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…

TWICE Consideration.

TWISSE Consideration.

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, 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:

1. 1Prosp. Epist. ad Ruffin.

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.

1. As touching the opinion of the Stoics and Manichees. 2. As touching the Parallel he makes, between their opinion and ours, in the point of Predestination.

1. As touching the opinion of the Stoicks and Manichees. 2. As touching the Parallell he makes, between their opinion and ours, in the poynt of Predestination.

1. The Chaldeans and Astrologers, did altogether place Fate, in the influencies of the stars, and because those glorious bodies, did infatuate the World with a show of Divinity (which the Lord Laboured to prevent in the Jews. Deutr. 4.) no marvel if the vulgar sort did acknowledge no other fate, but that. As Austin saith, De Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 1. Id (Fatum) homines quando audiunt usitatâ loquendi confuetudine non intelligunt, nisi vim positionis syderum, qualis est quando quis nascitur sive concipitur. But I do not find that the Stoics did thus distinguish, but by their Series Causarum, they comprehended all causes celestial or sublunary. Ramus indeed conceived such a difference between Possidonius and Chrysippus both Stoics, but Turnebus makes bold to tell him, that herein he erred. Quod autem Possidonium dicis studio Astrologiae oblectatum, Fatum syderibus attribuisse in eo peccas, quod aliam ejus quam Chrysippi sententiam putas, nec eam totam complecteris. Nam si in simul aegrotantibus fratribus causam esse dicebat in syderum & caeli constitutione & affectione, non tamen idcircò in aliis rebus Fatum non esse judicabat. Nay he professeth that according to all the Stoics, Fatum was God himself and nature; and that by Fatum they understood, omnem naturae contagionem, which was Cicero's phrase. As indeed the whole frame of nature is knit together per contactum, which Cicero called Naturae contagionem. And he proves as much of Possidonius out of Cicero De Divinatione. For Quintus therein professing according to the opinion of Possidonius, that all force and course of Divination, was derived from God, from destiny, and from nature, he concludes therehence, that all kind of artificial and natural Divination, were in his opinion comprehended under the notion of Fate. And out of Cicero's second Book of Divination shows, that whereas Possidonius his opinion was, Vim quandam sentientem & divinam quae tota confusa sit mundo, ad hostiam deligendam ducere. He concludes thus; Satis ut opinor, significat Possidonium non in syderibus tantum Fatum posuisse, sed per omnem mundi continuationem & naturae conjunctionem, ordinem seriemque causarum permanare credidisse. Idem Possidonius (saith he) [Greek or Hebrew] scripserat, quod non fecisset, si in syderibus tantum Fatum esse sensisset.

1. The Chaldeans and Astrologers, did altogether place Fate, in the influencies of the starres, and because those glorious bodies, did infatuate the World with a shew of Divinity (which the Lord Laboured to prevent in the Jewes. Deutr. 4.) no marvail if the vulgar sort did acknowledge no other fate, but that. As Austin saith, De Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 1. Id (Fatum) homines quando audiunt usitatâ loquendi confuetudine non intelligunt, nisi vim positionis syderum, qualis est quando quis nascitur sive concipitur. But I doe not find that the Stoicks did thus distinguish, but by their Series Causarum, they comprehended all causes caelestiall or sublunary. Ramus indeed conceived such a difference between Possidonius and Chrysippus both Stoicks, but Turnebus makes bold to tell him, that herein he erred. Quod autem Possidonium dicis studio Astrologiae oblectatum, Fatum syderibus attribuisse in eo peccas, quod aliam ejus quam Chrysippi sententiam putas, nec eam totam complecteris. Nam si in simul aegrotantibus fratribus causam esse dicebat in syderum & caeli constitutione & affectione, non tamen idcircò in aliis rebus Fatum non esse judicabat. Nay he professeth that according to all the Stoicks, Fatum was God himselfe and nature; and that by Fatum they understood, omnem naturae contagionem, which was Cicero's phrase. As indeed the whole frame of nature is knit together per contactum, which Cicero called Naturae contagionem. And he proves as much of Possidonius out of Cicero De Divinatione. For Quintus therein professing according to the opinion of Possidonius, that all force and course of Divination, was derived from God, from destiny, and from nature, he concludes therehence, that all kind of artificiall and naturall Divination, were in his opinion comprehended under the notion of Fate. And out of Cicero's second Book of Divination shewes, that whereas Possidonius his opinion was, Vim quandam sentientem & divinam quae tota confusa sit mundo, ad hostiam deligendam ducere. He concludes thus; Satis ut opinor, significat Possidonium non in syderibus tantum Fatum posuisse, sed per omnem mundi continuationem & naturae conjunctionem, ordinem seriemque causarum permanare credidisse. Idem Possidonius (saith he) scripserat, quod non fecisset, si in syderibus tantum Fatum esse sensisset.

And like as Possidonius did not insist only in the stars, for the confirmation of Fate, so neither did Chrysippus in inferior causes. Necessitatem nature acutus interpres (he taxeth Ramus) ad Chrysippum pertinere astrorum ad Possidonium credidisti; errorem error cumulasti. Nam nec Possidonius in solis astris Fatum ponebat sed in totâ naturae contagione, ut suprà docui: & Chrysippus in eâdem naturae contagione, quâ etiam astra continentur, quod non intellexisti. And that he proves out of Cicero answering Chrysippus in this manner. Ut igitur ad quasdam res natura loci pertinet, ad quasdam autem nihil: sie affectio astrorum valeat, sivis ad quasdam res; ad omnes certè non valebit. Chrysippum enim alloquitur (saith Turnebus) ut vel puero notum est, ut me tui pudeat & pigeat, qui Possidonium intelligis. Thus he disciplines Ramus, and proceed farther, saying, Chrysippum autem in astrorum constitution, & affection Fatum posuisse, audi ex Cicerone; si quis, verbi causâ oriente Caniculâ natus est, is in mari non morietur. Vigila Chrysippe &c. Nihil istud argumentum (thus Turnebus concludes herehence) nisi etiam in astris Fatum poneret. So that the four opinions concerning Fate, related by Ludovicus Vives in 4. lib. August. De Civit. Dei cap. 8. and that out of Picus Mirandula, lib. 2. Contra Astrologos; The first whereof is said to be Nature; The second, a Series of causes ⟨p. 94⟩necessary knit together, the Third the Stars, the Fourth the Execution of Divine Decree. I say all these make but one Fatum with the Stoics, yea with all the Stoics in the judgement of Turnebus. And Austin De Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 8. expressly includes the will of God within that Series of causes, which was accounted Fatum in the Opinion of the Stoics, and upon that ground approves of it. As for necessitation by reason of disposition of the Matter Prime, whereby things were brought to pass in despite of God; I find no such thing, neither in Austin, nor in those that comment upon him, Ludovicus Vives and Coqueus, nor in Ramus or Turnebus; but rather to the contrary in Ludovicus Vives, who distinguisheth out of the opinion of Plato, as touching one God whom he made Principem Parentemque caeterorum; the Caeteri belike were such spirits as we call Angels.

And like as Possidonius did not insist only in the starres, for the confirmation of Fate, so neither did Chrysippus in inferior causes. Necessitatem nature acutus interpres (he taxeth Ramus) ad Chrysippum pertinere astrorum ad Possidonium credidisti; errorem errore cumulasti. Nam nec Possidonius in solis astris Fatum ponebat sed in totâ naturae contagione, ut suprà docui: & Chrysippus in eâdem naturae contagione, quâ etiam astra continentur, quod non intellexisti. And that he proves out of Cicero answering Chrysippus in this manner. Ut igitur ad quasdam res natura loci pertinet, ad quasdam autem nihil: sie affectio astrorum valeat, sivis ad quasdam res; ad omnes certè non valebit. Chrysippum enim alloquitur (saith Turnebus) ut vel puero notum est, ut me tui pudeat & pigeat, qui Possidonium intelligis. Thus he disciplines Ramus, and proceed farther, saying, Chrysippum autem in astrorum constitutione, & affectione Fatum posuisse, audi ex Cicerone; si quis, verbi causâ oriente Caniculâ natus est, is in mari non morietur. Vigila Chrysippe &c. Nihil istud argumentum (thus Turnebus concludes herehence) nisi etiam in astris Fatum poneret. So that the foure opinions concerning Fate, related by Ludovicus Vives in 4. lib. August. De Civit. Dei cap. 8. and that out of Picus Mirandula, lib. 2. Contra Astrologos; The first whereof is said to be Nature; The second, a Series of causes

And that Maximi Dei leges were inevitabiles, and this was called Necessity, and such a Necessity, cui ne Deos quidem (that is inferior spirits) resistere posse. Quae verò ab Astris geruntur, talia interdum esse ut evitari sapientiâ, industriâ, labour queant, in quo sua est Fortuna. Quae verò certis causis progrederentur ac permanerent fixa, id dici Fatum quod tamen necessitatem non afferat electioni.

And that Maximi Dei leges were inevitabiles, and this was called Necessity, and such a Necessity, cui ne Deos quidem (that is inferior spirits) resistere posse. Quae verò ab Astris geruntur, talia interdum esse ut evitari sapientiâ, industriâ, labore queant, in quo sua est Fortuna. Quae verò certis causis progrederentur ac permanerent fixa, id dici Fatum quod tamen necessitatem non afferat electioni.

That the Manichees maintained two supreme and coeternal causes of all things, we read; the one the cause of Good, the other of Evil: and that every creature was a substantial part of one or both; and that man in his nature was compounded of both, and that his corruption was essential from the supreme Author of evil, and not such as accrued to him of disobedience, We read. But of their opinion that all things were determined by them, both good, and evil, I no where read, but in this Authors Legend. Danaeus hath commented upon Austin de Haeresibus, and to every Head of Heresy draws what he hath read thereof in other Authors. But I find no mention at all of this Article amongst 21 shameful errors of theirs which he reckons up. The 19th is this, Voluntatem malè agendi, quod vocant liberum arbitrium, nob is à naturâ ipsâ insitam, non rebellione nostrâ accersitam, vel ex inobedientiâ natam; Quanquam homines propriâ voluntate peccant. And where Austin answereth the criminations against the Catholics made by the Pelagians, I find no mention at all of this. He should have showed from whom he takes this, that understanding their Opinion aright, we might the better judge of the reproachful comparison which he makes.

That the Manichees maintained two supreme and coëternall causes of all things, we read; the one the cause of Good, the other of Evill: and that every creature was a substantiall part of one or both; and that man in his nature was compounded of both, and that his corruption was essentiall from the supream Author of evill, and not such as acrewed to him of disobedience, We read. But of their opinion that all things were determined by them, both good, and evill, I no where read, but in this Authors Legend. Danaeus hath commented upon Austin de Haeresibus, and to every Head of Heresy draws what he hath read thereof in other Authors. But I find no mention at all of this Article amongst 21 shamefull errours of theirs which he reckons up. The 19th is this, Voluntatem malè agendi, quod vocant liberum arbitrium, nob is à naturâ ipsâ insitam, non rebellione nostrâ accersitam, vel ex inobedientiâ natam; Quanquam homines propriâ voluntate peccant. And where Austin answereth the criminations against the Catholiques made by the Pelagians, I find no mention at all of this. He should have shewed from whom he takes this, that understanding their Opinion aright, we might the better judge of the reproachfull comparison which he makes.