Reasons of my refusal were these.

First, not being under the Sy­nod of South or North-Holland, but having other Superiours of my owne, to whom I stood bound to give an account of my actions, I could not consent to any confe­rence with their Deputies, unless with their consent, and an ex­press command from them; espe­cially it being incumbent not as a private duty upon me, the Depu­ties themselves clearly enough in­timating the Conference not to be of a private nature, in denying to lay aside the Title of Deputa­tion, and proceed in their owne names with me. And therefore I had sinned against my Superiors if I had not refused the same. I wish their Brethren would re­member, there was never yet a­ny of our Ministers (subjected as a Member to their respective Sy­nod) [Page 21] durst at any time enter a conference without the advice of the Magistrate, neither ever any particular Magistrate permit the Minister under his Jurisdiction to undertake a conference with the Deputies of the Churches, unless they had first consented to it, which they would often do by being present themselves by their Deputies.

Let them onely recollect what was done at Leyden in the causeNomina Locorum Gouda, Horna Meden­blicus. of Colhasius at Gouda, with Her­mannus Herberts at Horn, in the case of Cornelius Wigyer and Me­denblich in the cause of Taco.

Second Reason disswading me from the conference, was the great inequality thereof; equality be­ing a necessary qualification in personal debates. 1. They came against me (with whom all things stood in a private capacity arm'd with publick Authority: Now I [Page 22] am not ignorant how greatly they are under-propt, who do a­ny thing by vertue of this power. 2. They were three in number, besides the two deputed from the Synod of North-Holland with them; I was alone, not onely de­stitute of help, but also of wit­nesses, to whom (as they like­wise) I might safely commit my affairs. 3. They were not at Liberty, being compelled to hang upon the judgment of their Su­periors, therefore strictly obli­ged to contend to the utmost for that opinion in Religion they were of, insomuch as 'twas not safe for them to admit of my rea­sons or arguments, though ne­ver so cogent and insoluble; which considered, I did not see what fruit or advantage could mutually result from this confe­rence, as in equity should, and which on my part was likely to do, being free in my self, and a­ble (by bringing my conscience [Page 23] in, without the ppejudice of any, to the examination) to admit of that which my conscience con­vinced of the Truth, should di­ctate to be right. Of how great concernment all these things are your Highness's had known more fully, if you had been pre­sent by your Deputies in that Pre­paratory Convention.

Third Reason. Their own rela­tion after the conference to the Synod, could not but be divers wayes prejudicial to me, whether absent or present; if absent, it might easily happen (either by o­mission, addition, or dislocation of words, by inconsiderateness in defect of understanding, or imbe­cility in the want of memory, or by the prejudice of disaffecti­on) a Narrative should be made otherwise then the truth of the thing required. If present, 'twere difficult to escape or correct this inconvenience, better credit be­ing [Page 24] likely to be given to their own Deputies, then to my self a private person.

Lastly, By this means I should have yeelded the Convention some right and prerogative over mee, which it neither hath, nor I could give, considering my place, with­out injuring those our common Magistrate would set over me.

Therefore Equitie did not more constrain me, then Neces­sity, to repudiate this conference; yet might they have obtained their desire, if they would have imbraced a private Debate of all the Articles of Christian Faith, as [...] offered them; this being more accommodate to a mutual edifi­cation, where every one (as the manner is) may speak with free­dome and familiarity, then the other where the Formalities of De [...]utations are observed: Nei­ther was there the least ground why they should shew themselves [Page 25] so hard to be intreated in this case, when every one might have done it himself; having further delivered my mind herein, that whatever should be transacted by us should abide with us, and not pass abroad to any; which if they had consented to, I doubt not but we had either satisfied one another, or at last made ap­pear, that no damage could ac­crue upon this our mutual contro­versie to the Truth necessary to salvation, godliness, or christian peace.

To omit these things, I cannot give an account to my self how these rumours are consistent one with another; I am complain'd of for not declaring my judge­ment, and yet in my own Coun­trey and forraign parts I am in­veigh'd against, as if I indeavour­ed the introduction of some im­pure Novel and false Tenents in Church and Christian Religion.

If I declare not my judgment, whence is the unsoundness of it manifest? If I explicate not my self, how can I bring in any fal­sities? If they be nothing but suspitions obtruded upon me, it's against the rule of Charity to at­tribute so much to them: But I am reported to express my selfe in some things, but not in all; yet even in them it's not darkly manifest whither I tend. That's to be here observed, whether a­ny thing delivered by me be jud­ged contrary to the Word of God, or the Confession of the Belgick Chur­ches. If the last Not a­greeing with the Belgick Confessi­on. be proved, that I have taught any thing contrary to that I ingaged my self by my own subscription, I am liable to punishment; if the first Contra­ry to the Word of God. be made good, I ought to be much more strictly dealt with, and ob­liged either to recant or to lay a­side my place, especially if the heads of doctrine were notori­ously injurious to the honour of [Page 27] God, and salvation of men. But if they were found neither to clash with the Word of God, nor the Belgick Confession, neither the inferences depending upon them, according to the Rule of the Schoolmen, The consequences of a doctrine being false, the doctrine is false likewise, and so on the contra­ry. One of these ought to have been done, either a charge brought in against me, or a dis­crediting the reports of me: The later I wished for; the first I fea­red not, notwithstanding the one and thirty Articles dispersed e­very where under my name, to the great prejudice of me, were noted by persons of great quali­ty, into whose hands they were given, with what unsavouriness they were framed; with what faith and conscience they were im­posed upon me: But I expect to hear, Why did you not to avoyd these commotions, and to satisfie so many Ministers, fully open your [Page 28] selfe to your fellow-brethren in the whole matter of Religion, either for your own timely instruction, or their seasonable preparation to a mutuall conference?

Three inconveniences deter­red me from this: Least

First, my judgment professed, should afford matter to them to frame an Action against me.

2. Least the same should be disquieted and refuted in their Pulpits and Academical Dis­putes.

3. Least it should be transmit­ted to Forraign Universities and Churches, with hope of obtain­ing a condemnatory sentence against it, and of bearing me down this way; that I had weigh­ty cause to fear all these things, were not hard for me from the Tenents and Writings of some of them clearly to demonstrate. That which respects my Infor­tion [Page 29] or instruction, which I might hope from thence, so it is; there being besides my selfe ma­ny others who had drawn up their meditations in the matters of Religion; instruction could not so profitably be administer'd any where as in the place of our joynt appearance, where a Defi­nitive Sentence as they call it, might and ought to be pronoun­ced; as for my brethrens seasona­ble Preparation to the Confe­rence, certainly it would be Then most commodious When every one have produced their meditations together, and so the reason of all things at once might be had.

And thus I have washed away the things chiefly cast upon me, and come to discharge my promise and execute the commands which you my Lords the Noble and Potent Sates have [Page 30] laid upon me, being confident hence no prejudice will arise, ei­ther to my person, or judgment, in that obedience ariseth from it, which next after God, and accor­ding to God, I owe to this hono­rable Assembly.

The first and chief b [...]anch in Religion, upon which I have fixed my thoughts for these many years last past, is the Predestinati­on of God. That is, the election and reprobation of men to life and death; making my entrance here, Ile first explain what some have delivered in our Churches, and this Univer­sity of Leyden, both in words and writings concerning it; then ma­nifesting my thoughts upon that, I wil lastly proceed to a Declara­tion of my own judgment in this point.

The Teachers in our Churches are not at oneness and simplicity in their judgments touching this [Page 31] doctrine, but various and different amongst themselves.

The opinion of those who take the high and rigid way (as 'tis e­very where contained in their writings) is this,

1. That God by an eternal and immutable decree out of men, not considered as made, much less as fallen, hath predestinated some to everlasting life, others to eter­nal destruction, without any in­tuition, or respect to righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, of his pure good pleasure, to demon­strate the glory of his justice and mercy, (or, as others) his saving grace, wisdome, and most free power.

2. Besides this decree, God to have fore-appointed some certain means belonging to the executi­on thereof, and this by an ever­lasting and unchangeable Ordi­nation, [Page 32] these meanes are necessa­rily to follow by vertue of the preceding decree, and unavoi­dably to lead him that is predes­tinated to his fore-appointed end; Some of these Meanes lying in Common, appertaining joynt­ly to the decree of Election and Reprobation; others in special re­specting each.

3. Means common to both, are three: First, the Creation of Man in the right state of Originall righteousnesse, or according to the image and likeness of God in Righteousness, and holiness. Se­cond, the permission of the fall of Adam, or the Ordination of God, that man should sin, and become vitious. The Third, the losing or the taking away of Originall Righteousness, and the shutting of him up under sin and con­demnation.

[Page 33]IIII. For unless God had crea­ted some, he had not had upon whom he might bestow eternall life, and bring upon everlasting death; had not he created them in righteousness and sanctitie, God himselfe had been the Au­thor of sin, and so had been de­prived of the right of punish­ment to the praise of his Iustice, and salvation for the honour of his mercy; unless they them­selves had sinned, and by the merit thereof rendered them­selves guilty of Death, there could have been no place to demon­strate either Justice or Mercy.

5. The meanes fore-ordainedThese are the special means. for the putting into execution the decree of election, are these three. First, The preordination or the giving of Jesus Christ, a mediatour and Saviour, who should purchase by his merit for all and onely the Elect, life and lost righteousness, and by his ver­tue communicate the same. Se­cond. [Page 34] Their vocation to faith out­wardly, by the word inwardly▪ by his spirit in the mind, affecti­ons and will by an operation so efficacious, that the elect person must needs assent and yeeld obe­dience thereunto, in so much as he is not in any capacity able not to beleeve this his Calling, or not to be obedient thereunto. Hence comes to passe their justi­fication, and sanctification, by the blood and spirit of Christ, and in like manner all their good workes, and this by the same forementioned force and necessi­ty. Third meanes to be, is the Keeping the Elect in the faith, sanctitie and zeale of good works, or the donation of the perseverance to them, whose vertue is to be this; that the be­leeving and elect persons do not onely not sin with that pleni­tude and wholeness of will, or not fall Totally from faith or grace, but they Cannot sin with [Page 35] that full bent of mind, neither Can they totally, or finally fall away from faith or grace re­ceived.

6. The two Vacotion & perse­verance. last of these means belonging onely to the adult elect, person of ripe years, but for the children of beleevers who pass out of this life, and ne­ver come to maturity of age, God leads them a shorter way to salvation, if they belong to the number of the elect (which God onely knows) by giving Christ a Saviour to them, and them to Christ, who saves them by his blood and holy spirit, with­out actuall faith and persever­ance, and this according to the promise of the Covenant, I will be your God and the God of your seed.

7. The means appointed toThese proper to the decree of Repro­bation. put into execution the decree of reprobation, are partly proper to All the reject and reprobate, (whether they have lived to [Page 36] ripeness of years, or died before their maturity) partly peculiar to Some of them onely.

Means Common to them all, is, their dissertion in sin, by the sus­pension of that saving grace, which is sufficient and neces­sary to salvation; and this hath two branches. 1. God not be­ing willing that Christ should die for them, neither (i. e.) He neither dignitate pretii died for them, in regard of the va­lue of the price: Nor volun­tate propo­siti, God never in­tending that hee should shed his blood for them. Quoad Voluntatem Antecedentem, ac­cording to his Antecedent will, (as some call it) or Quoad Suffi­cientem, according to the suffi­cient or the valew of that recon­ciliatory Price, which was never offerd for the Reprobate, either in respect of the divine decree, or the vertue, and efficacy of it. The 2. branch, Gods unwilling­ness to communicate the spirit of Christ to them, without which 'twere impossible for them to be made partakers of him and his benefits.

8. The means Peculiar to some of [Page 37] them onely, is that obduration which befalls Adult persons, for their often & enormous violation of the Law of God, & repudiation of the Grace of the Gospel.

To the executing the first For their violation of the law of God. in­duration appertains the witness of their minds to the righteous­ness of the Law, by knowledge, illumination and conviction, it not being possible for the Law, not to detaine them in unrighte­ousness onely, but necessary to the rendring them inexcusable.

To the execution of the se­cond For their refusing the grace of the Gos­pel. obduration, God makes use of their calling by the preach­ing of the word, which is to be both insufficient and ineffectuall as well in regard of the decree of God, as the event thereof. This vocation is to be either ex­ternall onely, which they nei­ther will nor can obey, or inter­nall whereby some of them are raised in their understandings to embrace and beleeve the [Page 38] things they heare, yet with such a faith as the devils endowed with, beleeve and tremble; some of them are carried on further, even after a manner to desire to taste of the Heavenly Gift, these being the most miserable of all, who are therefore taken up on high, that their fall may be the greater; it being impossible that this event should not befall them, necessitated to returne to their vomit, and to fall away from the f [...]

9. From this decree of electi­on and reprobation divine, and the administration of the means appertaining to the execution of both; it followes, that the elect should necessarily be saved, so as they are not in any possibi­lity of perishing, and the repro­bates unavoidably damned; so as 'tis utterly impossible for them to be saved, and that out of the absolute purpose of Gods prece­ding all things and causes, which [Page 39] are in things, or could result from things.

This Opinion by some of those that adhere thereunto, is judged the foundation of Christianity, Sa [...]vation, and the certainty there­of, in which the sure and un­doubted consolation of all be­leevers (giving them a peacea­ble conscience) is founded; and upon which the praise of the grace of God leaneth, in so much, as the contradicting this do­ctrine is surely to rob God of the glory of his grace, to attri­bute the merit of salvation to the free-will and power of man, which savours of Pelagianisme, these being the causes pretended why they labour so anxiously to retaine the purity of this do­ctrine in their churches, and op­pose themselves to all alterations repugnant there unto.

For my part, to speake what I thinke freely (with the Salvage of a better judgement) I am of [Page 40] that minde, That this doctrine of predestination containeth in it many things false, imperti­nent, and discrepant with it selfe, which Universally to run thorough time permits me not, but I shal leave it to be examind in grosse in its latitude. There [...]. are foure speciall heads in my view; and those of the greatest weight in this doctrine; I shall first declare them, then give you my own judgement concerning them; They are these.

First, That God hath Absolutely and precisely decreed the salva­tion of some particular men by his mercy or grace, and the con­demnation of others by his ju­stice, without any sight or in­tuition in this decree of righte­ousness, or sin; obedience, or disobedience; that might proceed from either of them.

Secondly, That God, for the bringing to passe this his prece­ding decree, determined the crea­tion [Page 41] of Adam, and all men in him, in the right state of origi­nall righteousness, and futher ordained, that they should sin, and so be deprived of originall righteousness, and become guilty of eternall condemnation.

3. That God hath decreed those (whom he would precisely save) as to salvation, so to the means appertaining thereunto, to bring them to faith in Jesus Christ, and perseverance in it; and this indeed by his irresisti­ble grace, and power, so as they cannot but beleeve, persevere, and be saved.

4. That God hath decreed to deny unto them whom in his absolute will he hath preordained to de­struction, and accordingly doth not confer that grace which is sufficient and necessary to salva­tion; so as they are neither able to believe neither can they be saved.

Now after the diligent weigh­ing and examination of these [Page 42] foure branches in my own breast, I come to deliver the things thatArminius his Argu­ments a­gainst the doctrine contained in the four branches mention­ed above. follow touching this doctrine of predestination.

1. That this doctrine is not the foundation of Christianity, Salvation, or the Certainty therof:

Not of Christianity.

1. For this predestination is not that decree of God wherein Christ is established by his Fa­ther, the Saviour, head and foun­dation of those who are made heires of eternall life, which is the onely fundamental of Chris­tianity. 2. Neither is this of predestination that doctrine, by which men (as living stones) are built upon Christ alone the corner stone by faith, and joyned to him as members to the head.

Not of salvation.

1. For this predestination is not that decree of the good plea­sure of God in Christ Jesus, upon which alone our salvation lean­eth, 2. It is no foundation of [Page 43] Salvation, for it is not the powor of God unto salvation to those that beleeve, in that the righte­ousness of God is not manifested by it, ex fide in fidem, from faith to faith. Neither of the certainty of salvation. For that stayeth it selfe upon this decree, they that beleeve shall be saved; I beleeve, therefore I shall be saved; but this doctrine of predestination neither comprehendeth the first, or second member of this syllo­gisme, which some confessed in these words, We meane not that Consult the Bel­gick The­ses. the knowing of this (predestination) is the foundation of Christianity or salvation; or that it is necessary after the same manner, as the doctrine of the Gospel.

Secondly; The doctrine of2 Arg. predestination thus delivered, doth not contain in it either the whole or any part of the Gospel; for this consists partly of an in­junction of faith, and repentance; partly of a promise of forgive­ness [Page 44] of sins, of the spirit of grace, and of eternal life, according to the tenure of the sermons of Christ and the Baptist his forerunner, and his successours the Apostles, after his ascention; but this pre­destination neither respects the command of faith and repen­tance, neither the promise; it doth not teach us What kind of persons God hath predestinated in general, which is properly the Evā ­gelical doctrine, but contains in it a mystery (onely known to God) wherein are comprehended the individual persons whom God hath decreed to save and con­demne; whence I further conclude this doctrine of predestination not to be necessary, either to be known, beleeved, hoped in, or effected, to salvation; so a learned man confesseth in his questions to bee dispu­ted; Why, the Gospel cannot be termed a Book, or discovery of predestination [...], simply in its [Page 45] self, but [...], respectively, because it neither Sets downe the numerical matter nor forme, abso­lutely, that is, It doth not declare how many, nor whom (As Iere­miah, whom God knew before he came out of the womb, & sanctified him, Jer. 5 a very few onely excepted) but what kind of persons in general are predesti­nated.

Thirdly; This doctrine of predestination was never ad­mitted, decreed, or approved3 Arg. of for the first six hundred yeares after Christ; in any councel,General Councils. either general, or particular; not in the Councel holden at Nice, wherein it was determin­ed against Arrius, for the diety and [...] of the Son of God; not in the first at Constantinople, in which it was decreed against Macedonius, for the diety of the holy Ghost; not in the Ephesine Councel against Nestorius for the unity of the person of the Son of God; not in that holden at Calcedon, which condemned Eutiches, and determined for [Page 46] two distinct natures in one and the same person of our Lord Jesus Christ; not in the second held at Constantinople, in which Peter Bishop of Antioch, Anthym the Constantinopoletane, and o­thers were condemned for assert­ing the passion of the Father with the Son; not in the third at Constantinople, in which the Mo­nothelites were condemned for affirming to be but one only will and operation in Jesus Christ. Neither had this doctrine any better intertainment in particu­lar Councils, as that at Jerusalem Particular Councils. Arausin; neither was it vinti­lated or confirmed in that held at Milevite, in Affrick, against Pelagius and his errors, as ap­peares by the Articles of do­ctrine decreed in it against them.

And the doctrine of Austine himselfe touching this point was so farre from being received in these Councils that Celestine the Romane bishop, his contempo­rary [Page 47] writing to the bishops of France, and condemning the Pelagion tenents shuts up his Epistle in these words, As we dare not contemne, the more profound and difficult parts of those questions started and broadly handled by the opposers of the Hereticks; so judge we it not necessaty to abet them, beleeving it sufficient what the writings have taught us according to the forementioned rules of the apostolical seat, to the owning of the grace of God from whose power and worth nothing ought to be substracted. For those Ca­nons mentioned by Celestine in his Epistle, and decreed in the three foregoing particular Coun­cils, we shall agree well enough, especially as to those things which were requisite for the maintaining of grace against Pelagius and his errours.

Fourthly, There was never4 Arg. any sound, and orthodox teach­ers [Page 48] of the church for 600. yeares next after Christ, that ever broched and approved this do­ctrine of predestination, no not the keenest assertors of Grace a­gainst Pelagius; such was Jerome, Austin, the Author of the Book entituled, The Call of the Gentiles, Prosper, the Aquitani, Hilarius, Fulgentius, Orosius, as appears by their writings.

Fifthly, This holds no agree­ment5 Arg. or correspondency with the Harmony of Confessions put forth in the name of all the re­formed and Protestant Churches, Printed and published at Geneva. For if they be faithfully consult­ed, 'twill be apparently manifest, that many of them do not agree in this point, some of them onely glancing at it. And as to the four heads above-mentioned, chiefly urged in this Doctrine, not once touched upon by them, no Confession of any Reformed [Page 49] church, delivering the doctrine of predestination, as before pro­pounded by me. The Bohemian Confession, the confession of the Church of England, that of Witten­berge, the first Helv [...]tian confession of the foure Cities, Argentorate, Constantia, Memminga, and Lin­davia, make not the least menti­on of it. The Basilian and that of Saxony do onely point at it in three words. The Augustan con­fession is so darke, that it stands in need of annotations to pread­monish us of it, as they of Geneva have thought; the last Helvetian confession, which hath the consent and subscription of the greatest part of all reformed churches, doth so speak of it that I would gladly see how it is consistent w^th it as before represented; though the Sabaudican and that at Gene­va have approved it.

Sixthly, Without all strife and6. Arg. contention this doctrine may be [Page 50] justly cald into question touching its concordancy with the Belgick Confession, and Heydelberg Cate­chism, as I shall briefly demon­strate. Artic. 14. Confes. Belg. you have this passage, Man knowingly and willingly subjected himself to The Au­thor proves the disa­greement of this do­ctrine with the Belgick Confessi­on, being that of his own Coun­ty, rather then any other. sin, and by consequence to Death and Malediction, whilest he inclined his ear to the words and impostures of the Devil. Whence I conclude, Man sinned not by any necessity of the preceding Decree of Predestina­tion, which is diametrically op­posite to the Doctrine thereof. Again, Artic. 16. speaking of the Eternal Election of God; God shewed himself mercifull by saving and freeing them from damnation, whom in his everlasting and unchan­geable counsel for his gracious good­nesse, without any respect of works, he chose in his Son Christ Iesus our Lord; and also just in relinquishing others in that their fall and perditi­on whereinto they had precipitated themselves. How these words are [Page 51] consistent with the foremention­ed Doctrine, I plainly see not.

In the Heydelberg Catechism, Quest. 20. Salvation is not given to all those by Christ who perished in Adam; but to them onely who are ingrafted into him by faith, and em­brace his benefits. Whence I con­clude God to have fore-appoint­ed none absolutely to Salvation, but those beheld in his Decree as believers; which is in open defiance with the first and third head of this Predestination. So Quest. 54.See pag. 26. I believe the Son of God out of all Mankinde doth from the beginning unto the end of the World gather a chosen company consenting in the true faith unto Eternal life; Where Election to life and consent in Faith are mutually placed toge­ther, and the latter not subordi­nate to the former, which accor­ding to the nature of this Do­ctrine ought necessarily to have [Page 52] been; and the words run thus, The Son of God calls and gathers by his spirit and word a company chosen unto life everlasting, that they might believe and agree in the faith. Things being thus, there is no cause why the maintainers and promoters of this Doctrine ought with that violence contend to obtrude the same on their Complices, or the Church of Christ, or take it in such ill part when any thing is taught either in Church or University, not con­senting, or at variance there­with.

Seventhly; This Doctrine7. Arg. fights against the very Nature of God; especially with those Attri­butes of his Divine Being, by which he worketh and manageth all things, viz. With his Wisdom, Justice and Goodness. It opposeth his Wisdom three waies; 1. In that it asserteth God to decree some­thing for that end, which neither [Page 53] is good, nor can be made so; such is Gods creation of some persons to eternal Perdition to the praise of his Justice. 2. In that it aver­reth God by this Predestination to have proposed to himself the demonstration of the praise of his Mercy and Justice: which he could no way do but by an act contrary to both; such is that de­cree whereby he determined that man should sin and become mise­rable. 3. It changetk and invert's the order & method of the two­fold Wisdom of God, manifest in Scripture, in that it asserts God absolutely to have fore-appoint­ed the salvation of men by the Mercy and Wisdom comprehen­ded in the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ; without foreseeing 'twas impossible that man, and that through his own default, should be saved, by Wisdom per­fected in the Lavv, and infused into him by Creation, vvhen the Scripture avers the contrary, [Page 54] 1 Cor. 12. 1. It pleased God by the foolishness of Preaching, to save those that believe, [i. e.] By the Word of the Cross, after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wis­dom knew not God.

2 It wars against the Justice of God, which represents him not only as a Lover of Righteousness and hater of sin, but as having a perpetual and unshaken will of giving every one his right: A­gainst the first of these, in that it makes God precisely to will the salvation of singular men, and decree the same without any in­tuition or respect to righteous­nesse or obedience, and become a lover of those men more then his own Justice. Against the later, in that it stateth Gods vvillingness to entail misery upon the crea­ture, (which is onely the punish­ment of sin) not beholding it as peccant, and so a culpable subject of Wrath and Punishment, and [Page 55] so is made to impose upon the creature both that which belongs not unto it, & likewise that which is in conjuction with its greatest evil, which is abhorrent from his Justice. According therefore to this Doctrine, God first detracts from himself that which is his right, and attributes to the crea­ture that which appertains not unto it, to the making of it mise­rable.

3. It is in open defiance with the goodnesse of God, which is an affection in him of communi­cating good according to that fitnesse and congruity, judged and permitted by his Justice. But in this Doctrine of Predestinati­on, God is set forth unto us in­duced of his own accord, with­out any external Motive, to will and ordain the greatest evil to the Creature, and that by an eternal preordination, preceding any determination in him of indow­ing [Page 56] it with the least good, this Doctrine being a declaration of Gods will to damn, which that he might execute, he purposed also to create; now Creation is the first egresse of Divine goodnesse: How discrepant are these things from that bounty of God where­by he doth good, not only to the undeserving, but also evil and guilty persons, and which we are commanded to imitate in our heavenly Father?

Eightly, It oppugneth the na­ture8. Arg. of man, consider'd in his be­ing created after the Image of God, in knowledge and righte­ousnesse, in freedom of will, with aptitude and affection to the en­joyment of Eternal life. These three things may be concluded of him out of of that short sentence, Do this, and live; in the day thou do­est Rom. 10. 5 Gen. 2. 17. that, thou shalt dye. If any of these be taken away from him, the force and weight of that moniti­on [Page 57] exciting him to obedience, falls to the ground.

1. It opposeth the Image of God in man, consisting in sancti­ty and knowledge of him, accord­ing to which man was apt, able, & obliged to know, love, worship, and serve God; but by this Pre­destination, intervening, or ra­ther prevening, man was fore­ordained That he should be viti­ous and sinful; [i. e.] That he should not know God, love, wor­ship, or serve him; neither per­form that which according to the Image of God in his aptitude, po­tencie, and obligement, he stood bound to do, which tant. amounts this, That God created man after his own Image in holiness and righteousness, but fore-ordained and decreed, That man should be­come impure, injust; [i. e.] be made conformable to the Satani­cal Image.

[Page 58]2. This doctrine combats the liberty of mans will, with which he was invested by his creation, in that it impedes and hinders the use and exercise thereof by binding up and determining the same to one part, in the doing this or that; so that one of these two, God (which be far from us to think) must be guilty of, ei­ther for that he created man with freedom of will, or hindred him in the exercise thereof, be­ing thus created; the first chargeth him with incogitancy, the last with mutability, and both with being iniurious to man and him­selfe.

3. It's prejudiciall to man, in regard of that propensity, and capacity implanted in him by his creation for the enioyment of e­verlasting life, in as much as by this predestinatory decree it is fore-appointed, that the greater part of men shall not partake of eternall bliss, but fall into ever­lasting [Page 59] condemnation, and that before the ordinance was passed in heaven for their creation, they are deprived of sa­tisfying their innate inclinations, those concreated tendencies to life ingrafted in them by the hand of their Creator, and that not by their own preceding sinne and merit, but simply and alone by this Predestination.

Ninethly, This Predestination9. Arg. is diametrically repugnant to the act of Creation; For,

1. Creation is the communica­tionCreation is made a means to put in to Execution the De­crees. of good, according to the intrinsecal propriety of its na­ture; but such a Creation as hath this intent and meaning, that it may be a way by which Reproba­tion formerly made might attain its end, is not the communication of good; all good is to be esti­mated and judged of according to the mind of the giver, or the end to, or for which it was given. [Page 60] The intent of the Donor here had been damnation, which must have the creature for its subject; the end or event of this Creation, the eternal perdition thereof; in which case Creation had not been the communication of any good, but a preparatory to the greatest evil, and that both according to the intent of the Creator, and the event of the thing, according to that of our Saviour, It had been Matth. 26. 24. better for that man that he had ne­ver been born.

2. Reprobation savours of hatred, & ariseth from thence; but Crea­tion cannot proceed of hatred; therefore it is no way or means appertaining to the execution thereof.

3. Creation is a perfect act of God, a declarative of his Wisdom, Goodness, and Omnipotencie; therefore not subordinate to the end of any precedaneous Work or action of God; but rather is to be looked upon as an act appoin­ted [Page 61] necessarily antecedaneous, and preceding all other actions, which he either could decree or undertake; for without the pre­conception of it, he could not ordain the actual undertaking of any other business; without its ex­ecution he could not absolve and finish any other Work.

4. All the actions of God, ten­ding to the damnation of his creatures, are aliens and forraign­ers, in that God consents unto them for some other extraneous cause; but Creation is the most proper act of God, to which he could not be moved by any exter­nal cause, being that first act of God, without which indeed there is nothing else but God, every thing that now is having its be­ing by this action.

5. If Creation be the way or means by which God will execute the Decree of his Reprobation, then he wills more the act of REPROBATION, then [Page 62] that of creation, & pleaseth himselfThat wch a man wils as the means, must needs be less considera­ble by him then that which he wills as the end. Arminius meaneth Elect and reprobate persons, be­ing both in Adam ac­cording to this Do­ctrine. more in the act of condemning some of his harmless creatures, then in the act of their Crea­tion.

Lastly, Creation cannot be a way or means to Reprobation, according to the absolute pur­pose of God; when that being fi­nished, man might still remain in obedience to Gods command, and not sinne, to which God had afforded sufficient strength on the one part, and placed an­swerable impediments on the o­ther, which is in open hostility with this Doctrine of Predestina­tion.

Tenthly, This Predestination10. Arg. sutes not the nature of eternal life, and those Titles wherewith it is dignified in Scripture; its cal­led the Inheritance of the sons of God; but those are the onely sonsTit. 3. 7. [Page 63] of GOD according toJoh. 1. 12. the Doctrine of the Gospel, who believe in the name of Jesus Matth. 5. 12. Christ; it's further termed, The reward of obedience, and of the la­bour of love, the recompence of those Heb. 6. 10. who have fought a good fight, and Rev. 2. 10. run well, a crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. 4. 7. &c. Therefore God hath not de­signed eternal life to any out of his absolute decree, without any respect or consideration had of faith and obedience.

Eleventhly, This doctrine dis­agrees with the nature of eternall11. Arg. death, and those names put upon it by the Holy Ghost; it's stiled The wages of sin; the punishment of Rom. 6. 23 eternal destruction, which is reser­ved 2 Thes. 1. 8, 9. for them that know not God, nei­ther obey the Gospel of Christ; eter­nal Matth. 25. 41. Fire prepared for the Devil and Heb. 10. 27 his Angels; Fire which shall con­sume the Adversaries of God: Therefore everlasting death is prepared for none out of the ab­solute decree of God, without a­ny [Page 64] sight or intuition of sin and disobedience.

Twelfthly, This doctrine jarrs12. Arg. with the nature and property of Sin, and that two ways. 1. Sin is known by the names of diso­bedience and rebellion in Scrip­ture, which finds no place in that person upon whom an unavoy­dable necessity of sinning by ver­tue of the preceding decree of God is incumbent. 2. Sin is the meritorious cause of condemna­tion: Now the meritorious cause is that which moves the will of God to reprobate according to justice; it induceth God to whom sin is hateful, to reject and re­probate; therefore sin can be no middle or intermediate cause by which God executeth his decree or will of reprobation.

13. This predestination fight­eth13 Arg. against the very nature of the grace of God, and as much as in it [Page 65] lyeth, destroys its very being, although it is pretended to bee most advantagious and necessary for its establishment; and this it doth three wayes: First, Grace is accommodated to the nature of man, not abolishing the liber­ty of his will, but rightly dispo­sing it, and correcting its depravi­ty, yeelding unto him his proper motions and inclinations; But this Doctrine introduceth such a kind of grace by which the free­dom of the will is wholly taken a­way, and the exercise of it hin­dred. Secondly, Grace in the Scripture is set forth unto us as resistible, that may bee received in vain, omitted, not assented unto, not co-operated with; this Predestinati­on affirming the contrary, that it is an irresistible force and ope­ration. Thirdly, Grace accordingActs 7. 51. 2 Cor. 6. 1. Heb. 12. 15. Matt. 23. 37. Luk. 7. 30. to the primary intent and minde of God, leads to the good of those to whom it is tendered and received; but this doctrine im­ports [Page 66] grace to be afforded some reprobate persons, and commu­nicated to the very illumination of their understandings, and par­ticipation of the Heavenly Gift, for no other end and purpose, then that being lifted up on high their fall might be the greater, that they might merit and receive the more heavy condemnation.

14. It's injurious to the glory of14 Arg. God, which stands not in the de­claration of Liberty or Authori­ty, consists not in the demonstra­tion of Wrath and Power; but as it's well consistent with his Ju­stice, with the honorable salvage of his goodness; but it strongly results from this Doctrine, That God is the author of sin upon this four-fold account.

1. In that it makes God pre­cisely to have decreed the demon­stration of his glory Glory by punitive Justice, supposeth a subject peccant and cul­pable; if he decree the end necessari­ly, why not the means, sin and trans­gression. by punitive Justice and Mercy in the salvati­on of some, and condemnation [Page 67] of others, which neither is, nor ever could be effected but by the entrance of sin into the world.

2. In that it affirms, God (for the attaining of his end) See p. 21. where the ordi­nation of mans fall is made a means to execute the decree of Predest. or­dained that man should sin and become vitious; by which ap­pointment of God, man's fall was unavoidable.

3. For that it asserts God to have substracted and denied that grace to man sufficient and ne­cessary to the avoidance of sin, and that before his actual trans­gression; which is all one, as if he had imposed upon his creature a Law impossible for him to keep, consider [...]d in the natural capacity wherein he was created.

4. Because it attributes to God those actious concerning man as well external as internal; mediate (by the intervening of other creatures) as immediate; by which man was necessitated to sin, and that necessitate consequentis, by a [Page 68] consequential necessity (as the School-men call it) anteceding the thing it self, which is wholly destructive to the freedom of mans will; & this act it imputeth to God, as out of his chief & pri­mary intention, without any presciencie, or fore-knowledge of mans inclination, will, or acti­on: Hence may be deducted, That God truly sins; because (according to this Doctrine) he provokes to sin by an unavoidable act, out of his own purpose and primary in­tent, without the least induce­ment from the precedent merit and sin of the creature: It's fur­ther concludable from these Pre­mises, That God onely sins; it not being competible to that man (being the commission of a for­bidden act) who is moved there­unto by force inevitable.

Lastly, It follows, That sin is no sin, it neither being so in its self, nor worthy of that Name, which [Page 69] God himself doth. Besides these, it wounds the honor of God ano­ther way; but for the present these may seem sufficient to be al­ledged.

Fifteenthly, This Doctrine is highly ignominious to Christ our15. Arg. Saviour; for, 1. It shuts him outVid. pag. 22. where Christ is placed as a means to put in­to execu­tion the Decree of election. of the Decree of Predestination, by pre-determining the end, and affirming men were first fore-ap­pointed to salvation; and then Christ ordained to save them, which removes him from being the foundation of Election. 2. It denies him to be the meritorious cause in the recovery of our lost salvation, placing him only as a cause subordinate to the salvation fore-appointed, as a Servant & In­strument to apply the same to us: and this holds corespondency w^ch that opinion wherein God is jud­ged absolutely to will the salvati­on of some men, and that in his first and supreme Decree (upon which all his other Ordinations [Page 70] depend and follow) so that it was impossible those men should lose their salvation, and therefore not necessary by the merit of Christ, preordained a Saviour to them a­lone, to be repaired, and as we may so speak, found anew, and re­covered for them only.

Sixteenthly: This Doctrine is16. Arg. noxious and harmful to the salva­tion of men: For,

1. It hinders that saluteferous and godly sorrow for sin, which cannot be found in those who have no remorse and feeling thereof, which Contrition no man is capable of who commits sin by the inevitable necessity of2 Cor. 7. 10. the Decree of God.

2. It puts to flight that pious solicitude of turning our selves from fin to God; for he that is purely passive, and like a dead man, not only in the preceptionRev. 2. 3. of the present Grace of God ex­citing him; but also in his assent [Page 71] and obedience thereunto, and is so converted by an irresistible power, that he cannot but feel the pulses of grace, forced to give up his assent thereunto, whereby he is changed, cannot conceive or induce into his minde any such carefulness, unless he hath first felt that irresistible motion; or if at any time he should stirre up in his heart any such solicitude, it would be frustraneous, and of no advantage unto him; for it could not be any true carefulness which was not begotten in him by that irresistible force, according to the precise purpose, and absolute in­tent of God for his salvati­on.

3. It inhibiteth and restrains the zeal and study of good works in converted persons, when it saith regenerate persons are in no capacity of doing either more or less good then they do; for he that is acted by saving-grace is obliged to work, neither can he intermit [Page 72] it; but not being agitated there­with, he can do nothing, he must of necessity omit it.

4. It extinguisheth all precato­ry zeal and fervencie; Prayer is that efficacious means instituted of God for the obtaining of eve­ry good thing, especially salvati­on at his hands; but from him who hath determined the salvati­on of these men, by an unchangea­ble and immutable Decree, Prayer can be no means to procure it; it's onely the Worship and ser­vice of God; for out of his posi­tive decree of Predestination he hath appointed the salvation of such individual men.

5. It takes away that wholsome fear and trembling in which we are commanded to work out ourPh. l. 2. 12. salvation, in that it positively af­firms, That the elect and believing person cannot sin with that full bent of will as the wicked do, nei­ther totally or finally fall away from faith or grace received.

[Page 73]6. It begets in men a despair of doing that which their duty re­quired, & obtaining that where­unto their desires were carried out, when they are taught that the grace of God, which is neces­sary to the production of every good act, out of the absolute and precise Decree of God, is denied to the major part of men, and that in pursuance of a preceding Decree, equally peremptory with the later, wherein he determined not to confer eternal life, but e­verlasting death upon them; it cannot but easily hence arise, that whoever is not perswaded of his being elected, should judge him­self of the number of Repro­bates, whence must needs spring up in him a fearful desparation of doing righteousness, and gain­ing eternal life.

Seventeenthly, This Doctrine17. Arg. inverts the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Gospel God [Page 74] requires of men faith and repen­tance, promising to converts and believers life everlasting; but by this Decree of Predestination, God is set forth as precisely wil­ling to give salvation to some sin­gular men, together with faith and repentance by an absolute and irresistible power, because 'twas his will and pleasure to save them. In the gospel God denoun­ceth eternal death to Impenitents and Unbelievers, that deterring them by his threats from their in­fidelity he might save them; but in this Decree of Predestination God is represented unwilling to give unto some men that grace necessary to Faith and Conversi­on, because he had peremptorily decreed to condemn them. The gospel saith, God so loved the world, that he gave his onely begotten Son, 3 Joh. 16. that whosoever believed in him should not perish, but have everla­sting life: but this Doctrine saith, God so loved those he absolutely ele­cted [Page 75] to eternal life, that he hath gi­ven his Son for them alone, and works them up to faith by force irre­sistible. In a word, the gospel saith, Perform the Command, and thou shalt obtain the Promise; be­lieve, and thou shalt live: but this Doctrine saith, Because it is my will and pleasure to bestow life upon thee, therefore will I give faith unto thee likewise; which is the very in­version of the gospel, and a tur­ning it upside down

Eighteenthly, This Predestina­tion18. Arg. is in open hostility with the Ministry of the gospel.

1. For no man can be a Minlster and fellow-labourer with God, neither the Word preached by him an instrument of grace and the spirit, if the Lord quicken him who is dead in sin by an irre­sistible power, no more then the creature could be an instrument of Instru­ment of Grace i. e. of love in the Crea­tion of the world. grace in the first Creation or Contributory to its resuscitation from the dead.

[Page 76]2. By this Doctrine the dispen­sation of the Gospel is made the savor of death unto death to the greater part of Auditors, and an instrument of condemnation out of the primary purpose, and ab­solute intent of God, without the least intuition of their preceding Rebellion.

3. By this Predestination bap­tism to reprobate Infants, the children of federal and belie­ving Parents, is a meer blank, and seals nothing, and so altogether unprofitable, and that out of the precise Intention of God, with­out any default of the Infants, to whom according to divine Com­mand this Ordinance is admini­stred.

4. This obstructs faith and con­fidence in publique prayers and supplications to God for the benefit of all those that hear the word, when according to this [Page 77] doctrine there are many amongst them whom God is not onely not willing to save, but in his abso­lute, eternall & immutable will preceding all things and causes, would condemne, notwithstan­ding the Apostle injoining Pray­ers and supplications to be made for all men adds this reason, for this is good and acceptable before 1 Tim. 2. 1, 4. God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledg of the truth.

5. The composure of this Do­ctrine easily renders Pastors and Teachers sloathfull and negligent in their function, as if their di­ligence were onely advantagious to those whom God would pre­cisely save, being in no possibi­lity of perishing; and their neg­ligence only Prejudiciall to those whom God would have miscarry, and are necessarily to be undone for ever without any possibility of salvation.

19. This Doctrine tends to Re­ligions19▪ Arg. overthrow in Generall, and the christian in speciall: Reli­gion considered in generall, is founded upon a twofold love of God, without which it neither hath nor ever will have any being in the world; the first is that Love of righteousnesse, which gives being to the hatred of sin; the second is, the love of the rati­onall creature, the love extended to man, as in the businesse in a­gitation, according to that of the Apostle, He that cometh un­to Heb. ii. 6. God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him: his love of righteousnesse is demonstrated in this, that he will not give eter­nall life to any but those that seek him; his love of men, that he will bestow blessednesse upon them, if they inquire after him. The mu­tuall relation betwixt them is this; There can be no place for the fe­fluxes of love to the creature, [Page 7] but as the love of righteousnesse permits it. The The love of Righ­teousness more no­ble then the love of the crea­ture. former is far more excellent then the la [...]er; there is al­wayes a way open for the emana­tions of love to the Creature, where the love of righteousnesse hath not stop't it.

The first is evident, in Gods con­demning man for sin, which he loves as his Creature, which he would not do, if man were more dear to him then his own justice; or his eternal ruin more abhor­rent then his disobedience: The second is clear, in that he con­demnes none but for sin, and saves those that are turnd from it, which would not be done by him unlesse he yeelded his love to the Creature so far as justice regula­ted by judgment permitted it. This Doctrine of predestination inverts and changeth this order and mutuall respect; First, by asserting God precisely to will the salvation of some men, with­out having in his purpose an eye [Page 80] to their obedience, whereby his love of men is preferd to his love of righteousnesse; and that as men, they are more respected by him then his own justice, and their misery more abhorrent un­to him, then their sin and diso­bedience. The second, by aver­ring the contrary, that God ab­solutely will's the destruction of some men, no consideration had in his decree of their disobe­dience, which detract's from his love to the Creature that which appertains to it, and represent's a Creature-hatred in God, with­out any cause or necessity drawn from his love of justice, and hatred of obliquity; wherein true it is not, that sin is the primary ob­ject of Divine displeasure, and the sole meritorious cause thereof. Of how great importance this is to the razing the foundation of Re­ligion, we may aptly see in this similitude; suppose a child speaking, My father is so great a [Page 81] lover of justice and equity, that if I should be found in waies of disobedience before him, he would disinherit me, though his belo­ved son, therefore the duty of obedience is highly incumbent upon me, if I think to be his heir. Another saith, My father hath fixed his love so much upon me, that he is absolutely resolved to make me his heire; what need is there of obedience? for in his immutable Will I am destinated to the inheritance▪ and rather then he will suffer me to come short thereof, he will draw me to obey him by force irresistible; which is in a direct line of oppo­sition to the words of the Bap­tist,Matt. 3. 9. And thinke not to say with­in your selves, Wee have ABRAHAM to our Fa­ther; for I say unto you, God is able of these Stones to raise up Children unto ABRA­HAM.

The Christian Religion is also built upon this double Love, as upon its foundation, though a little otherwaies considered then before, according to the change of mans state, who being created in the Image and favour of God, became peccant through his own default, and an enemy to his Ma­ker. The love of Righteousness, upon which our Religion lean­eth, is chiefly that which once he declared only in Christ, that no­thing should expiate sin, but the blood and death of his Son, neither would he admit him our Advo­cate and Intercessor, but as be­sprinkled with his blood. A de­clarative of this he makes daily in the preaching of the Gospel, that he will not communicate Christ and his benefits to any but those that turn unto and believe in him. The Love to miserable sin­ners, upon which also the Chri­stian Religion is bottom'd, is, first, [Page 83] that by which he hath given Christ his Son for them, and ap­pointed him the Saviour of them that believe; as also that by which he requires obedience, not accor­ding to the rigour and severity of his utmost right and authori­ty, but with grace and clemency, and the promise of remission of sin, if so be lapsed man repent. This Fundamental the doctrine of Predestination encounters two ways: First, by affirming Gods love to be so great to some Sin­ners, that he would precisely save them before he had given satisfa­ction to his love of Justice in Christ Jesus, and that in his fore-knowledge according to his purpose; nay, it overturns the foundation of Christianity, by representing God willing to have his justice satisfied, because hee would precisely save these men; which is to subordinate his love of Justice, testified in Christ, to his love of sinful men, whom he [Page 84] would resolutely save. Secondly, by making God absolutely wil­ling to damn some▪ sinners, with­out any consideration of their impenitency, when a plenary sa­tisfaction to his love of Justice, and hatred of Sin had been given in Christ Jesus; so that nothing stood in the way of his mercy to be shewn unto Sinners, be they what they will, but the con­dition of repentance; except some have a minde to say, what is contained in this doctrine of Predestination, that God will proceed in greater severity with the major part of men, then hee did with Lucifer, and his apostate Angels; and that it is his will that Christ and the Gospel profit them no more then the infernal spirits; that the gate of mercy is equally shut against them both; when these sinned in their own persons out of malice by a vo­luntary act, the other in their Parent Adam, having no actuall being of themselves.

To the better understandingA more exact de­claration of the precedent things. how this twofold love is the foun­dation of Religion, and that in the mutual respect one to ano­ther, let's ponder more accurate­ly that of the Apostle to the He­brews, Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, & that he is a rewarder of all those that diligently seek him: In these words, two fund­amentals are laid against the two fiery darts of Satan, Security and Despair, the pernicious Pests of Religion, either of them suffici­ent to the eversion and extirpa­tion thereof. The first flatters a man into the perswasion that though he serve not God, yet shall he not perish, but obtaine salvation. The other renders him confident, that though hee do worship and serve him, yet shall he not get. any remuneration of him; either of these exclude all true divine worship. An Antidote against both, the Apostolicall words affords. He that believes [Page 86] God wil give eternal life to those onely that seek him, and upon all others inflict everlasting death, cannot easily be secure; he that credits God to be a rewarder of those that seek him, will not rea­dily despair: The ground of the first perswasion is Gods love of Righteousness, more dear to him then Man himself, which shakes off security; The foundation of the other, by which man believes stedfastly God to be a rewarder of the true seekers of him, is that his so great love to the Creature Man, that nothing impedes his bestowing salvation on him, but the love which hee bears to his own Justice; which is so far from being an hindrance, that it doth rather promote and advance it: Upon this account, Man in his disquisition and search of God, is not dubious of divine remune­ration; and thus diffidence or desperation is put to flight: If so, that this double love, and the mu­tual [Page 87] relation, as hath been clear'd, be Religions foundation, without which it cannot subsist; then the doctrine repugnant to this love, both absolute and relative, everts and overthrows the same.

Twentiethly, This Doctrine20 Arg. of Predestination, as well in for­mer times, as these wherein wee live, stands rejected by the grea­ter part of the Professors of Chri­stianity. To pass in silence the A­ges foregoing, things themselves witness it hath been reputed er­roneous by the Church of Rome, the Anabaptisticall and Lutheran Churches.

Luther and Melanchthon, though in the beginning of the reforma­tion they approved it, yet af­terwards deserted it: This the later writings of Melanchthon ap­parently testifie of him. The same being witnessed of the other by the Lutherans themselves, who earnestly contend rather for [Page 88] their Masters more full declaring of his judgement in this, then desertion of the former opinion. Philip Melan [...]hth [...]n believed this opinion of Predestination not much different from the Stoical Fate, as his papers testifie, especi­ally his Epistle to Casper Peuce­rus, [Lelius certifies the contests are grown so high at Geneva about the Stoical Fate, that one is impri­soned because he differs from Zeno. O miserable times! the doctrine of the Gospell obscured with strange and forraign disputes!]

The dissent of the Danish Chur­ches in general is evident from the writings of Nicholas Hem­minge in his Treatife of Univer­sal grace, where he thus states the Controversie with his Adversaries, [Whether the Elect believe, or Be­lievers are elected?] Those who assert the first, he judges them to agree with the doctrine of the Manichees and Stoicks; those of [Page 89] the later perswasion, with Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles.

Further, Many in our owne Countrey do so ill resent this do­ctrine, as they have openly pro­fess'd they neither can nor will have communion with our Church. Some that have joyned themselves, yet with this protesta­tion, that they could not close with this opinion; and not a few (upon the score of Predesti­nation onely) have fallen away from our Churches, who have been of the same minde with us; others threatning to leave us, un­less they were satisfied; the Church was not of this judge­ment.

Certainly, there is no doctri­nal point, the Papists, Anabaptists, and Lutherans do more sharply oppose, and by whose means pro­cure greater envy to our Church, [Page 90] casting an Odium upon all the Doctrines thereof, as if there were no blasphemy against God so dreadful, either utterable or imaginable, which according to this opinion of our Teachers, might not upon good conse­quence bee deduced from this Predestination.

Lastly, There was rarely ever any difficulty, or controversie in these our Churches all along since the times of Reformation, which hath not had its rise from this Doctrine, or been in some con­junction with it: For the truth of this, wee may recollect the contests at Leyden in the matter of Coolhasius; those at Gouda, in the business of Herman Herberts; those at Horn about Cornelius Wigyer, and Medenblick in the cause of Taco Sibrand.

And this was not the least mo­tive inducing me to a diligent a­nimadvertency [Page 91] of this point, en­deavouring that no damage ac­crue thereby unto our Churches; the Papacy hence geting ground, whose ruin (as of the Kingdome of Antichrist) all pious Teachers ought to wish, studiously seek, and as much as in them lies, pur­sue: And this in brief, is that I have meditated upon this Doc­trine of Predestination, as it hath in all faithfulness been propoun­ded by mee from the Authours thereof, not affixing the least syllable to them which I cannot clearly prove from their own wri­tings.

Others of our Teachers do hold forth the Doctrine of Predestina­tion with some diffrence from the former, and that two several wayes, which I will briefly run through.

The Judgement of some of them is this.

First, That God hath purposed in himself by an Eternal and Im­mutable Decree, out of the lump of mankinde, to make the lesser part (for his good pleasure) par­takers of grace and glory, to the praise of his renowned Mercy; but by his preterition, to leave the greater part in the state of Na­ture, impotent to supernatural things, and not communicate to them that saving and spiritual grace, by which their nature yet whole and integrate might be establish'd; or corrupted and de­praved, restored to the demon­stration of his Liberty; but after­ward being made peccant and culpable, to punish them with e­ternal death, for the illustration of his Justice.

Secondly, Predestination (which word with these men is taken in the strict sense for Election, and opposed to Reprobation) is con­siderable in respect of the end and [Page 93] the means leading thereunto. In re­spect of the end, which is salvati­on, and a manifesto of his glorious grace, Man's consider'd absolute­ly and indifferently in his own nature in reference to the means; he is looked upon as of himself, and in himself perishing, and as guilty in Adam.

Thirdly, In the Decree, touch­ing the end, these gradations are observable; Gods prescience by which he foreknew the predesti­nate, then his prefinition, by which he preordain'd the salvation of those whom he foreknew: First; By electing them from eternity; then by preparing grace for them in this life, and glory in the life to come.

Fourthly, Means appertaining to the execution of this Predesti­nation, are to be Christ himself; then efficacious calling to faith in him; whence ariseth Justification, [Page 94] and then the gift of perseverance to the end.

Fifthly, Reprobation, as we are capable of understanding it, con­sists of two acts, Preterition, and Predamnation; the first anteceda­neous to all things & causes which are either in them, or exist by them; (i. e.) beholding man abso­lutely and indifferently under no consideration of sin.

Sixthly, To execute this act of Preterition, two means to be fore­appointed, Dereliction in the state of Nature, uncapable of super­natural performances, and Non­communication of grace, whereby their nature uncorrupted might be confirm'd, or depraved might be restored.

Seventhly, Predamnation like­wise to precede all things; yet not without the prescience of the cau­ses of damnation; God in his [Page 95] foreknowledge beholding man as an offender, and guilty of death in Adam, therefore liable to pe­rish out of the necessity imposed upon him by Divine Justice.

Eighthly, The means ordained to put into execution this Pre­damnation. 1. Just desertion, and that's either of Exploration, wherein God conferres not his grace; or of Punishment, when God deprives man of all his salu­tiferous gifts, and delivers him up into the power of Satan. 2. Means hardening, and those things that accompany it, to the real damnation of the Repro­bate.

Others declare their Opinion thus:The se­cond Opi­nion con­cerning Predesti­nation.

First, That God willing to de­cree from eternity the Election of particular persons, & Reproba­tion of others, looked upon man­kind [Page 96] not onely as made, but as fal­len and corrupted, and therefore guilty of Malediction, from which he determined freely by his grace to save some for a declarative of his Mercy, and leave others under the curse in just Judgement, for a manifesto of his Justice; and this without any consideration had of Repentance and Faith in the one, or Infidelity and Impenitence in the other.

Secondly, The special meansSee the stating of the first o­pinion. particularly belonging to the ex­ecution of this Decree of Electi­on and Reprobation, are to be the same with those laid down in the stating of the first Opinion, excepting those in common, apper­taining jointly to both; for the judgement of these men we now represent, makes not the fall of man as a means preordain'd to the accomplishment of the preceding Decree of Predestination, but onely as a proaeresis, or an occasion [Page 97] administred for the framing hereof.

Both of these Opinions, accor­dingArminius examines these Opi­nions. to their outward shape, do in this only differ from the first, that they neither place Creation nor the fall as a middle cause fore­appointed of God to execute this preceding Decree of Predestina­tion, though the two later them­selves agree not concerning the Fall. The first of them propounds Election in respect of the end, and preterition the first part of Reprobation, as preceding the fall, the second, as both of them sub­sequent thereunto. Amongst o­ther reasons inducing these men to deliver the Doctrine of Pre­destination this way, without kee­ping the high Road with their Predecessors, this was not the meanest, their willingness to pre­vent, lest God with the same pro­bability should be concluded the Author of sin from this their Do­ctrine. [Page 98] as some of them have jud­ged it concludable from the first. But really, if with diligent inspe­ction we well examine these Opi­nions of a later The se­cond and third O­pinions a­bout Pre­destinati­on. Edition, compa­red with the Judgements of the same Authors in other points of Religion, we shall find the fall of Adam not possibly otherwayes considerable, (according to the Tenents of these men) then as a necessary executive means of the preceding Decree of Predestina­tion; and this the purport of the two reasons comprehended in the second Opinion apparently evi­dence. The first is, Gods deter­mination by the Decree of Re­probation, to deny unto man that grace necessary to the antidoting his nature against the poyson of sin; (i. e.) decreed not to confer that grace which was necessary to avoid obliquity; so that mans transgression being under a Law, becomes inevitable, and his fall a means appointed to bring in to [Page 99] act the Decree of Reprobation. The second is, their bicotomy of Reprobation into Preterition and Predamnation, which according to the tenor of this Decree are cou­pled together by a necessary con­nexion one with another, and e­qually extensive; for all they that were passed by of God in the col­lation of grace, are also damned, and no others; whence we gather, Sin is a necessary result of the De­cree of Reprobation; otherwayes there were a possibility of not sinning left unto persons under this Preterition, and so of not pe­rishing, (sin being the only pro­curing cause of damnation) and so some thus passed by of God, neither saved nor condemned, which is a great absurdity. This Opinion we see is obnoxious to the same inconvenience with the first; and whilest it endeavours to avoid it, it falls into an open and absurd contradiction of it self, [Page 100] according to this; Prima ubi (que) su similis sit.

The third Opinion escapes this Rock better then the other, hadPermissio peccati est privatio auxilii Di­vini, quo posito, pec­catum im­pediretur; VVhitaker quoted by Maccovi­us, Coll. Theol. not the Patrons thereof deliver'd some thing for the declaration of Predestination and Providence, from whence the necessity of the Fall may be inferred, which can­not have any other rise then Pre­destinatory ordination. Their description of divine permission of sin is very pertinent; [Permis­sion is the substraction of Divine grace, whereby God, (executing the decrees of his will by rational crea­tures)Substracto auxilio Dei homo fa­cultatibus ad standum bene ut [...] non potuit. Paraeus, cap. 4. p. 46. lib. De Gratia primi hom. either doth not reveal his will to the creature, whereby he would have it effected; or doth not incline its will in that act in obedience to his own.] To which they adde, If it be so, the creature sins necessarily, yet voluntarily and freely. If any reply, This description is not qua­drant to Gods permission of A­dams sin, we close with him; yet [Page 101] nevertheless, hence it follows, That all other sins are done una­voidably. Again, It's reducible hither what some of them con­tend with that eagerness for, viz. That the manifestation of glory divine, which needs must be illu­strated, is placed in the demon­stration of Mercy and Justice punitive, which cannot be effect­ed but by the entrance of sin and misery by it, at least to the lowest desert thereof into the world; such a declarative of Gods glory introducing a necessity of sinning; And the Apostacie of Adam be­ing unavoidable, therefore it (together with Creation) are means subservient to the executi­on of this Decree; mans revolt could not necessarily ensue upon his Creation, unless by vertue of this predestinatory Decree, which cannot hold any middle place be­twixt them, but is set over them precedaneous to them both, su­bordinating Creation to Aposta­cy, [Page 102] and both to the execution of one and the same decree, to de­monstrate Justice in the punish­ment of sin, and Mercy in the remission thereof: Otherwise the necessary sequel of Creation had not been intended by God in it, which is impossible. But grant the necessity of the fall could not be concluded from the premises of either these two last Opinions, yet all the forementioned Argu­ments levell'd against the first, with a little diversification, are prevalent against these; as would plainly appear upon a debate of them.

Hitherto I have declared the Opinions of others in the point of Predestination, so much incul­cated in our Churches and univer­sity of Leyden, together with my own reasons inducing me to a dis­allowance of them: I come in the last place to offer my own Judg­ment concerning it, and as I be­leeve, [Page 103] most conformable to the Word of God.

1. The first and absolute de­creeArminius his own Judge­ment in the point in hand. of God concerning the sal­vation of sinful Man, is that whereby he decreed to appoint Jesus Christ the Mediator, Redee­mer, Saviour, Priest and King, who should abolish sinne by his death, recover (by his obedience) lost righteousness, and by his ver­tue communicate the same.

2. The second precise and ab­solute decree of God, is that whereby he determined to re­ceive into favour repentant and believing persons, and those per­severing to the end, to save in Christ, for Christ, and by Christ; the impenitent and unbelievers to leave in sin under wrath, and destroy as aliens from Christ.

3. The third decree, is that whereby he ordained (to admini­ster [Page 104] sufficiently and efficaciously) means necessary to faith and re­pentance; and this administra­tion to be framed according to his Wisdome, whereby he knowes what best becomes his mercy and severity, and according to his Justice, by which he is prepared to follow the prescript of his Wisdome, and put the same into execution.

4. Hence follows the fourth, whereby he decreed the salvati­on and condemnation of some singular and certain persons; and this Divine Ordination leans upon his Presciency, whereby hee knew from eternity, who (accor­ding to the vouchsafement of i­doneous means to faith and con­version by his preventing grace) were to believe, and by his subse­quent persevere, & who were not to believe nor persevere.

This Predestination thus ex­plained, is,

1. The Foundation of Christi­anity, Salvation, and Assurance.

2. The Materials of the Gos­pel, yea the very Gospel it self; and as to the two first Arti­cles thereof, necessary to be be­lieved unto salvation.

3. Neither hath it had need to be examined or discuss'd in ei­ther General or Particular Coun­cils, being clearly and expresly totidem verbis contained in the Scriptures, nor ever contradicted by any Orthodox Divine.

4. Alwayes acknowledged and held forth by all sound Teach­ers.

5. It accords with the Har­mony of all Confessions set forth by the Protestant Churches.

6. It agrees very fitly with the Belg [...]ck Confession and Cate­chisme; and if the words in the [Page 106] 16. Art. [Some and others] be ex­plained by beleevers and unbe­lievers, my judgement is dilucidly comprehended in it, which moved me (being to dispute publikely in the Colledge) to order the que­stionsIn Collegio publico­privato Academiae to be stated in the words of the Confession. It agrees with the Catechism, Quest. 20. 54.

7. It very well sutes the Na­ture of God, viz. his wisdome, goodness, and righteousness, is the principal matter and clearest de­monstration of them.

8. It's at very good agree­ment with the Nature of Man, whether considered in the state of Innocency, Apostacy, or re­stauration.

9. It holds good correspon­dency with the Act of Creati [...]n, confirming it to be the commu­nication of good, according to the intent of God, and the event of the thing; that it had its rise from Divine goodness, its continu­ation and preservation from Di­vine [Page 107] Love, and that it is the per­fect and proper work of God, wherein he pleased himself, and procured all things which were necessary, ad non peccandum, to a not sinning.

10. It consents with the Nature of eternal life, and those titles wherewith it is dignified in Scrip­ture.

11. With the Property of eter­nal death, and those names put up­on it by the Holy Ghost.

12. It makes sinne to be truly disobedience, and the meritorious cause of condemnation, and so concords with Apostacy and Transgression.

13. It harmonizeth with the Nature of Grace, by ascribing all things competible thereunto, re­conciling it to his justice, and the nature and liberty of Mans will.

14. It's a most advantagious declarative of the glory of Gods Justice and Mercy, representing [Page 108] him the cause of all good, and our salvation; and Man the cause of fin, and his own ruin.

15. It contributes to the ho­nor of Iesus Christ, appointing him the foundation of Predesti­nation, the procuring and com­municatory cause of salvation.

16. It greatly promotes the salvation of men, being the power and means unto everlasting life, procreating in them sorrow for sin, a sollicitous care of conversion, faith in Christ, study of good works, zeal in prayer, causing us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and as far as is necessa­ry, hinders desperation.

17. It confirms and establish­eth that Order and Method the Preaching of the Gospel requires; First, exacting Faith and Repen­tance; then promising Remission of Sin, the grace of the Spirit, and eternal life.

18. It strengthens the dispen­sation of the Gospel, and renders [Page 109] it fruitful in the promulgation thereof, administry of the Sacra­ments, and Publike Prayers.

19. It is the foundation of Christianity, in that in it the dou­ble Love of God are haply joyned together, and at good agreement one with another, namely, his Love of Righteousness with his love of men.

Lastly, This doctrine hath al­ways been allowed of by the ma­jor part of Christians, and to this day stands approved by them; neither can it administer an occasion of its abhorrency, or ground of contention in the Christian Church: Its much to be wished, that men would pro­ceed no further in this matter, neither be inquisitive into the un­searchable judgements of God any more then as revealed in the Scriptures.

And this is that (most Noble and Potent States) I have to declare to your Highness's concerning this Doctrine so much ventilated in the Church of Christ: And if I should not be burdensome, I have other things to offer to your High­ness's conducing to the declaration of my [...]udgement, and leading to the self-same end, for which I am commanded hither by your High­ness's: The Providence of God; the Free-will of Man; Perseverance of Saints; Assu­rance of Salvation, are points of so great affinity with this Doctrine of Predestination, and have so much dependance upon it, that with your good leave I shall deliver my self upon them.

THe Providence of GOD, I judge to be that careful, con­tinual, and ever-present eye of God, by which the care of the whole Universe, and all particular [Page 111] Creatures (not one exempted) is upon him, to the conservation and government of them in their essence, qualities, actions, and passions, as it best becomes him and sutes them, to the glory of his Name, and salvation of Be­lievers. Herein I substract no­thing from Divine Providence competible to it; but yeeld it the conservation, regulation, gubernation, and direction of all things, even to the abolition of Chance and Fortune; yea, I subject to the great Providence the Will of Man, and the very acts of the rational creature, so that no­thing is done without its will, though contrary thereunto: This difference betwixt good and bad actions onely observed; in that we affirm God both to will, and do good acts, but freely to permit the bad, being willing to concede the at­tribution of all acts excogitable concerning evil to the providence of God, so wee take heed lest [Page 112] thence God be determin'd The Author of Sin, which I evidently enough testified in a Dispute once and again under me at Ley­den, concerning the righteous­ness and efficacious Providence of God in evill; in which I en­deavoured to ascribe unto Provi­dence all those acts concerning sin attributed to God in Scrip­ture, making such progress here­in, that occasion was taken by some of impeaching me with ma­king GOD the Author of Sin, which was often produced against me at Amsterdam, according to their suggestion from those The­ses; but how justly, it is suffici­ently manifest from my answer to the one and thirty Articles (mentioned above) falsly impo­sed upon me, this being one of them.

Touching mans will, I am of that opinion that he was in dow­ed with knowledg, holiness and [Page 113] other ablities by his Creation, whereby he was able to under­stand, estimate, consider, will and performe true good; even as far as the commandment obliged him; yet not this without the auxiliaries of Divine grace: In the state of Apostacy and sin, he is disabled of himselfe and by himself to think, will, or do a­ny thing truly good, and stands in need of the renovating and re­generating power of God in Christ by his Spirit in his intellect affections, will and all other fa­culties, to impower him hereun­to; but, participating hereof as freed from sin, he is able to think will and do good, yet still as un­der the Supplies of the grace of God.

Concerning the grace of God I believe it to be that gratuitous and undeserved assio [...], whereby God is well affected towards a miserable sinner; by which, first he gave his Son, that whosoever [Page 114] believe's in him might have eter­nall life; and then in and for Christ justifies him, and adopts him into the right of his sons unto Salvation.

2. It is the infusion of Spiritual gifts into the understanding, will, and affections of man, appertaining to his regeneration and renovation, viz. Faith, hope, Charity &c. without which gratious donatives, man is not meet to think, will or do any thing that good is.

3. Grace is that continued assistance, that non-intermissive helpe of the Holy Ghost, by which the Spirit doth instantly perswade & excite man, (before Regene­rate) unto goodnesse, infusing Salutiferous cogitations, inspi­ring him with holy desiers, to the willing of good Actually; yea also by this he so wills and works together with man, that what man will's, he might accom­plish. [Page 115] And thus I atribute to Grace the begining, continuance, and con­summation of all good, so far as that man now regenerate, with­out this preventing, exciting, Subsequent, and Cooperating Grace, is in capable to think, will, or do any good, or resist any noxious temptation. Hence it's apparently manifest, I am no way injurious to the grace of God, by ascribing too much to the free will of man, as some asperse me. The hinge upon which al the Controvercy is turned, is this; whether the grace of God be an irresistible force: actions and o­perations as ascribable to grace, are not here disputed, none more ready then my selfe to confesse and inculcate them all; the man­ner of the operation onely is that in debate, wherein I believe ac­cording to the Scriptures, that many resist the HolyGhost, and repell Grace offered them.

As to the perseverance of Saints my judgement is this, Per­sons engrafted into Christ by true Faith, and participating of his quickning spirit, have strength sufficient to encounter Satan, Sin, the World, and their own cor­ruption, and by the same assisting grace to carry away the Victory; Christ himself standing by them in their assaults by his spirit, ex­tending his favourable hand to­wards them (so they be found in a fighting posture; implore his aid, and not be awanting to themselves) pre­serve them from falling; so that neither the fraud or violence of Satan shall be able to seduce or pluck them out of his hands. But whether these very persons by negligence may not desert the imi­tation of their existency in Christ, embrace again this present world, fall from the sound Doctrine once de­liver'd to them, lose a good conscience, make void the grace of God, would be diligently inquired into out of [Page 117] the Scriptures, and very useful and necessary to be debated in our first convention; yet I profess ingenuously, It was never taught by me that the true Believer might totally or finally fall away from the faith, and so perish; though I cannot dissemble, there are pla­ces of Scripture which seem to countenance the same, to which I could never meet with any satis­factory answer, although on the other part there are some places alledged not unworthy of ob­servation.

Concerning assurance of salva­tion, I judge him who believes in Jesus Christ, as well by the act of the holy spirit inwardly moving, and the Fruits of Faith, as by his own conscience, with the Testi­mony of the spirit witnessing with it, may have a certain perswa­sion, and indeed be assured, if his heart condemn him not that he is the son of God, and stands in the love of Christ; yea more, may depart [Page 118] this life with an unshaken confi­dence of the grace of God, and mercy in Christ Jesus, and appear before that Tribunal of grace de­void of all anxious fear and trem­bling solicitude; yet ought he al­wayes to pray, Lord, enter not into judgement with me; but in as much as God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things, and man not his own Judge; for though he know nothing by himself, yet is he not thereby justified, it is God that judgeth him: I dare not e­qual this certainty with that wherewith we know there is a God, and that Christ is the Saviour of the world; but the extent of this may be further treated of in our Convention.

Besides all these, there hath been much discourse abroad con­cerning the perfection of Believers and regenerate persons in this life; wherein I have been traduced as heterodox, and as almost of the [Page 119] Pelagian Opinion in this point, viz. That the regenerate in this life may perfectly keep the Law of God. To which I answer, That if I should thus judge, yet should I not Pelagianize either in whole, or in part, if so be I added this, they were able to do by the grace of Christ, and not without it; yet that there could be a plenary ob­servation of the precepts of Christ by a renewed person in this life, I never affirm'd, neither ever de­nied, but left it alwaies dubious, contenting my self with that of Austine, whose words I often quoted in the University, having nothing to adde of my own; they were these: There are four questi­ons Austine's Judge­ment. observable in the business in hand; 1. Whether there was ever any man without Sin who from the beginning to the end of his life never transgressed?

2. Whether there ever hath been, now is, or ever can be any such [Page 120] person that sinneth not, (i. e.) who hath reached that perfection here that he transgresseth not, but fulfils the Law of the perfect God.

3. Whether there be a possibility in this life for a man to be without Sin.

4. If't be possible, why there was never any such person found.

To the first the Father answers▪ That there was never any such per­son found besides the Lord Jesus Christ.

To the second, He thought ne­ver any man attained perfection in this life.

To the third, He judged it possi­ble by the grace of God and mans free-will.

To the fourth, Man doth not that which is possible by the grace of Christ, either because he is ignorant what good is, or places no complacen­cy or delight in it.

Hence its apparently manifest, Austine (the sharpest adversary the Pelagian Doctrine ever had) was of this Judgement, That it was possible by the grace of Christ in this life to be without sin: Yea, he further addes, Let Pelagius confess mans possibility of being without sin to be only by the grace of Christ, and we are agreed; but the Pelag [...]an Tenent appeared to this Father as if man by his own stre [...]gth (though with greater facility by the grace of Christ) had been able to keep the whole Law: How far I dissent from this Opi­nion, I have enter'd above, and now testifie mine account of it as Heretical diametrically opposite to the words of Christs, Without me [...]e can do nothing, and pernici­ouslyJohn [...]5. 9 destructive to the glory of God.

My judgement thus stated, I cannot see any thing comprehen­ded therein, for which any man [Page 122] should justly fear to appear toge­ther with it in the presence of God, or suspect any grievous evil to a­rise;He refers to Mr. Go­mar's Ex­pression to the States, p. 1. yet being sensible of those daylie Aspersions more and more cast upon me, as if I should carry in my bosome some pernicious Heretical opinions, I am not able to divine what the matter is, un­less they pretend something amiss in my Judgement concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and mans justificat [...]on before him; for as I un­derstand, touching both these heads much speech was had after the last Act before the Supreme Court, and many things given out upon it, for which I think my self engaged to declare to your High­nesses the carriage of the whole business.

That which relates to the Divi­nity of the Son of God, and the word [...] of which a Dispute was once had in our University; I cannot enough wonder, what [Page 123] brought me into suspition with some men, their jealously not be­ing grounded upon the least pro­bability, indeed as much remote from reason and truth, as what e­ver is dispersed to the prejudice of my Repute herein, may be tru­ly termed notoriously scanda­lous. At a dispute one Afternoon in Leyden, the question concern'd the Divinity of Christ; the Op­ponent objected the Son of God was [...], and therefore had his essence of himself, and not of his Father. The Respondent re­plyed the word [...] was ta­ken two waies, and either signifi­ed him who was truly God, or him who was God of himself; accord­ing to the first acception it was well and truly attributable to the Son of God; according to the lat­ter it was not. The Student still urging his Argument, vehement­ly contended, that this was com­petible to him according to the second signification, and the Es­sence [Page 124] of the Father could not be said, but improperly, to be com­municated to the Son and Holy Ghost, and that in right and pro­priety it was common to them all; and this he managed with the greater confidence, having Mr. Trelcatius Junior of blessed memory for him, as appears by some passages in his Common­places to this purpose. To which I then answered, That this opini­on was oppugnant to the Word of God, and all the antient Greek and Latine Churhes, who alwaies taught, That the Son had his Deity by eternal generation from his Fa­ther, and that it unavoidably drew along with it two repugnant Er­rors, Tritheism, and Sabellianism; (i. e.) hence would inevitably fol­low a Trinity of Gods, who should together collaterally have divine Essence, without the one having it from another, being only personally distinct; when for the defence of the unity of [Page 125] Essence in the trinity of persons, this only Fundamental hath been adhibited, the original Progress of one person from another, namely that of the Son from the Father. Hence would also follow, the confounding of the Father with the Son, inferring only a nominal difference betwixt them, which was the Opinion of Sabellius. It's proper to the Father to have his Deity of himself, or to speak more rightly, [...]f none, if in this sense the Son were [...], God of him­self, he should be the Father.

This Dispute went every where abroad, and reached Amsterdam it self, where I was enquired of by a Minister now fallen asleep in the Lord, how the case stood, who received a full account of me, with my desires that he would in­form Trel [...]atius of pious memo­ry, admonish him to rectifie his Judgement, and correct those impertinent words in his Com­mon-places, [Page 126] which after a sort he took upon him to do. Herein I was far from being liable to any blame, having defended the truth and the Judgement of the Catho­lick and Orthodox Church; but rather Trelcatius, who had usurp'd a form of speaking dero­gatory to the truth of the thing. This is my infelicity, or the zeal of some men, the least variance ari­sing, to have all the fault cast upon me, as if 'twere more impossible for me to be found in the Faith then any other man, though herein M. Gomar assented, who in a dispute concerning the Trinity, not long after the publication of those forementioned Common-places, did in his Theses three several times contradict Mr. Trelcatius, which I shewed the Amsterdam Minister, who confessed the same; yet notwithstanding all this, none endeavour'd my vindication from this obloquie, as some did the excusal of Mr. Trelcatius, by all [Page 127] can did Interpretation, which yet could not stand in any consisten­cy with the words: So much fa­vor and zeal could do.

Their tender Interpretation was this, The Son of God may be stiled [...], or said to have his Divinity of himself, quà Deus, as he is God; though from his Fa­ther quà Filius, as he is a Son. It's only for enlargement that God or Essence ought to be consider­ed absolutely and relatively; in the first acception the Son to have Essence Divine of himself; in the other from his Father. These are new Modes of speaking, novel o­pinions, and inconsistent; for the Son, both as God, and as Son, hath his deity from his Father; the de­nomination of God only, doth not express his being from the Father, as the word Son doth. The Essence of God is not any way considerable, wherein it can be said not to be communicated [Page 128] to the Son from the Father; nei­ther in any diverse respect can the same Essence both be com­municated & not communicated to him; being Contradictories they cannot be reconciled in any double consideration: If it be relatively communicated to him, he cannot have it absolutely of himself. I shall be peradventure demanded, Whether to be God, and the Son of God, be not two distinct things, which is confessed, but when by a further process it's affirm'd that as to be the Son of God, imports his having an Es­sence from the Father; so to be God, implies the having it from himself, or from none: It's denied with a further asservation, That it is [...]. an Error, not only in Divinity, but natural Philoso­phy also. To be a Son▪ and to be God, are at no repugnancy one with another; but to have an Essence from the Father, and yet withal to have it from none, are [Page 129] contradictories, and mutually destroy one another.

To bring this Fallacy to the light, we must observe the equi­pollencie of these six propositi­ons, placed parallel-wise.

God is eternal, having Divine Essence from Eternity.

The Father is from none, ha­ving Divine Essence from none.

The Son is of the Father, ha­ving Divine Essence from the Father.

The word God imports the having true Divine Essence. The term Son implies the having the same from the Father, whence properly he is called both God, and the Son of God; but as he cannot be called Father, so nei­ther can he be said to have essence of himself, or from no other; yet what endeavours are made to [Page 130] excuse these things, by telling us, that when the Son of God, as God, is said to have Essence of himself, nothing else is inti­mated, but that Essence Divine proceeds not from any. But if they are pleased to do thus, no­thing can be so depravedly spo­ken, which an excuse may not pa­tronize. Although God and Es­sence Differ not Essenti­ally. [...], yet whatever is predicable of the later, may not be predicated of the first, because distinguishable after our manner of conception, to which all forms of speaking ought to be exacted; therefore made use of that by them we may have a right perceptive of things. Hence it appears we speak right­ly, in saying Gods Essence is com­municable; but falsly, that God may be communicated; he that un­derstands the difference 'twixt the Abstract and the Concrete, so much controverted 'twixt the Lutherans and us must easily per­ceive [Page 131] how many absurdities would follow, if such Explicati­ons as these were once permitted in the Church of God: It admits of no excuse that the Son of God should be [...], neither is it proper to say that the Essence of God is common to the three persons, when it's said to be communica­ted one from another. From what I say it's openly manifest how much we can tolerate in him whom we suspect not of Heresie, and on the contrary how greedi­ly we snatch up any thing to bur­den him whom we have in suspi­tion; the first is conspicuous; for the later, this example is the least.

Concerning man's justification before God, I am not conscious to my self of teaching or thinking any thing which is not the unani­mous sense of the reform'd and Protestant Churches, and at very good accord with their▪ judge­ments herein.

Some controversie of this na­ture indeed there was afoot be­twixt Piscator the Nassovian Professor of Divinity, and the French Churches, stated thus; Whether the obedience and righte­ousness of Christ imputed to Belie­vers, and in which they are righte­ous before God, were only the passive obedience of Christ, according to the judgement of Piscator; or both ac­tive and passive, which in his whole life he yeelded to the Law of God, and that holiness wherein hee was conceived, as the Gallick Churches believed?

For my part, I never durst sink into this question, or assume the examination thereof, being satis­fied, the Professors of the same Religion may dissent from one a­nother herein, salving the unity of Faith and Christian Peace; the Adversaries one to another seeming to be of the same minde in mutual toleration and bro­therly [Page 133] forbearance, although in our Countrey some be of another judgement.

A Question is mov'd from the words of the Apostle Rom. 4. [Faith was accounted for righte­ousnesse] whether it be understood properly, so that faith as an act done according to the Evange­lical Precept, be imputed before God to or for righteousness, and that by grace, in as much as it is not the righteousness of the Law; or whether it be to be understood figuratively, and improperly, that the righteousness of Christ ap­prehended by Faith, be imputed to us for righteousness; or thus, whether Righteousness (into, or for which faith is imputed) bee the instrumental work thereof, as some assert. I have followed the first opinion, in the Theses of Justification disputed under [...]. me, Non praecisè not rigidly, yet simpli itèr, plainly, as elsewhere [Page 134] in a certain Epistle. For this I am judged unsound in the doctrine of mans Justification; but this wil be more clearly manifest in a mutu­al conference in its due season: For the present briefly thus: I believe the justification of sinners by the sole obedience of Christ, and that his Righteousness is the onely merito­rious cause for which the condonation of sin is granted to believers, and reputed as just as if they had fulfil­led the Law perfectly; but inasmuch as God imputes this Righteousness of Christ to believers only, I judg in this sense it may be well and properly said, that faith is imputed for Righ­teousness by grace to him that belie­veth, God having set forth his Son Tribunal Gratiae, a Mercy-seat, or propitiation by faith in his blood. But however my judgement is the same with Calvins, (whom none of us reprehends as unsold in this point) and am ready to subscribe to what he layes down in the [Page 135] third booke of his Institutions concerning it.

And these are the chief Articles, most noble and potent States, at the command of these Sessions I judged necessary to declare my sense of.

I have made some annotations upon the Confession of the Bel­gick Churches and Heydelberge Ca­techism; but of these a debate will be most seasonable in our Synod, which with your consent and evocation we hope for by the first opportunity; only give me leave to add a word or two concerning a certaine Claufe, under which the Noble and Po­tent States Generall consented to a Nationall Synod in this Pro­vince; which was this, that in it the Confession and Catechism of the Belgick Churches should be subjected to Examination. This hath displeased many, who judg­ed [Page 136] it not onely unnecessary, but very unmeet to be done; and who should procure this from the Lords the States Generall, but a person of quality and my selfe? But neither of these upon any ground; for the later, we were so far from being the authors of it, that eleven or twelve years ago at the great importunity of the Churches for a Nationall Synod, the States of South-Holland and Westfriesland could not judg it o­therwise requisite to yeeld there­unto by their decree, then that in it the Confession of the Belgick Churches should be brought under Examination; we not promoting any such thing at that time either by advice or endeavour; yet real­ly if we had, we had done no­thing but our duty, and what was agreeable both to Equity and Reason, and the necessity of our present Estate.

First, that it might appeare to all the world we bear that honour to the word of God alone (as becomes us) that it onely is deter­mined to be without, nay above all dispute, beyond al exception, and worthy of all acceptation.

Secondly, these book's being the writings of men Errour may be contain'd in them, whence it behoves us to be inquisitive, (yet lawfully in a Nationall Sy­nod) whether there be any thing that stands need of Correction and emendation in them.

1 Whether they have an agree­ment of parts with the word ofi. e. An ex­act agree­ment tho­roughout. God, as well according to the words themselves and manner of speaking, as the genuine sense thereof.

2. Whether or no whatsoever is Comprehended in them, be ne­cessary to be believed unto salvati­on; [Page 138] so consequently, saving health ascribed to those things to which it is not Competible.

3. Whether the Confession doth not containe and compre­hend too many things as necessary to be believed unto salvation, and that saving health according to that rule be refused to be gi­ven up to what it appertaines.

4. Whether the words and form's of speaking made use of in them, are not of ambiguous accep­tion, administring an occasion of contention; for Example, 14. Art [...]. Confes. you have this pas­sage, Nothing is done without Gods ordination; if by ordination be meant Gods appointing that something be done, the Proposition is false, in that it follows, that God is the Author of sin; but if the import of it be, his Ordination to a good end, its rightly understood.

[Page 139]5. Whether there may not be found things repugnant one to a­nother. Ex. Gr. A person much honoured in the Church, writes to Piscator; the Nassovian Pro­fessor wishes him to adhere to the Heydelberge Catechism; in his Doctrine of Justification cites to this purpose three places, which he thought at variance with the judgement of Piscator. The Pro­fessor returns, For his part he did stedfastly abide in the sense of the Catechism, alledgeth for his proof eleven or twelve places thence. Now I solemnly profess, I see not how these places admit of recon­ciliation.

6. Whether all things in these writings be digested in that right order and method the Scripture requires them to be.

7. Whether all things be most aptly constituted for the preser­vation of peace and unity with all Reformed Churches.

3 Reason. The end of a Na­tional Synod, is, diligently to consult the right ordering the affairs of the Church, to which chiefly belongs a Doctrinal Scru­tiny, as well that which by Una­nimous consent is admitted of, as what some Teachers earnestly contend for.

4. Reason Such an Examinati­on as this will not only procure authority to these writings, when after a Mature and rigid Scru­tiny they shall be found concor­ding with the Word of God, or more and more conform'd there­unto; but also raise the credit of the Ministers in the minds of men, when they perceive the truth reveald in the Book of God to be so deare, and of that great account with them, that they will spare no pains to set their Doctrine in a greater Confor­mity thereunto.

5 Reason. Why if at any time, now especially we Judge [Page 141] such a thing necessary, because there are many Ministers having some Meditations by them upon several things contained in the Confession and Catechisme, which they secretly reserve, not revea­ling them to any, hoping to de­bate them in a National Synod; this being promised them, some suffer themselves to be perswaded not to permit their thoughts herein to see the light.

Further; The end of a Natio­nal Synod should be this, That it may please the Noble and Potent Lords and States to establish some Ecclesiastick Sanctions by publick authority, according to which every one ought to frame himself in the Church of God. That this may be obtained from your most illustrious Highnesses, and others able to execute the same with a good Conscience, its necessary They understand the Doctrine comprehended in the forme of unity to be Consentaneous to the [Page 142] VVord of God. This ought be an inducement to us to present and offer the examination of our Confession before the Supreme States, either to shew its agree­ment with the Word of God, or to render it suitable thereun­to.

6. Reason, is drawn from the example of the Associates of the Augustan Confession; the Helveti­an and French Churches, who not above two or three yeeres a­go, inriched their Confession with a new entire Article; and the Belgick its self, since its first Edition, hath undergone a Scru­tiny in substraction from it, addition to it, and mutation of it.

I wave other Reasons that might be brought, judging these sufficient to prove that the Clause for Examination and Review, as they call it, is rightly inserted in the Instrument of Consent, of which mention was made even now.

I am not ignorant what Alle­gations are made against these, especially that published abroad every where, and judged to carry the greatest weight (to which I think it requisite to make an­swer) That to review the Doctrine of the Church, would be to call the same into question, which neither ought, nor is fit to be done.

1. Because it's approved by the suffrage of many grave and lear­ned men, and stifly defended a­gainst all the opposers there­of.

2. Seal'd with the blood of so many thousand Martyrs.

3. From hence would arise con­fusions, scandals, ruine of con­sciences within the Church, deri­sions, reproaches, and criminati­ons without.

To all these I reply, 1. 'Twere better this odious kinde of speak­ing such as to call into question, & the like, were not used but when only humane Writings are under debate, which may have a mixture of Error in them: What reason is there to say such a Writing is called into question, which was ne­ver questionless, nor ever ought to be so reputed?

2. The defence of any Writing against its adversaries, the appro­bation of learned men, the obsig­nation thereof with the blood of Martyrs, suffice not to make a Doctrine authentick; these Mar­tyrs and Teachers being liable to erre, which is not to be denyed in this Argument.

3. The Materials of the Con­fession admit of discrimination; some touch the foundation of sal­vation, and are the very funda­mentals of Christianity; some on­ly are built upon this bottm, and [Page 145] are not absolutely in themselves necessary to eternal bliss. The former are approv'd of by the unanimous consent of all reform­ers, and strongly defended against all gainsayers; the later disputed to and fro amongst them, and some of these not without some shew of truth oppugned by their Adversaries. To the first of these the Martyrs have set to their seal in blood; to the last not at all. It's worthy our diligent observation what was propounded to these Witnesses of Religion in our time, and for what their own lives were not dear unto them; which if we do, we shall find they were never question'd about any thing judged worthy (by me) of a debate in the Synod; therefore not sealed with the blood of any. To alledge an example; When the question was concerning the ele­venth Cap. to the Romans, 'twas asserted by some, That that place was cited in the Margin of the [Page 146] Confession, and that in his sense who avouched the same, and that The Martyrs had seal'd the Confes­sion with their blood. Answer was, If the exactest search were made through the great Book of Mar­tyrs set forth by the French, 'twould not be found that ever any of them were so much as ex­amin'd concerning it, or shed the least drop of their blood for it: In brief, the blood of those sacred Witnesses confirm'd this, That in the Integrity and simplicity of their consciences they professed the Faith; and not that their Confession was beyond all Reproof and Excepti­on, unless they had been so led into all truth by Christ that they could not erre.

4. If the Church were rightly instructed in the Difference which is, and ever ought to be 'twixt Divine and Humane Writings, and of that Liberty the Church and all other Christians are law­fully [Page 147] invested with, of regulating the later by the former, they would neither vex themselves, nor be offended when they see all the writings of men brought to the probative touchstone of Gods Word, but rather 'twould be matter of great joy to the Church, that God had bestowed such Pastors and Teachers upon it, who might justly and fitly (due order alwayes observ'd, to the Test. of the Scriptures) level their Doctrine accordingly, that it might every way accord, and in the least things perfectly agree therewith.

5. The fear of ensuing trouble, the Scorns, Cavillings and Crimi­nations of disaffected persons ought not to render a Doctrine once received less obnoxious to exa­mination; they might rather turn it to their advantage, when 'twould be manifest, such persons as would do this, were not [Page 148] sound in their Religion, it being of Divine injunction to search and try the spirits whether they were of God.

If these Considerations had been of any moment with Luther, Zwinglius, and others, the Doc­trine of the Pontificiar es had ne­ver been brought to the test by them; neither those who follow the Augustine Confession had jud­ged it reasonable to subject it to a new Examination, and change it in some places thereof. We cannot but approve this deed, and judge Luther not to have done well, being admonished by Philip Melancthon in the close of his life, (as it's testified in writing by our Countrey-men) to reduce the Eucharistical Controversie of the Lords Supper to some better agreement, in refusing so to do upon this ground, retorted upon Philip, as 'tis reported of him, [Page 149] That by this means the whole Do­ctrine should be called into question; for if reasons of this nature had been admitted, then the endea­vors of the Church of Rome had been lawful in hindring the con­troverting and questioning by any new scrutiny the Doctrine receiv'd in the Church for so many hundred yeers.

To this it's opposed, If the do­ctrine of the Churches should be subjected to a new Examination, at the Celebration of every Na­tional Synod, they would never have any thing on which they might rest and firmly lean; and that it might be truly said of these Churches, That they had fi­dem anniversariam, an anual faith, and were carried about hither and thither with every winde of Do­ctrine. To which I answer.

First, The Church have Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists [Page 150] and Apostles, (i. e.) the whole Scripture of the Old & New Te­stament wherein the necessaries to salvation are fully and clearly comprehended; Vpon this the Church shall build its faith, and stay thereon as upon an immovable foun­dation, into which, notwithstand­ing our Confessions & Catechisms every determination in all causes of Faith and Religion ought to be resolv'd.

2. There are some points in the Confession so certain and indubi­ous, that they will never be que­stion'd by any but Ex. Gr. Whether Christ be the Son of God? Whether the soul be im­mortal? Hereticks; other branches are of that na­ture that 'twere very advantagi­ous, as oft as may be, to have them debated amongst learned and God-fearing men, that they may be ranked as neer as possibly they can, with points of greater certainty.

3. It would be endeavoured [Page 151] that the Confession be made up of as few heads as may be, and those briefly framed in Scripture­terms; omitting all larger Expli­cations, Proofs, Digressions, heapings together of words and sentences, Amplifications, Excla­mations, and onely delivering in it the necessaries to salvation.

The brevity will render it less obnoxious to Errors, Obloquy, and Examination, taking for our example the practise of the pri­mitive Church, which gave a draught of the Articles judged necessary to be believed in very few words.

Some there are that make a di­stinction betwixt the Confession and Catechism, as to a review, and judge the former (because proper to the Belgick Churches, and not so much made use of by others) may with less difficulty fall under a Synodical review and examina­tion; [Page 152] but the Catechism not being peculiar to us, but chiefly appertaining to the Palatinate Churches, and of general use and concernment, cannot without great detriment be brought to the test. To which I answer, If the Catechisme of Heydelberg must needs be the form of con­cord amongst the Teachers of the Churches, and to which every of them is bound to subscribe, its necessary to subject the same to Examination; for there are no Churches ought to be in that place unto us, that we should so admit of any writing composed by them, as not to preserve our Liberty of examining the same. And this I look upon as the prin­cipal cause why the Churches of several Provinces agreeing in the Fundamentals of Religion, have framed their Confessions peculiar to every of them. Let it be gran­ted that the Heydelberg Cate­chism is no such form and liberty [Page 153] conceded in its Explication as is fitting, and 'twil not be necessary either to review or examine the same; the burden only of sub­scription thereunto removed, and moderate liberty yeelded in the unfolding thereof.