturam ne ab illo instituta negetur ulla creatura; & contrà Pelagianos ut in omnibus aetatibus perdita requiratur humana natura.

2. Manichaei carnis concupiscentiam non tanquam accidens vitium, sed tanquam naturam ab aeternitate malam vituperant: Pelagiani eam tanquam nullum vitium sed naturale sit, bonum insuper laudant. Catholica utrosque redarguit, Manichaeis dicens non natura, sed vitium est; Pelagianis dicens, Non à Patre, sed ex mundo est, ut eam velut malam valetudinem sanari utr• que permittant, desinendo illi tanquam insanabilem credere, isti tanquam laudabilem praedicare.

3. Manichaei negant, homini bono ex libro arbitrio fuisse initium mali; Pelagiani dicunt ⟨p. 93⟩etiam hominem malum sufficienter habere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum praeceptum bonum. Catholica utrosque redarguit, & illis dicens, Fecit Deus hominem rectum; & istis dicens, si vos Filius liberaverit, verè liberi eritis.

4. Manichaei dicunt, animam particulam Dei, naturae malae commixtion habere peccatum; Pelagiani dicunt, animam justam non quidem particulam, sed creaturam Dei, etiam in istâ corruptibili vitâ non habere peccatum. Catholica utrosque redarguit, Manichaeis dicens, Aut facile arborem bonam, & fructum ejus bonum, aut facile arborem malam & fructum ejus malum; Pelagianis dicens, si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum, nosmetipsos seducimus. His morbis inter se contrariis Manichaei Pelagianique confligunt dissimili voluntate, simile vanitate, seperati opinione diversâ, sed propinqui mente perversâ. Jam verò gratiam Christi simul oppugnant, Baptismum ejus simul evacuant, Carnem ejus simul inhonorant, sed etiam hoc modis causisque diversis. Nam Manichaei meritis naturae bonae, Pelagiani autem meritis voluntatis bonae perhibent divinitus subveniri. Illi dicunt, debet hoc Deus laboribus membrorum suorum: Isti dicunt, debet hoc virtutibus suorum. Utrisque ergò merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum.

4. Manichaei dicunt, animam particulam Dei, naturae malae commixtione habere peccatum; Pelagiani dicunt, animam justam non quidem particulam, sed creaturam Dei, etiam in istâ corruptibili vitâ non habere peccatum. Catholica utrosque redarguit, Manichaeis dicens, Aut facile arborem bonam, & fructum ejus bonum, aut facile arborem malam & fructum ejus malum; Pelagianis dicens, si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum, nosmetipsos seducimus. His morbis inter se contrariis Manichaei Pelagianique confligunt dissimili voluntate, simili vanitate, seperati opinione diversâ, sed propinqui mente perversâ. Iam verò gratiam Christi simul oppugnant, Baptismum ejus simul evacuant, Carnem ejus simul inhonorant, sed etiam hoc modis causisque diversis. Nam Manichaei meritis naturae bonae, Pelagiani autem meritis voluntatis bonae perhibent divinitus subveniri. Illi dicunt, debet hoc Deus laboribus membrorum suorum: Isti dicunt, debet hoc virtutibus suorum. Utrisque ergò merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum.

But come we to the consideration of the particulars delivered by this Author.