The judgement of the late Arch-Bishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland 1. Of…

And for Calvin, though I do not take upon me the defence of him neither, yet there is one Doctrine of his, and in those affairs (different from some of his own profession in Geneva) which must be exempted from Mr. Pierces Universality, and which, will not be found that the Primate rejected, viz. that massa corrupta was the object of Predestination, as Bishop Davenant makes it appear, (in his determinations, q. 26.) where he first clears him from the ^aslanders the Jesuits have raised of him in it, viz. That he should hold that God in the first Act before any ⟨p. 42⟩fore-sight of sin, elected some to glory, and ordained others to destruction; And in the second place ordained the sin of Adam to that end, that he might exercise justice towards the Reprobates, and mercy towards the elect; and then gives you clearly ^bthe truth of Calvins judgement in two propositions confirmed out of divers quotations in his institutions, viz. That the corrupt Mass; or man lapsed, was the object of Election and Reprobation, though not the cause: And further, proves, That what the Jesuits put upon Calvin, their own Popish Writers were the prime Authors of, viz. Scotus, Naclantus, Pighius, Catharinus, Galatinus, Alphonsus Mendoza, who aver, That the ^cDecree of Predestination is not only before the Decree of permitting the lapse of man, but also before the creating of him. And ^ddesires it might be taken notice of, ⟨p. 43⟩That the Popish Writers were the chief Authors of that opinion, which denies […] lapsed to be the subject of Divine Predestination; which, if some of ours did consider, they would be the slower paced in the defence of that which hath occasioned this digression. Howsoever, as to Calvin's opinion, this Reverend and learned Bishop thus far supports it, that he joins S. ^eAugustine's suffrage with his own in it; and as it is there declared, I understand not how it is rejected By this Eminent Primate.