Historia Quinqu- Articularis: OR, A DECLARATION Of the JUDGEMENT of the Western-Churches; And more particularly of the Church of ENGLAND; In the five Controverted Points, &c.
CHAP. 1. The several Heresies of those who make God to be the Author of Sin, or attribute too much to the Natural freedom of Man's Will in the Works of Piety.
I. GOD affirmed by Florinus to be the Author of sin, the blasphemy encountred by Irenaeus, and the foul Consequents thereof. II. Revived in the last Ages by the Libertines, sayd by the Papists to proceed fram the Schools of Calvin, and by the Calvinists to proceed from the Schools of Rome. III. Disguised by the Maniches in another dress, and the necessity thereby imposed on the [...]ils of men. IV. The like by Bardesanes, and the Priscilianists, the dangerous consequents thereof exemplified out of Homer, and the words of S. Augustine. V. The error of the Maniches, touching the servitude of the Will revived by Luther, and continned by the rigid Lutherans. VI. As those of Bardesanes and Priscilian, by that of Calvin, touching the Absolute Decree, the dangers which lye hidden under the Decree, and the incompetibleness thereof with Christs coming to Judgment. VII. The large expressions of the Ancient Fathers touching the freedom of the [...]ill, abused by Pelagius and his followers. VIII. The Heresie of Pelagius, in what it did consist, especially as to this particular, and the dangers of it. IX. The Pelagian Heresie condemned and recalled: the temper of S. Augustine touching the freedom of the Will in spirituall matters. X. Pelagianism falsly charged on the Moderate Lutherans: How far all parties do agree about the freedom of the Will, and in what they differ.
1. OF all the Heresies which exercised the Church in the times, foregoing, there never was any more destructive of humane Society, more contrary to the rule of Faith and Manners, or more repugnant to the Divine Justice and Goodness of Almighty God, then that [Page 2] which makes God to be the Author of sin. A blaspemy first broacht in terms express by Florinus, Blastus, and some other of the City of Rome, about the year 180. encountred presently by that godly Bishop and Martyr S. Irenaeus, who published a Discourse against them, bearing this Inscription Hist. Eccl. Euseb. l. 5. c. 14. & 19. [...], Viz. That God was not the Author of sin. And he gave this Inscription to it (as the Story telleth us) because Florinus not content with those Vulgar Heresies, which had been taken up before, would needs break out into blasphemous Phrensies against God himself, in making him the Author of all those sins, which lewd men commit. Which Doctrine were it once admitted, not only the first sin of Adam, but all the sins that have been hitherto▪ perpetrated by his whole Posterity, must be charged on God, and he alone must be accountable for all Murthers, Robberies, Rapes, Adulteries, Insurrections, Treasons, Blasphemies, Heresies, Persecutions, or any other Abominations, which have been acted in the world, since the first Creation. For certainly there can be no reason, why every man may not say, on the committing of any sin, whatsoever it be, as did Lyconides in Plautus, when he de [...]owred old Eudio's Daughter, Deus mihi impulsor fuit, is me ad illam illexit; it was God alone who tempted and provoked them to those wicked Actions.
II. What Arguments the good Father used to cry down this Blasphemy (for a Heresie is a name too milde for so lewd a Doctrine) I cannot gather from my Author, but such they were, so operative and effectuall in stopping the current of the mischief; that either Florinus and the rest had no followers at all (as most Hereticks had) or such as never attained to the height of their Masters Impudence. And so that damnable Doctrine (the doctrine of Devils, I may call it) seems to be strangled in the birth, or to be buried in the same grave with the Authors of it, never revived in more then thirteen hundred years after the death of Irenaeus, when it was again started by the Libertines, a late b [...]ood of Sectaries, whom each of the two opposite parties are ashamed to own. This taught as did Florinus, in the Primitive times, Calv. Advers. Liberti. c. [...], Quicquid ego, & tu facimus, Deus efficit; nam in nobis est, That whatsoever [Page 3] thing they did, was Gods working in them; and therefore God to be intituled to those wicked Actions which themselves committed. The time of their first breakings out affirmed to be about the year 1529. The Founders of this Sect Loppinus, and Quintinus, Flemmings both; and this Prateolus affirms for certain to be the Progeny of Calvin, and other leading men of the Protestant Churches, They came (saith he) Eschola nostrae tempestatis Evangelicorum. Prateol. Elench. Haere. in Quintin [...]. Bellarmine somewhat more remisly, Omnino probabile est, eos ex Calvinianis promanasse, Bell [...]. and makes it only probable, that it might be so, but not rightly neither: The Libertines breaking out, as before was said, Ann. 1527. when Calvin was of little credit, and the name of Calvinists, or Calvinians not so much as heard of. And on the other side, Paraeus Professor of Divinity in the University of Hidelberg, writing some Animadversions on the Cardinals Works, assures us that they were both Papists, acquaints us with the place of their Nativity, and the proceedings had against them. Nor was Calvin wanting for his part, to purge himself from such an odious imputation, not only by confuting their Opinions in a set Discourse, but making one Franciscus Porquius, a Franciscan Fryer, to be a chief stickler in the Cause. Against which I know nothing that can be said but that the doctrine of the Libertines in this particular, doth hold more correspondence with Calvins Principles, then any of the received Positions of the Fryers of S. Francis. But whether it were so or not, I shall make this Inference, That the Doctrine must needs be most impious, which both sides detested, which the Papists laboured so industriously to Father on the Schools of Calvin, and the Calvinians no less passionatly to charge on some of our great Masters in the Church of Rome.
III. But so it is, that though the Impiety was too gross to appear bare fac'd, yet there have been too many both in the Elder and these later times, who entertaining in their hearts the same dread [...]ul madness, did recommend it to the world under a disguise, though they agreed not at all in that Masque or Vizard, which was put upon it. Of this sort Manes was the first, by birth of Persia, & Founder of the damnable Sect of the [Page 4] Manichaeans, An. 273. or thereabouts. This Wretch considering how unsuccesfully Florinus had sped before, in making God (who is all, and only good) to be the Author of sin: did first excogitate two Gods, the one good, and the other evil, both of like eternity; ascribing all pious Actions to the one, all Sins and Vices to the other: Which ground so laid, he utterly deprived the will of man of that natural liberty, of which it is by God invested; and therefore that in man there was no ability of resisting sin, or not submitting unto any of those wicked Actions which his lusts and passions offered to him. Prateol. in Elench. Hae [...]. in Manich. Contendebant, item, peccatum non esse a libero arbitrio, sed a Daemone, & [...]apropter non posse per liberum arbitrium impediri, as my Author hath it. Nor did they only leave mans will in a disability of hindering or resisting the incursions of sin, but they left it also under an incapability of acting any thing in order to the works of Righteousness, though God might graciously vouchsafe his assisting grace, making no difference in this case, betwixt a living man and a stock or Statua, for so it follows in my Author. Sed & nullam prorsus voluntati tribuebant Actionem, nec quidem adjuvante spiritu sancto: quasi nihil interesset inter statuam & voluntatem. In both directly contrary to that divine counsel of S. James, where he adviseth us to lay apart all filthiness, and superfluity of naughtiness, and to receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. Cap. 1. ver. 21. That of S. Peter exhorting, or requiring rather, That we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. And finally that golden Aphorism of S. Augustine; si non sit liberum arbitrium quomodo, Deus judicabit mundum? With what justice saith the Father, can God judge or condemn the world, if the sins of men proceed not from their own free will, but from some over-ruling power which inforc'd them to it?
IV. Others there were who harbouring in their hearts the said lewd opinions, and yet not daring to ascribe all their sins and wickednesses unto God himself, imputed the whole blame thereof to the Stars and Destinies, the powerful influence of the one, and the irresistable Decrees of the other, necessitating men to those wicked actions which they so frequently commit. Thus we are told of Bardesanes, Quod fato conversationes [Page 5] hominum ascriberet, August. de Haeres. cap. 25. That he ascribed all things to the power of Fate. And thus it is affirmed of Priscilianus, Fatalibus Astris homines alligatos, That men were thralled unto the Stars, Ibid. cap. 15. & 70. which last S. Augustine doth report of one Colarbus, save that he gave this power and influence to the Planets only; but these if pondered as they ought, differed but little, if at all from the impiety of Florinus before remembred, only it was expressed in a better language, and seemed to savour more of the Philosopher then the other did. For if the Lord had passed such an irresistible Law of Fate, that such and such should be guilty of such soul Transgressions as they commonly committed, it was all one as if he was proclaimed for the Author of them: and then why might not every man take unto himself the excuse and plea of Agamemnon, [...]. Homer Illiad. It was not I that did it, but the Gods and Destiny. Or if the Lord had given so irresistable a power to the Stars of Heaven, as to enforce men to be wickedly and lewdly given; what differs this from making God the Author of those vitious actions, to which by them we are inforced? And then why might not every man cast his sin on God, and say, as did some good fellows in S. Augustines time. August de Gen. ad lit. lib. 2. c. 27. Accusandum potius esse Autorem syderum, quam commissorem scelerum. That he who made the Stars was in the fault; not the men that did it.
5. But this absurdity being as much cryed down by Augustine and other learned Writers of those elder times, as the impiety of Florinus had been before; were either utterly extinguisht, or lay concealed for many hundred years together. Amongst the Philosophical Heterodoxies of the Roman Schools, that of the Maniches first revived by Martin Luther, who in meer opposition to Erasmus, who had then newly writ a book De Arbitrio libero, published a Discourse, intituled, De Arbitrio servo. In which Discourse he doth not only say, That the freedom ascribed unto the Will, is an empty nothing, Titulus, & nomen, sine re, A name of no such thing in nature; but holds expresly, that man is drawn no otherwise by the grace of God, then Velut inanimale quiddam, No otherwise then as a senseless stock or stone (the Statua of the ancient Maniches) [Page 6] in the great work of his conversion, to a state of Righteousness. And though Luther afterwards conformed his Judgment in this Point, unto that of Melancthon, as appeareth by the Augustan Confession, in drawing up whereof he is acknowledged to have had a principal hand; yet was he followed in this first Error, as in almost all the rest of his extremitys, by the rigid Lutherans, headed by Flaccus Illyricus, and his Associats in the City of Magdeberg, at his first separation from the Melancthonian Divines, who remained at Wittenberg, and had embraced more moderate and sober counsels: of which more hereafter.
6. But Luther shall not go alone, and not take Calvin along with him, how much soever they might differ in some other Points: Luther revived the Error of the Maniches, in denying all freedom to the will, especially in matters which relate to eternal life; and Calvin will revive the Errors of Bardesanes, and Priscillian, in charging all mens wicked actions on the Stars, and Destiny, not positively and in terminis, I must needs say that, but so that he comes close up to them, to Tantamo [...] ▪ ascribing that to the inevitable decrees of Almighty God, which Bardesanes attributed to the powers of Fate: Priscillian, Clolarbus to the influences of the Stars and Planets: For if God before all Eternity (as they plainly say) did purpose and decree the Fall of our Father Adam, Ʋt sua defectione periret Adam: In the words of Calvin Calv. inst [...]. lib. 3. c. 23 sect. 7 There was in Adam a necessity of committing sin, because the Lord had so decreed it. If without consideration of the sin of man, he hath by his determinate sentence ordained so many millions of men to everlasting damnation, and that too necessario, and inevitabiliter, V. Synod. Rom▪ as they please to phrase it, he must needs pre-ordain them to sin also: there being (as themselves confess) no way unto the end but by the means. The odious Inferences which are raised out of these opinions, I forbear to press, and shall add only at the present, That if we grant this Doctrine to be true and Orthodox, we may do well to put an Index expurgatorius upon the Creed, and quite expunge the Article of Christs coming to Judgment. For how could God condemn his Creature to unquenchable Flames? or put so ill an Office upon Christ our [Page 7] Saviour, as to condemn them by his mouth, in case the sins by them committed were not theirs, but his; or punish them for that himself works in them, unto which rather he decreed them before all Eternity. Nothing more true then that excellent saying of Fulgentius, Fulgent. ad Monimum. Deus non est eorum ultor, quorum est Autor. That God doth never punish his own actings in us.
7. Such were the men, and such the means, by which the blame of sin was transferred from man, and charged on the account of God, either expresly and in terms, or in the way of necessary consequence and undeniable Illation, by which lost man was totally deprived of all abilities for resisting Satan, or otherwise concurring with Gods grace in his own conversion. Nor wanted there some others in those elder times, who did ascribe so much to mans will, and the powers of Nature, as to make Gods Grace unprofitable, or at least unnecessary in either of the Acts aforesaid. The Fathers generally which lived before the starting of the Pelagian Heresies, declared themselves so largely, if not lavishly also, in the present Point, that the greatest Patrons of Free will in the Church of Rome, were fain sometimes to qualifie their expressions, and put a milder sense upon them, then the words import. For being to deal with the fatal necessity of the Pagans on the oneside, and the Impiety of Ma [...]iches on the other side; they gave themselves such liberty in advancing the powers of Nature, as might best serve to the refelling of either Adversary; not dreaming then that any Heresie could arise in opposition to the free Grace of God, to the advancing of free will above all degrees of power and possibility. But on the contrary Pelagius, a Britain born, either misguided by the lavishness of their expressions, or otherwise willing to get a Name unto himself by some new Invention, ascribed so much unto the freedom of the will in all Acts of Piety, Ʋt▪ gratiam Dei necessariam n [...]n putaret, as Vincentius Strynensis telleth us of him.
VIII. This man associated with Caelestinus, and [...]s two of his Companions, whom he had either drawn into the same opinion with him, or found them ready of themselves to promote the work, began to spread abroad their Errors about the [Page 8] year 405. Amongst the which those that especially concern this purpose are these two that follow, August. Tom. 2. Epist. [...]06. Viz. 1. Non esse liberum Arbitrium, si Dei indiget auxilio, quoniam in propria voluntate habet unusquis (que) facere aliquid, vel non facere. 2. Victoriam nostram non ex Dei adjutorio esse; sed ex Libero Arbitrio▪ That is to say, 1. That there is no freedom of the will, if it stand in any need of Gods assistance, because every man hath it in the power of his own will, either to do a thing, or not to do it, as to him seems best. And 2. That our Victory over sin and Satan comes not of any help which we have from God, but our own free will. Add unto this, that which must follow of necessity from the former Principles. Orationes quas facit Ecclesia pro infidelibus, & aliis peccatoribus ut convertantur, sive pro fidelibus ut perseverent, frustra fieri. That is to say, That the Services of the Church, which are made either for the conversion of the wicked, or the perseverance of the Just, are but labour lost; because (say they) our own free will is able of it self to attain those ends, and therefore it is to no purpose to ask those things at the hands of God, which we may compass of our selves: Pra [...]eol. Elenc [...]. Haeret. in Pelag. Quod ad illa omnia sufficicere dicant nostri Arbitrii liberam potestatem, & ita non opus esse a Deo petere quae nos ipsi consequi possumus, as my Author hath it; whose words I have layd down at large, that we may see how much the world was carried to the other extreme, how much the truth was lost on both sides, and yet how easie to be found by those who went a middle way in the search thereof.
IX. For looking on these last opinions as they stand in themselves, we may affirm of them in general, as Augustine doth particularly of the Stoical Fates; Nil aliud agere nisi ut nullus omnino aut rogetur aut colater Deus. They seem to aim at nothing more then the utter abolition of the Worship and Service of God. But these Pelagian Heresies did not hold out long, being solemnly condemned in the 2 Affrican Councels of Carthage, and Milevis, confuted by S. Augustine with great care and diligence: and finally retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine. So that the Heresie being suppressed, the Catholick Doctrine in that Point became more setled and confirmed by the opposition▪ such freedom being left to the [Page 9] will of man, as was subservient unto grace, co-operating in some measure with those heavenly influences: And so much is confessed by S. Augustine himself, where he asks this question, Quis nostrum dicit, quod primi hominis peccato perierit Arbitrium (o) August. l. [...]. contr. Epist▪ Pelagi. cap. 2. de humano genere? Doth any man (saith he) affirm that free will is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam? And thereunto he makes this answer: Libertas quidem periit per peccatum; sed illa quae in Paradiso fuit habendi plenam cum immortalitate justitiam. That is to say, Freedom is perished by si [...], but it is that freedom only which we had in Paradise, of having perfect righteousness with immortality. For otherwise it appears to be his Opinion that man was not meerly passive in all the Acts of Grace which conduced to Glory, according to the memorable saying of his (so common in the Mouths of all men) Qui creavit te sine te, non salvabit te sine te: That he who first made us without our help, will not vouchsafe to save us at the last without our concurrence. If any harsher expressions have escapt his Pen, (as commonly it hapneth in the heats of a disputation) they are to be qualified by this last Rule, and by that before; in which it was affirmed, That God could not with justice judge and condemn the World, if all mens sins proceeded not from their own free will, but from some over-ruling providence which enforc'd them to it.
10. After this time we meet with no such Enemys to the Grace of God, no such Advancers of mans free will and the power of Nature, as might intitle any man to the Crime of Pelagianism. It cannot be denied but that Illyricus and some other of the rigid Lutherans upbraided Melancthon and all the Divines in a manner, both of Lipsique and Wittenberge, with teaching that a man by the powers of Nature may yeild obedience to the Word, embrace the Promises, and make no opposition to the workings of the Holy Ghost [...] as hath been noted by Lindan in▪ Dial. 21. Lyndanus. But then it must be granted, that when their works came to be weighed in the Scale of the Sanctuary, it will be found that they speak only of such a Synergie▪ or cooperation, as makes men differ from a sensless stock, or liveless statua, in reference to the great work of his own conversion. And thereupon we may resolve that at the last the Church in [Page 10] general concentred upon these Propositions:
1. Man in the state of corruption hath freedom of will in Actions natural and civil.
2. That considered in the same estate he hath free will in matters moral. And,
3. That man hath free will in Actions of piety, and such as belong unto his salvation; that is to say, Being first prevented by Gods Grace, and having afterwards the assistance and support thereof: which Propositions being easie and intelligible as they stand by themselves, but are made more difficult and obscure, even to learned men, by interweaving them with many intricate disputes, touching the correspondence of free will, with Prescience, Providence, and Predestination: disputes so intricate and perplexed, that Armachan [...]s (as great a Clerk as almost any in his time) travelled no less then twenty years in the search of one of them alone, and yet could not find it. And yet I cannot say, that the consent in those three Propositions before remembred, in which the Church hath generally concentred: since the death of S. Augustine hath met with no dissenting Judgment in these later times. Some men restraining all our Actions to so strict a Rule, as to make the will of man determined and tyed up in all particulars, even to the taking up of a Rush, or Straw, as in another case it was taught by Cartwright the great Bel-weather of the Flock in Queen Elizabeths Eccles. polit. lib. 11. p 96. time, sufficiently derided, or rather gravely reprehended for it by judicious Hooker. And if we meet with any thing which looks that way in the writings of some Dominican Friers, who stifly stand to all the rigours of S. Augustine in the controversies of Predestination, Grace, free Will, &c. against the Jesuits, and Franciscans: it is to be imputed rather to the errour of their Education, a stifness in maintaining their old Opinions, or finally to that Animosity, which commonly the weaker party carrieth against the stronger, then to any clear and evident Authority, which they can pretend to from that Father, or any other ancient Writers of unquestioned credit; which said, I hope it will be granted without much difficulty, that such a doctrine of predestination, as neither directly nor indirectly makes God to be the Author of sin, nor attributes so much [Page 11] to the will of man, in depraved nature, as to exclude the influences of Gods heavenly Grace; is more to be embraced then any other, which dasheth against either of the said extremes: And that being granted or supposed, I shall first lay down the Judgment of the differing parties, in the Article of Predestination, and the Points depending thereupon; and afterwards declare to which of the sayd differing Parties, the Doctrine of the Church of England seemeth most inclinable.
CHAP. II. Of the Debates amongst the Divines in the Councel of Trent, touching Predestinations, and Original Sin.
I. The Articles drawn from the Writings of the Zuinglians, touching Predestination and Reprob [...]ation. II. The Doctrine of Predestination according to the Dominican way. III. As also the old Franciscans, with Reasons for their own, and against the other. IV. The Historians Judgment interposed between the Parties. V. The middle way of Catarinus to compose the differences. VI. The newness of St. Augustines Opinion, and the dislike thereof by the most Learned men in the Ages following. VII. The perplexities amongst the Theologues, touching the absoluteness of the Decrees. VIII. The Judgment of the sayd Divines, touching the possibility of falling from Grace. IX. The Debates about the nature and transmitting of Original Sin. X. The Doctrine of the Councel in it.
I. IN such condition stood Affairs in reference to the doctrines of Predestination, Grace, Free-will, &c. at the first sitting down of the Councel of Trent, in which those Points became the subject of many sad and serious Debates amongst the Prelates and Divines, then and there Assembled, which being so necessary to the understanding of the Questions which we have before us: I shall not think my time ill spent in laying down the summe and abstract of the same, as I find it digested to my hand by Padre Paulo, the diligent and laborious Author of the Tridentine Historie; only I shall invert his method, by giving precedency to the Disputes concerning Predestination, before the Debates and Agitations, which hapned in canvasing the Articles touching the Freedome of mans Will, though those [Page 13] about Free-will do first occur in the course and method of that Councel: It being determined by the Councel, as that Author hath it, to draw some Articles from the Writings of the Protestants, concerning the Doctrine of Predestination: It appeared that in the Books of Luther, in the Augustan Confession, and in the Apologies and Colloquies, there was nothing found that deserved censure; But much they found among the Writings of the Zuinglians, out of which they drew these following Articles; Viz.
1. For Predestination and Reprobation; that man doth nothing, but all is in the will of God.
2. The Predestinated cannot be condemned, nor the Reprobate saved.
3. The Elect and Predestinated only are truly justified.
4. The Justified are bound by Faith to believe, they are in the number of the Predestinated.
5. The Justified cannot fall from Grace.
6. Those that are called, and are not in the number of the Predestinated, do never receive Grace.
7. The Justified is bound to believe by Faith, that he ought to persevere in Justice until the end.
8. The Justified is bound to believe for certain, that in case he fall from Grace, he shall receive it again.
II. In the examining the first of these Articles, the Opinions were divers. The most esteemed Divines amongst them thought it to be Catholick, the contrary Heretical; because the good School Writers (S. Thomas, Scotus, and the rest) do so think, that is, that God before the Creation, out of the Mass of man-kind, hath elected by his only and meer mercy, some for Glory, for whom he hath prepared effectually the means to obtain it, which is called, to predestinate. That their number is certain and determined, neither can there any be added. The others not Predestinated cannot complain, for that God hath prepared for them sufficient assistance for this, though indeed none but the Elect shall be saved. For the most principal reason they alledged, that S. Paul to the Romans having made Jacob a pattern of the Predestinated, and Esau of the Reprobate, he produceth the Decree of God pronounced before [Page 14] they were born, not for their Works, but for his own good pleasure. To this they joyned the example of the same Apostle: That as the Potter of the same Lump of Clay, maketh one Vessel to honour, another to dishonour; so God of the same Mass of men, chooseth and leaveth whom he listeth: for proof whereof S. Paul bringeth the place where God faith to Moses, I will shew mercy, on whom I will shew mercy, and I will shew pity, on whom I will shew pity. And the same Apostle concludeth; It is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God who sheweth mercy; adding after, that God sheweth mercy, on whom he will, and hardneth whom he will. They sayd further, That for this cause, the Councel of the Divine Predestination and Reprobation is called by the same Apostle, The height and depth of wisdom, unsearchable and incomprehensible. They added places of the other Epistles, where he sayth, We have nothing but what we have received from God, that we are not able of our selves, so much as to think well: and where, in giving the cause, why some have revolted from the Faith, and some stand firm, he sayd, it was because the Foundation of God standeth sure, and hath this seal; the Lord knoweth who are his. They added divers passages of the Gospel of S. John, and infinite Authorities of S. Augustine, because the Saint wrote nothing in his old Age but in favour of this Doctrine.
III. But some others though of less esteem, opposed this opinion, calling it hard, cruel, inhumane, horrible, impious, and that it shewed partiality in God, if, without any motive cause, he elected one, and rejected another; and unjust if he damned men for his own will, and not for their faults, and had created so great a multitude to condemn it. They sayd, it destroyed Free-will, because the Elect cannot finally do evil, nor the Reprobate good: that it casteth men into a gulph of desperation, doubting that they be Reprobates; That it giveth occasion to the wicked of bad thoughts, not caring for Pennance, but thinking if they be elected, they shall not perish; if Reprobates, it is in vain to do well, because it will not help them. They confessed, that not only works, are not the cause of Gods election, because that is before them, and eternal; but that neither Works foreseen, can move God to Predestinate, who is [Page 15] willing for his infinite mercy, that all should be saved, to this end prepareth sufficient assistance for all, which every man having Free-will receiveth or refuseth, as pleaseth him: and God in his eternity foreseeth those who will receive his help, and use it to good, and those who will refuse; and rejecteth these, electeth and predestinateth those: They added, That otherwise there was no cause why God in the Scriptures should complain of sinners; nor why he should exhort all to repentance and conversion, if they have not sufficient means to get them: that the sufficient assistance invented by the others, is insufficient, because, in their opinion, it never had nor shall have any effect.
IV. The first Opinion as it is mystical and hidden, keeping the minde humble, and relying on God, without any confidence in it self, knowing the deformity of sin, and the excellency of Divine Grace; so this second was plausible and popular, cherishing humane presumption, and making a great shew; and it pleased more the preaching Fryers, then the understanding Divines. And the Council thought it probable, as consonant to politick Reason: It was maintained by the Bishop of Bitonto, and the Bishop of Salpi shewed himself very partial. The Defenders of this, using humane Reasons, prevailed against the others, but coming to the testimonies of Scripture, they were manifestly overcome.
V. Calarinus, holding the same Opinion, to resolve the places of Scripture, which troubled them all, invented a middle way; That God of his goodness had elected some few, whom he will save absolutely, to whom he hath prepared most potent, effectual, and infallible means; the rest he desireth for his part they should be saved; and to that end hath promised sufficient means for all, leaving it to their choice to accept them and be saved, or refuse them and be damned. Amongst these there are some who receive them and are saved, though they be not of the number of the Elect; of which kinde there are very many. Other refusing to co-operate with God, who wisheth their salvation, are damned. The cause why the first are predestinated, is only the will of God: why the others are saved, is the acceptation, good use, and co-operation with the [Page 16] Divine assistance, foreseen by God: why the last are reprobated, is the foreseeing of their perverse will, in refusing, or abusing it. That S. John, S. Paul, and all the places of Scripture alledged by the other part, where all is given to God, and which do shew infallibility, are understood only of the first, who are particularly priviledged; and in other for whom the common way is left, the admonitions, exhortations, and general assistances are verified, unto which he that will give ear and follow them, is saved, & he that wil not, perisheth by his own fault. Of these few who are priviledged above the common condition, the number is determinate and certain with God, but not of those who are saved by the common way, depend on humane liberty, but only in regard of the fore-knowledge of the works of every one. Catarinus sayd, He wondred at the stupidity of those, who say, the number is certain and determined, and yet they add that others may be saved; which is as much as to say, that the number is certain, and yet it may be enlarged: and likewise of those who say; That the Reprobates have sufficient assistance for salvation, though it be necessary for him that is saved to have a greater, which is to say, a sufficient, unsufficient.
VI. He added, that S. Augustines Opinion was not heard of before his time, and himself confesseth it cannot be found in the works of any, who wrote before him, neither did himself alwaies think it true, but ascribed the cause of Gods will to merits; saying, God taketh compassion on, and hardneth whom he listeth. But that will of God cannot be unjust, because it is caused by most secret merits; and that there is diversity of sinners: some who though they be justified, deserve justification. But after the heat of Disputation against the Pelagians transported him to think, and speak the contrary; yet when his opinion was heard, all the Catholicks were scandalized, as S. Prosper wrote to him, and Genadius of Marselles, fifty years after in his judgment which he maketh of the famous Writers, sayd, That it hapned to him according to the words of Solomon; That in much speaking one cannot avoid sin: and that by his fault exagitated by his Enemies, the question was not then risen, which might afterwards bring forth heresie, [Page 17] whereby the good Father did intimate his fear of that which now appeareth; that is, that by that opposition some Sect and Division might arise.
VII. The censure of the second Article was divers, according to the three related Opinions. Catarinus thought the first part true, in regard of the efficacy of the Divine Will, towards those who were particularly favoured: But the second false, concerning the sufficiency of Gods Assistance unto all, and mans liberty in co-operating. Others ascribing the cause of Predestination in all to humane consent, condemned the whole Article in both parts. But those that adhered unto S. Augustine, and the common opinion of the Theologans, did distinguish it, and sayd, it was true in a compound sense, but damnable in a divided: a subtilty which confounded the minds of the Prelates, and his own, though he did exemplifie it by saying, he that moveth cannot stand still, it is true in a compound sense, but is understood, while he moveth: but in a divided sense it is false, that is, in another time. Yet it was not wel understood because applying it to his purpose; It cannot be sayd, that a man predestinated, can be damned, in a time when he is not predestinated, seeing he is alwaies so: and generally the divided sense hath no place, where the accident is inseparable from the subject. Therfore others thought to declare it better, saying, that God governeth and moveth every thing, according to its proper nature, which in contingent things is free, & such, as that the act may consist together with the power to the opposite; so that wth the act of predestination, the power to reprobation & damnation doth stand. But this was worse understood then the first.
VIII. The other Articles were censured with admirable concord. Concerning the third and sixth, they sayd, it hath alwaies been an opinion in the Church, that many receive divine Grace, and keep it for a time, who afterwards do lose it, and in time are damned. Then was alledged the example of Saul, Solomon, and Judas, one of the Twelve: a case more evident then all, by these words of Christ to the Father; I have kept in thy name all that thou hast given me, of which not one hath perished, but the son of Perdition. To these they added Nicholas one of the seven Deacons, and others, first commended in the Scriptures, and then blamed: and for a conclusion of all, the Fall of Luther.
[Page 18]Against the sixth, they particularly considered, that Vocation would become impious derision; when those that are called, and nothing is wanting on their side, are not admitted: that the Sacraments would not be effectual for them; all which things are absurd. But for censure, first, the Authority of the Prophet was brought directly contrary in terms, where God sayth, That if the Just shall abandon justice, and commit iniquity I will not remember his works. The Example of David was added, who committed Murther and Adultry, of Magdalen, and S. Peter, who denied Christ: They de [...]ided the folly of the Zuinglians, for saying, the Just cannot fall from Grace, and yet sinneth in every work. The two last were uniformly condemned of temerity, with exception of those unto whom God hath given a special Revelation, as to Moses and the Disciples, to whom it was revealed, that they were written in the Book of Heaven.
IX. Now because the Doctrine of Predestination doth naturallyHist. of the Councel, fol. 175. presuppose a Curse from which man was to be delivered: it will not be amiss to lay down the Judgment of that Councel in the Article of Original sin (which rendred man obnoxious to the dreadful curse) together with the preparatory Debates, amongst the Scool-men and Divines, which were there Assembled; touching the nature and transmitting of it from Adam unto his Posterity, and from one man to another. Concerning which it was declared by Catarinus, That as God made a Covenant with Abraham, and all his Posterity, when he made him Father of the faithful: So when he gave Original Righteousness to Adam, and all man-kinde, he made him seal an Obligation in the name of all to keep it for himself and them, observing the Commandment: which because he trangressed, he lost it, as well for others as himself, and incurred the punishent also for them; the which as they are derived in every one, and to him as the cause to others, by vertue of the Covenant: so that the actual sin of Adam is actual sin in him, and imputed to others in Original; for proof whereof he grounded himself upon this especially, that a true and proper sin must needs be a voluntary Act, and nothing can be voluntary, but that transgression of Adam imputed unto all. And [Page 19] Paul saying, that all have sinned in Adam, it must be understood that they have all committed the same sin with him; he alledged for example, that S. Paul to the Hebrews affirmeth that Levi payd Tythe to Melchisedeck when he payd in his great Grandfather Abraham: by which reason it must be sayd, that the Posterity violated the Commandments of God when Adam did it: and that they were sinners in him, as in him they received Righteousness.
X. Which Application as it was more intelligible to the Prelates Assembled together in the Councel, then any of the Crabbed Intricacies, and perplexities of the rest of the Scoolmen, irreconcilable in a manner amongst themselves: so didIde n fol. 181. it quicken them to the dispatch of their Canons, or Anathamatisms (while they had the Notions in their heads) against all such as had taught otherwise of Original sin, then was allowed of and maintained in the Church of Rome, but more particulary against him, 1. That confesseth not, that Adam by transgressing hath lost Sanctity and Justice, incurred the wrath of God, Death, and Thraldom to the Devil, and is infected in Soul and Body. 2. Against him that averreth that Adam by sinning hath hurt himself only, or hath derived into his Posterity, the death only of the Body, and not sin, the death of the Soul. 3. Against him that affirmeth the sin, which is one in the beginning, and proper to every one (committed by Generation, not imitation) can be abolished, by any other remedy then the death of Christ) is applied as well to Children, as to those of riper years, by the Sacrament of Baptism ministred in the form and rite of the Church.
CHAP. III. The like Debates about Free-will, with the Conclusions of the Councel; in the Five Controverted Points.
I. The Articles against the Freedom of the Will, extracted out of Luther's Writings. II. The exclamation of the Divines against Luther's Doctrine in the Point, and the absurdities thereof. III. The several Judgments of Marinarus, Catarinus, and Andreas Vega. IV. The different Judgment of the Dominicans, and Franciscans, whether it lay in mans power to believe, or not to believe; and whether the Freedom of the Will were lost in Adam. V. As also of the Point of the co-operation of mans Will with the Grace of God. VI. The opinion of Fryer Catanca, in the point of irresistibility. VII. Faintly maintained by Soto a Dominican Fryer, and more cordially approved by others, but in time rejected. VIII. The great care taken by the Legates in having the Articles so framed, as to please all parties. IX. The Doctrine of the Councel in the V. controverted Points. X. A Transition from the Councel of Trent, to the Protestant and Reformed Churches.
I. THese Differences and Debates concerning Predestination, the possibility of Falling away from the Faith of Christ, and the nature of Original sin: being thus passed over; I shall look back on those Debates which were had amongst the Fathers and Divines in the Councel of Trent, about the Nature of Free-will, and the power thereof. In order whereunto these Articles were collected out of the Writings of the Lutherans, to be discussed and censured, as they [Page 21] found cause for it. Now the Articles were these that follow, Viz.
1. God is the total cause of our works Good: and Evil, and the Adultry of David, the cruelty of Manlius, and the Treason of Judas, are the works of God as well as the Vocation of Saul.
2. No man hath power to think well or ill, but all cometh from absolute necessity, and in us is no Free-will, and to affirm it is a meer Fiction.
3. Free-will since the sin of Adam is lost, and a thing only titular, and when one doth what is in his power he sinneth mortally: yea, it is a thing fained, and a Title without reality.
4. Free-will is only in doing ill, and hath no power to do good.
5. Free-will moved by God, doth by no means co-operate, and followeth as an Instrument without life, or an unreasonable Creature.
6. That God correcteth those only whom he will, though they will not spurn against it.
II. Upon the first Article they spake rather in a Tragical manner, then Theological; that the Lutheran Doctrine was a frantick wisdom: that mans Will as they make it is prodigious; that those words, a thing of Title only, a Title without reality, are monstruous: that the Opinion is impious and blasphemous against God; that the Church hath condemned it against the Maniches, Priscillianists, and lastly against Aballardus, and Wickliff: and that it was a folly against common sense, every one proving in himself his own Liberty; that it deserveth not confutation, but as Aristotle sayth, Chastisement and Experimental proofe, that Luther's Scholars perceived the folly, and to moderate the Absurdity, sayd after, that a man had liberty in External, Political, and Oeconomical Actions, and in matters of Civil Justice, that, which every one but a Fool knoweth, to proceed from Councels and Election, but denied Liberty in matter of Divine Justice only.
[Page 22]III. Marinarus sayd, That as it is foolish to say, no humane Action is in our power, so it is no less absurd to say, that every one is: every one finding by Experience, that he hath not his Affections in his power: that this is the sense of the Schools, wch say, that we are not free in the first motions; wch freedom because the Saints have, it is certain, that some freedom is in them which is not in us. Catarinus according to his opinion, sayd, That without Gods special assistance, a man cannot do a moral good; sayd, there was no liberty in this, and therefore that the Fourth Article was not so easily to be condemned. Vega after he had spoken with such Ambiguity, that he understood not himself, concluded that between the Divines and the Protestants, there was no difference in Opinion. For they concluding now that there is liberty in Philosophical Justice, and not in Supernatural, in External works of the Law, not in external and spiritual; that is to say, precisely with the Church, that one cannot do spiritual works belonging to Religion, without the assistance of God. And though he sayd, all endeavour was to be used for composition; yet he was not gratefully heard: it seeming in some sort a prejudice, that any of the Differences might be reconciled; and they were wont to say, that this is a point of the Colloquies, a word abhorred, as if by that, the Laity had usurped the Authority which is proper to Councels.
IV. A great Disputation arose upon them, Whether it be in mans power to believe, or not to believe? The Franciscans following Sotus, did deny it; saying, That as Knowledge doth necessarily follow Demonstrations, so Faith doth arise necessarily from perswasions; and that it is in the understanding, which is a natural Agent, and is naturally moved by the Object. They alledged Experience, that no man can believe what he will, but what seemeth true, adding, that no man would feel any displeasure, if he could believe he had it not. The Dominicans sayd, that nothing is more in the power of the Will, then to believe, and by the determination and resolution of the Will only, one may believe the number of the Stars is even.
[Page 23]Upon the Third Article, Whether Free-will be lost by sin, very many Authoritys of S. Augustine being alledged, whichHist. of Councel p▪ 108. &c. expresly say it▪ Soto did invent, because he knew no other means to avoid them, that true Liberty is equivocal; for either it is derived from the Noun Libertas, Freedom, or from the Verb Liberare, to set Free: that in the first sense it is opposed to necessity, in the second to servitude; and that when S. Augustine sayd, That Free-will was lost, he would infer nothing else, but that it is made slave to Sin and Satan. This difference could not be understood▪ because a servant is not free, for that he cannot do his own Will, but is compelled to follow his Masters: and by this opinion Luther could not be blamed for entituling a Book of SERVILWIL; many thought the Fourth Article absurd, saying, That Liberty is understood to be a power to both the contraries: therefore that it could not be sayd, to be a Liberty to Evil, if it were not also to Good: But they were made to acknowledge their Error, when they were told that the Saints and blessed▪ Angels in Heaven, are free to do good, and therefore that [...] was no inconvenience that some should be free only to do Evil.
V. In the examining the fifth and sixth Articles of the consent which Free-will giveth to Divine Inspiration, or preventing Grace, the Franciscans and Dominicans were of divers Opinions: The Franciscans contended that the Will being able to prepare it self, hath Liberty much more to accept or refuse the divine Prevention when God giveth assistance, before it useth the strength of Nature. The Dominicans denied that the Works preceding the Vocation, are truly preparatory, and ever gave the first place to God. Notwithstanding there was a contention between the Dominicans themselves. For Soto defended, that although a man cannot obtain Grace, without the special preventing assistance of God, yet the Will may ever some way resist and refuse it; and when it doth receive it, it is because it giveth assent, and doth will so: and if our assent were not required, there would be no cause why all should not be converted. For according to the Apocalyps, God standeth always at the Gate and knocketh: and it is [Page 24] a Saying of the Fathers, now made common, That God giveth Grace to every one that will have it; and the Scripture doth alwaies require this consent in us, and to say otherwise were to take away the Liberty of the Will, and to say, that God useth violence.
VI. Fryer Aloisius Catanca sayd to the contrary, That God worketh two sorts of preventing Grace in the Minde, according to the Doctrine of S. Thomas, the one sufficient, the other effectual: To the first, the Will may consent or resist, but not to the second, because it implyeth contradiction, to say, that Efficacy can be resisted; for proof he alledged places of S. John, and very clear Expositions of S. Augustine: He answereth that it ariseth hence, that all are not converted, because all are not effectually prevented. That the fear of overthrowing Free-will, is removed by S. Thomas, the things are violently moved by a contrary Cause, but never by their own: and God being the cause of the Will; to say it is moved by God, is to say, it is moved by it self. And he condemned, yea, mocked the Lutherans manner of speech; that the Will followeth as a dead and unreasonable Creature: for being reasonable by Nature, moved by its own Cause, which is God, it is moved as reasonable, and followeth a reasonable. And likewise that God consenteth, though men will not, and spurn at him: For it is a contradiction that the Effect should spurn against the Cause. That it may happen that God may effectually convert one, that before hath spurned, before sufficient Prevention, but afterwards cannot because a gentleness in the Will moved, must needs follow the Efficacy of the Divine Motion.
VII. Soto sayd, That every Divine Inspiration was onely sufficient, and that, that whereunto Free-will hath assented, obtaineth efficiency by that consent, without which it is uneffectual; not by the defect of it self, but of the man. The Opinion he defended very fearfully, because it was opposed, that the distinction of the Reprobate from the Elect, would proceed from man, contrary to the perpetual Catholick sense; that the Vessels of Mercy are distinguished by Grace, from the [Page 25] Vessels of Wrath. That Gods Election would be for Works foreseen, and not for his good Pleasure. That the Doctrine of the Fathers in the Affrican, and French Councels against the Pelagians, hath published, that God maketh them to will, which is to say, that he maketh them consent; therefore giving consent to us, it ought to be attributed to the Divine Power; or else he that is saved would be no more obliged to God, then he that is damned, if God should use them both alike.
But notwithstanding all these Reasons, the contrary Opinion had the general Applause, though many confessed that the Reasons of Catanca were not resolved: and were displeased that Soto did not speak freely, but sayd, that the Will consenteth in a certain manner; so that it may in a certain manner resist: as though there were a certain manner of mean, between this Affirmation and Negation. The free speech of Catanca, and the other Dominicans did trouble them also, who knew not how to distinguish the Opinion, which attributeth Justification by consent from the Pelagian; and therefore they counselled to take heed of leaping beyond the Mark, by too great a desire to condemn Luther: that Objection being esteemed above all, that by this means the Divine Election or Predestination would be for Works foreseen, which no Divine did admit.
VIII. The Ground thus layd, we shall proceed unto a Declaration of the Judgment of the Church of Rome, in the five Articles disputed afterwards with such heat, betwixt the Remonstrants, and the contra Remonstrants in the Belgick Church, so far forth as it may be gathered from the Decrees & Canons of the Councel of Trent, and such preparatory Discourses as smoothed the way to the Conclusions which were made therein. In order whereunto, it was advised by Marcus Viguerius, Bishop of Sinigagli, to separate the Catholick Doctrine from the contrary, and to make two Decrees; in the one to make a continued Declaration and Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Churches, and in the other to condemn and Anathematize Ibid. p. 2 [...]. the contrary. But in the drawing up of the Decrees, [Page 26] there appeared a greater difficulty, then they were aware of, in conquering wherof the Cardinal of Sancta Cruz (one of the Presidents of the Councel) took incredible pains, avoiding as much as was possible to insert any thing controverted amongst the School-men; and so handling those that could not be omitted, as that every one might be contented. And to this end he observed in every Congregation, what was disliked by any, and took it away, or corrected it as he was advised; and he spake not only in the Congregations, but with every one in particular, was informed of all the doubts, and required their Opinions. He diversified the matter with divers Orders, changed sometimes one part, sometimes another, until he had reduced them unto the Order in which they now are, which generally pleased, and was approved by all. Nor did the Decrees thus drawn and setled, give less content at Rome then they did at Trent, for being transmitted to the Pope, and by him committed to the Fryers, and other learned men of the Court, to be consulted of amongst them, they found an universal approbation, because every one might understand them in his own sense: And being so approved of were sent back to Trent, and there solemnly passed in a full Congregation, on the thirteenth of January, 1647. according to the account of the Church of Rome. And yet it is to be observed, that though the Decrees were so drawn up, as to please all parties, especially as to the giving of no distast to the Dominican Fryers and their Adherenrs; yet it is easie to be seen, that they incline more favourably to the Franciscans, whose cause the Jesuits have since wedded, and speak more literally and Grammatically to the sence of that party, then they do to the others: which sayd, I shall present the Doctrine of the Councel of Trent, as to these controverted Points in this Order following.
1. Of Divine Predestination.
IX. All man-kind having lost its primitive integrity by the sin of Adam, they became thereby the Sons of wrath, and soConci [...]. Trid. Ses▪ [...]. c. 1. [Page 27] much captivated under the command of Satan; that neither the Gentiles by the power of Nature; nor the Jews by the Letter of the Law of Moses were able to free themselves from that grievous Servitude. In which respect it pleased AlmightyIbid. c. 2. God the Father of all Mercies to promise first, and afterwards actually to send his only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world, not only to redeem the Jews who were under the Law, but that the Gentiles also might embrace the Righteousness which is by Faith, and altogether might receive the Adoption of Sons. Hist. of the Councel f. 212. To which end he prepared sufficient assistance for all, which every man having free-will might receive, or refuse, as it pleased himself; and foreseeing from before all Eternity who would receive his help, and use it to Good: and on the other side, who would refuse to make use thereof; he predestinated and elected those of the first sort to Eternall Life, and rejected the others.
2. Of the Merit and Effect of the Death of Christ.
Him God proposed to be a propitiation for our sins by hisSess. 6. c. 2, 3. Death and Passion, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of all the World. But so that though Christ died for all men, yet all do not receive the benefit of his death and sufferings, but only they to whom the merit of his Passion is communicated in their new birth or regeneration, by which the grace whereby they are justified, or made just, is conferred upon them.
3. Of mans Conversion unto God.
The Grace of God is not given to man by Jesus Christ, to no other end, but that thereby he might the more easily divertSession 6. Can. 2. 3. himself in the waies of Godliness, and consequently merit and obtain eternal life, which otherwise he might do without any such Grace, by his own free-will, though with more difficulty and trouble. And therefore if any man shall say, that without the preventing Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and [Page 28] his heavenly Influences, a man is able to even hope, love, or repent, as he ought to do, that so he may be justified in the sight of God: let him be Anathema.
4. Of the manner of Conversion.
The Freedom of the Will is not so utterly lost in man,S [...]ss. 6. c. 5. though it be diminished and impaired, as to be accounted nothing but an empty name, or the name of no such thing existing in nature: in that the Will of man moved and stirred up by the grace of God, retains a power of co-operating with the heavenly Grace, by which he doth prepare and disposeCa. 4. himself for the obtaining of that Justification, which is given unto him. And therefore if any one shall say that a man cannot resist this grace though he would, or that he is meerly passive, not acting any thing, but as a stock or senseless stone, in his own Conversion, let him be also held accurst. And so are they who have presumed to affirm and teach, that it is not in the power of man to do evil, but as well bad as good works are done not only by Gods permission, but by his proper working: so that as well the Treason of Judas, as the Calling of Paul, is to be reckoned for the work of Almighty God.
5. Of the certainty or uncertainty of Perseverance.
No man is so far to presume on the secret Mystery of Predestination,Sess 6. Can. 13. as to account himself for certain to be within the number of the Elect; as if he were assured of this, that being justified, he could neither sin no more, nor were sure of repentance if he did. And therefore no man is to flatter himself with any such certainty of perseverance, though all men ought to place a constant and firm hope (for the obtaining of the same) in the help of God. They which by sin have faln away from the grace received; may recover their lostCan. 14. Justification, if being stirred up from above, they endeavour the recovery of it by sincere repentance, or by the SacramentCan. 15. of Pennance, as the words there are; And finally the grace of [Page 29] Justification (or the grace by which a man is justified) is not only lost by infidelity, by which the Faith it self doth suffer Shipwrack, but even by every mortal sin, though Faith be not lost also at the same time with it.
X. Such is the Doctrine of this Councel in the Points disputed, extracted faithfully out of the Canons and Decrees thereof: one only clause being added to the Article of Predestination, agreeable to the Opinion in the Conferences and Debates about it, which prevailed most upon the Prelates and all others who were interessed and intrusted in drawing up the Products and Conclusions of it: which how far it agreeth or disagreeth with, or from that which is maintained by the opposite Parties in the Reformed and Protestant Churches, we are next to see.
CHAP. IV. The Judgment of the Lutherans and Calvinians in these Five Points, with some Objections made against the Conclusions of the Councel of Dort.
I. No Difference in Five Points betwixt the Lutherans and the Church of Rome, as is acknowledged by the Papists themselves. II. The Judgment of the Lutheran Churches in the sayd 5 Points, delivered in the famous Confession of Ausperge. III. The distribution of the Quarrel betwixt the Franciscans, Melancthonians, and Arminians, on the one side, the Dominicans, Rigid Lutherans, and Sublapsarian Calvinists on the other; the middle way of Catarinus paralleled by that of Bishop Overal. IV. The Doctrine of Predestination as layd down by Calvin, of what ill Consequence in it self, and how odious to the Lutheran Doctors. V. Opposed by Sebastian Castellio in Geneva it self, but propagated in most Churches of Calvins Plat-form, and afterwards polished by Perkins, a Divine of England, and in him censured and confuted by Jacob Van Harmine, a Belgick Writer. VI. A brief view of the Doctrine of the Sublapsarians, and the odious Consequences of it. VII. The Judgment of the Sublapsarians▪ in the sayd Five Points, collected and presented at the Conference at the Hague, Ann. 1610. VIII. The Doctrine of the Synodists in the sayd Points. IX. Affirmed to be repugnant to the holy Scripture, as also to the Purity, Mercy, Justice, and Sincerity of Almighty God. X. And the subversion of the Ministry, and all Acts of Piety, illustrated by the example of Tiberius Caesar, and the Lantgrave of Thurin.
I. SUCH being the Doctrines of this Councel in the Points disputed; we need not take much pains in looking [Page 31] after the Judgment of the Lutheran Churches, which comes so neer to that of the Church of Rome, as to be reckonedHist. of the Councel of T [...]. p 210. for the same. For in the History of the Councel, it is sayd expresly, as before is noted, that in the Books of Luther, in the Augustan Confession, and in Apologies and Colloquies, there was nothing found (as to the Doctrine of Predestination) which deserved to be censured. And therefore they were fain to have recourse unto the Writings of the Zuinglian Party, (among which, Calvin and his followers were to be accounted) to find out matter to proceed upon in their Fulminations: And in particular it is sayd by Andreas Vega, one of the stiffest and most learned men amongst the whole pack of the Franciscans, when the Points about Free-will Ibid. f. 20 [...]. were in agitation, that between themselves and the Protestants there was no difference of opinion, as to that particular. How neer they came to one another in the other Points, may easily be found in the Debates and Conferences before layd down, compared with the Judgment of the Lutheran Doctors, not only in their private Writings, but their publick Colloquies. But then we are to understand, that this Agreement of the Lutheran Doctors expressed in their private Writings and their publick Colloquies, and especially the solemn Confession at Ausperge, relates to that interpretation of the Decrees and Canons of the Tridentine Councel, which is made by the Jesuits and Franciscans, and not unto the Gloss or Exposition which is made thereof by the Preaching and Dominican Fryers.
II. But not to leave so great a matter to a Logical Inference, I shall lay down the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches in the sayd Five Points, extracted faithfully out of the Augustan Confession, with the Addition of one Clause only to the first Article (the Makers of the Confession declining purposely the point of Predestination) out of the Writings of Melancthon, and other learned men of the same perswasion. Now the Doctrine of the sayd Churches so delivered is this that followeth, Viz.
1. Of Divine Predestination.
After the miserable fall of Adam, all men which were toAugust. Confes. cap. 2. be begotten, according to the common course of Nature, were involved in the guilt of Original sin, by which they are obnoxious to the wrath of God, and everlasting damnation: In which Estate they had remained, but that God, beholding all man-kinde in this wretched condition, was pleased to make a general conditional Decree of Predestination, underAppel. Evang. cap. 4. the condition of Faith and Perseverance; And a special absolute Decree of electing those to life, who he fore-saw would believe, and persevere under the means and aides of Grace, Faith and Perseverance: and a special absolute Decree of condemning them whom he fore-saw to abide impenitent in their sins.
2. Of the Merit and Efficacy of Christs Death.
The Son of God, who is the Word, assumed our humaneAug. Confes. c. 3. Nature in the Womb of the Virgin, and being very God and very Man, he truly Suffered, was Crucified, Dead, and Buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be the Sacrifice not only for Original sin, but also for all the Actual sins of men.
A great part of S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews is spent in theId. cap. de M [...]ssa. proving of this Point, that only the Sacrifice or Oblation made by Christ, procured for others Reconciliation and Remission of sins, inculcating that the Livitical Sacrifices were year by year to be reiterated, and renewed, because they could not take away sins, but that satisfaction once for all was made by the Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of all men.
3. Of Mans Will in the state of depraved Nature.
The Will of man retains a freedom in Actions of Civil Justice, and making Election of such things as are under the sameIbid. cap. 18. pretension of natural Reason, but hath no power without the speciall Assistance of the Holy Ghost to attain unto spiritual [Page 33] Righteousness, according to the saying of the Apostle; That the natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the spirit of God. And that of Christ our Saviour, without me you can do nothing. And therefore the Pelagians are to be condemned, who teach that man is able by the meer strength of Nature, not only to love God above all things, but also to fulfil the Law, according to the substance of the Acts thereof.
4. Of Conversion, and the manner of it.
The Righteousness which is effected in us by the opperationIdem cap. 18. and assistance of the Holy Ghost, which we receive by yeilding our assent to the word of God: according to that of S. Augustine, in the third Book of his Hypognosticks, in which he grants a freedom of the Will to all which have the use of Reason, not that they are thereby able either to begin or go through with any thing in the things of God, without Gods assistance, but only in the Affairs of this present life whether good or evil.
5. Of falling after Grace received.
Remission of sins is not to be denied in such who after BaptismIdem cap. 11. fall into sins, at what time soever they were converted; and the Church is bound to confer the benefit of Absolution upon all such as return unto it by Repentance. And therefore as we condemn the Novatian Hereticks, refusing the benefit of absolution unto those, who having after Baptism lashed into sin, gave publick Signs of their Repentance: so we condemn the Anabaptists, who teach, that a man once justified can by no means lose the Holy Ghost, as also those who think that men may have so great a measure of perfection in this present life, that they cannot fall again into sin.
Such is the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches agreed on in the famous Augustan Confession, so called, because presented and avowed at the Diet of Auspurge. (Augusta vindelicorum the Latines call it) 1530. confirm'd after many struglings on the one side, and oppositions on the other, by Charles the fifth, [Page 34] in a general Assembly of the Estates of the Empire holden at Passaw, Ann. 1552. and afterwards more fully in another Dyet held at Auspurge, Ann. 1555. A Confession generally entertained not only in the whole Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but also in the Dukedom of Prussia, and some parts of Poland, and all the Protestant Churches of the High Germany: neither the rigid Lutherans, nor the Calvinians themselves, being otherwise tolerated in the Empire, than as they shrowd themselves under the Patronage, and shelter of this Confession. For besides the first breach betwixt Luther and Zuinglius, which hapned at the beginning of the Reformation, there afterwards grew a sub-division, betwixt the Lutherans themselves, occasioned by Flacius Illyricus, and his Associates; who having separated themselves from Melancthon and the rest of the Divines of Wittenberge, and made themselves the Head of the rigid Lutherans, did gladly entertain those Doctrines, in which they were sure to finde as good Assistance, as the Dominicans and their party could afford unto them. The wisdom and success of which Councel being observed by those of the Zuinglian or Calvinian Faction, they gladly put in for a share, being not meanly well approved, that though their Doctrines were condemned by the Councel of Trent, yet they found Countenance (especially in the Sublapsarian way) not only from the whole Sect of the Dominicans, but the rigid Lutherans: And that the Scales might be kept even between the Parties, there started ou [...] another Faction amongst the Calvinists themselves, who symbolized with the Melancthonians, or moderate Lutherans, as they did with the Jesuit and Franciscan Fryers. For the Abetting of which their Quarrel, this last side calling to their Ayde all the Ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latine, who lived before the time of S. Augustine, the others relying wholly on his single Judgment, not alwayes constant to himself, nor very well seconded by Prosper, no [...] any other of great Note in the times succeeding. Finally that Catarinus may not go alone in his middleway, I will follow him with one of his own Order (for he was afterwards made Bishop of Mi [...]ori in Italy) that is to say, the right learned Doctor [Page 35] Overall, publick Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, Dean of S. Pauls, and successively Bishop of Lichfield, and Norwich, whose Judgment in a middle way, and though not the same that Catarinus went, the Reader may finde in Mr. Playferts notable Piece, intituled, Apello Evangelium: to which I refer him at the present, as being not within the compass of my present Design, which carries me to such Disputes as have been raised between the Calvinians and their Opposites in these parts of the world, since the conclusion and determination of the Councel of Trent.
IV. And for the better carrying on of my Design, I must go back again to Calvin, whom I left under a suspition, of making God to be the Author of sin; from which though many have took much pains (none more then industrious Doctor Feild) to absolve and free him; yet by his Doctrine of Predestination, he hath layd such grounds as have involved his Followers in the same guilt also. For not content to travel a known and beaten way, he must needs finde out a way by himself, which neither the Dominicans nor any other of the Followers of S. Augustine's Rigors had found out before, in making God to lay on Adam an unavoidable necessity of falling into sin and misery, that so he might have opportunity to manifest his Mercy in the electing of some few of his Posterity, and his Justice in the absolute rejecting of all the rest. In which as he can finde no Countenance from any of the Ancient Writers, so he pretendeth not to any ground for it in the holy Scriptures. For whereas some objected on Gods behalf, De certis verbis non extare, That the Decree of Adams Fall, and consequently the involving of his whole Posterity in sin and misery, had no foundation in the express words of Holy Writ, Institut. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7. he makes no other Answer to it then a quasi vero, as if (saith he) God made and created man, the most exact Piece of his Heavenly Workmanship, without determining of his end. And on this Point he was so resolutely bent, that nothing but an absolute Decree for Adams Fall, seconded by the like, for the involving of all his Race in the same Perdition, would either serve his turn, or preserve his Credit. For [Page 36] whereas others had objected on Gods behalf, that no such unavoidable necessity was layd upon man-kinde by the will of God; but rather that he was Created by God unto such a perishing estate, because he foresaw to what his own perversness at the last would bring him: He answereth that this Objection proves nothing at all, or at least nothing to the purpose, which sayd, he tels us further out of Valla, though otherwise not much versed (as he there affirmeth) in the holy Scriptures,Calvin. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect. 6. ‘'That this Question seems to be superfluous, because both Life and Death are rather the Acts of Gods Will, then of his Prescience, or fore-knowledge. And then he adds as of his own, that if God did but fore-see the successes of men, and did not also dispose and order them by his Will, then this Question should not without cause be moved, Whether his fore seeing any thing, availed to the necessity of them. But since (sayth he) he doth no otherwise fore-see the things that shall come to pass, then because he hath decreed that they shouldIdem ib sect 7. so come to pass: it is in vain to move any Controversy about Gods fore-knowledge, where it is certain that all things do happen rather by divine Ordinance and appointment.'’ Yet notwithstanding all these shifts, he is forced to acknowledge the Decree of Adams Fall to be Horribile decretum, A cruell and horrible Decree, as indeed it is a cruell and horrible Decree to pre-ordain so many Millions to destruction, and consequently unto sinne, that he might destroy them. And then what can the wicked and Impenitent do, but ascribe all their sinnes to God, by whose inevitable Will they are lost in Adam, by whom they were particularly and personally necessitated to death, and so by consequence to sin. A Doctrine so injurious to God, so destructive of Piety, of such reproach amongst the Papists, and so offensive to the Lutherans, of what sort soever, that they profess a greater readiness to fall back to Popery, then to give way to this Predestinarian Pestilence (by which name they call it) to come in amongst them.
V. But howsoever having so great a Founder as Calvin was, it came to be generally entertained in all the Churches of his Plat-form, strongly opposed by Sebastian Castellino in Geneva [Page 37] it self; but the poor man so despightfully handled both by him and Beza (who followed him in all, and went beyond him in some of his Devises) that they never left pursuing him with Complaints and Clamours, till they had first cast him out of the City, and at the last brought him to his Grave. The terrour of which example, and the great name which Calvin had attained unto not only by his diligent Preaching, but also by his laborious Writings in the eye of the World: As it confirmed his power at home, so did it make his Doctrines the more acceptable and esteemed abroad. More generally diffused, and more pertinaciously adhered unto in all those Churches, which either had received the Genevian Discipline, or whose Divines did most industriously labour to advance the same. By means whereof it came to pass (as one well observeth) ‘'that of what account the Master of the Sentences wasHooker in [...]cle. [...]ol. Pr [...]f. p 9. in the Church of Rome; the same and more amongst the Preachers of the Reformed Churches Calvin had purchased; so that they were deemed to be the most perfect Divines, who were most skilful in his Writings. His Books almost the very Canon by which both Doctrine and Discipline were to be judged: The French Churches both under others abroad or at home in their own Country, all cast according to the Mold which he had made. The Church of Scotland in erecting the Fabrick of their own Reformation, took the self same pattern.'’ Received not long after in the Palatine Churches, and in those of the Netherlands: In all which as his Doctrine made way to bring in the Discipline; so was it no hard matter for the Discipline to support the Doctrine, and crush all those who durst oppose it. Only it was permitted unto Beza and his Disciples, to be somewhat wilder then the rest, in placing the Decree of Predestination before the Fall, which Calvin himself had more rightly placed in Massa corrupta, in the corrupted Mass of Man-kinde: and the more moderate Calvinians as rightly presuppose for a matter necessary, before there could be any place for the Election or Reprobation of particular persons. But being they concurred with the rest, as to the personal Election or Reprobation of particular persons; the restraining of the Benefit of our Saviours [Page 38] Sufferings to those few particulars (whom only they had honoured with the glorious name of the Elect) the working on them by the irresistible powers of Grace in the Act of Conversion, and bringing them infallibly by the continual assistance of the sayd Grace unto life everlasting: there was hardly any notice taken of their Deviation, they being scarce beheld in the condition of erring brethren, though they differed from them in the main Foundation which they built upon; but passing under the name of Calvinists, as they thus did. And though such of the Divines of the Belgick Churches as were of the old Lutheran Stock, were better affected unto the Melancthonian Doctrine of Predestination, then to that of Calvin; yet knowing how pretious the Name and Memory of Calvin was held amongst them: or being unwilling to fall foul upon one another, they suffered his Opinions to prevail without opposition. And so it stood till the year 1592. when Mr. William Perkins an eminent Divine of Cambridge published his Book called the Armilla Aurea, &c. containing such a Doctrine of Predestination as Beza had before delivered, but cast into a more distinct and methodical Form. With him as being a Foreiner both by Birth and Dwelling, a Supralapsarian in Opinion, and one who had no personal Relations amongst themselves, it was thought fittest to begin to confute Calvins Doctrines in the person of Perkins; as many times a Lion is sayd to be corrected by the well Cudgelling of a Dog, without fear of danger. And against him it was, his order in delivering the Decree of Predestination, that Arminius first took up the Bucklers in his Book, intituled, Examen Praedestinationis Perkinsoniae, which gave the first occasion to those Controversies which afterwards involved the Sublapsarians also, of which more hereafter.
VI. In the mean time, let us behold the Doctrine of the Supralapsarians, first broacht by Calvin, maintained by almost all his Followers, and at last polished and lickt over by the sayd Mr. Perkings, as it was charged upon the Contra Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague, Anno 1610. in these following words, Viz. ‘'That God (as some speak) by anArcan. Dog. Ant. Ro [...]. p 15. eternal and unchangable Decree from amongst men, whom he [Page 39] considered as not created, much less as fal [...], ordained certain to eternal life, certain to eternal death, without any regard had to their righteousness, or sin, to their obedience, or disobedience; only because it was his pleasure (or so it seemed good to him) to the praise of his Justice and Mercy, or (as others like better) to declare his saving Grace, Wisdom, and free Authority (or Jurisdiction:)'’ many being also so ordained by his eternal and unchangable decree, fit for the execution of the same, by the power or force whereof, it is necessary that they be saved after a necessary, and unavoidable manner, who are ordained to Salvation, so that 'tis not possible that they should perish, but they who are destined to destruction (who are the far greater number) must be damned necessarily and inevitably; so that 'tis not possible for them to be saved. Which doctrine first makes God to be the Author of sin, as both Piscator and Macarius, and many other Supralapsarians, as well as Perkings, have positively and expresly affirmed him to be; & then concludes him for a more unmerciful Tyrant, then all that ever had been in the world, were they joyned in one: A more unmerciful Tyrant then the Roman Emperour, who wished that all the people of Rome had but one Neck amongst them, that he might cut it off at a blow, he being such in voto only, God alone in opere.
VII. But this extremity being every day found the more indefensible, by how much it had been more narrowly sifted and inquired into: the more moderate and sober sort of the Calvinians forsaking the Colours of their first Leaders, betook themselves into the Camp of the rigid Lutherans, and rather chose to joyn with the Dominican Fryers, then to stand any longer to the dictates of their Master Calvin. These passing by the name of Sublapsarians, have given us such an order of Predestination as must and doth presuppose a Fall, and findes all man-kind generally in the Mass of Perdition. The substance of whose doctrine both in this and the other Articles were thus drawn up by the Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague before remembred.
[Page 40]1. That God Almighty, willing from eternity, with himself to make a decree concerning the Election of some certain men, but the rejection of others; considered man-kinde not only as created, but also as faln and corrupted in Adam, and Eve, our first Parents, and thereby the deserving the Curse: And that he decreed out of the fall and damnation, to deliver and save some certain ones of his Grace, to declare his Mercy; But to leave others (both young and old, yea truly, even certain Infants of men in Covenant, and those Infants baptized, and dying in their Infancy) by his just Judgment in the Curse, to declare his Justice: and that without all consideration of Repentance and Faith in the former, or of Impenitence or unbelief in the latter. For the execution of which decree, God useth also such means, whereby the Elect are necessarily and unavoidably saved; but Reprobates necessarily and unavoidably perish.
2. And therefore that Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World died, not for all men, but for those only who are elected either after the former or this latter manner, he being the mean and ordained Mediator, to save those only, and not a man besides.
3. Consequently that the Spirit of God and of Christ doth work in those who are elected that way, or this, with such a force of Grace that they cannot resist it: and so that it cannot be, but that they must turn, believe, and thereupon necessarily be saved. But that this irresistible grace and force belongs only to those so elected, but not to Reprobates, to whom not only the irresistible Grace is denied, but also grace necessary and sufficient for Conversion, for faith, and for salvation, is not afforded. To which Conversion and Faith indeed they are called, invited, and freely sollicited outwardly by the revealed Will of God, though notwithstanding the inward force necessary to Faith and Conversion, is not bestowed on them, according to the secret Will of God.
4. But that so many as have once obtained a true and justifyingIbid. 17. 6. Faith, by such a kinde of irresistible force, can never totally nor finally lose it, no not although they fall into the very most enormious sins▪ but are so led and kept by the same irresistible [Page 41] force, that 'tis not possible for them (o [...] they cannot) either totally, or finally fall, and perish.
VII. And thus we have the doctrine of the Sublapsarian Calvinists, as it stands gathered out of the Writings of particular men. But because particular men may sometimes be mistaken in a publick doctrine, and that the Judgment of such men, being collected by the hands of their Enemies, may be unfaithfully related; we will next look on the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort, which is to be conceived to have delivered the Genuine sense of all the parties, as being a Representative of all the Calvinian Churches of Europe (except those of France) some few Divines of England being added to them. Of the calling and proceedings of this Synod, we shall have occasion to speak further in the following Chapter. At this time I shall only lay down the Results thereof in the five controverted Points (as I finde them abbreviated by Dan. Tilenus.) according to the Heads before mentioned, in summing up the doctrine of the Councel of Trent.
Art. 1. Of Divine Predestination.
That God by an absolute decree hath Elected to salvationArcan. Dogn. Contr. Remon. p. 23. a very smal number of men, without any regard to their Faith or obedience whatsoever; and secluded from saving Grace all the rest of man-kinde, and appointed them by the same decree to eternal damnation, without any regard to their Infidelity, or Impenitency.
Art. 2. Of the Merit and Effect of Christs Death.
That Jesus Christ hath not suffered death for any other, butIbid. p. 29. for those Elect only, having neither had any intent nor commandment of his Father to make satisfaction for the sins of the whole World.
Art. 3. Of Mans Will in the state of Nature.
That by Adam's Fall his Posterity lost their Free-will, beingIbid. p. 33. put to an unavoidable necessity to do, or not to do, whatsoever they do, or do not, whether it be good, or evil; being thereunto Predestinated by the eternal and effectual secret decree of God.
Art. Of the manner of Conversion.
That God to save his Elect from the corrupt Mass, doth begetIbid p. 41. faith in them by a power equal to that, whereby he created the World, and raised up the dead, insomuch that such unto whom he gives that Grace, cannot reject it, and the rest being Reprobate cannot accept of it.
Art. 5. Of the certainty of Perseverance.
That such as have once received that Grace by Faith, canIbid. 47. never fall from it finally, or totally, notwithstanding the most enormious sins they can commit.
IX. This is the shortest, and withall the most favourable Summary, which I have hitherto met with, of the conclusions of this Synod: that which was drawn by the Remonstrants in their Anti [...]tam, being much more large, and comprehending many things by way of Inference, which are not positively expressed in the words thereof. But against this, though far more plausible then the rigorous way of the Supralapsarians, Gods love to Mankind, p 45. it is objected by those of the contrary perswasion; 1. That it is repugnant to plain Texts of Scripture, as Ezek. 33. 11. Rom. 11. 2. John. 3. 16. 2 Tim. [...]. 4. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Gen. 4 7. 1 Chron. 28. 9. 2 Chron. 15. [...]. Secondly▪ That it fighteth with Gods Holiness, and makes him the cause of sin, in the greatest number of men. 1. In regard that only of his own will and pleasure he hath brought men into an estate in which they cannot avoid sin; that is to say, by imputing to them the transgression of their Father Adam. And 2. In that he leaves them irrecoverablyIbid p. 53. [Page 43] plunged and involved in it, without affording them power or ability to rise again to newness of life. In which case that of Tertullian seems to have been fitly alledged, Viz. In cujus manu est ne quid fiat, eideputatur cum jam sit. ThatTertul. l. 2. contr. Marcion. c. 22. is to say, In whose power it is, that a thing be not done, to him it is imputed when it is done; as a Pilot may be sayd to be the cause of the loss of that Ship, when it is broken by a violent Tempest, to the saving whereof, he would not lend aGods love to Mankind. p. 62. helping hand when he might have done it. They Object thirdly, That this doctrine is inconsistent with the mercy of God, so highly signified in the Scriptures, in making him to take such a small and speedy occasion, to punish the greater part of men forever, and for one sin once committed, to shut themIbid. p. 64. up under an invincible necessity of sin and damnation. For proof whereof they alledge this Saying out of Prosper, Viz. Qui dicit quod non omnes homines velit Deus salvos fieri, sed certum numerum praedestinatorum: durius loquitur quam loquutum est de altitudine inscrutabilis gratiae Dei. That is to say [...] He which sayth that God would not have all men to be saved, but a certain set number of predestinate persons only: he speaketh more harshly then he should of the light of Gods unsearchable Grace. 4. It is affirmed to be incompatible with the Justice of God, who is sayd in Scripture to be Righteous in all his waies, according unto weight and measure, that theIbid. p. 65 & p. 67. far greatest part of man-kinde should be left remedilesly in a state of damnation, for the sin of their first Father only: that under pain of damnation, he should require faith in Christ, of those to whom he hath precisely in his absolute purpose, denied both a power to believe, and a Christ to believe in; or that he should punish men for the omission of an Act which is made impossible for them by his own decree, by which he purposed that they should partake with Adam in his sin, and be stript of all the supernatural power which they had in him before he fell. And fifthly, It is sayd to be destructive of Gods sincerity, in calling them to repentance, and to the knowledge of the faith in Jesus Christ, that they may be savedIbid. p. 68. to whom he doth not really intend the salvation offered, whereby they are conceived to make God so to deal with [Page 44] men, as if a Creditor should resolve, upon no terms to forgive his Debtor the very least part of his debt, and yet makeIbid p 76. him offers to remit the whole upon some conditions, and binde the same with many solemn Oaths in a publick Auditory. The like to be affirmed also in reference to Gods passionate wishes, that those men might repent, which repent not; as also to those terrible threatnings which he thundreth against all those that convert not to him: all which together with the whole course of the Ministry, are by this doctrine made to be but so many Acts of deep Hypocrisie in Almighty God, though none of the Maintainers of it have the ingenuity to confess the same, but Piscator only, in his, Necesse est, ut sanctam aliquam si mutationem statuamus in Deo, which is plain and home.
X. And finally it is alledged that this doctrine of the Sublapsarians, is contrary to the ends by God proposed, in the Word and Sacraments, to many of Gods excellent Gifts to the Sons of men, to all endeavours unto holiness and godly living, which is sayd to be much hindered by it, and tend toIbid. p. 91. those grounds of comfort, by which a Conscience in distress should be relieved. And thereupon it is concluded, that if it be a doctrine which discourageth Piety; if it maketh Ministers (by its natural importment) to be negligent in their Preaching, Praying, and other Services, which are ordained of God for the eternal good of their people: if it maketh the people careless in hearing, reading, praying, instructing their Families, examining their Consciences, fasting and mourning for their sins, and all other godly Exercises; as they say it doth: it cannot be a true and a wholsome doctrine, as they say 'tis not. This they illustrate by a passage in Suetonius, relatingSuet. de vit. Tyb. c. 69. p. 180. to Tyberius Caesar, of whom the Historian gives this note: Circa Deos & Religiones negligentior erat, quippe addictus mathematicae, persuasionisque plenus, omnia fato agi. That is to say, That he was the more negligent in matters of Religion, and about the Gods, because he was so much addicted to Astrologers, fully perswaded in his own minde that all things were governed by the Destinies: And they evince by the miseserable example of the Landgrave of Turinng, of whom it is [Page 45] reported by Heistibachius, that being by his Friends admonishedH [...]isti. lib. de Minor. Hist. c. 27. p. 39. or in G [...]ds love to mank [...]nd. p. 97. of his vitious Conversation, and dangerous condition, he made them this Answer, Viz. Si praedestinatus sum, nulla peccata poterint mihi, regnum coelorum auferre; si praescitus, nulla opera mihi illud valebunt conferre. That is to say, If I be elected, no sins can possibly bereave me of the Kingdom of Heaven, if reprobated, no good Deeds can advance me to it. An Objection not more old then common: but such I must confess to which I never found a satisfactory Answer, from the Pen of Supralapsarian, or Sublapsarian, within the small compass of my reading.
CHAP. V. The Doctrine of the Remonstrants, and the Story of them, untill their finall Condemnation in the Synod of Dort.
I. The Doctrine of the Remonstrants ancienter then Calvinism in the Belgick Churches, and who they were that stood up for it before Arminius. II. The first undertakings of Arminins, his preferment to the Divinity Chair at Leiden, his Commendations, and Death. III. The occasion of the Name Remonstrants, and Contra Remonstrants; the Controversie reduced to Five Points, and those disputed at the Hague, in a publick Conference. IV. The sayd five Points according to their severall Heads first tendred at the Hague, and after at the Synod at Dort. V. The Remonstrants persecuted by their Opposites, put themselves under the protection of Barnevelt, and by his means obtained a collection of their Doctrine. Barnevelt seised and put to death by the Prince of Orange. VI. The Calling of the Synod of Dort, the parallel betwixt it and the Councel at Trent, both in the conduct of the business against their Adversaries, and the differences amongst themselves. VII. The breaking out of the differences in the Synod in open Quarrels, between Martinius one of the Divines of Breeme, and some of the Divines of Holland; and on what occasions. VIII. A Copy of the Letter from Dr. Belconyvel to S. Dudly Carlaton, his Majesties Resident at the Hague, working the violent prosecutions of those Quarrels by the Dutch Divines. IX. A further prosecution of the Quarrel between the Councel and the Synod, in reference to the Articles used in the Draught upon the Canons and Decrees of either, and the doubtfull meaning of them both. X. The quarrelling Parties joyn together against the Remonstrants, denying them any place in the Synod; and finally dismist [Page 47] them in a furious Oration made by Boyerman, without any hearing. XI. The Synodists indulgent to the damnable Doctrines of Macorius, and unmerciful in the banishment or extermination of the poor Remonstrants. XII. Scandalously defamed, to make them odious, and th [...]se of their perswasions in other places, Ejected, Persecuted, and Disgraced.
I. HAving thus run through all the other Opinions, touching Predestination, and the Points depending thereupon: I come next to that of the Remonstrants (or Arminians, as they commonly call them) accused of Novelty, but ancienter then Calvinism, in the Churches of the Belgick Provinces, which being Originally Dutch, did first embrace the Reformation, according to the Lutheran model, though afterwards they suffered the Calvinian Plat-form to prevail upon them. It was about the year 1530. that the Reformed Religion was admitted in the Neighbouring Country of East-Friezland, under Enno the First, upon the preaching of Hardingbergius, a Learned and Religious man, and one of the principal Reformers of the Church of Emden, a Town of most note in all that Earldom: from him did Clemens Martini take those Principles, which afterwards he propagated in the Belgick Churches, where the same Doctrine of Predestination had been publickly maintained, in a Book called Odegus Laicorum, or the Laymans Guide, published by Anastasius Velluanus, An. 1554. and much commended by Henricus Antonides, Divinity Reader in the University of Francka: But on the other side the French Ministers having setled themselves in those Parts, which either were of French Language, or anciently belonged to the Crown of France, and having more Quicksilve in them then the others had, prevailed so far with William of Nassaw, Prince of Orange, that a Confession of their framing was presented to the Lady Regent, ratified in a forcible and tumultuous way, and afterwards by degrees obtruded upon all the Belgick Churches: which notwithstanding the Ministers successively in the whole Province of Ʋtrecht adhered unto their former Doctrines; not looked on for so doing as the less Reformed: Nor wanted there some one or [Page 48] other of eminent Note, who did from time to time oppose the Doctrine of Predestination, contained in that Confession of the year 1567. when it took beginning. Insomuch that Johannes Isbra [...]di, one of the Preachers of Rotradam, openly professed himself an Anticalvinian, and so did Gellius Succanus also in the Country of West-Friezland, who looked no otherwise upon these of Calvin's Judgment, then as Innovators in the Doctrine which had been first received amongst them. The like we finde also of Holmanus, one of the Professors of Leyden, of Cornelius Meinardi, and Cornelius Wiggeri, two men of principal esteem, before the name of Jacob Van-Harmine, was so much as talked of.
II. But so it hapned, that though these learned men had kept on foot the ancient Doctrines, yet did they never finde so generally an Entertainment in those Provinces, as they did afterwards by the pains and diligence of this Van-Harmine: (Arminius he is called by our Latine Writers) from whom these Doctrines have obtained the name of Arminianism, called so upon no juster Grounds then the great Western Continent, is called by the name of America; whereas both Christopher Collumbus had first discovered it, and the two Cabots Father and Son had made a further progress in the sayd discovery, before Americus Vespatius ere saw those shores. As for Arminius; he had been fifteen years a Preacher (or a Pastor as they rather phrase it) to the great Church of Arastandam, during which times, taking a great distast at the Book published by Mr. Perkins, intituled, Armilla Aurea, he set himself upon the canvasing of it, and published his performance in it, by the name of Examen Praedestinationis Perkinsoniae, as before was sayd. Incouraged with his good success in this adventure, he undertakes a Conference on the same Argument with the learned Junius, the summe whereof being spread abroad in several Papers, was after published by the name of Amica Collatio. Junius being dead in the year 1603. the Curators or Overseers of the University made choice of this Van-harmine to succeed him in his place. But the Inhabitants of the Town would not so part with him, till they were over-ruled by the Entreaties of some, and the power of others, A matter so unpleasing [Page 49] to the rigid Calvinians, that they informed against him to the state for divers Heterodoxies, which they had noted in his Writings. But the business being heard at the Hague, he was acquitted by his Judge, dispatcht for Leyden, and there confirmed in his place. Toward which the Testimonial Letters sent from the Church of Amsterdam, did not help a little. In which he stands commended, Ob vitae inculpatae, sanae doctrinae & morum summam integritatem. That is to say, for a man of an unblameable life, sound Doctrine and fair behaviour, as may be seen at large, in the Oration which was made at his Funeral in the Divinity Schools of Leyden, on the 22. day of October, 1609.
III. Thus dyed Arminius, but the Cause did not so dye with him. For during the first time of his sitting in the Chair of Leyden, he drew unto him a great part of the University, who by the Piety of the man, his powerful Arguments, his extreme diligence in that place, and the clear light of Reason which appeared in all his Discourses, were so wedded unto his Opinions, that no time nor trouble could drown them: For Arminius dying in the year 1609. as before was sayd, the heats betwixt the Scholars, and those of the contrary perswasion, were rather encreased then abated; the more encreased for want of such a prudent Moderator, as had before preserved the Churches from a publick Rupture. The breach between them growing wider and wider, each side thought fit to seek the Countenance of the State, and they did accordingly: for in the year 1610. the Followers of Arminius address their Remonstrance, containing the Antiquity of their Doctrines, and the substance of them) to the States of Holland, which was encountred presently, by a Contra Remonstance, exhibited by those of Calvins Party: from hence the names of Remonstrants, and Contra Remonstrants, so frequent in their Books and Writings; each Party taking opportunity to disperse their Doctrines, the Remonstrants gained exceedingly upon their Adversarys: For the whole Controversie being reduced to these five Points, Viz. The Method and Order of Predestination; The Efficacy of Christs Death, The Opperations of Grace, both before and after m [...]s Conversion, and [Page 50] perseverance in the same; the Parties were admitted to a publick Conference at the Hague, in the year 1611. in which the Remonstrants were conceived to have had much the better of the day. Now for the five Articles above mentioned, they were these that follow;
VIZ. I. De Electione ex fide praevisa.
DEus aeterno & immutabili Decreto, in Jesu Christo filio suo, ante jactum mundi fundamentum statuit, ex lapso & peccatis obnoxio humano genere, illos in Christo, propter Christum, & per Christum servare, qui spiritus sancti gratia in eundem filium ejus credunt, & in ea fide, fideique obedientia, per eandem gratiam, usque ad finem perseverant.
VIZ. I. Of Election out of Faith foreseen.
ALmighty God by an eternal and unchangable Decree, ordained in Jesus Christ, his only Son, before the Foundations of the World were layd, to save all those in Christ, for Christ; and through Christ, who being faln, and under the command of sin, by the assistance of the Grace of the Holy Ghost, do persevere in faith and obedience to the very end.
II. De Redemptione universali.
Proinde Deus Christus pro omnibus ac singulis mortuus est: atque id ita quidem, ut omnibus per mortem crucis Reconciliationem, & Peccatorum Remissionem impetrarit: Ea tamen conditione, ut nemo illa peccatorum Remissione fruatur, [Page 51] praeter hominem fidelem, Joh. 2. 16. 1 Joh. 2. 2.
II. Of universal Redemption.
To which end Jesus Christ suffered death for all men, and in every man, that by his death upon the Cross, he might obtain for all mankind, both the forgiveness of their sins, and Reconciliation with the Lord their God; with this Condition notwithstanding, that [Page 51] none but true believers should enjoy the benefit of the Reconciliation and forgiveness of sins, John 2. 16. 1 John 2. 2.
III. De causa fidei.
Homo fidem salutarem a seipso non habet, nec vi liberi sui arbitrii, quandoquidem in statu defectionis, & peccati, nihil boni, quod quidem vere est bonum (quale est fides salutaris) ex se potest cogitare, velle, aut facere: sed necessarium est, eum a Deo, in Christo, per spiritum ejus sanctum regigni, renovari, mente, affectibus, seu voluntate, & omnibus facultatibus, ut aliquid boni posset intelligere, cogitare, velle, & perficere, secundum illud John 15. 5. sine me potestis nihil.
III. Of the cause or means of attaining Faith.
Man hath not saving Faith in and of himself, nor can attain it by the power of his own Free-will, in regard that living in an estate of sin, and defection from God, he is not able of himself to think well, or do any thing which is really, or truly good; amongst which sort saving faith is to be accounted. And therfore it is necessary that by God in Christ, and through the Workings of the Holy Ghost he be regenerated and renewed in his understanding, will, affections, and all his other faculties; that so he may be able to understand, think, will, and bring to pass any thing that is good, according to that of Saint John, 15. 5. Without me you can do nothing.
IV. De Conversionis modo.
Dei gratia est initium, progressus, & perfectio omnis boni, atque adeo quidem, ut ipse homo Regenitus, [Page 52] absque hae praecedanea seu Adventitia, excitante, consequente, & co-operante gratia, neque boni quid cagitare, velle, aut facere potest, neque etiam ulli malae tentationae resistere, adeo quidem ut omnia bona opera, quae excogitare possumus, Deigratiae in Christo tribuenda sunt. Quoad vero modum co-operationis illius gratiae, illa non est irresistibilis: de multis enim dicitur, eos spiritui sancto Resistisse. Actorum 7. & alibi multis locis.
IV. Of the manner of Conversion.
The Grace of God is the beginning, promotion, and accomplishment of every thing that is good in us; insomuch that the Regenerate [Page 52] man can neither think well, nor do any thing that is good, or resist any sinfull temptations, without this Grace preventing, co-operating and assisting; and consequently all good works, which any man in his life can attain unto, are to be attributed and ascribed to the grace of God. But as for the manner of the co-operation of this Grace, it is not to be thought to be irresistable, in regard that it is sayd of many in the holy Scriptures, that they did resist the Holy Ghost; as in Acts 7. and in other places.
V. De Perseverantia incerta.
Qui Jesu Christo per veram fidem sunt insiti, ac proinde spiritus ejus vivificantis participes, ii abundehabent facultatum, quibus contra Satanam, peccatum, mundum, & propriam suam carnem pugnent & victoriam obtineant; verum tamen per gratiae spiritus sancti subsidium. Jesus Christus quidem illis spiritu suo in omnibus tentationibus adest, manum porrigit, [Page 53] & modo sint ad certamen prompti, & ejus Auxilium Petant, neque officio suo desint, eos confirmat: adeo quidem ut nulla satanae fraude, aut vi seduci, vel e manibus Christi eripi, possint, secundum illud Johannis 10. Nemo illos e manu mea eripiet, Sed an illi ipsi negligentia sua, principium illud quo sustentantur in Christo, deserere non possint, & praesentem mundum iterum amplecti, a sancta doctrina ipsis semel tradita deficere, conscientiae naufragium facere, a gratia excidere; penitus ex sacra scriptura esset expendendum, antequam illud cumplena animi tranquillitate, & Plerephoria dicere possumus.
V. Of the uncertainty of Perseverance.
They who are grafted into Christ by a lively Faith, and are throughly made Partakers of his quickning Spirit, have a sufficiency of strength, by which (the Holy Ghost contributing his Assistance to them) they may not only fight, but obtain the Victory, against the Devil, Sin, the World, and all infirmities of the flesh. Most true it is, that Jesus Christ is present with them by his Spirit in all their temptations, that he reacheth out his hand unto them, and shews himself ready [Page 53] to support them, if for their parts they prepare themselves to the encounter, and beseech his help, and are not wanting to themselves in performing their duties: so that they cannot be seduced by the cunning, or taken out of the hands of Christ by the power of Satan, according to that of S. John, No man taketh them out of my hand, &c. cap. 10. But it is first to be well weighed and proved by the holy Scripture, whether by their own negligence, they may not forsake those Principles of saving Grace, by which they are sustained in Christ, embrace the present World again, Apostatize from the saving doctrine once delivered to them, suffer a Shipwrack of their Conscience, and fall away from the Grace of God, before we can publickly teach these doctrines, with any sufficient trauquillity or assurance of mind.'
V. It is reported, that at the end of the Conference between the Protestants and Papists, in the first Convocation of Q [...]een Maries Reign, the Protestants were thought to have had the better, as being more dextrous in applying and in forcing some Texts of Scripture then the others were, and that thereupon they were dismissed by Weston the Prolocutor, with this short come off: You, sayd he, have the word, and we have the Sword. His meaning was, That what the Papists wanted in the strength of Argument, they would make good by other waies, as afterwards indeed they did by Fire and Fagot. The like is sayd to have been done by the Contra Remonstrants, who finding themselves at this Conference to have [Page 54] had the worst, and not to have thrived much better by their Pen-comments, then in that of the Tongue, betook themselves to other courses; vexing and molesting their Opposites in their Classes, or Consistories, endeavouring to silence them from Preaching in their severall Churches: or otherwise to bring them unto publick Censure. At which Weapon the Remonstrants being as much too weak, as the others were at Argument and Disputation; they betook themselves unto the Patronage of John Van Olden Burnevelt, a man of great Power in the Councel of Estate for the Ʋnited Belgick Provinces, by whose means they obtained an Edict from the States of Holland, and West-Fri [...]zland, Ann. 1613. requiring and enjoyning a mutual Toleration of Opinions, as well on the one side as the other. An Edict highly magnified by the Learned Grotius in a Book, intituled, Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae, &c. Against which some Answers were set out by Bogerman, Sibrandus, and some others, not without some reflection on the Magistrates for their Actings in it: But this indulgence, though at the present it was very advantageous to the Remonstrants, as the case then stood, cost them dear at last. For Barnevelt having some suspition that Morris of Nassaw, Prince of Orange, Commander Generall of all the Forces of those United Provinces both by Sea and Land, had a design to make himself the absolute Master of those Countries, made use of them for the uniting and encouraging of such good Patriots, as durst appear in maintenance of the common liberty, which Service they undertook the rather, because they found that the Prince had passionately espoused the Quarrel of the Contra Remonstrants. From this time forwards the Animosities began to encrease on either side, and the Breach to widen, not to be closed again; but either by weakning the great power of the Prince, or the Death of Barnevelt. This last the easier to be compassed, as not being able by so small a Party to contend with him, who had the absolute command of so many Legions. For the Prince being apprehensive of the danger in which he stood, and spurred on by the continuall Sollicitations of the Contra Remonstrants, suddenly put himself into the Head of his Army, with which he marcht [Page 55] from Town to Town, altered the Guards, changed the Officers, and displaced the Magistrates, where he found any whom he thought disaffected to him; and having gotten Barnevelt, Grotius, and some other of the Heads of the Party into his power, he caused them to be condemned, and Barnevelt to be put to death, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Country, and the Rules of the Union.
VI. This Alteration being thus made, the Contra Remonstrants thought it a high Point of Wisdom to keep their Adversaries down, now they had them under, and to effect that by a National Councel, which they could not hope to compass by their own Authority: To which end, the States General being importuned by the Prince of Orange, and his Sollicitation seconded by those of King James (to whom the power and person of the Prince were of like Importance) a National Synod was appointed to be held at Dort, Ann. 1618. Barnevelt being then still living. To which besides the Commissioners from the Churches of their several Provinces, all the Calvinian Churches in Europe (those of France excepted) sent their Delegates also; some eminent Divines being Commissionated by King James to attend also in the Synod: for the Realm of Britain. A Synod much like that of Trent, in the Motives to it; as also in the mannaging and conduct of it. For as neither of them was Assembled till the Sword was drawn, the terrour whereof was able to effect more then all other Arguments: so neither of them was concerned to confute, but condemn their Opposites.
Secondly, The Councel of Trent consisted for the most part of Italian Bishops, some others being added for fashion sake; and that it might the better challenge the Name of General, as that of Dort, consisted for the most part of the Delegates of the Belgick Churches, to whom the forein Divines were found inconsiderable. The Differences as great at Dort, as they were at Trent, and as much care taken to adulce the discontented Parties (whose Judgments were incompatible with the ends of either) in the one as the other. The British Divines, together with one of those which came from the Breme, maintained the universal Redemption of Mankinde by [Page 56] the Death of Christ. But this by no means would be granted by the rest of the Synod, especially by those of North-Holland, for fear of yeilding any thing to the Arminians; as Soto in the Councel of Trent opposed some moderate Opinions, teaching the certainty of Salvation, because they were too much in favour with the Lutheran Doctrines. First, The general body of the Synod not being able to avoid the inconveniences which the Supra-lapsarian way brought with it, were generally intent on the Sublapsarian: but on the other side, the Commissioners of the Churches of South-Holland, thought it not necessary to determine which were considered, man faln, or not faln, while he passed the Decrees of Election and Reprobation. But far more positive was Gomarus, one of the four Professors of Leiden, who stood as strongly to the absolute irrespective and irreversible Decree, (exclusive of mans sin, and our Saviours Sufferings) as he could have done for the Holy Trinity. And not being able to draw the rest unto his Opinion, nor willing to conform to theirs, he delivered his own Judgment in writing apart by it self, not joyning in subscription with the rest of his Brethren, for conformity sake, as is accustomed in such cases. But Macorius one of the Professors in Frankar, in West-Frizeland, went beyound them all, not only maintaining against Sibrandus Lubbertus, his fellow Collegiate in their open Synod; That God wills sin, That he ordains sin as it is sin: and, That by no means he would have all men to be saved; but openly declaring, That if these Points were not maintained, they must forsake their chief Doctors who had so great a hand in the Reformation.
VII. Some other differences there were amongst them, not reconcilable in this Synod; as namely, whether the Elect be loved out of Christ, or not: whether Christ were the cause and foundation of Election, or only the Head of the Elect; And many others of like nature. Nor were these Differences mannaged with such sobriety as became the gravity of the persons, and weight of the business, but brake out many times into such open heats and violences, as are not to be parallel'd in the like Assemblies; the Provincial Divines banding against the Foreiners, and the Foreiners falling foul upon one another: [Page 57] for so it hapned; that Martinius one of the Divines of Breme, a moderate and learned man, being desired to speak his minde in the Points last mentioned, signified to the Synod, ‘'That he made some scruple touching the Doctrine Passant,In his Letters, p. 72. about the manner of Christs being Fundamentum electionis, and that he thought Christ not only the Effector of our Election, but also the Author and Procurer of it. Gomarus presently as soon as Martinius had spoken, starts up and tells the Synod, Ego hanc rem in me recipio, and therewithall casts his Glove, and challenges Martinius with this Proverb, Ecce Rhodum, ecce Sullum, and required the Synod to grant them a Duel, adding, That he knew Martinius could say nothing in Refutation of that Doctrine.'’ So my dear Friend Mr. Hales of Eaton relates the story of this passage in a Letter to Sir Dudly Carleton, bearing date Jan. 25. 1618. according to the style of the Church of England: and where he endeth, Dr. Belcanquall shall begin relating in his Letters to the sayd Ambassadour, the story of a greater Fray, between the sayd Martinius, and Sibrandus Lubberius above mentioned, upon this occasion. Martinius had affirmed God to be, Causa Physica Conversionis; and for the truth thereof, appealed to Goclenius a great Philosopher, being then present in the Synod, who thereupon discoursed upon it out of Th [...]mistinus, Averores, Alexander Aphrodisaeus, and many more; affirming it to be true in Philosophy, although he would not have it to prescribe in Divinity. Sibrandus Lubbert taking fire at this, falls upon them both: but the Fray parted at the present, by the care of Boyerman. Gomarus within few dayes after picks a new Quarrel with Martinius, and the rest of the Divines of Breme, for running a more moderate course then the rest of the Synod: many other of the Provincials seconding Gomarus in the Quarrel, and carrying themselves so uncivilly in the prosecution; that Martinius was upon the Point of returning homewards. But this Quarrel being also taken up, the former is revived by Sibrandus in the following Session, concerning which Belcanquall writes to Sr Dudley Carleton, this ensuing Letter, which for the rarity and variety of the passages contained [Page 58] in it, and the great light which it affords to the present business: I shall crave leave to add it here.
Dr. BELCANQUALLS LETTER TO Sir Dudley Carleton.
VIII. SInce my last Letters to your Lordship,Belcanquals Letters. p. 10 there hath been no business of any great Note in the Synod, but that which I am sure your Lordship will be very sorry to hear; Contention like to come to some head, if it be not prevented in time: for there hath been such a Plot layd ex compositò, for disgracing of the Bremenses, as I think the Synod shall receive small grace by it. D. Gomarus being he at whom the last Disquisition of the third and fourth Articles ended, was entreated by the President to speak his minde of the sayd Articles; but Sibrandus desireth the President, first, to give him leave to add some few things to that he had spoken the day before: Now what he added was nothing but a renewing of the strife, which was between him and Martinius in the last Session: two things [...]e [Page 59] alledged; First, That he had been at Goclenius his Lodging, conferring with him about that Proposition, whether God might be called Causa Physica of humane Actions, and delivered certain Affirmations pronounced by Goclenius, tending to the Negative; for the truth of his relation he appealed to Goclenius there present, who testified that it was so: next Martinius had alledged a place out of Paraeus for the Affirmative in opere conversionis. Sibrandus, read a great many places out of Paraeus tending to the contrary: and (no question it being pleaded before) he entreateth some of the Pallatines (naming them all severally) who were Paraeus his Colleagues, would speak what they did know of Paraeus his minde, concerning the sayd Proposition: Scultetus beginneth with a set Speech, which he had writ lying before him; but such a Speech it was, as I, and I think all the Exteri, were exceedingly grieved it should have come from a man of so much worth: the summ of it was this, That he did know upon his own knowledge, that Paraeus did hold the contrary of that which had been fasly fathered on him in the Synod, that he could not endure to hear his dearest Colleague so much abused as he had been by some men in the Synod: Moreover he could not now dissemble, the great grief he had conceived [Page 60] that some in the Synod, went about to trouble sound Divinity with bringing in Tricas Scholasticas, such as was to make God Causam Physicam Conversionis (that was for Martinius) such portenta vocabulorum, as determinare, and non determinare voluntatem: that some men durst say, that there were some doubts in the Fourth Article, which Calvin himself had not throughly satisfied, nor other Learned Reformed Doctors; that it was to be feared that they intended to bring in Jesuits Divinity in the Reformed Churches, and to corrupt the Youth committed to their Charge, with a strange kind of Divinity. This last Speech concerned D. Grotius. Scultetus delivered his minde in exceeding bitter and disgraceful words, and repeated his bitterest sentences twice over: he having ended, Martinius with great modesty answered, first, That he would read Paraeus his own words, which he did; next that for Sibrandus he wondred that he would now in publick bring these things up, since out of his love to Peace, that very day he had sent his Colleague Grotius to Sibrandus, with a large explication in that sense, in which he had delivered the Proposition, with which explication Sibrandus himself had sent him word he was fully satisfied, and so he made account that that business had been peaceably transacted: [Page 61] all this while Grotius spake nothing; Gomarus beginneth to go on in the Disquisition, but I think he delivered a Speech against the Bremenses, which none but a mad man would have uttered. First, Whereas Martinius had sayd, that he did desire the resolution of this doubt, Qui Deus possit ab homine cujus potentia est finita, fidem, quae est opus omnipotentiae, exigere: and that neither Calvin, nor any of the Divines, had yet plainly enough untyed the Knot: he replyed, first, That he that sayd so was not Dignus qui solveret Calvino Corrigiam: and that for the doubt it self, it was such a silly one, that ipsi pueri in trivio, could ipsius solutionem decantare (at which Speech every body smiled.) Moreover, whereas Martinius in his Answer to Scultetus, had not spoken one word against him, but only this, That he was sorry that one who had now been 25 years a Professor of Divinity should be thus used for using a School-term: Gomarus very wisely had a fling at the Two, and telleth the Synod, that since some men thought to carry it away annorum numero, he himself had been a Professor not only 25, but 35 years. Next he falleth upon Grotius, and biddeth the Synod take heed of these men that brought in the Monstra & Portenta vocabulorum, the Barbarisms of the Schools of the [Page 62] Jesuits, determinare, & non determinare voluntatem, with many such speeches delivered with such sparklings of his eyes, and fireceness of pronunciation, as every man wondred the President did not cut him off, at last he cut off himself I think for want of breath; and the President giveth Celeberrimo Doctori Gomaro, many thanks for that his Grave and accurate speech: the Exteri wondred at it; at last my Lord of Landaff, in Good faith, in a very grave short speech (for which, as for one of the least, I am perswaded he ever delivered, we and all the Exteri, thought he deserved infinite Commendations:) he spake to the President to this purpose, That this Synod called Disquisition, was instituted for Edification, not for any man to shew Studium Contentionis; and therefore did desire him to look that the knot of Unity were not broken. In this his Lordships speech, he named no man, the last word was hardly out of my Lordships mouth, but furious Gomarus, knowing himself guilty, delivered this wise Speech; Reverendissime D. Praesul, non agendum est hic in Synodo authoritate, sed ratione. That it was free for him to speak in his own place, which no man must think to abridge him of by their Authority. My Lord replyed nothing; but the President told my Lord, that Celeberrimus D. Gom. had sayd nothing [Page 63] against mens Persons, but their Opinions, and therefore that he had sayd nothing worthy of Reprehension: This gave every man just occasion to think the President was of the Plot. Martimus against this Speech of Gomarus sayd nothing, but that he was sorry that he should have this Reward for his far Journey: The Disquisition went on to Thysius, who very discreetly told the Synod, he was sorry Martinius should be so exagitated for a speech, which according to Martinius his explication was true. Just as Thysius was thus speaking, Gomarus and Sibrandus who sate next him, pulled him by the Sleeve, talked to him in a confused angry noise, in the hearing and seeing of all the Synod, chiding him that he would say so: afterwards Thysius with great moderation, desired Martinius to give him satisfaction of one or two doubtful Sentences he had delivered; which Martinius, thanking him for his Courtesie, fully did. The President was certainly in this Plot against Martinius, for at the same time he read out of a Paper publickly, a note of all the hard Speeches Martinius had used. All this while D. Grotius his patience was admired by all men, who being so grosly abused and disgraced, could get leave of his affections to hold his peace.
[Page 64]IX. I could pursue these Differences further both in weight and number, without any great trouble; but that I have some ther work to do, which is the pressing of some other Conformities between this Synod and the Councel: the same Arts being used in drawing up the Cannons and Conclusions of the one, as were observed in the other; what Care and Artifice was used in the Councel of Trent, so to draw up the Canons and Decrees thereof, as to please all the differing Parties, hath been already shewn in the third Chapter of this Book. And in the History of the Councels, we shall finde this passage, Viz. That immediatly after the Session, Fryer Dominicus S [...]to principal of the Dominicans, wrote three Books, and did Intitle them of Nature and of Grace: for Commentary of this Doctrine, and in his Expositions all his Opinions are found. When this Work was published, Fryer Andrew Vega, the most esteemed of the Franciscans, set forth fifteen great Books for Commentarys,Hist. of the Contr. p. 215. upon the sixteen Points of that Decree, and did expound it all according to his own Opinion; which two Opinions sayth my Author, do not only differ in almost all the Articles, but in many of them are expresly contrary. A perfect parallel to which we may finde in this Synod; the Conclusions and Results whereof, being so drawn up, for giving satisfaction to the Sublapsarians, that those of the Supralapsarian Faction might pretend some Title to them also: Concerning which, take here this passage from the Arcan. Dogm. Pref. A. 9. Remonstr. long since published, where we are told of a bitter Contention, betwixt Voetius and Maresius, about the sense of this Synod: the one of them maintaining that the Synod determined the Decree of Predestination and Reprobation, to antecede the consideration of the Fall of Adam; the other opposing him with an Apology in behalf of the Synod, against that Assertion. So that though assembled on purpose to decide these Controversies, and appease the Broyls that Emerged, and were inflamed upon them, yet (that they might seem to agree together in some thing) have they wrapt up their Decrees and Canons in so many Clouds, and confounded them with so many Intricacies (if a man hath recourse to their Suffrages for an Interpretation) that they are like to fall into a [Page 65] greater new Schism, before they come to a setled Resolution, of knowing what the meaning of that Synod is. And so much of the parallel between the councel of Trent, & the synod of D [...]rt▪ touching the managery of all affairs both in fact, and post fact.
X. It was to be supposed in the midst of so many Differences and disorders, the Remonstrants might have found a way to have saved themselves, either by fomenting the Contentions, or by finding some Favours at their hands, who seemed to be any thing inclinable to their Opinions: but no such favour could be gained, not so much as hoped for; though Ephraim was against Manasses, and Manasses against Ephraim, yet were they both together against Judah, as the Scripture tells us. Nor did the differences between the Supralapsarians, and the Sublapsarians, or those which were of equal moment in the other Points extend so far, as to be any hindrance to the condemning of those poor men, to whom they were resolved not to give an equal hearing before the final sentence of their recondemnation: so truly was it sayd by some of the Remonstrants themselves; Adeo facile Coeunt, qui in fatalitatem absolutam Exam. Cers. p. 63. B. tantum consentiunt. In order whereunto, many indirect proceedings had been used to hinder those of the Remonstrant, or Arminian Party, by excommunicating some, and citing others to appear as criminal persons, from being returned Commissioners from their several Classes; and to refuse admittance to them into the Synod, upon such Returns, except they would oblige themselves to desert their Party, as in the case of those of Ʋtrecht, there when the Parties whom they cited, were authorized by the rest to present themselves before the Synod, and to press for audience, offering to refer their Cause to a Disputation: their offer was not rejected only, but they were commanded to forbear any further attendance, unless they would submit themselves unto two Conditions; First, To acknowledge the Members of the Synod (whom they beheld as Parties) to be competent Judges in that case. And secondly, To proceed in such a Method as they conceived would be destructive of their Cause: On the refusal of which last, the former Point being in a manner yeilded to, in hope of some fair dealing from the forein Divines, they were dismist [Page 66] without hearing what they could say for themselves, as before was noted. For Boyerman President of the Synod, having some suspition that they would openly retort those gross Impieties, which were contained under the absolute Decree of Reprobation; dismissed them the Assembly in a most bitter Oration, his eyes seeming to sparkle fire, for the very fear, or fervency of spirit which was then upon him, which though I might report with safety enough from the Pen of some of the Remonstrants, in their Books called the Synodalia Remonstrantium, and the Antidotum, &c. yet I choose rather to relate it from a more impartial Author, even from the mouth of my dear Friend, Mr. Hales (the most learned and ingenious John Hales of Eaton) who being then Chaplain to Sir. Dudley Carleton, King James his Resident at the Hague, was suffered to be present at the hearing of it; so that it might be sayd of them, as was affirmed by Tertullian of the ancient Gentiles, when the persecuting humour was upon them: A [...]dire nolunt, quod auditum damnare non possunt; they were resolved not to hear those Arguments which they could not answer, or to give ear unto the proving of those Points, which they could not honestly condemn, if they had been proved.
XI. More favourable were they unto those of the other extremity, looking no otherwise on the Supralapsarians, then as erring Brethren; but on the Remonstrants, or Arminians, as their mortal Enemies. Macorius before-mentioned, is charged to have brought many dangerous and blasphemous Paradoxes, in making God to be the Author of sin, and openly maintaining in the Synod it self, that God willed sin, that he ordained sin, as sin, and that by no means he would have all men to be saved, as before is sayd. He had taught also in his Writings, Gods Love to mankinde, p. 89. Deum Reprobis verbum suum prop [...]nere non alio fine, quam ut inexcusabiles reddantur: That is to say, That God doth propound his Word to Reprobates for no other end, then that they might be left without excuse: That if the Gospel be considered in respect of Gods intention, the proper end of it, and not the Accidental, in reference to Reprobates, is their inexcusableness. More then so yet, That Christ knoweth all the hearts of Reprobates who he kn [...]weth neither can nor will open to him; not that he may enter in, [Page 67] but partly that he may upbraid them for their impotency, and partly that he may encrease their damnation: And finally, Deum ideo eis locutum esse, ut ex contemptu, & odio filii unigeniti, Gravior condemnatio esset. That God doth speak unto them to no other end, but that by the contempt and hatred of his only son, they might incur the greater condemnation. For which and many other expressions of the like foul Nature, occurring frequently in his Writings, and those▪ Positions which he stood to in the open Synod, he received no other Censure from them, but a fair and friendly Admonition, to forbear such Forms of speech, asArcan. Deg. Cert. Remons. p. 95. might give offence to tender Ears, and could not be digested by persons ignorant and uncapable of so great Mysteries: As also that he would not set light by those distinctions of Divines who had deserved well of the Church of Christ. But on the other side, the Remonstrants who maintained no such Impieties, whose Writings neither charged God with Tyranny and Hypocrisie or having any hand in the Act of sin, were most reproachfully handled and thrown out of the Senate, without so much as hearing, what they had to say in their own defence, though that was the least part of the misery intended to them: For when the Synod had concluded in the condemnation of their Doctrine, they next proceeded to the destructon of their persons, calling upon them to subscribe to the Acts of the Synod; and setting them a peremptory day for conforming to it: And when they saw that would not do it, by their incensed importunity, they procured a Proclamation from the States-Generall, to banish them from their Native Countrey, with their Wives and Children, and so compelling them to beg their Bread, even in Desolate places.
XII. But yet this was no end of their sorrows neither. He must come under a new Crosse, and be calumniated for maintaining many horrid Blasphemies, and grosse impieties, which they most abhorred. For in the continuation of the History of the Netherlands, writ by one Crosse, a fellow of no parts or judgement, and so more apt to be abused with a false Report; It is there affirmed (whether with greater ignorance or malice, it is hard to say) That there was a Synod called at D [...]rt, to suppresse the Arminians; and that the said Arminians [Page 68] held amongst other Heresies, First, That God was the Author of sin; and secondly, That he created the far greater part of Mankinde, only of purpose for to damn them; with severall others of that kinde: VVhich every man of reason knowes, not only to be the consequence and results of Calvins Doctrine, but to be positively maintained and taught by some of his followers. By which and such like subtile, and malicious practises, they endeavoured to expose their Adversaries to the publick hatred, and make them odious with the people; till at last these poor men might have said most justly, as once the primitive Christians did, under the burden of the like Calumnies and Imputations, Condemnati sumus quia nominamur, non quia convincimur, as Tertullian hath it, the name of an Arminian carried a Condemnation in it self without any conviction. Nor was their fury satisfied in Exauctorating, Banishing, and destroying those of the adverse party, who lived within the compasse of the Belgick Provinces; the genius of the Sect being active in all parts alike, in none more visibly then the neighbouring City of Ledan, the principal seat and Signory of the Dukes of Bovillon: Out of which Franciscus Auratus a most faithfull Minister of that Church, is said to have been shamefully ejected for no other reason, by those of the Calvinian party, but because, preaching on the Text of St. James 1. 13. God tempteth no man, &c. he largely declared, that God was not the Author of sin. With what severity they proceeded in England, when they had gotten the advantage of Power and Number, and with what Calumnies and Reproaches they aspersed all those which were of a contrary perswasion to them; the sequestring and ejecting of so many hundreds of learned and religious men from their severall Benefices, the most odious Pamphlet called, The First CENTURY of SCANDALOƲS and MALIGNANT PRIESTS, together with many uncharitable and disgracefull passages against them, in the Writings of some Presbyterian Ministers, do most clearly evidence.
CHAP. VI. Objections made against the Doctrine of the Remonstrants, the Answers unto all, and the retorting of some of them on the Opposite Party.
I. An Introduction to the said Objections. II. The first Objection, touching their being enemies to the Grace of God, disproved in generall, by comparing the Doctrine with that of S. Augustine, though somewhat more favourable to Free Will then that of Luther. III. A more particular Answer, in relation to some hard Expressions, which were used of them by King James. IV. The second charging it as Introductive of Popery, begun in Holland, and pressed more importunately in England, answered both by Reason and Experience to the contrary of it. V. The third, as filling men with spirituall pride, first answered in relation to the testimony from which it was taken, and then retorted on those who object the same. VI. The fourth Charge, making the Remonstrants a factious and seditious people, begun in Holland, prosecuted in England, and answered in the generall by the most Religious Bishop Ridly. VII. What moved King James to think so ill of the Remonstrants, as to exasperate the States against them. VIII. The Remonstrants neither so troublesome nor so chargeable to the States themselves, as they are made by the Assertor; the indirect proceedings of the Prince of Orange, viz. the death of Barnevelt, and the injustice of the Argument in charging the practises of his Children, and the Prince upon all the party. IX. Nothing in the Arminian Doctrine, which may incline a man to seditious courses, as it is affirmed and proved to be in the Calvin. X. The Racrimination further proved by a passage in the Conference of the Lord Treasurer Burleigh with Queen Eliz. in a Letter of some of the Bishops to the Duke of Buckingham, and in that of Dr. Brooks to the late Archbishop. XI. More fully prosecuted, and exemplified, by Campney's an old English Protestant. XII. A Transition to the Doctrine of the Chrurch of England.
I. IT may be thought, that some strange mystery of iniquity, lay hidden under the Mask or Vail of the Five [Page 70] Articles last mentioned, which m [...]de the Synodists so furiously to rage against them; to use such cruelty (for severity is too milde a name to expresse their [...]igor) towards all those who did maintain them. For justifying whereof in the eye of the World, both before, and after the Synod, course was taken to impeach their Doctrine in these points of no smaller crimes, then to be destructive of [...]ods Grace, introductory of Popery, tending unto spiritual pride, and to Sedition or Rebellion in the Civil Government. Which Objections I shall here present, as I have done the Arguments of most importance which were Excogitated, and enforced against the Conclusions, and Determinations of the Synod in the said five poynts; and that being done, I shall return such Answers as are made unto them.
II. First then it is objected, that this Doctrine is destructive of Gods Free Grace, reviving the old Pelagian Heresies, so long since condemned. This is press'd by Boyerman, in his AnnotationsBoyerman, Anro [...]. Grotii Pietat. on the book of Grotius, called Pietas Ordinum, &c. where he brings in Pareus, charging them, with having proceeded E Schola Caelestii & Pelagii, from no other School, then that of Pelagius, and Caelestius, those accursed Hereticks. Thycius another of the Contra-Remonstrants, but somewhat more moderate then the rest in this particular, conceives their Doctrine to incline rather to Semi-Pelagianisme, Et aut candem esse, aut non multo diversam, and either to be the very same, or not much different. But the authority of King James * Declar. against Vorstius was of greatest weight, who in his heats against Vorstius, calls them the Enemies of Gods grace, Atheisticall Sectaries, and more particularly, the Enemy of God Arminius, as the King once called him. To which Objection it is answered, that whatsoever Pareus and the rest might please to call them, they had but little reason for it; the Remonstrants speaking as honourably of the Grace of God as any other whatsoever. And this they prove, by comparing the first branch of the Fourth Article, with that Golden saying of St. Augustine, viz. Sine gratia Dei praeveniente ut velimus, & subsequente ne frustra velimus, ad pietatis opera nil valemus; that is to say, that we may will the things which are good, and [Page 71] following or assisting, that we do not will them to no purpose, we are not able to do any thing in the works of piety. And by comparing the said Clause with St. Augustines words, it cannot easily be discerned, why the one party should be branded for the Enemies of the Grace of God, while the other is honoured as the chief Patron, and Defender of it. It can not be denyed, but that they ascribe somewhat more [...]o the will of man, then some of the rigid Lutherans and Calvinians doe, who will have a man drawn forcibly, and irresistably▪ with the cords of Grace, velut in animatum quiddam, like a senselesse stock, without contributing any thing to his own salvation. But then it must be granted also, that they ascribe no more unto it, then what may stand both with the Grace and Justice of Almighty God, according to that Divine saying of St. Augustine, viz. Si non est gratia Dei quomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum? Were it not for the Grace of God, no man could be saved, and were there not a freedome of will in man, no man with justice could be condemned.
III. And as for the Reproachfull words which King James is noted to have spoken of them, it hath been said (with all due reverence to the Majesty of so great a Prince) that he was then transported with prejudice or particular Interesse; and therefore that there lay an Appeal, (as once to Philip King of Macedon,) from the King being not then well informed, to the same King, whensoever he should be better informed. Touching their proceedings, it was observed, 1. That he had his Education in the Kirk of Scotland, where all the Heterodoxies of Calvin were received as Gospel, and therefore could not so suddenly cast off those opinions, which he suckt in as it were with his Mothers Milk. 2. He was much governed at that time by Dr. Mountague, then Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Dean of his Majesties Chappell Royall, who having been a great Stickler in the Predestinarian Controversies, when he lived in Cambridge, thought it his best way, to beat down all such Opinions by Kingly Authority, which he could not over-bear by the strength of Arguments. And thirdly, that K. James had then a turn to serve for the [Page 72] Prince of Orange, of which more anon, which turn being served, and Mountague dying not long after, his ears lay open to such further informations as were offered to him, which drew him to a better liking both of the Men and their Opinions then he had formerly entertained of either of them.
IV. It is objected secondly, that these Doctrines symbolize so much with the Church of Rome, that they serve only for a Bridge for Popery to passe over, into any Church, into which they can obtain admittance. This Calumny first laid upon them in a Declaration of the States Generall, against Barnevelt before remembred; wherein they charge him with a design of confederating with the Spaniard, to change the Religion of those Countreys, and countenancing to that end the Arminian party, as his fittest Instruments; which clamor being first raised in Holland, was afterwards much cherished, and made use of, by the Puritan, or Calvinian party amongst us in England. By one of which it is alleadged, that Mr. Pym Justif. of the Fathers, &c. p. being to make a report to the House of Commons, An. 1626. touching the Books of Richard Mountague, after Bishop of Chichester, affirmed expressely, that the whole scope of his Booke was to discourage the well-affected in Religion, and as much as in him lay, to reconcile them unto Popery. He gives us secondly, a Fragment of a scattered Paper, pretended to be written to the Rector of the Jesuites Colledge in Bruxells; in which, the Writer lets him know, that they had strongly fortified their Faction here in England, by planting the Soveraign Drug Arminianisme, which he hoped would purge the Protestants from their Heresie. Thirdly, he backs this Paper with a Clause in the Remonstrance of the House of Commons, 1628. where it is said that the hearts of his Majesties Subjects were perplexed in beholding the daily growth and spreading of the Faction of Arminianisme, that being, as his Majesty well knew, (so they say at least but a cunning way to bring in Popery. To all which, being but the same words out of divers mouths, it is answered, first, That the points which are now debated between the Calvinians and the old Protestants in England; between the Remonstrants, and the Contra-Remonstrants in the Belgick Churches; and finally between the rigid and moderate Lutherans in the [Page 73] upper Germany, have been as fiercely agitated, between the Franciscans and the Dominicans in the Church of Rome: The old English Protestants, the Remonstrants, and the moderate Lutherans, agreeing in these points with the Franciscans; as the English Calvinists, the Contra-Remonstrants, and the rigid Lutherans do with the Dominicans: So that there is a compliance on all sides with one of the said two differing parties in the Church of Rome. And therefore why a generall complyance in these poynts with the Fryers of St. Dominick, the principall sticklers & promoters of that Inquisition, should not be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery, as any such complyance with the Fryers of St. Francis, he must be a very wise man indeed which can give the reason. Secondly, it is answered, that the Melanctonian or moderate Lutherans which make up infinitely the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, agree in these points with the Jesuites or Franciscan Fryers, and yet are still as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as when they made the first separation from it. And therefore thirdly, that if Arminianisme, as they call it, be so ready a Bridge for passing over to Popery, it would be very well worth the knowing, how and by what means it should come to passe, that so few of the Remonstrants in the Belgick Provinces, and none of those whom they call Arminians in the Church of England, should in so long a time pass over that Bridge, notwithstanding all the Provocations of want and scorn, which were put upon the one, and have been since multiplyed upon the other.
V. In the next place, it is objected, that the Arminian Doctrines, naturally incline a man to the sin of pride, in attributingJustis. of the Fathers, &c. p. 34. so much to the power of his own will, & so little to the Grace of God, in choosing both the means, and working out of the end of his own salvation. And for the proof hereof, a passage is alleadged out of the History of the Councell of Trent, that the first opinion, (that is to say, the Doctrin of Predestination, according to the opinion of the Dominican Fryers) as it is hidden and mysticall, keeping the minde humble, and relying on God, without any confidence in it self knowing the deformity of Sin, and the excellency of Divine Grace; so the Second (being that maintained by the Franciscans) was plausible and popular, and cherished humane presumption, &c. The whole passage we have had before in [Page 74] the Second Chapter, Num. 4. but we shall answer to no more of it then the former Clause. Concerning which, it may be said, that though Father Paul the Author of the History hath filled the Christian World with admiration, yet it is obvious to the eye of any discerning Reader, that in many places he savoureth not so much of the Historian, as he doth of the Party; and that being carryed by the Interest of his Native Countrey, (which was the Signory of Venice) he seldome speaks favourably of the Jesuites, and their adherents, amongst which the Franciscans in these poynts are to be accounted. Secondly, that either Father Paul did mistake himself, or else that his Translator hath mistaken his meaning, in making the Second Opinion to be more pleasing to the Preaching Fryers, then the understanding Divines; the name of Preaching Fryers, being so appropriated in common speech to those of the Dominican Order, that it is never applyed unto any other. And Thirdly, that the Authority of Father Paul is no otherwise to be embraced in Doctrinall matters, (what credit soever may be given to him in point of History) then as it is seconded by Reason. And certainly, if we proceed by the rule of Reason, that Doctrine must needs more cherish humane presumption, which puffeth men up with the certainty of their Election, the infallibility of assisting and persisting Grace, & the impossibility of falling from the attaining of that salvation which they have promised to themselves; then that which leaves these poynts uncertain, which puts a man to the continuall necessity of calling on God, and working out the way unto his salvation with fear and trembling. He that is once possessed with this perswasion, that all the sins which he can possibly commit, were they as many as have been committed by all Mankinde, since the beginning of the World, are not able to frustrate his Election, or separate him from the love and favour of Almighty God; will be too apt to swell with Pharisaicall pride, and despise all other men as Heathens and Publicans; when such poor Publicans as have their minds humble and relying [...]n God, will stand aloof, not daring to approach too neer the Divine Majesty, but crying out with God be mercifull unto me a sinner, and yet shall be more justified in the sight of God then the others are▪ For this we need produce no proof, we finde it in the supercilious looks, in the haughty carriage of those who [Page 75] are so well assured of their own Election; who cannot so disguise themselves, as not to undervalue and despise all those who are not of the same party, and perswasion with them. A race of men, whose insolence and pride there is no avoyding by a modest submission, whose favour there is no obtaining by good turns, and benefits. Quorum superbiam frustra per modestiam, & obsequium, effugeris, as in another case was said by a Noble Britain.
VI. And finally it is objected, (but the Objection rather doth concern the men, then the Doctrine) that the Arminians are a Faction, a turbulent, seditious Faction, so found in the United Provinces, from their very first spawning; not to be suffered by any Reason of State in a Common-wealth. So saith the Author of the Pamphlet called theObs. Observed, p. 46. Observator observed, and proves it by the wicked conspiracy (as he calls it) of Barnevelt, who suffered most condignly (as he he tells us) upon that account, 1619. And afterwards by the damnable and hellish plot of Barnevelts Children and Allies, in their designs against the State, and the Prince of Orange. This Information seconded by the Author of the Book called, The Justification P. 37. of the Fathers, &c. who tells us, but from whom he knowes not, that the States themselves have reported of them, that they had created them more trouble, then the King of Spain had by all his Warres. And both these backt by the Authority of K. James, who tells us of them in his Declaration against Vorstius, That if they were not with speed rooted out, no other issue could be expected, then the Curse of God, infamy throughout all the Reformed Churches, and a perpetual rent, and distraction in the whole body of the State. This is the substance of the Charge: So old and common, that it was answered long since, by Bishop Ridly in Queen Marys dayes, when the Doctrine of the Protestants was said to be the readiest way to stir up sedition, and trouble the quiet of the Common-wealth; wherefore to be repressed in time by force of Laws. To which that godly Bishop returns this Answer, ‘"That Satan doth not cease to practise his old guiles and accustomed subtilties: He hath ever this Dart in a readinesse, to whirle against his adversaries, to accuse them of sedition, that he may bring them, if he can, in danger of the Higher Powers; for so hath he by his Ministers, alwayes charged the Prophets of God. Ahab said unto [Page 76] Elias, art thou he that troubleth Israel. The false Prophets complained also to their Princes of Jeremy; that his words were seditious, and not to be suffered. Did not the Scribes and Pharises falsly accuse Christ, as a seditious person, and one that spake [...]ser. between Ridley and Latimer. against Caesar."’ Which said, and the like instance made in the Preachings of St. Paul, he concludes it thus, viz. But how far they were from all sedition, their whole Doctrine, Life and Conversation doth well declare. And this being said in reference to the Charge in generall, the Answer to each part thereof is not far to seek.
VII. And first it hath been answered to that part of it which concerns King James, that the King was carried in this business, not so much by the clear light of his most excellent understanding, as by Reason of State; the Arminians (as they call them) were at that time united into a party, under the command of John Olden Barnevelt, and by him used (for the reasons formerly laid down) to undermine the power of Maurice then Prince of Orange, who had made himself the Head of the Contra-Remonstrants, and was to that King a most dear Confederate. Which Division in the Belgick Provinces, that King considered as a matter of most dangerous consequence, and utterly destructive of that peace, unity and concord, which was to be the greatest preservation of the States Ʋnited; on whose tranquillity and power, he placed a great part of the peace and happiness of his own Dominions. Upon which reason, he exhorrs them in the said Declaration, to take heed of such infected persons; their own Countrey-men being already divided into Factions, upon this occasion, which was a matter (as he saith) so opposite to unity (which was indeed the only prop and safety of their State, next under God) as of necessity it must by little and little bring them to utter ruine, if justly and in time they did not provide against it. So that K. James considering the present breach, as tending to the utter ruine of those States, and more particularly of the Prince of Orange, his most dear Allye; he thought it no small piece of King-craft, to contribute toward the suppression of the weaker party; not only by blasting them in the said Declaration, with reproachfull names, but sending such Divines to the Assembly at Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation.
VIII. So that part of the Argument which is borrowed from the States themselve [...], it must be proved by some better evidence, [Page 77] then the bare word of Mr. Hickman, before it can deserve an answer; the speech being so Hyperbolicall (not to call it worse) that it can hardly be accounted for a flower of Rhetorick. The greatest trouble which the States themselves were put to all this businesse, was, for the first eight years of it, but the hearing of Complaints, receiving of Remonstrances, and being present at a Conference between the parties. And for the last four years, (for it held no longer) their greatest trouble was to finde out a way to forfeit all their old and Native Priviledges in the dea [...]h of Barnevelt, for maintenance whereof they had first took up Arms against the Spaniard. In all which time, no blood at all was drawn by the Sword of War, and but the blood of 5 or 6 men only, by the Sword of Justice, admitting Barnevelts for one: Whereas their warres with Spain had lasted above thrice that time, to the sacking of many of their Cities, the loss of at least 100000. of their own lives, and the expense of many millions of Treasure. And as for Barnevelt, if he had committed any Treason against his Countrey, by the Laws of the same Countrey he was to be tryed. Contrary whereunto, the Prince of Orange having got him into his power, put him over to be judged by certain Delegates, commissionated by the States Generall, who by the Laws of the Union, can pretend unto no Authority over the Life and Limb of the meanest subject. Finally, for the conspiring of Barnevelts Children, it concerns only them whose design it was. Who to revenge his death, so unworthily and unjustly contrived, and (as they thought) so undeservedly, and against their Laws, might fall upon some desperate Councels, and most unjustifiable courses in pursuance of it. But what makes this to the Arminian and Remonstrant party? Or doth evince them for a turbulent and seditious Faction, not to be suffered by any Reason of State in a well-ordered Commonwealth. Barnevelts Kindred might be faulty, the Arminians innocent, or the Arminians faulty, in their practise against the life of the Prince of Orange, under and by whom they had suffered so many oppressions; without involving those in their Crimes and Treasons, who hold the same Opinion with them in their Neighbouring Churches.
IX. The reason is, because there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Arminians, (as it relates to the Five points in difference) [Page 78] which can dispose the Professors of it to any such practises. And therefore if the Arminians should have proved as turbulent and seditious as their enemies made them, yet we were not to impute it to them, as they were Arminians, that is to say, as men following the Melanctonian way, of Predestination, and differing in those points from the rest of the Calvinists, but as exasperated, and provoked, and forced to cast themselves upon desperate courses, Quae libertatis arma dat ipse dolor, in the Poets language. But so some say, it is not with the Doctrine of the other party by which mens actions are so ordered & predetermined by the eternall will of God, even to the taking up of a straw, as before was said, ut nec plus boni nec minus mali, that it is neither in their power, to do more good, or commit less evil then they do. And then according to that Doctrine, all Treasons, Murders and Seditions, are to be excused, as unavoydable in them, who commit the same, because it is not in their power not to be guilty of those Treasons or Seditions which the fire and fury of the Sect shall inflame them with. And then to what end should Princes make Laws, or spend their whole endeavors in preserving the publick Peace, when notwithstanding all their cares, and travails to prevent the mischief, things could no otherwise succeed, then as they have been predetermined by the will of God. And therefore the best way would be, (Sinere res vadere quo vult (in the Latin of an old Spanish Monke) to let all matters go as they will, since we cannot make them go as we would; according to that counsell of the good old Poet.
X. To this effect, it is reported, that the old Lord Burleigh should discourse with Queen Eliz. when he was first acquainted with the making of the Lambeth ArticlesHist. Artic. Lambeth, p. 6, 7.. Not pleased wherewith, he had recourse unto the Queen, letting her see how much her Majesties Authority, and the Laws of the Realm [Page 79] were thereby violated, and it was no hard matter to discern what they aimed at, who had most stickled in the same. For saith he, this is their opinion and Doctrine; that every Humane action, be it good or evil, it is all restrained and bound up by the Law of an immutable decree; that upon the very wills of men also, this necessity is imposed, ut aliter quam vellent homines, velle non possent, that men could not will otherwise then they did will. Which Opinions, saith he, Maddam, if they be true, Frustra ego aliique fideles Majestatis tuae ministri, &c. then I and the rest of your Majesties faithfull Ministers do sit in Councel to no purpose, 'tis in vain to deliberate and advise about the affairs of your Realm; Cum de his quae eveniunt necessario, stulta sit plane omnis consultatio, since in those things that come to passe of necessity, all consultation is foolish, and ridiculous. To which purpose it was also press'd by the Bishop of Rochester, Oxon and St. Davids, in a Letter to the Duke of Buckingham concerning Mountagues Appeal, An. 1625. Cabuba. p. 116. In which it is affirmed, that they cannot conceive what use there can be of Civil Government in the Common-wealth, or of Preaching, and externall Ministry in the Church; if such fatal Opinions, as some which are opposite & contrary to those delivered by Mr. Mountague, shall be publickly taught and maintained. More plainly and particularly charged by Dr. Brooks, once Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge, in a Letter Con [...]. Dom. p. 167▪ to the late Archbishop, bearing date Decemb. 15. 1630. in which he writes, that their Doctrines of Predestination, is the root of Puritanisme, and Puritanisme is the root of all Rebellions, and disobedient untractablenesse in Parliaments, &c. and of all Schisme and sawcinesse in the Countrey, nay in the Church it self; making many thousands of our people, and too great a part of the Gentlemen of the Land very Leightons in their hearts; which Leighton had published not long before, a most pestilent and seditious Book against the Bishops, called Sions Plea, in which he excited the people to strike the Bishops under the fifth rib, reviling the Queen by the name of a Daughter of Heth; and for the same was after censured in the Star-Chamber, to Pillory, loss of Ears, &c.
XI. But because perhaps it may be said, that this is but a new device, excogitated by the malice of these later times, to defame thisAnswer to a certain Le [...]t. p. 38▪ Doctrine, let us behold what Campneys hath delivered of it in the first or second year of Queen Eliz. at the first peeping of it out to disturb this Church. Where, saith he, who seeth not the distraction of England, to follow this Doctrine? Who seeth not the confusion of all Common-wealths to depend hereupon? What Prince may sit safely in the seat of his Kingdome? What subject may live quietly possessing [Page 80] his own? What man shall be ruled by the right of Law? If there Opinions may be perfectly placed in the hearts of the People? Which Corollary he brings in, in the end of a Discourse touching the Rebellion raised by Martin Cyrnell, and seconded by the Earl of Lincolne, Martin Swarth, and others, against Hen. 7. For, building on the Calvinian Maxim, that as God doth appoint the end, so he appointeth also the means and causes which lead unto it; he thereupon inferreth, that Martin Swarth, and his men; according to that Doctrine were destined by God to be slain at the Battle of Stoke. In order whereunto, first Sir Richard Simon the Priest must be appointed and predestinate of God to powre in the pestilent poyson of Privy Conspiracy, and trayterous mischief of vain glory into the heart of Lambert (his Scholar) as a cause leading to the same end. Secondly, that he the said Lambert was appointed and predestinate of God to consentIbid. p. 38. and agree unto the pestiferous perswasion of his Master * S. Richard, in the pride of Lucifer, to aspire unto the Royall Throne, as another cause leading to the same end which God ordained. Thirdly, that the Irish men were appointed of God, to be Rebellious Traytors against their Soveraign Lord the King of England, and to maintain the false and fithy quarrell of Lambert, as another cause leading to the same end. Fourthly, that in order to the said end, the Lady Margaret (sister to K. Edw. 4.) was appointed and predestinate of God to be a Traytoresse to England, and to imploy all her wits, forces and power; to the utter destruction of her naturall Countrey: And Fiftly, in particular, that the said Lady Margaret was appointed of God to hi [...]e the said Martin Swarth and his men, to invade the Realm of England. Sixthly and finally, that the said Martin Swarth, the Earl of Lincoln, the Lord Lorell, the Lord Gerrard, and divers others, Captains of the Rebels, we [...]e appointed and predestinate of God to be of such valiant courage in maintaining the false quarrel of traytetous Lambert, that they were slain, (& on the other side, many a brave English mans blood was shed) at the battell of Stoke, which was the end of this wofull Tragedy. Let them say therefore what they can or will; this meer necessity which our men te [...]ch, is the very same which the Stoicks did hold; which opinion because it destroyed the state of a Commonwealth, was banished out of Rome, as St. Augustine declareth in lib. Quest Vet. & Nov. Testam.
XII. And thus the different Judgements of all the other Western Churches, and the severall Subdivisions of them, in the five controverted Points, being laid together, with such Discourses and Disputes, as have occasionally been made▪ and raised about them, we will next shew to which of the said differing parties the Church of England [...]ms most inclinable, and afterwards proceed in the story of i [...].