AN APOLOGY OF ENGLISH ARMINIANISM OR A DIALOGUE, between jacobus Arminius, Professor in the University of Leyden in Holland; and Enthusiastus an English Doctor of Divinity▪ and a great Precisian.  
WHEREIN Are defended the Doctrines of Arminius touching Freewill, Predestination, and Reprobation▪ The said doctrines being mantained & taught by many of the most Learned Protestants of England, at this present time.  
WRITTEN By O. N. heretofore of the University of Oxford.  Quoties volui congregare filios tuos, etc. & noluisti? Matth. 23. Qui se existimat stare, vide at ne cadat. 1. Cor. 10. 
Permissu Superiorum, 1634.   

THE ARGUMENT of the Dialogue.  
CERTAIN Gentlemen of Quality, being sent out of England, to negotiate with the States of Holland, touching Public Affairs, one Enthusiastus is appointed (as their chaplain) to accompany them. This Enthusiastus, being supposed a Doctor of Divinity, made in one of our English Universities, is a Man (as his name importeth) much relying upon his own Illuminations from God, touching matters of Faith, and interpretation of Scripture. He is a great Precisian, and (though learned) much adverse to the Positions, and Theses, maintained by the Arminians.  
Now this English company lying at the Hage, and having conveniency of leisure, Enthusiastus intreateth some of the chiefest of them to accompany him to Leyden, being some few hour's journey from the Hage. He telleth them, that his meaning is, to dispute with Arminius (Professor in that Vnuiversity) touching three Questions believed by the Arminians of England. The Gentlemen accord to his request. The questions do concern Freewill, Predestination, and Reprobation.  
At their coming to Leyden, they find Arminius, reading his Public Lecture in the common Schools of the University. The Lecture ended, and salutations done, Enthusiastus acquainteth Arminius with the occasion of himself & his companies repair thither. Arminius willingly yieldeth thereto. Thereupon they begin a serious disputation touching the former Points of Doctrine, according to their different Tenets of them, in the open Schools, and eye of the present Auditory. What is the event of this disputation, the end of the Dialogue relateth.  
Thus far concerning the fiction of this Dialogue. The Author whereof supposeth Arminius to be living at this present, & to have read all such Books of Protestants, as have been written, touching the Questions here disputed of. All which liberty the Nature of a Dialogue permitteth to any Writer.   

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY, To the Right Reverend Lords, the LL. Archbishops of England: And to the right Worshipful, the Heads, and Masters of the Colleges of both Universities.  
MOST Reverend Lords, and you other Learned men of our Universities (whose due Panegyrics, and Laudatives deserve to proceed from a more skilful Pen, then mine:) you are not to think strange, that I make bold to dedicate this my small Treatise to yourselves. The reason is manifest, and it is this.  
Common Report (and you know the vulgar saying, Vox populi, vox Dei) though it often err in its own agitation, hath nevertheless voiced it much throughout this Realm, that diverse of You do entertain in your judgements, certain Positions in doctrine, not long since revived by jacobus Arminius, heretofore the public Poofessour of Leyden in Holland: To wit; 1. Touching man's having Freewill. 2. That no man is infallibly assu- of his Salvation. 3. That justifying Faith may be lost. 4. And finally, that God doth not reprobate any man to damnation, without prevision, or reference to his bad and wicked works. Yea some of you have in your public Sermons learnedly defended certain of these Points. And of my own knowledge there are diverse in the Universities, most strong in the said doctrines.  
The truth of this then being so fully acknowledged, I (who do run one, and the same line of doctrine with you herein) have undertaken to warrant and make good in these ensuing leaves, the most Ancient, & Orthodoxal Verity of the said Points: & therefore in regard of this assumed Attempt, my Ambition hath embouldned this my Dedication.  
I presume, that most of you, who are Patroness of these▪ Theorems, have already fortified your judgements (through your own▪ Reading) with most of the Arguments, produced in this Treatise; & therefore in this respect, to You it will prove less necessary, or profitable▪ Nevertheless, that▪ those, who are Anomalous, and irregular Professors among you (as I may term them,) and who through the crookedness of their own paths, do tread different steps from You therein, may see, upon what grounds (both Divine and Humane) the former Articles are seated, and▪ consequently how incompatible the contrary Tenets are with the holy Scriptures; I have to that end undertaken this Province.  
The matter is here delivered in the form of a Dialogue, as best comporting with the fastidious humour of the present times The Interlocutours are, Arminius himself (whom I suppose to be now living) & one Enthusiastus an Imaginary English Doctor of Divinity; a man, sufficiently learned, but a great Precisian, & a resolute Enemy to the former Positions of Arminius. What otherwise this aery Doctor is, You may easily conjecture; since to you who are learned, his name (as coming from the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is his Character. Now touching the further fiction of this Dialogue, I refer you to the Argument thereof prefixed before.  
If this my labour may become serviceable to any▪ I shall hold myself sufficiently recompensed: but howsoever, my comfort is, that the Highest ever setteth a poise more upon the intention of the Worker, then upon the work itself: & well I am assured, that my▪ intention herein is Azimous, and pure, as levelling only at the spiritual good of others.  
That I partly become Anonymous, or rather (in outward show) Fatherless to this my own Issue, contenting myself only (as it were) to Anagrammatize my name under two letters, your Ingenuity & Candour (I hope) will pardon. The main reason of thus masking myself, is this following: admitting once the Author hereof to be certainley known, what sallies, and incursions (more against my Person, then against my Treatise) vould the▪ maintainers of the contrary doctrines make with their Pens? And how would they, and their followers (being so infinite in number, and warranted with the stream & current of the times) even shower down words (of Disgrace, & Contumely upon me▪ So loathe I am to stand within the breath of such men.  
But now, Reverend men, I will expatiate no further; noither will I distune your ears with any longer difcourse; as being more willing to spread myself in Matter, then in Words▪ Therefore referring this small work (I could wish to your Patronage) I hope, to your perusal, I commit You to the Protection of him, who is the Protector of Israel, and do rest,  
Yours in all dutiful observancy, O. N.   

AN APOLOGY OF ENGLISH ARMINIANISM OR A DIALOGUE, Wherein is proved, 1. That Man hath freewill: 2. That no Man is certain of his own Salvation: 3. That no man is reprobated, without prevision of his Works.  
The Interlocutors are, Arminius, & Enthusiastus.  Enthusiastus. 
LEARNED Arminius; Now after your Lecture is ended, God save you. We were loath to interrupt you in the middle thereof. We have been at your lodging to inquire for you, and your Seruamts directed us to these public Schools; assuring us, that we should find you reading at this hour. Glad I am, that it hath so fallen out, that my ears have been witness thereof.  Arminius. 
Gentlemen. You are all strangers to me, and therefore I know not how to proportion my resalutation; but yet I will make bold to use towards you those words of Holy Writ: 
1 Pet. 1.  Gratia vobis, & pax multiplicetur. Indeed you have found me performing my Calendary & weekly task of Reading. I could wish that my Lecture had been worthy your Audience. But I pray you Sir (if so I may make bold) what is the occasion of your, and the rest of your Companies arrival at this place?  Enthusiastus. 
I will relate to you the Motive of our coming hither. Take notice then, that whereas his Majesty of England (whom God long preserve in a most happy government over us) hath sent over certain Knights, and others of Quality here present (and with them myself) to negotiate with the High Lords States of Holland, touching matters of State: And having stayed some weeks at the Hage without effecting any thing (so intricate, and delaying is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of State business) & myself unwilling to ravel out week after week in doing nothing, have taken the advantage of the Vacancy of some few days, in coming with these worthy Knights and Gentlemen, to visit this your Vuiversity of Leyden (being not past half a day's journey off from us) and particularly yourself.  Arminius. 
You are all as welcome, as my power and ability can afford. I will show you our University before your departure; though indeed it must needs appear in your eyes, but drooping, and of mean esteem, in regard of your Two of England, famous throughout all Christendom; in respect whereof our poor Academy may stand, but for a foil. But Sir, if without offence, I would entreat your Name in particular, seeing discoursing with men, whose names are not known, is, as if men should walk together in darkness.  Enthusiastus. 
My name is Enthusiastic; and I an● a Doctor (though unworthy) of Divinity, created in our own Universities. And know you further (Worthy Arminius) that I have often heard of you in England; though I could wish, that the report of you had taken its rise, and beginning from some other grounds than it doth. That you are learned, w● all know, and by this your Lecture, now read, we may rest no less assured. But part of your learning resteth (I fear) in maintaining unwarrantable Assertions, and such as are repugnant to the Word of God.  
For it is known, that (among other peculiar Doctrines, broached by you) you teach, with a strong delivery of yourself therein, That Man hath Freewill; that justifying faith may be lost, and finally, Uncertainty of Salvation, and Reprobation: Points, which (I much doubt) no good Professor of the Gospel doth maintain. And which is th● worst, these your Doctrines by me rehearsed (upon all which you briefly touched even now in this your Lecture) ●aue already invaded (if Report do not vainly and idly multiply itself) the judgements of diverse most remarkable men in England; and such, who both for learning and places of dignity which they hold, are in our own Euangelic all Spherc, Stars of the greatest Magnitude. Nay the Very stones of our Episcopal and Cathedral Churches, as also the walls of the Colleges in our Universities (even in a speaking silence) do Echo forth the great hurt by you perpetrated: Hinc illae lachrymae.  
Furthermore, which I relate with disconsolate sighs and lamentation; Such men in our own Conntry, who have embraced these your doctrines, do among us in this respect take their Denomniation even from your Name, they being in the vulgar speech styled, for the better distinguishing them from other more pure members of our Church, Arminians: A demonstration evicting, that your Doctrines are Innovations; since in every innovation of doctrine the Professors commonly take their Name from the first coiner of the sa●●: So true is that saying of Chrysostome: Prout 
2 Hom. 33. in Act. A post.  Haereliarcha noman, it● Secta vocatur: Pardon, ●yr, this my plainness, & unfyled words, I pray you.  
Now then, seeing I do hold▪ yo●● former doctrines, as incompatible with the Scriptures; Therefore, I confess, my chief Allective of Visiting you, (Arminius) is to enter into a Scholastical Duelism, or dispute in all Christian fervour and sobriety: Pede pes, densusque viro vir, that so, in the sight of these Gentlemen here present, I may either alter your judgement, or be by you altered. But why do I intimate in the least ●orte this later, since my own Profession doth warrant my attempt, and the Illustrious radiancy of the Truth on my side doth infallibly promise me the better of the day?  Arminius. 
Enthusiastus (since it seems, you so are called) and you worthy Men hither accompanying him, I must tell you all, that the Occasion of your Coming to me is most strange, and unexpected. Yet seeing every good Christian is obliged (when just reason thereof is presented) to give an account of his faith and Religion; Cord 
1 Rom. ●●  creditur ad justinian, o'er fit Confessio ad salutem: I shall not, according to my ability, be slow therein.  
But before you begin, I must put you in mind, that where you confess, that diverse of the Chiefest men in your Country (both for learning and Authority) maintain my former Theses and Positions; this greatly turneth to the honour of my Cause. For why should such eminent and selected Divines give their full assent thereto (and this contrary to the present stream & sway of the times) but that the doctrines (so entertained by them) are warranted with an inexpugnable Truth and Certainty?  
Again, where you say, that such Worthy men (among you) take their denomination from me; and consequently, and by implication you brand me with the odious Name of an Archheretic; my answer to you shallbe in all candour and sobriety (for I am unwilling by way of retaliation to convitiate you, or to bandy words of disgrace, especially in my own University, and you being but a stranger, since this would be accounted but Corid●nisme and Rusticity) that I am assured▪ you cannot justly throw upon me any such imputation. My reason is this▪ They only from whom others take the appellation for matters of faith, are to be reputed for Arch Heretics, who did first dogmatise, & teach Opinions in faith never before heard, as believed by the Church of God: Such were Arius, Eutiches, Pelagius, N●storius, and some others. Now if it can be made good (as I am assured it can) that the former Tenets by you mentioned, and by me believed, be concordant to th● sacred Scriptures; and were with an unanimous consent believed by the ancient Church of Christ; then I justify, that the hateful name of Archheretic, cannot in any sort be appropriated unto me.  
But seeing you are determined to enter into a serious dispute (as you say) touching the former Articles; I would willingly know, what Method you intent to keep herein? That is, where yo● will begin, and whether yourself wil● first oppose and object, or answer? th● choice whereof, for the greater satisfaction of these Gentlemen (your worthy Associates) I freely give to you. And lastly, I would know, whether you would rather dispute privately or publicly. If Privately, then if it please you and these Gentlemen to accompany me to my house, you shall enjoy (if nothing else, yet) better privacy of discourse.  Enthusiastus. 
O no. Our dispute shallbe open and public, I mean in these your own public Schools; This shallbe the place of our Conflict, that so in the Theatre and view, not only of these English Gentlemen, coming with me, but also of this Presence (your own daily Anditory) you may disavow that faith, to the which you have hitherto been so pitifully enthralled. Here within these Walls the Hurt hath been committed, and within these walls, I trust by dint of Argument, and by assistance of the Highest (who ever affoardeth his peculiar Illuminations, to his Elect, of which number I am ascertained, to be ●ne) to force you to disclaim from your former Positions, and thereby partly to repair the d●mage.  
Yet before we come to dispute, you must give me leave (thereby to afford ● more full passage to my grief) to tell you, that I much fear, your defence of these interwounding▪ Controversies, proceeds in you from a thirsty desire to be much spoken of by the tongue of Fame; & so to become Vir The●tralis, as placed upon the stage of the World's Eye. The which I am the rather induced to think; since you are not content to confyne your said doctrines, within the compass of these Walls, to your own Auditory; But withal, to diwlge them in your discoursing Papers; the immaterial (wellings of your Pen.  
I will not say, how for better, but I may well say, how less hurtful (in respect of others) it is, to be a secret Adiaphorist, or Neutral in Religion (so keeping his poison to himself) then with a certain Magistrality & assum●● Authority to frame & mould such doctrines, which stand so adverse to th● Word of the Lord, as that I may justly style them to be Hyper-hereticall▪ 〈…〉 cending the nature of ordinary 〈◊〉  
Now then, Arminius, you being the Architect of such strange doctrines, the belief whereof doth threaten an interminable perdition to the believers; it is evident that your Sin in Teaching is fare more reprovable, than it is in your followers in their Believing. The reason being, in that, whereas the ignorant Sectary merely Privatively believeth not that, which is True▪ the learned (such as you are) believeth with a formed and positive Faith, (to speak in a restrained sense) that, which is false.  
I here pass over, with a gentle touch, how in defence of your former doctrines (to the dishonour of your own Cause) you over nearly interleague with the Papists, who (as it should seem by some of their Books) equally maintain with you the said Paradoxes. But I will stay myself from lancing further in my Reprovalls, having paid in these my speeches some Tribute and Duty to the Truth, and to my own fervour: 
4 Psal ●●.  Zelus domus tu● comedit me.  Arminius. 
This your long (I will not say, tedious Discourse, discovereth, 〈◊〉 your Name well comports with your own comportment: but you may take notice, that my Scene is not, fruitlessly to waste the time in vaunting Words▪ the froth of speech.  
Where you say, that the defence of my doctrines riseth from a certain Ventuosity, and windy desire of Praise▪ It seems, you taste every thing through your own envenomed spittle; but I do assure you (to speak in my own defence) I do little prise this poor weak breath of men's mouths. Where you charge me, with inter-leaging (as you call it) with the Papists; I reply heerto. True it is, that the Papists do hold the said Articles with us, but not with the same Conditions (I take it) and in the same manner.  
Again, admit there were no disparity between them and us, touching the believing; yet what doth this enforce? Can it be inferred, that because the Papists believe them; Therefore we ought not to believe them? Most inconsequently inferred; since by this form of arguing, we should not believe that there are any Scriptures▪ that Christ died for man's Redemption; that there are three. Persons, and but one God; seeing the Papists do believe these Articles. But Sir, be not lavish of time, but without further surpluzage of unnecessary discourse (which doth but obtund men's ears) hasten to dispute: And what I shall be able to produce. either in defence of my own Positions, or in assaulting of yours (though these two points be partly coincident, & interueyre the one the other) the Event will prove. Therefore I entreat you to begin. And Gentlemen if it please you, you may take your Seats.  Enthusiastus▪ 
Well then: we will proceed thereto. And seeing you leave it to my Election, I will first dispute and object, & will produce most Unanswerable Testimonies of sacred Writ, delivered (without the least doubt) by me in the intended sense of the Holy Ghost; Spiritus, ubi 
a joan▪ 3.  vult, spirat. And I will begin with the Article of Freewill; in that the Question of Freewill is a Cardinal, & supreme Point, being indeed the hang, whereupon the other Questions following by necessary inference, do rest, and rely.  Arminius. 
I like well of your Method. And you say truly, in calling the Question of Freewill a supreme Point at this present, since it being once proved that man wanteth Freewill, it the followeth, that there is a certainty of our Reprobation, Election, or Predestination. As also on the contrary part, if it can be demonstrated, that man hath Freewill; then of necessity from thence may be inferred, that there is no certainty of Predestination, or Reprobation.  
But now to come to the subject, of which in the first place you undertake to dispute, I hold it expedient, that we first both agree of the definition of Freewill, and of other cautions necessarily conducing to every act, flowing from Freewill; the which being set down afore, and circumstanced with due restrictions, and so acknowledged by us both, my presaging thoughts foretell me, that you will but idly diverberate the air, in alleging the most of your scriptural Authorities; since the Answers to them you shall found to be virtually involved in the said definition, cautions, and explications.  
And first to begin with the definition. The Divines 
b Aug. in En●hirid. c. 100L.  do define  to be: A faculty of Reason and the Will, by the which Good is chosen, through God's grace assisting; or Evil, through the absence of the same Grace. Now for the better explication of this Definition, we are first to understand, that Freewill can choose evil of itself; but good, through the assistance and cooperation of God's grace. Secondly, that Freewill belongeth only to an Intelligent and Rational Nature; to wit, to God, Angels, and men. Thirdly, that Freewill is exercised only about Means conducing to an End, and not about the End itself. Fourthly, that Freewill consisteth in choosing one thing before another; and consequently, where there is no diversity of things, there the Freedom of the will cannot be exercised. Fiftly, that the freedom of will requireth a freedom, not only from Coaction and constraint, but also from all Necessity; so as the will is with no necessity carried ●o choose this rather than that, but 〈◊〉 choose whether itself will.  
Thus much for the greater illustration of the definition of Freewill▪ an● what Freewill is in its own Nature Now where you say, that you will begin with producing in the first pla● your Testimonies from the Holy Scriptures, (as justly they deserve the first place, and all precedency) for the impugning of Freewill; therefore as above I intimated, I will set down afore, other certain, true, and acknowledged Cautions, which I trust being truly balanced, will obtund and blunt the edge and force of the said Authorities▪ as being alleged through mere detortion, and misapplication of them.  
Of these cautionary Annotations, the first is, that the liberty of the will doth not exclude the cooperation, and help of God; nor Gods working excludes Freewill. Seeing, though the cooperation of God be ever presupposed▪ yet it is in our power to choose this or that, & therefore that sentence is most true; God worketh all our works, but yet not without us, that is, not without our free Consent thereto.  
Secondly, we are to conceive, that God in cooperating with us in our Actions, worketh either ●fficienter (as the School-devines do speak) yet this by the interueniency of some form, imprinted by God in our wills, to wit, by ●o wring into us his Grace, by which ●e inclineth our will to good Actions; ●or else God worketh in our wills Obiectiuè, & efficaciter, yet so as this efficacy proceedeth not so much from the force of the persuasion of God in us, as from the disposition of our will, the which disposition God forseeth. This is meant, when God propoundeth any thing through internal persuasion, & that he seethe the will is apt to consent thereto. And Gods working in our wills, by either of these two former ways, is no hindrance to the Freedom of our will, since (admitting either of these kinds of Gods working within us) the Will still remains free to choose this, or that; or to choose, or not to choose at all.  
The last Animadversion may be, that there is great difference between Freedom of Election, and freedom of Execution. The first is ever necessary to which one both 〈◊〉 and ●ad●●ction to do●, and y●● 〈◊〉 freedom the Will is in 〈◊〉 frustrated, or ●●ned thereby. Now these Cautions ●●ing promised, you may (〈◊〉 begin at your pleasure, to draw y●● Authorities out of God● holy 〈◊〉 for the impugning of 〈◊〉.  Enthusiastus. 
All these your Paraphr acts all observations I allow well of, they b●●●●ounded partly in Divinity, and par● in force of Nature: notwithstanding hope to produce such ●●●are and ●●uing passages of Scripture, as throu●● their evidency, they cannot by 〈◊〉 means be de●or●●d; and through th● force and strength they cannot be 〈◊〉 were.  
And first I allege that text, 〈◊〉 it is said: 
c joan. ●.  No man can come to me, 〈◊〉 the Father, that sent me, draw him. And 〈◊〉 Apostle inc●lcateth the same thing 〈◊〉: 
d ●. Cor. 3  We are not sufficient of our 〈◊〉 to think any thing, as of ourselves; 〈◊〉 ●●at say you to these texts, before we allege any other?  Arminius. 
I reply, that all these places are il●●●●trate● (as making nothing against 〈◊〉) from one of the Cautions a●●ue expressed. For we teach, that the ●●●edome of the Will is not by Nature do any good work, but only by 〈◊〉: therefore in that one cometh Christ, this is effected by the Will of 〈◊〉, cooperating with the Grace of 〈◊〉, and not otherwise.  
But (Enthusiastus) in my judgement 〈◊〉 been more convenient to have 〈◊〉 borne the alleging of this first 〈◊〉, seeing Chrysoston●● introduceth 〈◊〉 Manichees, (who denied Freewill) alleging this text in defence of their 〈◊〉, and then himself answereth 〈◊〉 these words: 
f Chry●ost. in joannem Hom. 45● versus 〈◊〉  No man cometh 〈◊〉, except my Father, who sent me, draw 〈◊〉. Here the Manichees rise up, conten●●g by testimony of this text, that we can ●●thing of ourselves; but this taketh not away our freewill, but showeth that it u●●deth God's help. Now I hold i● a blemish to you, to compart with th●se, (〈◊〉 were condemned in the F●imit●● Church) not only in their doctrin●● but also in their proofs of the said doctrines, since it implieth, that the be● weapons, wherewith you impugn th● truth, are borrowed from the confess●● Enemies of the Truth.  
The second passage alleged, by retortion makes wholly against you, an● in behalf of me, for it admit ●●th, th●● we have sufficiency: Only the A post● teacheth us, that our sufficiency 〈◊〉 think any good thing, is not of ourselves, that is, by force of Nature; b●● through the help and a yd of God, 〈◊〉 is, by force of God's Grace assisti●● man's will therein. And according here to M. Perkins thus writeth: 
g In his reformed Catholic pag. ●7.  〈◊〉 God commandeth men to repent, at the sam● time by his grace he enableth them both 〈◊〉 will, and to desire to repent, as also 〈◊〉 to repent.  
To the third text. The answer 〈◊〉 to is▪ grounded upon the former Ca●●tion, or Annotation: for God worked in us both to will, and to 〈◊〉 plash 〈◊〉 his Grace, but he worketh not this without our own cooperation therein. Now Gods working, & man's working are two different things: neither are they in themselves incompatible, but may stand together. This is necessarily evicted out of the words immediately aforegoing in the same place: With fear and trembling work your salvation. And therefore the foresaid M. Perkins truly thus writeth: 
h In his reformed Cath. pag. 14. vid. p● 16.  Man's freewill concurres with Grace, as a Co-worker; and being moved by Grace, it acteth, and moveth itself: A point so evident, that Austin himself answereth this very text in these words: 
k Aug. tom. 7. de gratia & libero arbitrio. c. ●●  Non quia dixit etc. Not because it is said, it is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, that therefore he may be thought to take away freewill from man etc. Thus far of these places, which receive one and the same answer.  
By this now (Enthusiastus) you may see, how rovingly they are alleged by you, against the doctrine of Freewill. But to these you may also range (if you will) these following texts of Scripture, produced by diverse for the impugning of Freewill, they receiving their full satisfaction from the answers given to these last. The Texts are these▪ 
l Isa. 26.  Thou O Lord hast wrought all our works in us. And again▪ 
m Matt. 10.  One sparrow shall not fall upon the ground without your Father. And yet more: Who worketh all things after the Counsel of his owns will besides the like Text in Rom. c. 11, & 1. Cor. 12. And lastly, where it is said. 
* 3. Reg. ●.  Let our hearts so incline to thee, that they may keep thy commandments.  Enthusiastus. 
Well (Arminius) if this my first encounter hath not been forcible enough to batter down the walls of your innovations; yet I trust my second charge shall prove more powerful, or rather : what then say you to these following Comments of Texts (for so in regard of their perspicuity, I may rather term them, than Texts themselves) as where it is said: 
n jerem. 10.  I know that the way of man is not in himself, neither is it in man to walk, or direct his steps. And again: 
o Prou. 20.  The steps of man are ruled by the Lord, how can a man than understand his own way? And more: 
p Prou. 16.  The hart of man purposeth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps. Lastiy: (to omit some others for brevity) 
q Prou. 1●.  The preparations of the Hart are in man, but the answer of the tongue is in the Bord. See you not (Arminius) how these Texts (as so many murdering Pieces) do play upon the weak fort of man's Freewill?  Arminius. 
Good Enthusiastus, I partly pity you, to see your judgement thus sealed up rather with prejudice, then cleared with force of proof. For here again I recurre (as to my Asylum, or Sanctuary) to the state of the question, and the Gautions above expressed, and by us both acknowledged. For there we learn, that there is great disparity between man's Freewill, and the execution of that, of which the Freewill maketh choice to will. The Execution of the thing, which we will, is not ever in our power; and this only (though to our purpose merely impertinent) these former sacred Scriptures do evict▪ but the freedom of the will (which is only in question between us) they do not at all touch, much less overthrow.  
Yea which is more, some of these ●●ry Texts by you urged, do rather prove the freedom of the will (so often time●) it happens, that a man finds a weapon, by which another wounds him:) for where it is said; The preparations of the Hart are in man; And again: The Hart of man purposeth his way &c▪ what other construction can these receive, than that man through the freedom of his own will prepares his hart, and purposeth his way; though the Execution & actual performance of those points are not ever in his own power? Therefore we must remember▪ that only to will, and not to will, (and no● actually to perform the thing willed, or not willed) is the true Object of Freewill.  
Thus far (Enthusiastus▪) where you find yourself deceived in producing these former passages of Holy Writ, since they in no sort prove any thing against the true Tenet of Freewill, neither immediately, and expressedly, neither by any Inferentiall deduction●▪ so certain it is, that your murdering pieces (of which you afore ●aunted) are charged but with certain Paper-bullets of strained and wrested Authorities. But if it please you, proceed further in this your offensive war; I mean in your assault against Freewill, & I shall use the best means of defence, I may.  Arminius. 
I do assure you, your answers are unexpected, and make my mind (I will not say my judgement) a little to fall. and let down. But I will proceed further: for admitting, that the former Texts do but idly diverberate the air, (as above you said) for want of true application, yet if there be but any One Text of Scripture, which in the true construction thereof doth clearly impugn the doctrine of Freewill, then is your cause wholly become prostrate, and leveled with the ground.  
These than other passages I urge. As first: 
r 1. Reg. 10.  Part of the army went with him (viz. Saul) whose hearts God had touched. In like sort: 
s Prou. ●●  The King's hart is in the hand of the Lord, he turneth it whithersoever it shall please him. To these places diverse others might be ranged, as where it is said: 
t Ezech. 36.  I will give unto you a new hart, and I will make; that you shall walk in my precepts. And that other passage: 
u Psal. 1●8.  Incline my hart to thy testimonies. The li●●● text whereto, is in the Book of the 
* ●. Reg. 8.  Kings. Now from all these it avoidable is inferred, that it is God alone without any concurrence of ourselves, which worketh all good in us: so clear are these sacred Testimonies for the taking away of all Freewill in man.  Arminius. 
Enthusiastus; It is the true application of Scripture, and not a gallantry of vaunting words, which must overcome me in this question: And therefore as to the Texts above by you alleged, so also to these last the answer is potentially included in the former sta●e of the question of Freewill, and in the annexed Annotations. For it is above expressed, that God worketh in all our wills, either for the desiring of any thing, or for the flying from any thing; but yet he so worketh, without any impeachment to the liberty of our will: for though God doth work in us, yea sometimes infallibly▪ yet our Freewill is in no sort end angered thereby; the reason hereof being (as is above intimated) in that the infallibility riseth not from the vehemency of God's motion, but from the prevision, and foresight of the readiness of the will, to concur with his inspiration. For God inclineth not the hart of man by forcing it but only by inviting by his inspirations: yet so, as that it is in the power of the Will to consent, or not consent to God's inspirations. But certain it is, that God's prevision, and freewill are compatible, and the one is no bar to the other. Now, apply this Annotation to these last texts of Scripture, and you shall find how easily your supposed difficulty touching the said Authorities, and man's Freewill, is loosed and dissolved.  Enthusiastus. 
Well (Arminius) if I should grant, that for the present, I could not reply to your answers given against all the former divine Authorities, (which admitting, I am rather to ascribe it to my own defect, then to any defect in the said Authorities, for proof of the point intended:) Yet what answer can you shape to these several Texts of Scripture, by which we are taught, the● we are dead to sin, and consequently that man's will is ever languide▪ an● faint (through want of power an● freedom) to raise itself to any spiritual actions? as where it is said: 
x Ephes. 2  You▪ who were dead in trespasses and sins &c▪ And again we thus read: 
y Ibidem.  When we were dead by sin etc.  Arminius. 
The transparency of this objection even an ordinary eye can pierce; for a● the Text saith: We are dead by sin; so also it addeth in the places alleged▪ that we are quickened in Christ. Which addition importeth, that though of ourselves we are not able to perform any▪ spiritual actions; yet Christ hath so quickened us with his preventing Grace, as that thereby we are made able to produce the said spiritual actions: & thus▪ this quickening in Christ, implieth only an infusion of God's Grace, (which I willingly acknowledge) but not a taking away of the freedom of man● will: so wildly (as I may say) these two● passages of Scripture are shot by you▪ still glancing upon one▪ point or▪ othery impertinent to the controversy ventilated between us. But I pray you (Enthusiastus) proceed further in your scriptural proofs.  Enthusiastus. 
I must confess, that the most forcing authorities of sacred Scripture, which either I, or my partners can allege for the impugning of Freewill, are already drawn out by me. And though some other Texts might be insisted upon, yet I foresee the answer to them in your judgement, might be appropriated out of the former Animadversions. But (Arminius) grant, for the time, that the Scripture doth not expressly and articulately condemn the doctrine of▪ Freewill for Heresy; doth it therefore follow, that the doctrine thereof is Orthodoxal? Most inconsequently inferred. The Turkish Religion, and the many Heresies registered by Epiphanius, Austin, Jerome, and other Fathers of those early times, are not punctually and literally condemned by God's Holy Writ (for hardly could they be condemned particularly by the Scripture, they rising many ages after the Scripture was written) an● yet no man will from thence conclude● that those doctrines, or Religion's 〈◊〉 true.  
The like we may say here touching the doctrine of Freewill. For▪ the truth of the point hereiss, that a doctrine o● Article of faith is to receive its warrant, not because the Scripture dot● not in particular anathematise the said doctrine; it by omission speaking nothing thereof at all: but the said doctrine receives its authority, in that 〈◊〉 receiveth from the Scripture certain evident and affirmative proofs for th● defence of the said doctrine in particular. Therefore (Arminius) except yo● be able (as I presume you are not) to● fortify, and establish the Doctrine of Freewill with some clear, evident, and unanswerable Texts of Scripture, your cause is nothing advantaged, thought the former divine passages above produced, do not so avoidable (as ● first perhaps expected they should) confute the doctrine of Freewill.  Arminius. 
This which you speak of the Scriptures passing over in silence any doctrine, or confirming the contrary doctrine by evident proofs, is in part true, I grant, though it be alleged by you at this present merely as a subterfugious evasion, because you are not able▪ to produce so much as One Text, to impugn our doctrine withal. Though at other times you, and yours do cry out with great exaggeration in words, that the doctrine of Freewill is most repugnant to the Holy Scriptures; the maintainers thereof being deadly wounded with every splinter of the several passages thereof: so variable and several is your comportment herein, at several times.  
Now whereas you say, it is more peculiarly incumbent upon me, affirmatively to fortify the doctrine of  by evident Texts of Scripture, or ●ls the doctrine thereof to be abandoned, as false and erroneous: I do agree with you herein, and am ready to fortify the said doctrine with choking and Unanswerable places of those divine writings, if so yourself hath already finished your Scene of objecting.  Enthusiastus. 
I will presently surrender the function of Opponency to you. For I gran● that there ought to be according to 〈◊〉 method of Schools certain vicissit●● des & alternations of turns between the party's disputant. Neither is it 〈◊〉 reason justifiable, that the one 〈◊〉 should be forced to maintain only defensive, and never an offensive 〈◊〉  
But before I end, I must tell you, th●● the chief Doctor of Christ's Chur●● since the Apostles (I mean Austin) 〈◊〉 most strong in the denial of Freewill For thus he writeth: 
y Lib. 6. de Genes. ad literam. cap. 15.  Conditoris 〈◊〉 luntas, rerum necessitas est. The will and t●● mind of the Creator, is the Necessity 〈◊〉 things. Again: 
z Vbi supra. c. 17.  That is necessarily 〈◊〉 come to pass, which God willeth, and they are truly hereafter to be, which God forseeth. And lastly, omitting some other passages; 
a In Enchirid. c. 30.  Libero arbitrio malè 〈◊〉 homo, & se perdidit, & seipsum. Man (me●ning our first parent) by using Freewill badly, did both lose thereby himself, 〈◊〉 Freewill.  Arminius. 
How easily is the cloud here dispelled. For the meaning of the two first places is, that what God will have to ●ome to pass, is infallibly to come to 〈◊〉 yet speaking of man's actions, it ●●mmeth to pass with the freedom of man's will: For God doth not destroy Nature first created by him, but will, that every thing should be effected in ●●ch manner, as best sorteth to the Nature of the thing.  
To the third place, I answer, That 〈◊〉 first Father is said to have lost ; because by his fall the Freewill of man was made more feeble, and faint. For that Augustine's meaning is not, that Freewill was absolutely lost by Adam (as though it never after were to be in rerum natura) appeareth from those other words: & se perdidit. For Adam did not lose himself, by any extinguishment of himself, or not after being; but because Adam thereby was ●ade far more worse, his Freewill being ●othing so vigorous, and active, as ●ore it was.  Enthusiastus. 
I will not much labour, in seeki●● to enervate these your answers, 〈◊〉 they shall pass, as matters hanging 〈◊〉 suspense. But there is one difficult drawn from force of reason, which eu●● arresteth my judgement, from giving assent to your doctrine. And this is, 〈◊〉 great repugnancy, which is between God's foreknowledge, and Freewill: For 〈◊〉 God do foresee such a thing will b● then certainly it must be: and if certainly it must be, where then is ma● Freewill in doing, or not doing the sai● thing?  Arminius. 
This doubt is partly above unfolded: but to answer more particularly thereto. The prescience and foresight of God is most certain, and 〈◊〉 that it importeth no necessity of things to come, is thus proved, even from 〈◊〉 authority of Austin, who thus disp●●teth. 
b De libero arhitrio l. ●. c. ●.  If the foreknowledge 〈◊〉 God do impose a necessity to things f●ture, this falleth out, either as it is 〈◊〉 sutely a foreknowledge, or else because it ●● in particular the foreknowledge of God. Not the first, because it would upon the same ground follow, that not only the foreknowledge of God, but the foreknowledge of man should impose the ●ike necessity to things. But this later point is most false: for example, if it were revealed by divine power to a man, that the next day it would rain, yet this man's foreknowledge is not the cause of the rain, and yet no doubt it would rain, but no less contingently, then if the man had not foreknown the same at all.  
Neither the foreknowledge, or prevision of God, I mean, as it is particularly of God, imposeth any necessity to things. And the proof hereof is this: As God foreknoweth, not only what man hereafter will do; so also, he foreknoweth what himself hereafter will do. And yet God's prescience doth not force God to do that, which he will do. Neither therefore upon the same reason, doth his foreknowledge force man in his actions. Again: God did foresee the fall of Adam; and yet in the judgement of the chiefest Divines, Adam had  before his fall.  Enthusiastus. 
But how cometh it to pass, tha● those things, which are certainly for 〈◊〉 known, have ever the event, when yet they are effected contingently (as you say) and may in that respect not be a● all?  Arminius. 
The reason hereof is: Because wh● foreknoweth a thing hereafter to b● effected, doth in his understanding precurre, or prevent the effecting of the thing, and beholdeth it as done, before it be done: but that which is done cannot be undone; although it be effected voluntarily, or contingently. But to conclude this point; the concordancy of God's prescience with  is so acknowledged, even by th● Divines, as that D. Willet thus plain●ly writeth hereof: 
c D. Willet in Synops. p. 809.  God forseeth, but willeth not sin.  Enthusiastus. 
Indeed there is no such repugnancy after the true balancing of the difficulty, between God's provision and Freewill, as at the first it appeareth to be; whereby we may learn, that that sentence is true: 
* Secund●● cogitationis, prudentiores.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But I do find a fare greater labour to reconcile God's Cooperation with man's Freewill, so, as they may both stand together, and not exile and banish one the other. For since God hath decreed from all eternity, what shallbe, or what shall not be, I see not how any place can here be left for Freewill.  Arminius. 
O (Enthusiastus) you must not measure the Mysteries of Christianity by the false yard of Natural reason, or man's capacity: For though demonstratively we were not able to reconcile God's cooperation & Freewill, yet neither of them are therefore to be denied, if so each of them receive their particular warrant from the word of God.  
Notwithstanding for your greater satisfaction (Enthusiastus) I will set down one way (among others) by which in the judgement of the greatest Divines, God's cooperation and man's freedom of Will are reconciled. For thus they teach: To wit, that the Divine Cooperation doth bear itself, with reference only to the Effect, and not to the cause: whereby is understood, that the concourse of God doth not determine our will, neither doth it work upon the will; but flows only into the Effect produceth the Effect in the same moment, in the which it is produced by our will: And yet the same Effect could not be produced, if either God's Cooperation, or Man's Will were wanting. They illustrate this sentence from two, which bear a great stone, the which stone the of one them could not carry: neither of those two men giveth force to the other, nor impelleth the other, and it is in the free choice of them both to leave this burden. The like falleth out in the Cooperation of God, and Mans-wil in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thing.  
And 〈…〉 this point: only before I end, I must tell you, that it seemeth strange to me, to observe your humility (as I may term it) in descending to the former▪ Arguments, drawn from humane Authorities and natural reason: Seeing diverse of your judgement in the Question of Freewill, and the inferentiall Conclusions resulting from thence, will in great venditation & bravery of speech undertake to prove all such their assertions only from the sacred word; scorning with a supercilious look all other kind of proofs deduced, either from the Fathers, from Natural Reason, or from any other humane authority whatsoever.  Enthusiastus. 
Well (Arminius) I see here, what the judgement of the chiefest Divines are in this point. But now I will proceed no further in producing any more kinds of proofs; It then resteth upon you, to undergo the like labour, by proving from the Scriptures and other Authorities, the Doctrine of Freewill: Begin then at your pleasure.  Arminius. 
I embrace willingly that imposed labour; in the prosecuting whereof, I will draw my first proofs from Reason; that done, I will next rise to human Authorities; and lastly I will firmly entrench, or anchor my cause upon the infallible authority of God's sacred Writ; thus by ascending by degrees in proofs, I will consequently ascend in the weight of the proofs, produced from the said Authorities.  
And to begin. My first argument shall be this: Let us 
1 August. l. 14. de vera Religione.  take away by supposal Free will from man; then with all we take away all punishment due for perpetrating of Sin; and rewards for the exercise of Virtue. But this last point stands not with the practice, not only of Private men, but of all good Common wealths, who ever retaliate Virtue with rewards, and Vico with punishments.  Enthusiastus. 
This your first argument is in my judgement, but diaphorous, & transparent. For 
* So answereth Caluin l. Instit. 2. c. 5.  it followeth not, that man should not be punished, if he hath not Freewill; the reason hereof being, in that the punishment is due to the offence, which offence is yet remaining in us, and indeed taketh its whole emanation from ourselves.  Arminius. 
Howsoever (Enthusiastus) you all●uiate and sleighten the force of this argument, yet is it insisted upon by Chrysostome, Jerome, and finally is grounded upon force of Reason. Now more particularly to answer here to, I say, that in your Answer you offend in the Paralogism, or Fallacy in Logic, commonly called Petitio Principij, since you assume that as granted, which yet is in controversy. For you in your dispute do presume, that the fault doth remain and flow from us, although we be forced through necessity to the working thereof, and that it is not in our power to avoid Sin; so foully you see you are mistaken in this your seeming answer. But I will proceed to a second Argument.  
Exile 
* Aug. l. de Vera relig. ●. 14.  and banish from man , 
●.  exile with all, all kinds of Counsels, and precepts among men, as Exhortations, and persuasions to Virtue, all praise due to the workers thereof; as also on the contrary side all the hortations and rebukes touching the perpetrating of Vice and Impiety; since to what end tend these exhortations, persuasions, reprehensions, prccepts etc. if so men can not do otherwise, than they do?  Enthusiastus. 
I answer, 
* So answereth Caluin l. a. ●● 5.  That dehortations and reprovalls, or obiurgations are very profitable, though man wanteth ; since they are deservedly applied to the wicked, as a scourge to their consciences in this life; and as a testimony in the next life, whereby they rest ine●●cusable at the last day in the sight of God. In the like sort, Exhortations, etc. are applied to the Elect, to the end, that as by the inward spirit they are illuminated, that so externally they may be stirred up to the hearing of the word: so by these out ward means they may be more prepared for the receiving of the grace of God.  Arminius. 
Hear a gain the second time (Enthusiastus) you fall into the former ditch (blush you not thereat?) I mean you commit the foresaid Elench of Petitie principij. For you here again take as granted, that that is truly and properly Sin, which is necessarily committed by man: but this is the main controversy between you and us: for we eternally deny, that what of necessity is committed, that can be properly Sin. Now out of this your Hypothesis & supposal, you Ideate, and frame to yourself those a●ry and imaginary Ends, where unto are directed (as you say) exhortations, dehortations, praise, disprayie, precepts, and the like, towards the Elect, and the wicked. For it is most certain▪ that reprehensions, and correptions cannot be a scourge to the conscience of those, who want Freewill.  
Further more in confirmation of this Argument, I demand, why we use not to Infants, and mad-men ●ohortations to Virtue, and dissuasions from vice, but only to men of ripe age, and such as be in perfect state in their wits? No other reason can be given hereof, but that Infants and Madmen (after the manner of beasts) are carried with a natural instinct, and innate impetuosity, neither can they otherwise work; whereas men of ripe age, and enjoying their wits, do choose through freedoms of Will, what they will do, and is in their power, if they will, not to choose at all. This Argument above is so forcible and pressing, as that I find it used by 
d L▪ de vera re●●g c. 14.  Austin. But I will proceed forward.  
My third Argument. 
* August. ubi supra.  Either Sin is necessary, or voluntary. If necessary, than it is no Sin, and then by this▪ Sin should be no Sin, (which is impossible to be: If Voluntary, then may Sin be avoided, and consequently man hath Freewill; as being a Creature, in whose power it is to sin, or not to sin.  Enthusiastus. 
I peremptorily deny the inference▪ that Sin if it be necessary, is no Sin▪ For the 
* So Caluin ubi supra.  Devil doth ever necessarily▪ work evil, and yet he sinneth; as on● the contrary, side, the Angels & Saints▪ of Heaven do necessarily▪ work well●▪ and yet their works are truly good.  Arminius. 
This your Answer is most languid and weak, for this enfuing Reason: The Angels and the Devil, with reference to the last end, have not freedom of Will▪ to wit, as it is free from Necessity; but only as it is free from coaction, and constraint. Nevertheless, with reference & respect to the Means▪ their freedom of Will is free, eue● from Necessity, seeing they do Many things, which are in their power not to do; and for bear to do some things, which they may (if they will) do. And in doing of these things the Devils do truly sin, and Angels work a laudable work; yet can neither the punishment due to the one, or essential reward due to the other increase thereby, seeing both of their states are in termino, and therein all their works do belong either to their damnation, or eternal felicity. But to leave this point as sufficiently solued, (and the rather, seeing it was explained above in the definition of Freewill; to wit, that Freewill hath reference to Media, and not to finis; to wit, not to the end, but to means conducing to the End) I will hasten to my last Reason, which I hold as a sealing argument; since the force of it is even charactered in each man's Soul, by the finger of God himself.  
We read, even in great and legible letters, written in the book of our own Consciences, that before such time, as our Soul (through daily custom of Sin, obliterating wholly her fair impressions stamped in Baptism) is become a Slave and thrall to Sin, when we through frailty do fall into Sin, in the time of temptation, we often show great reluctation and restance to commit it, and by our happy resistance we find a secret joy in our Souls: as on the other side, by giving our unfortunate assent thereto, we are thereby touched with an inward remorse, and provoked to a virtuous anger (as I may say) against ourselves. Now, what do this secret fretting and grudging, and this worm of remorse onforce, but that it was wholly in our own power to resist our giving of assent to such wicked temptations?  
This is the Lecture, which every man living reads in the opened book of his own actions. And therefore I confidently conclude, that it may be accounted almost miraculous, that a man finding this proceeding of the Soul in moral Actions, I mean touching Vice or Virtue, (his own experience dictating the same to him) should nevertheless be persuaded, that he hath not freedom of Will. And with this, I will pass towards other kinds of Proofs.  Enthusiastus. 
Well (Arminius) I hold this your l●st Reason not to be altogether neglected, since (as you say) our own experience is otherwise able to check our judgement therein. But I pray you rise up to other kinds of proofs.  Arminius. 
I will▪ And the next head, from whence I will draw my proofs, shall be from the Confessions of the learned Protestants, diverse of which even overborne with multitude of convincing Authorities, have in the closure of all, abandoned your doctrine herein, and entertained our Positive Article of man's Freewill so as here (Enthusiastus) I may say in the words of Holy Writ, 
e Luc. 19  De ore tuo te iudico: I convince you from the authority of such men, whom yourselves do (and most deservedly▪) highly esteem.  
And first may occur Castalio, who reprehendeth Beza himself for his corrupt translating of the first Chapter of S. john. v. 12. To wit; As many as received him, he gave power to be made the Sons of God; which Beza translated, dignity. Castalio his words are these: 〈◊〉 ●is c. 1. v. ●●. 
f In defence. Translat. pag. 183.  Pulcherrimum 〈◊〉 que momenti locum depravat etc. Th● fair and forcing place of the first of 〈◊〉 Beza depraveth, thus converting it: As m●ny as received him, he gave them dignity 〈◊〉 be made the Sons of God: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est potestas, nunquam dignitas etc. But th● word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (here used) signifieth powe● but never dignity etc. Now seeing Be 〈◊〉 would not, that Christians should have th● power from Christ, what other thing is th● then to envy at the benefits of Christ bestowed upon Christians? Thus far C●stalio.  
To this former learned man I may adjoin the authority of M. Per●ins herein (though at other times he may seem partly to fluctuare, and waver i● hit judgement touching this point.) H● thus plainly writeth (a sentence 〈◊〉 where by me alleged:) 
g In his reformed Catholic. p. 26.  Because Go● gives men commandment to repent and believe, therefore they have power to repe●● and believe; 
h V by supr. p. ●●.  God with his comman●●ment giving grace, that the thing prescribed may be done.  
Molinaus (the learned Protestant) is so full in the doctrine of Freewill, as that Peter Martyr rebuketh him therefore in these words. 
i In his Epistles annexed to his common Places, englished in his Epist. to Caluin, pag. 99  Molinaus adjudgeth certain things amiss, touching .  
In like sort Hemingius and Snecanus (Protestants of good Note) are charged by D. Willet for their maintaining of Freewill, in this manner▪ 
k In his Synops. p. 808 & 810.  They (he meaning the former two Protestants) ●re more erroneous concerning Freewill, then are the Papists. Brieflly, this doctrine of Freewill is fully taught by 
l Cent. 16. pag. 814.  Osiander, and by certain Protestants recorded by 
m A●●▪ Mon. pag. 1533. & 1605.  M. Fox: so strong and resolute (we see) are many learned Protestants in this doctrine.  Enthusiastus. 
The Authority of these former Protestants do not much sway with me, ●●oing, that (as yourself cannot but know) there are many other more in number, and of equa●l learning at least with the former, who wholly impugn the Doctrine of Freewill; and to whose judgements therein I had rather strike ●ayle, and yield.  Arminius. 
Be it so (Enthusiastus)▪ as you sa● yet I urge the testimonies of the Protestants to this end; to wit, that wherea● you rely (perhaps overmuch) upon th● authority of other Protestants our Adversaries in this controversy, that yo● may see hereby, that other Protestan● of eminency do with as strong a ben● of judgement defend the doctrine o● Freewill, as yours do impugn it. An● therefore though I seek not, that th● Protestant's by me alleged should oue● balance other Adversary Protestants herein, yet I see no reason why they should not equally balance with the said Protestants. And thus it followeth▪ that the matter in respect of this point is become even and indifferent; as being neither much advantaged, or much prejudiced by yours or my producing of Protestants, either for the impugning, or defending of the doctrine of Freewill.  
Yet here I must advertise you o● one thing to be considered: It is this▪ That seeing the former Protestants by me alleged, do compart almost with all other Protestants in all Articles of protestancy (this only of Freewill, and ●ther points thereof depending, excepted) it can hardly be conjectured, that ●he said Protestants would divide themselues in doctrine from all their other ●earned Brethren; were it not, that the weight of divine and humane Authorities did oversway their judgments there●n; seeing otherwise they might hold it as no small scar to them, being fe●er in number, to dispart themselves (but upon most weighty and forcing Reasons) in judgement from all other Protestants.  
Again, we know, that Protestant's and Papists are Adversaries one to another in matters of Religion: now, the former alleged Protestants by me, do conspire partly in doctrine touching Freewill with the Papists; so as the Authorities of the said Protestants herein are to be reputed as Confessions of the adversary. Now how forcible this kind of Argument drawn from the Confession of an Adversary is, appears from the judgement of the most learned D. whitaker's thus writing of this point: 
o D. Whit. contra Bell. l▪ de Eccles. controver. 2. q. 5. c. 14.  Efficaxest Aduersariorum ipsorum testimonium etc. The testimony drawn fro● the Adversaries, is most efficacious: a● I ingenuously confess, that Truth is ab● to extort testimony from its Enemies: th● said Doctor borrowing his sentence herein from Irenaus (to omit other Fathers) thus writing: 
p L. 4. c. 14.  It is an unanswerable proof, which bringeth att●statiou fro● the Adversaries themselves. But enough of this point: and now leaving to ins●● further in the Protestants judgement herein, I will ascend up to those time of the Primitive Church (she being then Christ's intemerate, and incontaminate Spouse,) and see of what judgement the Doctors and Fathers of those purer days were, touching Freewill.  Enthusiastus. 
I pray you (Arminius) rise up to those times, for I freely confess, that th● authorities of those ancient Doctors (so long as they do not impugn God● Holy Word, and Scripture) ought 〈◊〉 have no small sovereignty over man● judgement. And the rather, seeing w● find it thus written by our own me● 
q K●●pnitius in exam. Concil. Trident. part. 1. pag. 74.  We doubt not, but that the Primiti●● Church received from the Apostles, and 〈◊〉▪ postolicall men, not only the text of the Scripture, but also the right and native sense thereof. Therefore (Arminius) you may proceed.  Arminius. 
Now to begin with those Sentinels of Christ's Church. Though all of them (I mean both of the Latin and Greek Church) be most luxuriant and riotous (as I may say) in their testimonies for the proving of Freewill; yet because I will not cloy this presence with a fastidious abundance of such their Authorities, some few (and those pertinent) shall serve. And first I find, that Austin thus writeth: 
r Tom. 3. de Spir. & litera. c. 34.  It is in our power to consent to God's calling, or to descent from it. Again, he further thus enlargeth himself, even delivering our doctrine in these express words: 
s Austin. tom. ●▪ epist. 47. Valentino.  I have dealt with yours, and our Brethren, what I could, that they would persevere in the sound Catholic faith, which neither denieth Freewill, whether to bad life, or to good; neither attributeth so much unto it, as that without grace it availeth any thing.  
And to omit other infinite like sayings, he thus plainly teacheth: 
t Aust. l. de spirit▪ & li●. c. 34.  Consentire vocationi Dei, vel ab illo dissentire propriae voluntatis est. It is peculiar to th● will, either to give assent to the calling 〈◊〉 God, or to reject it. But to proceed to others: Jerome thus punctually writeth 
u Hi●roni●us Dial contra Pelagianos.  Hoc est, quod tibi in principio dixer a●● etc. This is that, which I spoke to thee in the beginning: to wit, That it is in our power t● sin, or not to sin, that so we may keeps the freedom of our will.  
Epiphanius accordeth to the former Fathers in these words. 
x Epiphan Haeres. 1●.  Man● festum, evidens, & indubium est, vnicui● liberum arbitrium concessum esse à Deo etc. It is manifest, evident, and indubious, th●● God hath given Freewill to every man: who hath said by himself; si volueritis, & si nolueritis; that so by these his words, it may be in man's power, either to work well, or ●● work badly.  
But to contract this point. Som● Protestant's of the greatest Note and rank, do most fully charge the Fathers in general with the doctrine of Freewill. For thus D. Whitgift (that learned Protestant) confesseth of this point: 
y D. Whitg. in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition pag. 472. & 473.  Almost all the Bishops of the Greek Church▪ and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with the doctrine of Freewill etc. And according to this Doctor's judgement, we find that our Centurists 
z See Cent. ●. c. 10. col. 221. & Cent. 3. c. 10. Col. 265. & 240. Cent▪ 4 Col. ●●●3. & 1●44. & 1183. Cent. 5. Col. 969. etc.  do particularly charge, and reprehend these Father's following, for their maintenance of Freewill; to wit, justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Cyrill Alexandrinus, Prudentius, Ambrose, Hilary, Epiphanius, Gregory Nissene, and Gregory Nazianzen. And that three of these ancient Fathers, to wit, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian defended the doctrine of Freewill, appeareth most evidently from this one consideration.  
It is granted by the most learned Adversaries, that Austin, Epiphanius, and Jerome (in regard of their most clear sentences in that behalf) did jointly teach Freewill: Well, 
a Austin against Origen in haeres. 414 Against Tertull. in haeres. 86. ● Against Cypr. in tom 3. de Baptism. l. 2. c. 7. jerom. l. contr. lovin. & Vigil. Epiph. in Haeresibus.  These Fathers did charge the former three Fathers with these three peculiar Errors following, and no other: to wit; Cyprian, with Rebaptisation, Tertullian, with denying 2. Marriages, and Origen, with believing that the Devils should in the end be saved.  
But now it is more than certain, that if Cyprian, Origen, and T●rtullian had believed, and taught otherwise touching the doctrine of Freewill than th● said later Fathers did, no doubt they had been written against for this the●● disagreement from Austin, Jerome, an● Epiphanius, touching Freewill, as the● were charged by them for their for m●● acknowledged Errors. But we do not find, that the former three more ancient Fathers were contradicted by th● three later, touching the doctrine of Freewill: from which point it inevitably followeth, that Cyprian, Origen, and Tertullian did unanimously agree in defence of Freewill with Austin, Jerome▪ and Epiphanius.  
And thus far touching the Authorities of the Fathers in this question of Freewill; assuring you (Enthus.) and this worthy Presence, that I have not discerped the twentith part of those Testimonies, which their Writings and Volumes do afford of this Subject.  Enthusiastus. 
Learned Arminius (for so I find you to be,) I will not be of that Aristarchian, and Censuring disposition, a●● to recall the Authorities of those Ancient Fathers to be tried by the touchstone of my own judgement: I reverence their Authority, both for their learning, virtues, and their proximity to our Saviour's days. Only, I ever say, I reverence them with this presumed caution; to wit, whiles they writ concordantly to the Holy Scriptures. And therefore (Arminius) if so you can be able to produce out of God's Holy Writ, as evident Testimonies, (which I yet think you cannot) for the fortifying of the doctrine of Freewill, as your have already done out of the Father's writings, I confess, it may perhaps beget in me a certain hesitation and doubtfulness of judgement herein. But (Arminius) proceed in that kind of Method, as shall best seem pleasing to yourself; and God I trust (for refractory I will not be) will second the event.  Arminius. 
I will, in fitting time arrive to my proofs borrowed from the divine Scriptures, yet because I will not ascend thereto (in regard of my prescribed Method) over steepily, or per saltum; therefore I will take in my way the Ancient jews into my consideration; and will see, whether they stand affected to the doctrine of believing of , or wholly disclaim from the same▪ But this difficulty is▪ easily dissolved▪ For do we not find Rabbi Moses fi●lius Maymon, thus to instruct his Proselytes? 
b Epist. adversus Astrologos.  Ac illud quidem intelligere debetis etc. But this chief and principal foundation of our Law you ought to understand; that both I, and all Philosophers do confess▪ That what actions are committed by men▪ the same to be in their own power etc. So ●● man serveth God, if so man himself will &c. And if he hath a desire to join himself with the wicked etc. he also doth th● same.  
See further of this point Rabbi H●darsan upon the fourth Chapter of Genesis. And Rabbi Selemo, alleged by 
c In lib. de Arcanis Catholica veritatis. Printed at Fr●nckfurd. 1602▪ l. 6. c. 6.  Petrus Galatinus. Philo (that learned jew) thus initiatech his Reader in this mystery: 
d Philo. lib. quod Deus sit immutabius.  Man hath Freewill: God created him free, that being left to his proper will, he might do whatsoever he please etc. To which sentence is extant that Ora●● in Deuteronomy: Behold I have placed before thee life and death, good and 〈◊〉 choose life. Thus Philo. To conclude▪ That the Ancient jews were Patron●● of Freewill (so evident and confessed is this point) diverse of our learned Brethren do acknowledge. For D. Fulk thus fully speaketh hereof: 
e In his defence of the English I ranslation. pag. 320.  The jewish Rabbins, Patroness of Freewill, do err. The like is acknowledged by 
f Upon the words of Rabbi A●iba.  Paulus Fagius (the Protestant,) and by the Book entitled: 
g Printed Hannoviae. 1604. pag. ●17.  Synagoga judaica.  Enthusiastus. 
The judgements of the jews by you alleged, I cannot very much esteem, and this for two Reasons. First because you know, that upon the coming of our Saviour their Law and Religion was to be abrogated and disannulled, as we see by the cessation of their Sacrifices, and diverse other their Ceremonies then used. Secondly, some doubt, that that Galatinus, whom above you mention (being but a late writer) forged in his alleged Book certain sentences, sorting to his own Religion, and then with subtlety obtruded them, or rather incorporated them in the former jews. And therefore granting this for true, D. whitaker's with more probability might answer his Adversary producing the Testimonies of the jews, out of this Galatinus in these words: 
h L▪ 9 contra Duraeum. p. 818.  Tuum in hac causa Petruin Galatinum mi●nimè profectà desidero, nec Hebraeorum T●stimonijs illis indigemus. But I pray yo● leaving these Authorities hasten to th● Holy Scriptures.  Arminius. 
Before I ascend to scriptural proofs, you must give me leave, to enervate and weaken this your Answer▪ And to the first part thereof I reply▪ That those only points of faith ar● now abrogated, which did prefigure our Saviour's coming; such were the jewish Sacrifices & diverse of their Ceremonies. But now the doctrine of  bears no reference to our Sauiour● Incarnation; since once granting, that man hath Freewill, certain it is, that h● hath it from his first Creation.  
Again, if the jewish Law doth nothing belong to us, now after the coming of the M●ssias; than it would follow, that the Ten Commandments do no● belong to us Christians, & consequently that we Christians (as being disoblige● from them) may break the same (by worshipping many Gods, by committing▪ Adultery, Theft) with all Impunity and without fear. And then withal it would follow, that our Saviour, who first became incarnated, (so humbling himself in our base nature) and after suffered most opprobrious death for the expiating of Man's Sin, should be a means through which we might with more freedom sin; thus the Son should become to us a sufficient warrant for the breach of the Father's Commandments; The gross absurdity of which most necessary Inference to weigh, (Enthusiastus) I refer to yourself & this company.  
Now to come to the second part of your reply touching Galatinus: I am partly persuaded, (though stiff and peremptory therein I will not be) that the Sentences by him produced for confirmation of Christian Religion from the Ancient jews, were not by him first forged, and after fathered upon the jews. My motive heerto is this: I find, that one Hieronymus de sanctafide, who was a jew, but after converted to Christianity, & was Physician to Pope Benedict the thirteenth (which Benedict was a good time before the days of this Galatinus) did compose a book▪ bearing the Title of Hebraeo- mastix▪ or, vindex impietatis, ac persidiae judaicae; in which book he laboureth to prove diverse points of Christian Religion from the there alleged Authorities & Testimonies of the said jews mentioned by Galatinus.  
This Book of the foresaid▪ Hieronymus de Sancta fide, was but lately printed at Frankford, anno 1602. But enough of this Galatinus, and of the former jews' Authorities. And now in this last place I will arrive up to the Holy Scriptures.  Enthusiastus. 
Arminius, I would gladly entreat you thereto▪ And as touching all your former proofs for the maintaining of Freewill, drawn (as you say) from force of Reason and humane Authorities, I do freely grant, they partly sway with me, and have made a deeper impression in my judgement, then at the beginning of our dispute, I ever expected they would. But if the Divine Authorities hereafter to be alleged by you, for the fortifying of the said▪ dogmatic point of Freewill, be as punctual (without▪ any detortion, or wresting of the said Sacred passages) for the proof of Freewill, as the former Authorities have been; God only (who searcheth the hart of man) knoweth of what unexpected force this our disputation may be. Therefore delay no time, but presently hasten thereto.  Arminius. 
I am prepared thereto, and now I begin. And that these divine Testimonies may seize upon your judgement more strongly, and this with the less reluctation or repugnancy; I will therefore marshal, and range most of the said sacred Authorities under certain Classes or Heads; that so you may perceive, how every branch of the said passages of Scripture prove (though by different means and respects) the point here intended; I mean, the truth of the Doctrine of Freewill.  
1. And first, I will encamp together diverse such chief texts of Holy Scriptures, which do plainly affirm, that it is in man's power, either to practise Virtue, or vice: which point immediately proveth Freewill. Of this kin● may be alleged, 
i jer. 32.  Because they obeyed not thy voice, nor walked in thy Law, therefore thou hast caused this plague to come upon them. Again: 
k Isa. 5.  judge I pray you, between me and my vineyard; what could I have done to it, that I have not done? Why have I looked, that it should bring forth grapes, and it hath brought forth thorns? And more: 
l Math. 23.  How often would I have gathered thy children together etc. and thou wouldst not? 
m Act. 7.  You have always resisted the Holy Ghost. 
n Esa. ●5.  I spread out all the day my hands unto a people, that gainsaid me. And in regard of Gods such proceeding, he is said 
o Apoc. ●.  to stand and knock● at the door of our Hart. These Texts afford this Inference: That touching man, who sinneth, either it is in his power not to sin, o'er else he cannot but sin: If it be in his power to forbear sinning, then hath he Freewill: If he cannot but of necessity must sin▪ then God doth in vain complain of man for sinning; seeing it is not in his power not to sin.  Enthusiastus. 
To this it seems, it may be answered, That God 
* So answereth caluin Instit. l. 2. c. 5.  doth not undeservedly complain of man, although he cannot but work evil; seeing men are become thus infirm through their own fault, and their Hereditary malice. Again, a second Reason may be given, why God reprehendeth and admonisheth Sinners, to wit, that thereby they may have a greater aversion, and abhorring of their Sinne.  Arminius. 
These Answers rather fortisy our alleging of the former Texts, then weaken it: (So the poor bird by struggling to get out of the net, doth more thereby entangle herself therein.) For first I say, to your first point, touching the Hereditary malice insisted upon by you; We justify this malice, to be a punishment, but not a fault, contrary to the judgement of diverse of our Adversaries in this Controversy. To the second part of your Answer I reply; That your words include the Doctrine of Freewill. For if Sinners through obiurgation and finding fault with their Sins, can be brought to have a detestation of them, and alter thereby their course of life; then followeth it, that Sinners have Freewill, which is the point, we undertake to prove at this present. And if these divine Correptions cannot cause Sinners to forsake their sinful course, to what end then doth God use these speeches, as though it were in our power to sin, or not to sin?  
But speaking no further of this point. I will pass on forward to my second Class of Testimonies, which shall contain, That man is commamnded thereby to do something, or to forbear the doing of something: Of this nature are the Ten Commandments of God; as, Thou shalt not have other Gods than me. Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain. Honour thy Father and thy Mother. Besides infinite other precepts commanded and imposed upon us in Holy Scripture. Now I will draw from these passages this Argument. These holy passages contain a command or rule of living well; but God (who worketh nothing in vain) should idly and fruitlessly impose this rule or command of living virtuously, if man wanted Freewill to obey or disobey such his Command.  Enthusiastus. 
These places I must confess, seem very pressing; yet I answer thereto, That the 
* So Calu. ubi supra.  Law is not given in vain, (and consequently that God worketh not here to no end) though man wanteth Freewill, because the Law is given not only to be a rule of living well, but that by means of the Law Sin may be known, as the 
r Rom. 3.  Apostle writeth to the Romans. Again, those former Texts do not imply, that God ever secondeth man with his grace, (without which man cannot do any thing well) & therefore they force not so fully (as you may suppose) the point here controverted.  Arminius. 
I will first take away the later part of your Answer; for I here say, that we read, That 
s 1. Cor. 10.  God sussereth not us to be tempted above that, which we are able; but maketh with the temptation a way to escape, that we may be able to sustain. And upon this ground it is, that God himself protesteth our possibility of keeping his Commandments in these words: 
t Deuter. 30.  The Commandment, which I have given thee this day etc. is very ne●● to thee, even in thy mouth, and hart, th●● thou mayst do it. Which words (as some of our Adversaries pretend) cannot be understood of the knowledge of the Law, & not of man's power to keep it; since th●● exposition contradicteth the words of the Text, which speaketh expressly of doing, even according to the judgement of other more moderate 
u Hiperius l. 2. Methods Thcolog. & p. 479. 480.  Protestant's. Now what can be more clear for convincing that man hath Freewill, & that God is not wanting to assist him with his Grace; then the former words, being the Conclusion itself?  
To the first part of your Answer I reply, that granting the Law may have several ends; certain it is, that one end thereof (& that the principal) is to be a rule to man, for practising of Virtue and avoiding of Vice: but then in respect of this end, it must avoidable follow, that man hath freedom of will given him by God, either to violate the Law, or through God's Grace (seconding his endeavour) to keep it. Again admit, that besides the former end, the Law be given, that thereby Sin may be known; then I say, this is but concident with the first end: for to what other end should Sin be known but that by knowing it, man may avoid it? and how can it be avoided, except man hath Freewill, either to sin, or not to sin?  Euthusiastus. 
I pray you Arminius, proceed to other kinds of scriptural Authorityes. And I like well your reducing them to certain Heads: since this kind of Method doth much facilitate our apprehending & better conceiving of them.  Arminius. 
My next Head than shall contain some few passages of Gods Holy word, 
●.  by the which something is under condition promised unto us by God, if so ourselves will. Now, from these Authorities I thus dispute. Either it is in our power to perform the Condition imposed, or it is not in our power: If it be in our power, then have we : If it be not in our power, then is not that any true Promise under the condition annexed, but only an evident deluding and deriding of the party, to whom such an idle promise is made. Were it not ridiculous to invite a man under promise of a great reward to run such a number of miles within a prescribed time; & yet during all the time prescribed, to enchain and shackle the legs of the party, who should run, as that he could not move them? The like exorbitancy of proceeding is found in our former supposal.  
Now (among others) the Texts of this Nature are these following: 
a Mat▪ 10.  If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. Again: 
b Amos 5.  Seek good, and not evil, and you shall live. And further: 
c Isa. 1.  If you consent and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land; but if you refuse or will not, you shall be devoured with the sword.  Enthusiastus. 
I have read some of Note, who have laboured to avoid these former places, by maintaining, that it is not absurd, 
* So Calu. ubi supra.  That God should promise to man under an impossible Condition: To men (say they) that are wicked, that by these kinds of Promises, it may appear to them, how unworthy they are of God's benignity and goodness; To the Virtuous & good men, such promises may be made by God, that through the sweetness of the Promises, the Virtuous may be more alured to walk in the precepts of God.  Arminius. 
This Answer (under your favour) is wholly impertinent; since the question here is not, why God doth proffer his promises to good men, or evil men: but I aver, that from the former Text it is proved (which is the point only controverted) that nothing can be rightly promised under Condition, but to that Creature, which hath freedom of Will, since otherwise (let the reason of the promise be what it will) the proffer of such a Condition would be expounded rather an Ironical scoffing, than any true and real Conditional promise. Again, this Conditional Promise to the Good & Virtuous, cannot be understood Ironically, but really and truly: And therefore it is in the power of the Virtuous, either to perform, or not to perform the imposed Condition; since that is peculiar to a true Condition, to wit, that it may depend upon the Freedom of his will, to whom it is made.  
But I will proceed to my next Head of Authorities, & these shall contain, that God offereth to man a Choice of several things, from whence we necessarily gather, that it is in man's power to choose, either of those different things, propounded to him to be chosen. For we hold it both absurd and ridiculous to give in words an election and choice of different things, and yet (by forcibly restraining him but to one thing) to take away all power of his choice & freedom to any other thing. According to this above said, these few Texts (among many others) present themselves to us; 
d Deuter. 30.  I call Heaven and Earth to witness this day against you, that I have set before you life, and death etc. Choose therefore life. And according to this his proposed Choice of life, and death, God thus sweetly complaineth of Israel: 
e Ezech. 18.  Why wilt thou dye, O house of Israel? A second place may be that: 
f joshua 24.  Choice is given to you, whom you will serve. In which words joshua implieth, that it was in the People's power, either to serve the true God, or the Idols.  
Other passages of this Nature the Book of Ecclesiasticus doth afford, which though it be not accepted by us for Canonical Scripture, yet M. Perkins thus worthily speaketh of it, to wit, That he preferreth this Book 
g In his reformed Catholic pag. 134.  before any other Books of men. Thus than we read in that Book: 
h Eccles. 15.  He hath set water and fire before thee, stretch out thy hand to which thou wilt. And again: 
i Ibid.  Before man is life and death, good and evil; what liketh him, shall be given him. And lastly: 
k c. 31.  Who might offend, and hath not offended, or do evil, and hath not done it. Then which what can be more evident for proof of Freewill?  
Thus far of the chief Authorities; which maybe reduced to certain general Heads (this next Class following excepted.) From whence we are instructed; First, that God plainly saith, it is in man's power either to practise virtue or vice. Secondly, that God commandeth to do something, or to forbear the doing of something. Thirdly, that God promiseth to us something upon some condition, if so we will ourselves. Fourthly, that God giveth election and choice to man to choose one thing before another thing: All which four points potentially include freedom of Will in man, as is above demonstrated.  
To these former we may adjoin this one other Head, containing such places of Scripture, in which men are termed Workers, Builders, Planters, Coadjutors with God in the work of their Salvation. The places are these: 
l Math. 20.  Call the workmen, and give them etc. 
m 1. Cor. ●.  I have planted, Apollo hath watered, but God gave the increase. And again, in the same place we read: Every one shall receive his wages according to his labour, for we are the Coadjutors of God.  
Now, if men do properly work nothing by their Freewill, but only are le● and moved by God in these kind of actions, as mere instruments; then they ought not to be called Co-workers, 〈◊〉 Coadjutors of God, no more than a pe● can be called a Co-wryter, or a knife ● Co-cutter, or any other dead instrument to be so accordingly called, in respect of its use, to which it is appropriated.  
But now leaving these former general Branches, I will close up your judgement with one most choking Testimony, every word almost thereof a foarding an argument in proof of Freewill: The place is this: 
n Genes. 4.  The Lord said to Cain, why art thou angry? or why is thy Countenance cast down? If thou dost well, shalt thou not be rewarded? Si autem malè, statim in foribus peccatum aderit: sed sub te erit appetitus eius, & tu dominaberis illius. If evil, Sin lieth at the door: but under thee the desire of it shall be, and thou shalt have rule over it. Now let us (as it were) dissect this one Testimony. And first: Why art thou angry, or why is thy Countenance cast down? This Interrogation evidently showeth, that it was in the power of Cain (if so himself would) not to become angry, or to be sorrowful. For why is it not said to a new borne Infant, why dost thou cry, but because we do know, it is not in the Infant's power to cry, or not to cry? Or why say we not to a Dog, why dost thou bark; or to a Lion, why dost thou roar; but because it is manifest, that it is not in the power of these beasts to bark, and not to bark, to roar and not to roar?  
To come to the next words: If thou dost well, shalt thou not be rewarded? If evil, Sin lieth at the door etc. Now this addition (if well, if evil) do evils dently imply Freewill. For why do we not say to man, If thou wilt make the Sun to stand still (as we usually say to man, if thou wilt do well) thou shalt have this, or that thing given to thee for making the Sun to stand still, but because we know, that it is not in man's power, to stay the course of the Sun, but that it is in his power to do well, if he will, or evil, if he will not?  
Now to come to the last passage of this Text: If evil, Sin lieth at the door: but under thee, the desire of it shall be, and thou shalt have rule over it. These words most plumb and perpendicularly (as I may say) fall upon the proof of . For what other meaning of them can be, then that the desire of Sin shallbe in thy power, and thou shalt have rule over it, that is, it is in thy power (if thou wilt) to resist Sin? I well know, that some of our Brethren, (
* See the marginal notes of the English Bibles of the year 1576 upon this place.  who are adverse to us in the doctrine of , rather by way of declining, then answering this difficulty, affirm, that Cain had rule, not over it, viz. Sin, but over him, uz. Abel. And so accordingly they do translate this Text in some of their Bibles.  
How forced (and indeed how absurd) this Construction is, I will prove (because this Text is most convincing.) First from the contexture of the words 
10  themselues: Secondly, from the exposition 
20  of this place, given by the Ancient Fathers, whose exposition thereof is 
30  coincident with this our exposition: Thirdly from the like construction of 
40  the ancient Rabbins passed upon this passage: And lastly from the like Construction given thereof by diverse of our own learned Brethren; upon the Authority of which place, they greatly stay themselves for the proof of .  
And first to examine the words themselves, I maintain, that according to all true Grammatical Construction, the two Relatives (eius, and illius) must be necessarily referred to the Antecedent next going before; but the next precedent Antecedent is, Sin, and not Abel. Secondly, I affirm for the more convincing of this point, that Abel is not so much as once named in this passage: how then can the Relatives, eius, and illius, be referred to Abel, as to their Antecedent?  
Thirdly, this will prove more evident, if we do observe the coherency of the sense given by us, with th● words. For to say, Sin lieth at the door and thou shalt have rule over it, the sens● is here most plain, and expedite: but to say, Sin lieth at the door, uz. to torment thy conscience, and thou shalt have rule over him (uz. over Abel thy Brother) is most forced, harsh, and constrained; & with an ordinary & regular reference to the words in the Text most dissolute and inconsequent.  
But to descend to the interpretation of the Father's touching this place. Gregory thus writeth: 
o Moral. l. 4. c. 2●.  Divina voce Cain etc. It is said by the voice of God to Cain, being of a wicked disposition; Sin lieth at the door, but under thee shall the desire of it be, and thou shalt have rule over it. Jerome in alluding to the words of the Text, thus writeth: 
p In quaestionib. Hebraicis.  quialiberi arbitrijes etc. Because thou hast Freewill, therefore I counsel thee (ut non tibi peccatum, sedtu peccato domineris) that Sin may not have rule over thee, but that thou may rule over Sinne. Finally to omit the like Construction given by diverse other 
q Prosper. l. de Vocat. Gentium, c. ●●▪ Ambros. l. 2. de Cain. c. 7. Bada in hunc locum Genes. 4.  Fathers: Austin thus literally expoundeth the former words: 
r Austin. l. 15. de Civitat. De● c. 7.  Tulominaberis illius, numquid fratris? absit. ●uius igitur, nisi peccati? thou shalt rule over it, what, over thy brother? not so: over what then but Sin? So conspiringly this Father agrees with our Interpretation herein.  
To come to the ancient Rabins. 
s In his Hebrew Commentaries upon Genesis, c. 4.  Aben Ersa affirment it to be a mere forgery, to refer the Relative in the former Text to any other thing, then to the word, Sinne. Rabbi Moses Hadarsan saith: 
t In ca 4. Genes.  quod scriptumest; Adte concupiscentia peccati, & tu dominaberis illius: Hoc est, sivolueris, praevalebis adversus illud. That is, where it is written; the desire of Sin shallbe to thee, and thou shalt rule over it▪ The meaning heerofis, that if thou wilt, thou shalt prevail over it. Thus Rabbi Hadarsan. To be brief, the ancient jews are so plain in expounding the former passage in proof of Freewill, that D. Fulke taketh notice thereof, and thus answereth them: 
u In the English Translat. pa. 380.  The jewish Rabbins err in this place.  
To come lastly to our own Brethren: Their judgements are here made manifest, partly by their writings, and partly by their like agreeable Transstion of this very Text in their version of their Bibles. Touching their own Authorities herein, I will (for greater expedition) only cite the places of such their writings. See then 
x In l. 2. Method. Theolog. p 478  Hyperius, 
y In Syntagm. ex veteri Testam. Colum. 489.  Wigandus (both no obscure Protestant's and even 
z Tom. ●. Wittenberg. ann. 1580▪ fol. 62.  Luther himself. As concerning their Public Translations of the Bible, answerable thereto, see th● great English Bible of anno 1584.▪ and see the Annotations annexed thereto, all showing, that it is (Sin) and not Abel, over which Cain shall have rule. The same appareth from the Translation of the Bible by Castalio, printed at Basill, anno 1573. which Translation is much commended by 
a Derat. Interpret. l. 1. p. 62. & 63.  D. Humphrey.  
And thus far for the more full unfoulding and explicating of this most markable, clear, and illustrious passage of Genesis, for the confirmation of our Doctrine of Freewill. And here now I make my pause, being in good hope, that all the former Authorities both divine and humane, (produced by me since the beginning of our dispute) will win some ground upon your judgement (Enthusiastus) for your giving assent to our most true, ancient, and Apostolical doctrine herein.  Enthusiastus. 
I do freely grant, my judgement is ●ouerborne with the stream of your most forcing Authorities; and the rather, since I must confess, I was much mistaken in the alleging of my proofs for the impugning of Freewill: seeing through your avoiding of them, now upon a second, and more retired view I well discern, how they did rather but idly beat the wind through my own misapplyed detortion of them, than otherwise level at the intended mark; So illustrious a truth (now I confess) is the doctrine of Freewill, as that the greatest doubt, which thereof I shall hereafter perhaps make, is only, whether I can have Freewill at any time hereafter, to deny the doctrine of ?  
But (learned Arminius) though I do much incline to believe, that man hath Freewill; yet there are certain other dogmatic points, in which I confess, as yet, I do dissent from you. And among the rest, these two following: To wit, the first, The doctrine of 〈◊〉 probation, by which I believe, That Go● hath decreed some men even from their mother's womb, without any prevision o● their works to eternal damnation. The s●cond, The Infallible Certainty of a man● own Election, or Predestination; in bot● which points many learned Divines o● our own Country borrowing thei● doctrines from you, do (I grant) hold the contrary. Now I would see (Arminius) if you be as fully furnished with sufficient Answers to what I shall object therein, as also with good proofs for the fortifying of your contrary Tenets herein, as you have discovered yourself to be, for the Doctrine of Freewill.  Arminius. 
Glad I am to hear (Enthusiastus) the hopeful event of this our discourse, and in you I see that sentence verified: 
b Math. ●●.  justificata est sapientia à filijs suis. And as touching the other points of doctrine mentioned by you (wherein you and your party mainly differ from me) you may take notice, that our belief of them is necessarily, and implicitly included▪ (so the Cause includes in itself the Eflect) in the doctrine of Freewill. For once granting the Doctrine of Freewill to be consonant to the Scriptures, then ●t avoidable and most consequently followeth, that every man may be saved through the force of his Freewill, cooperating with God's Grace & mercy: as also it followeth, from the Doctrine of Freewill, that man enjoyeth not an Infallibility of his Election; seeing as enjoying Freewill, it is in his power, of Virtuous to become wicked, & consequently to lose the benefit of Election. Nevertheless seeing the reducing the warrant of the said two doctrines to the doctrine of Freewill, is over general and large; therefore begin at your pleasure (Enthusiastus) to impugn the said doctrines, & I shall shape particular answers to your particular Arguments; and that done, then will I undertake to make good the said doctrines both from divine and humane Authorities.  Enthusiastus. 
I will most willingly (so desirous I am to receive satisfaction herein from yourself.) 〈◊〉 I will 〈…〉 the doctrine of the Cortainty of 〈◊〉 Election, or Predestination, in the presenting whereof, I will tread my for● tract of Method; to wit, in giving 〈◊〉 first place to divine proofs; and 〈◊〉 after I will descend to humane proo● being of an inferior weight.  Arminius. 
Well Sir, proceed in your 〈◊〉 chosen Method at your own pleasure but before you enter into dispute; 〈◊〉 me leave (as in the doctrine of Free 〈◊〉 above I did) to set down the true 〈◊〉 of this question, with its due explication or restriction; seeing by this mean●● we no doubt shall find (as in the fo●mer Controversy we did) that souer●● of your proofs from Scripture wil● receive their full answer, by rec●ring to the true state of the Question▪  
Here than we are to observe, 〈◊〉 whereas you, and your fellow's 〈◊〉 maintain, that every one that i● 〈◊〉, is assured infallibly of his 〈◊〉 Election, by his own ordinary and sp●●● faith, which (say you) is most inf●●●ble: Now I, and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me, do teach as followeth. First that so far forth, as concerns God's promise touching our Election; we say his promise is on his part most certain and infallible: But yet seeing Gods promise therein is only condition●●●, implying ever some things to be performed on our part; to wit, the Conditions of belief, of true repentance, & of final perseverance; now the performance by God's grace, or not performance of these Conditions, being in our power, it consequently followeth, that our Election to us is uncertain. Since God thus pronounceth: 
c Ezech. 18.  If the just man do turn away from his righteousness etc. in his sin he shall die.  
Thus through our own frailty and indisposition, not answering at all times to Gods holy inspirations and grace, our Election to us is ever uncertain (though, as above said, in respect of God's promise, we fulfilling the annexed Conditions thereto, most certain) and consequently it followeth, that we cannot be assured of Salvation by faith, seeing faith is infallible; but only by Hope, which (through our cooperating with God's grace, and assistance) is not infallibly 〈◊〉, ne●●●theles it is 〈◊〉 with gr●●● comfort & confidence. Now here once for all you are to conceive, that diu●●● sayings of God, either touching Pre●●stinatio or Reprobation, though in word● they seem absolute, yet in sense are ●●ly Conditional; In proof of which my assertion I will allege a place of Ez●chiel c. 33. which (as a Comment) well may seem to expound all such se●ming absolute Texts of this nature. God Almighty words in Ezechiel 〈◊〉 these: When I shall say unto the righteous that he shall surely live; if yet he trust 〈◊〉 unto his own righteousness, commit 〈◊〉 etc. he shall dye. Again. When I 〈◊〉 say unto the wicked, thou s●●t dye the death▪ If yet he return from his sins, and d●● that which is right etc. he ●hall surely 〈◊〉▪ So clearly doth the Prophet instruct us, that all such seeming absolute sayings in Scripture, have ever by imp●●cation some Conditions annexed 〈◊〉 to. Now this being the true state of th● Question, and illustrated with the ●●plication of Ezechiel; begin to impu●● it from Holy Writ, at your plasur● which you shall never be able to 〈◊〉  Enthusiastus. 
Well then, the first passage of divine Scripture, which I will allege, shall be that of the Apostle to the Corinthians: 
d 2. Corinth. c. 13.  Try yourselves, if you be in the faith: prove you yourselves: know you not yourselves▪ that Christ jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be Reprobates?  Arminius. 
I answer heerto; first admitting, that this Text did prove, that Christ was in the Corinthians, according to ●is grace of justification; yet the Text proveth that only for the time present; ●ut whether the Corinthians might after ●oose that grace or not, or want final perseverance (which is the point here only questioned) this Text nothing toucheth; and therefore you may see, ●hat granting more touching the expo●ition of the Text, than I need to do; ●et the Answer is involved in the state ●n the Question above set down. And accordingly here to, this knowledge of ●s being in the faith (if the words ●ere to be interpreted in that sense) 〈◊〉 to be restrained only to the time present: but for our continuance in the faith, the Text speaketh nothing.  
Secondly, I reply, that this knowledge of the Corinthians, that Christ wa● in them, hath reference only of Christ being in them, by way of 
e 2. Cor. c. 12.  Signior wonders, and mighty deeds, done among them: which if they did not acknowledge, they were Reprobates. And tha● this knowledge of Ch●st being in them▪ cannot be referred, according to his grace of justification, is most clear; in that S. Paul would never then have rebuked and reprehended the Corinthia● in so full and grievous a manner, as 〈◊〉 find, that in the same 
f Ibid. ●. 1●.  Epistle he di●▪ Thus much hereof.  Enthusiastus. 
I take this your answer for sufficing for I see the Text (if the scope of the Epistle be precisely observed) precludet● me of all reply: but what say you to 〈◊〉 other passage of Scripture, where 〈◊〉 Apostle speaketh of himself in this 〈◊〉 confident manner: 
g Rom. 8.  I know, 
* Objected by M. jewel in his Apology of the Church of England. pa. 78.  th●● life nor death &c shall be able to re none 〈◊〉 from that love, that God beareth to me 〈◊〉 Christ▪ What greater assuredness co●l● the Apostle utter of his salvation 〈◊〉 this?  Arminius. 
To this I shape a double answer. First, admitting that these words should be meant of the certainty of knowledge, yet they do not prove the particular knowledge, which our adversaries do pretend, that every one of the Elect should have of himself only: My reason hereof is: because these words are delivered by the Apostle, touching his knowledge aswell of others, as himself. For the words are not, shall be able to re●oue me, but, shallbe able to remove us, the Apostle speaking thus in the person of ●he Elect, and not of himself only But ●ouching the salvation of the Elect, there ●s no controversy between us and our Adversaries.  
Secondly, and more punctually I reply, and affirm, that in the Greek of ●he former Text, it is only, Persuasus 〈◊〉, and not Certus sum; for the Greek ●ord used by S. Paul, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●hich signifieth in English: I am persuaded. And thus the certainty of knowledge, which this Text affordeth, 〈◊〉 only of Persuasion & Hope, but not of ●ayth, or infallible knowledge; which is the point only here issuable. That th● Text signifieth only, I am persuaded, & not, I am certain, is so evident, that the English Bibles printed anno Do● 1576. and 1590. do read with me in th●● very place, I am persuaded. Yea▪ B●● himself in his Translation of the Ne● Testament, in this place translateth 
h Printed at London, anno 1587.  Mihi persuasum est: So little dot● this Text prove for infallibility of Salvation.  
Lastly I may say, that granting 〈◊〉 Paul here spoke of the certainty of 〈◊〉 own Salvation; yet it may be well answered, that this certainty (in regard 〈◊〉 his high favour with God) he had 〈◊〉 revelation only, and not by force of 〈◊〉 ordinary faith, as our Adversary's 〈◊〉 pretend to have.  Enthusiastus. 
I will proceed further: 
i 1. john 5.  Th●● things I writ unto you, that you may kno● that you have eternal life, which believe 〈◊〉 the name of the Son of God.  Arminius. 
To this I answer. First, that 〈◊〉 Eternal life, may be here understood knowledge of God, which the faithful have, according as we read in S. john's Gospel: 
k C. 17.  This is life everlasting, that they know thee. Secondly I say, That True Believers have eternal life, not actually, (since they do not actually enjoy Heaven) but only in Hope, according as it i● else where said; 
l Rom. 8.  We are saved by hope. For that if we will attain eternal life actually and indeed, our perseverance in faith is necessarily required, of which perseverance this passage of Scripture intimateth no certainty; since (according to the words of 
m Ezech. 33.  Eze●hiel above cited) this Text (as many more) implies in it a Condition to be performed; and consequently, it proveth no certainty or infallibility of man's Election.  Enthusiastus. 
We thus read, that the Apostle saith: 
n Rom. 8.  We have received the spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry: Abba Pater. And the spirit itself beareth witness to our spirit, that we are the Sons of God; and if ●is Sons, than also heirs, if so be that we suffer with him etc.  Arminius. 
You cloy me (Enthusiastus) with 〈◊〉 fastidious satiety of Texts of this ●●ture: For this Text only proveth, 〈◊〉 the Just during the state of their pres●●● justice, are the Sons of God, and consequently his Heirs: But whether 〈◊〉 Just shall persevere in that state till their death, (which is the chief point 〈◊〉 this Controversy) this Text proveth not. Nay it proveth, that the Justice may▪ fall from their justice, and thereupon lose their Election, as is fully insinuted by the Condition annexed in 〈◊〉 very Text, uz. If so that we suffer 〈◊〉 him. Certainly the damned Spirits before their fall were the Sons or Children of God, & yet afterward through their want of perseverance in righteousness, they fell from their form●● state: So little doth this Authority prevail in proof of the certainty of man● Predestination or Election; the certainty▪ that is proved from this passage, being only conjectural, and not infallible.  Enthusiastus. 
What reply you to that of the Apostle: 
o Rom. 8.  Whom he called, them also he ●●stifyed; and whom he justified, them ●●so he glorified. In show of words a most ●●rcing Authority, since from hence it 〈◊〉 it may be concluded, that whom 〈◊〉 doth justify, he is thereby one of 〈◊〉 Elect, and glorified, and so cannot finally fallen.  Arminius. 
I reply. This your inference were ●●rong, if all, who are called, were Elect. But contrary to this we read: 
p Matth. 22.  Many ●●●called, but few Elect; therefore this ●lace can take no more hold of him that is justified, then of him that is called, since the words of the Text have equal Reference to them both. Therefore the true meaning of this place is understood not of every one, that is called or justified in general, but only of the Elect, whom God in his foreknowledge (according as it is said in the former alleged Chapter) foreknew to be called, according to purpose of election. And of these it is granted, none doth finally fall. But who these▪ Elect be, 〈◊〉 man knoweth: 
q Rom. 11.  For who hath 〈◊〉 the mind of the ●ord, or who hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Counsellor?  Enthusiastus. 
S. Paul thus writeth of himself 〈◊〉 
(r) ●. Tim. 4.  I am 
* Objected by M. Willet in Synops. pa. ●57.  now ready to be crucified, 〈◊〉 time of my resolution is at 〈◊〉 &c▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 finished my Course etc. and there is laid 〈◊〉 for me a Crown of justice, which the 〈◊〉 will render to me at that day: So certain 〈◊〉 is, that S. Paul was assured of his Election.  Arminius. 
This place toucheth not the difficulty: For S. Paul was assured of his Salvation through extraordinary Revelation. And our Adversaries 
s M. Perkins in his reformed Catholic. p. ●8.  do affirm with us, that a man may be assured of his Salvation by extraordinary Revelation▪ as Abraham, and others were. But this is not the point controverted between them and us, seeing our Adversary's d● teach, that this knowledge is by Ordinary Faith, as 
t Vbi supra. p. ●9.  M. Perkins maintain 〈◊〉 Now that S. Paul had knowledge of his Salvation only by extraordinary 〈◊〉, appeareth from his like foreknowledge of his own death, mentioned in this very passage alleged in ●●ose words: The time of my resolution 〈◊〉 at hand. And according to his like re●elation he said to the Ephesians: 
u Acts. 20.  〈◊〉 ●old, I know, that you no more shall see ●y face.  
Thus we see, by true weighing of ●his Text, that is affordeth, no greater proof for our Adversary's presumed infallibility of their Salvation, than it doth, for the certain knowledge of the ●yme of their death; since the Text concerneth both alike, and therefore either both these points, or neither are proved from this passage of Scripture.  Enthusiastus. 
We are counselled by S. Peter to make our calling and election sure by good works: His words are these: 
x 1. Petr. 1.  Wherefore brethren, 
* Objected by Kimmo●on●i●s no his Redempt▪ of mankind. p. ●●●.  give rather diligence to make your calling and election sure by good works; for if you do these things, you shall never fall. Now from this it seems, that the Faithful are assured of their Election.  Arminius. 
Hear Enthusiastu, you have afforded me a weapon, where with to 〈◊〉 your own Cause, since the force of 〈◊〉 your reason recoileth upon yourself For this Text teacheth us, that 〈◊〉 Certainty of God's promise touchi●● our Salvation depends upon our goo● works, and therefore i● but Conditional; which Condition we find to be 〈◊〉 down in these words: If so you do 〈◊〉 things. So clear is this divine Authority against our Adversaries pretend 〈◊〉 certainty by faith.  Enthusiastus. 
We read thus of the Ephesians; That they 
* Objected by D. Fulke against Purga●. p. 35.  were 
y Eph. 1.  sign it with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge of our inheritance. And again it is said to them▪ 
z Eph. 4.  Grieve not the spirit, whereby you are signed to the day of Redemption. Now what other thing do these Texts import, than the Certainty of the Ephesians salvation▪  Arminius. 
This place only proveth at th● most, that by the signing, and pledge, o● ●arnest of our inheritance, is understood the convention, or Promise made upon God's part to the Ephesians; the performance whereof we willingly grant to 〈◊〉 on his side certain; but the Text kelleth us not, that the Ephesians were assured hereby to accomplish and perform the Conditions required on their ●art▪ But they rather to the contrary near are premonished, not to grieve the spirit, and so accordingly it is in other places of Scripture said: 
a Act 7.  They resisted the holy Spirit. And again: 
b Isa. ●●.  They rebelled and vexed his holy Spirit.  Enthusiastus. 
Well to press a little further. We read that it is said: 
c john. 13.  Whom Christ 
* By M. Willet in Synops. p. 55●.  loveth, he loveth to the end. Again we read: 
d john. 10.  That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all; and no man can pluck them out of my Father's hand. Briefly (to accumulate and heap several Texts together) the Apostle teacheth us, that 
e Rom. 11.  the gifts and vocation of God are without repentance. Now from all these places what other necessary inference can result, then that one being once in state of Grace, shall persevere therein to the ●nd; & consequently, that such an one is certain of his Salvation?  Arminius. 
I answer, that this inference 〈◊〉 not so much as probable▪ (so in 〈◊〉 it is) much less necessary. A 〈◊〉 to answer in order to the Texts as 〈◊〉 are alleged. True it is, That God for 〈◊〉 part, whom he loveth, loveth to 〈◊〉 end; & accordingly we read; that 
f Marc. c. 10.  〈◊〉 loved the rich man, who went away 〈◊〉 him; and yet from this love of our 〈◊〉 to the rich man, we cannot 〈◊〉 that the Rich man was one of the 〈◊〉 Again it is most true, that God louet● all men, as they are his Creatures though he hateth their Sin; For 〈◊〉 wiseman instructeth us, that 
g Sapient c 11.  God 〈◊〉 all things, that are, and hateth none 〈◊〉 them, whom he hath made.  
To the second place I answer 〈◊〉 that another like place of our Saviour words may well seem to explain 〈◊〉 as where he said: 
h john 17.  Those whom thou 〈◊〉 me, I have kept; and none of them perished, but the Son of perdition. Now 〈◊〉 parallelling these two several Texts together it is evident, that the 〈◊〉 of this place is not, that every on● whom the Father giveth, perseveres to 〈◊〉 end, for then the Son of perdition 〈◊〉 wit judas) who (as the Text saith) 〈◊〉 given, should have persevered to the 〈◊〉▪ But rather, that the Devil by all 〈◊〉 temptations, cannot perforce pull a 〈◊〉 from God, except he gives his 〈◊〉 consent to yield to the devil's 〈◊〉.  
Secondly, suppose these words to understood of the Elect in general, ●●ose final repentance is known to 〈◊〉 (of whom we all acknowledge, at None do perish) for God is not 〈◊〉 in his foreknowledge: yet this forceth nothing, seeing both the 
i Hier. in c. 26. Hier. saith▪ Non ex eo. quod Deus scit futurum aliquid, id●ir●● futurum est: Sed quia futurum est, Deus novit. See likewise Austin tom. 7. de praedest. & gratia, c. 15.  ●●thers, and our own learned 
k Hiperius in Method. Theol. l. 1. pa. 319. saith: Neque quia praescit Deus hominem peccaturum, ideo homo peccat; sed quia peccaturus erat, ideo Deus id praescivit▪ The like saying hath Amandus Pola●●s in partit. Theolog. l. 1 p. ●.  Brothers do teach, that things are not, because God doth foresee them; but God doth foresee therein, because they are.  
To the third Text, I answer: That ●od indeed doth never repent him of 〈◊〉 gifts bestowed upon any man, yet nevertheless by reason, that many do a●use his gifts, applying them otherwise then God intended, he is said in ●oly Scripture (as speaking to our Capacity) 
l Gen. ●. & 1. Samuel 15.  to repent him.  Enthusiastus. 
Well. I will clos●tlli● point 〈…〉 more Scipturall Authorities 〈◊〉 I see, Arminius, you are very 〈◊〉 in avoiding of them) with there 〈◊〉 lowing, which for greater 〈◊〉 I will a mass together. We find 〈◊〉 Apostle thus to say: Christ shall 〈◊〉 confirm you (speaking to the ●●●thians) unto the end. I● like 〈◊〉 
(m) 1. Cor. 1.  said Apostle else where thus saith 〈◊〉 
(n) Ephes. 1.  He hath thosen us before the foundation the world. Again: 
o Rom. 8.  Who shall accuse ●gainst the Elect of God? Finally we 〈◊〉 in the Gospel: 
p john. 10.  No man shall 〈…〉 sheep out of my hand. All which ●●●●●rities may seem well to fortify the 〈◊〉 fallibility of Predestination.  Arminius. 
These Texts, though many 〈◊〉 number, yet are small in force, so 〈◊〉 they glance from the intended 〈◊〉 And as for the two first (to which 〈◊〉 others of the same nature may 〈◊〉 ranged, taking their answer, from 〈◊〉 Answer given to th●se two) th'apostle only meaneth, That he hop● 〈◊〉 well of the salvation of the Corinthians▪ ●nd Ephesians; but that he should be assured through a certainty of faith, that ●ll the Corinthians, and all the Ephesi●ns (for the Apostle speaketh indefinitely to them all) should be saved, is ●ost absurd to think. To the two 〈◊〉 Authorities. They only teach, that ●he Elect cannot finally perish; but they ●oe not teach, that the Elect do know 〈◊〉 much of themselves in particular; or ●hat they are of the number of the Elect: which point remains yet unprooved.  Enthusiastus. 
I will desist (as I said afore) from ●rging more places of God's word: For 〈◊〉 willingly grant, I have produced all ●uch Texts, as I thought had been most ●reuayling for the proof of the doctri●e, for which they were urged. Only ●efore I leave the Scene of further opposing, I will insist in an Argument or too, drawn from force of reason, ●hich Arguments prevail strongly with diverse men of judgement: my first ●●en shall be drawn from the efficacy ●f 〈◊〉 and Hope. And thus I dispute.  
The holy Scripture ascribeth to Faith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or most full 〈◊〉 in the tenth Chapter to the Hebre●▪ In like sort in the eleventh Chapter 〈◊〉 the Hebrews, it is called in regard▪ 〈◊〉 its Infallibility, Coniunctio or Hypostase a firm ground of things to be hoped for▪ 〈◊〉 an infallible evidence of things we see▪ 〈◊〉 Again in the Epistle of S. james, 〈◊〉 1. Hesitation and wavering is opposed 〈◊〉 Faith. In like sort in the sixth to the Hebrews, a steady firmness is attributed 〈◊〉 Hope, or as the former greek word 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which place Hope, 〈◊〉 its stability and firmness, is compar●● to an Anchor. Therefore in regard 〈◊〉 Gods promising a remission of 〈◊〉 Sins, why should we rest doubtful thereof?  
My second Argument shall be tak●● from the seeming absurdity 
* Urged bv Kemp●it. in Exam. Concil. Trid.  accompanying this your doctrine; since 〈◊〉 doctrine seemeth to be absurd, which ●●uer teacheth a doubtful hesitation▪ 〈◊〉 fluctuation of a man's faith, touchi●● his own salvation.  Arminius. 
In soluing the first Argument 〈◊〉 must recurre partly to the state of 〈◊〉 Question above set down. True it is, 〈◊〉 Faith is most certain: neither 〈◊〉 it be called Faith, by the which a 〈◊〉 giveth assent with any doubtfulness or fear to such things, the which ●●ought to believe. But our Aduersa●●●● Paralogism, or Fallacy, resteth in 〈◊〉 that they assume, as granted (which 〈◊〉 can never prove) that remission Sins, or justification do properly 〈◊〉 ●oly belong to faith. Again I say ●●●ording to the state of the question, 〈◊〉 granting a man to have once true 〈◊〉; yet followeth it not that there●●●e he shall finally dye in state of true 〈◊〉, and then it followeth, that if he 〈◊〉 not certain of his final perseverance in faith, he therefore is not cer●●●ne of his Election, or Predestination. Touching Hope, It is most certain, ●espect of God promising; but in 〈◊〉 of man's indisposition, and his meakenes and frailty in performing the ●●nditions imposed by God, Hope is 〈◊〉 languid, and accompanied with ●●rtaine fear.  
Touching your argument from 〈◊〉 supposed absurdity, attending on 〈◊〉 doctrine herein, I reply, that the doctrine maintained by us, thou 〈◊〉 taketh not away all fear, yet it 〈◊〉 away all anxiety, hesitation, and 〈◊〉 doubtfulness, if he may be called 〈◊〉, who dare; not give assent to 〈◊〉 contrary part or opinion. And as 〈◊〉 no good inference to argue thus: 〈◊〉 man is not doubtful nor anxious of the certainty of his Election, therefore he is elect●●●▪ So neither are you thus to dispute▪ 〈◊〉 man hath no certainty of his faith, or 〈◊〉; therefore he is ever doubting 〈◊〉 troubled with fears touching the 〈◊〉 There is therefore a mean to be ad●●ted between these two extremes 〈◊〉, a moral certainty in respect o● 〈◊〉 Understanding, and a Hope, and trus● 〈◊〉 respect of the Will.  Enthusiastus. 
Arminius, I must confess, you 〈◊〉 partly satisfied me in displaying 〈◊〉 unexpected weakness and transparency of my Arguments, drawn 〈◊〉 from the misapplication of Script●●●● as also from Reason. But seeing 〈◊〉 accomplished my task of 〈◊〉 we are to change parts, therefore 〈◊〉 may at your pleasure enter upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in seeking to warrant your con●●●ry doctrine, with such proofs, as 〈◊〉 shall be best armed therewith. And ●●deed I confess, I partly begin to retire ●●d give back, so little prevailing I ●●d my former Arguments to be, ●hich till now I accounted as many ●●gines, able to beat down, and level ●●th the ground all contrary doctrine that, for which they were urged. But ●rminius) begin.  Arminius. 
I am prepared thereto. And for the ●ore exact discussing of this point, I 〈◊〉 first overthrow by proofs the ●●●posed certainty of every particular 〈◊〉 justice. Now if a man be vncer●●●●e of his justice, which is a means 〈◊〉 the obtaining of Heaven, than much 〈◊〉 must he rest uncertain of his ●●●●ation.  
When I have discoursed fully of the 〈◊〉 certainty of a justifying Faith, than 〈◊〉 I proceed to the impugning, by proofs, of the imaginary Certainty of 〈◊〉. Now touching the first point, 〈◊〉 ●ill lay down (though it be in part 〈◊〉 shown) what is the true state thereof: To wit, it is in express 〈◊〉 thus: Whether a man ought or can (wit● 〈◊〉 special revelation) be assured, through 〈◊〉 of divine faith, that his sins are 〈◊〉. In which question (Enthusiastic) you, and your party hold the Aff●●●●tiue, I the Negative.  
Now, in disproving this a●ry certainty, I will keep in part my for●● method of profess, and will draw 〈◊〉 Arguments first from Reason. My first Argument then shallbe this. Nothing 〈◊〉 be certain (c●rtitudin● fidei) throu●● certainty of Faith, except it be con●●●ned either immediately in the 〈◊〉 God, or at least deduced out of 〈◊〉 word, by evident consequence; 〈◊〉 Faith groundeth itself only upon 〈◊〉 Authority of God's word. But we 〈◊〉 not find either immediately, or by▪ ●●cessary inference in the word of 〈◊〉 that this, or that man is truly justifying except some few as Ma●y 〈◊〉 the Paralytical Ma●●, to both who●● was said by our Saviour: Thy 〈◊〉 remitted thee.  
If the Adversary should reply▪ 〈◊〉 to, thus syllogizing: The word 〈◊〉 teacheth, that every one who hath 〈◊〉 sentence of his sins, is justified; but I 〈◊〉 true repentance of my Sins; therefore I am justified. I answer heerto, that ●he Assumption, or second Proposition of ●his Argument is not only false, but 〈◊〉 impossible; except it be proved by divine Revelation; Since we read, 
q jeremy c. 17.  ●he hart of man is inscrutable, and who ●●oweth it?  
Again, we observe, that many are persuaded to have that, which indeed ●hey have not. This is evident from the example of S. Peter, who when he said: 
* Luc. 22.  I am prepared to be imprisoned, and to ●●ffer death, was doubtlessly persuaded, ●hat he would suffer death for Christ; ●nd yet the event shown, that he was ●ot truly prepared thereto. Add heer●o, that the Anabaptist and Anti-trinita●●lan (both manifest Heretics) do as confidently vaunt of their certainty of ●ustification, as any Protestant can do: ●nd yet it is most evident, that both ●f them remain in mortal Sin, as ●●ng as they continue in such their Religion, and consequently that they cannot be assured of their Election, but ra●her assured (during such their state) of Reprobation.  
My second Argument is this▪ 〈◊〉 by special benefit of God, it is reueal●● to some few, that their Sins are ●●mitted; so on the contrary side, 〈◊〉 Authentical Histories record, that diverse most blessed, and holy men at th● hour of their death, through their 〈◊〉 certainty of justification, did greatly feare● According heerto S. Jerome relateth how Hilarion a Holy man thus said at the point of death: Go out my Soul out of this body, why art thou afraid? Se●uenty years thou hast served Christ; 〈◊〉 dost thou now fear? And with this 〈◊〉 here end, touching this kind of Argument.  Enthusiastus. 
I cannot deny, but that your Arguments drawn from reason, seem to be very pressing; but I pray you asoe●● to other proofs.  Arminius. 
My next Head of proofs shall, be take from the pens of diverse most learne●●nd Ancient Fathers. And I will satisf●● myself with the sentences of som● few (though chief) among them▪ W●fynd▪ Austin thus to write 
r L. de perfect. justitiâ post▪ medium.  Quatalibet ●●titia etc. with what justice soever man is ●●du●d, he ought to think, whether any ●●ing be in him, which is to be blamed, ●hich himself seethe not. And again: 
s Serm. 23. de verb. Domini.  ●●rtasse tu nihil etc. Perhaps thou findest nothing in thy conscience; invenit ill●, qui ●●elius videt; but he findeth in it, who seethe ●etter, meaning God. And finally the ●ayd Father▪ 
t In Psalm. 4●.  Novi, quia iustitia Dei &c▪ I know, that the justice of God remains; but whether it remaineth mine, or not, I know not. The Apostles words fear me, saying: who thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed he doth not fall. Thus Austin.  
Chrysostome: 
u Homil. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉.  Multis de causis etc. for many causes our▪ judgement is uncertain; of which one is, because we know not what our works are.  
Jerome. 
x L●●. in ●erem exponens c. ●●.  Homo vide tin face, Deus in cord: Man seethe only the face, but God seethe the Hart: and which seemeth to us sometimes clean, is found to be most sordid, and foul in his eyes.  
Finally (to omit many others) Ba●●ll thus writeth of this point: 
y In constit. Mon▪ c. ●▪  Mul●a peccantes etc. we sinning in many things, many of such our sins, we do not apprehended or understand: wherefore the Apostle said: I am not guilty to myself of any 〈◊〉 but nevertheless I am not justified in th●● as much as if he should say; I sin in many things, but I do not observe such my sinn●● Thus far of the Father's judgement, touching the uncertainty of our justification.  Enthusiastus. 
I should hardly have been persuaded▪ that the Fathers had been so strong in this point, as now I must confess they are; but I pray you (Arminius) rise to your proofs of Scripture, since they are most prevailing.  Arminius. 
Well then, to come to the Holy Scripture: I will restrain myself only first to such passages thereof, which in express words admonish us, not to be over certain and confident of our obtained justice. Secondly, to some of those places, which teach▪ that it is uncertain, whether that man, which performeth his Penitency, do nevertheless obtain remission of his sins, or not: and, Lastly I will conclude thi● point with a demonstration (for▪ I 〈◊〉 term it no less) taken from the example of David.  
And to begin with the first sort, we thus read▪ 
z 1. Pet▪ 1.  Pass the time of your dwelling here in fear. Again, 
a Philip. 2.  Work your Salvation with fear and trembling. And finally: 
b Prou. 2.  Blessed is that man, who is ever fearful. But if a man be infallibly assured of his justification, how can he be fearful thereof?  
To come to the second branch of Texts, teaching, That a man performing sorrow, and being penitent for his Sins, notwithstanding is not assured of the remission of his Sins: Now according hereto we read, 
c Acts 8.  Re penned of thy wickedness, and pray to God, si forte remittatur tibi; if chance it may be forgiven thee. In like sort it is said: 
d 〈◊〉. 3.  Who can tell, if God will turn and pardon v.? etc. And the same words are in ●o●●, c. 2. And finally we further thus read▪ 
e D●niel. 4.  Perhaps God will pardon thine offences.  
Now here (Enthusiastus) I refer●e even to your judgement, and to the judgement of all here present, whether this doubtfulness of Romission of Sins, and the former Admonition, that we should not rest over secure of our justice (both which points are proved from the two former Classes of Scripture) stand not wholly incompatible with our Adversary's presumed infalliable certainty of their own justification.  Enthusiastus. 
I freely grant, that these Texts do seem to enervate and weaken the doctrine of the certainty of justification; But I pray you proceed to that example of the Prophet David, which above (for it is convincing) you called a Demonstration.  Arminius. 
Well I come to David, whose example is a sealing Argument, closing up this point, and affordeth to us a certainty of Truth, touching the uncertainty of man's justification. Thus than I urge: If Charity can be lost, than faith can be lost; if Faith can be lost, than justification may be lost. My first proposition is warranted by the doctrine of us all, 
f D. Fulke against the Rhem. Testament in 1. Cor. c. 3. saith: Faith cannot be without Charity.  who teach, that Charity doth as necessarily accompany a justifying faith, as heat doth the fire.  
That Charity may be lost, is proved from the example of David, who killed Urias: seeing a voluntary pretended murder (and such was▪ that of David's) is a mere privation of Charity. For how can we love that man with true Charity, whom we intent to murder, and deprive of his life? Now the Evangelist assureth us, that 
g 1. john 3.  Who loveth not his brother, is not of God, but abideth in death. From hence then the unavoidable resultancy is, that David in the murder of Urias, and during all the time before his repentance thereof was not of God, but for the time abode in death, and consequently neither had Charity nor faith; for if he had faith, he had not abyded in death, because it is written: 
h 1. john▪ 3.  By faith the just man liveth.  Enthusiastus. 
I have read some of our learned Brethren, labouring to avoid this Argument by answering, that David's faith was not lost in his murder of Urias, but only for the time slept. And others do affirm, that David when he committed murder and adultery, 
i D. Fulke in the disputation in the Tower ann. 1581. the second daves Conference.  was, and remained the child of God; & did not fall from his faith. And another great man among us affirms, that 
k Beza in respon ad Act. Colloq. Montisbelgar. part. altera P. 73.  at one, and the sam● time, David sinned, and sinned not.  Arminius. 
Tush (Enthusiastus) all this is but ● froth of words, serving only to blear● the eyes of the ignorant; but it is wholly dissolved with the least touch of a judicious finger. And to the first and second part of your Answer: Either David had faith at the time of his murdering of Urias, or he had it not (for no Medium can be given between these two Extremes:) If he had faith, how then could his faith be said to sleep?  
Again, the Nature of true faith requireth, that ●● should be ever 
l Galat. 5.  Working with Charity, and that without works it is 
m jacob. ●.  dead. If David hath not faith at that time, then is that grated, which I demanded, to wit, that David in the murder of Urias lost his faith, and consequently was not assured of his justification. Thus you see, that this yours evasion is nothing else, than a poor begging of the point, as granted, which is still in controversy, to wit, that David still kept his faith, at the time h●● killed Urias.  
Now, to that other last kind of Answer, (to wit, that at one, and the same ●yme David sinned, and sinned not) I ●uch wonder, that it did ever fall from ● learned man's pen; so fantastical, ●explicable, and indeed absurd it is. But to proceed, this Answer implies, ●hat David sinned (let it be in what ●espect soever the Author of this Answer will have:) If then David sinned, ●hen David by such his Sin was the servant of sin, and of the Devil; for we read that, 
n john. 8.  He that committeth ●inne, is the servant of Sinne. And again: He that committeth Sin, is of the 
o 1. john. ●.  Devil. And thus far touching this Demonstration.  Enthusiastus. 
I grant indeed, that this your Argument drawn from the example of David is most strong, and I now well perceive, how slightly my Answer ●hereto was woven, upon several ●reeds, but all to illaqueate & ensnare weak judgement. But (Arminius) you ●auing now finished (as I take it) all our proofs for the disproving of the certainty of man's justification 〈◊〉 Method requireth, that you 〈◊〉 take the like labour touching the 〈◊〉 proving the certainty of 〈◊〉: though I cannot but grant, 〈◊〉 the impugning of this later 〈◊〉 virtually involved in the 〈◊〉 of the firster. For let us once grant, 〈◊〉 man resteth uncertain of his 〈◊〉, it then inevitably from thence 〈◊〉 be inferred (as yourself above did intimate) that he also resteth uncertain of his Election and Predestination; 〈◊〉 justification is a necessary Medi●● Election and Predestination; for no 〈◊〉 are elected or predestinated by God, 〈◊〉 such as are finally justified. Yet notwithstanding this most necessary ●●terueniency of these two points, 〈◊〉 would willingly hear your particular proofs, for the particular point of t●● uncertainty of Election o● Predestinati●●▪  Arminius. 
I will satisfy your desire. 〈◊〉 first not to lose time, I will keeps 〈◊〉 former Method in producing of 〈◊〉 proofs. And therefore for the 〈◊〉 of Election, and Predestinati●●▪ 〈◊〉 ●●gin with Arguments drawn from Reason. Of which, my first Argument is this: The knowledge by Faith of a man's present justice is more 〈◊〉, than the knowledge by faith of eternal Predestination; But it is above grooved, that no man can tell, whether ●e be worthy of hate or love, in respect of his present justice, or state in this world; much less can he be certain, whether he be worthy of hate or love ●n respect of God's decree; which decree byeth in the Abismall depth of his own judgement.  
My second Argument: We can have no certain knowledge of such ●hings, as depend of the will of God, ●ut only by manifest revelation of God himself: But Predestination doth depend of the will of God: Therefore Predestination is to man uncertain. If you reply, that God hath revealed by ●is spirit in the Scripture, that all those, who rightly believe, and live well, shall have eternal life and beatitude, I grant ●his is true; but I deny that God ever revealed in Scripture, that all those, who ●y, they believe, do rightly believe and live 〈◊〉 they ought. For if it were sufficient to say, I do believe, and live▪ as I ●●ght to 〈◊〉 then should all Heretics be ●aued, 〈◊〉 every of them will say, that he believeth, and liveth as he ought. Th●● much for some delibation, and taste 〈◊〉 what Arguments (omitting diverse others) may be drawn from, reason 〈◊〉 proof of this verity.  
But in this next place, I will come to the Testimonies of many Protestant's accomplished (in the highest degree with learning, who through the weig●● of divine and humane Authority▪ ●●ged in proof of so warrantable 〈◊〉 Truth, have in the end upon their more retired and impartial judgements pa●sed thereupon, wholly comparted with us in the doctrine here maintained▪ And to begin with those, who are commonly called Caluinists, we find▪ that Snecanus, and Hemingius (two learn●● Caluinists) are so full in this doctrine o● the uncertainty of Salvation, ' that D. W●●let (our Adversary herein ● thus reprehendeth them: 
p In his ●●●ops. p. 8●1.  These Patroness of ●●niuersall Grace and conditional Election 〈◊〉 consequently hold, that men may lose 〈◊〉 Election and Faith: Hemingius p. 30. 〈◊〉 same is also maintained by ●necanus. ●. 〈◊〉 ●hus far D. Willet. D. Harsenet is so full 〈◊〉 our doctrine, that he preached in proof thereof a Sermo at Paul's Cross. (●): M. Perkins (though our Adversary 〈◊〉 this doctrine, yet) through rack of ●●uth is thus forced to confess of the 〈◊〉 
r M. Perkins in his four Treatises, necessarily to be considered of all Christians. Treatise forth sect. 14.  This Testimony of being persuaded, that we are adopted & chosen in Christ etc. is weak in most men, and can scarcely 〈◊〉 persuaded. And of the Reprobate, who ●ake themselves to be in the number of ●he Elect, he further thus teacheth: 
s In the epist to the Tender in the beginning of therefore said Book.  They may do outwardly all things, which 〈◊〉 Christians do; They do willingly subject themselues to the Ministry of the word, & are 〈◊〉 forward as any, and as joyful in frequenting sermons etc. They are also void of Hypocrisy, and herein dissemble not that faith, ●●ich they have not, but rather show that ●ayth which they have. Thus a man being in this state, may deceive himself, and the most godly in the world, which have the greatest gift of discerning, how they and ●heir brethren stand be fore the Lord. Thus M. Perkins.  
And according to this his doctrine, ●he Anabaptists (who were burned in ●mithfyeld) even at their death vaunted ●f the certainty of their Salvation, and yet were therein deceived, 〈…〉 judgement of 
t Calu. count. Anabaptist. p. 110. & 111.  Caluin. But to proce●● to others. Musculus (the great Pro●●stant) doth thus teach of this point: 
u In loc. Com. loc. de Peccato. sect. ●. 20.  If he, who hath been made partaker of the Heavenly grace, do fall from that Grace, 〈◊〉 of a just and faithful man, do became, 〈◊〉 just and vnf●ythfull etc. this man's conscience (the purity of faith being lost) 〈◊〉 made guilty unto damnation. And M. Robert Rollock, once rector of the University of Edinburgh (a man mu●● esteemed by Beza) thus writeth 
x In his book of Lectures upon the epist. of Paul to the Colossians. Lect. 6. c. ●. p. ●4.  〈◊〉 tell thee, that notwithstanding thou art redeemed, and by this blood of Christ f●ee● from Sin and death; yet if thou tamest delight in Sin, the greater shall be thy damnation.  
Now to come to others, commonly styled Lutherans. And to passover 
y ●n Theolog. Calu●nist. l. ●. ar● 14. Who there reproveth Caluin, Zan●hius, and the Divines of G●noua.  Conradus Schlussenburg, 
z In lo●i● Theolog. pag 188. ● 331.  Haff●nreffensis Professor in the University of Tubing, 
a In disput 7 ex epist. Pauli ad Cor. posteriori parte Th●fi 5.  Rungius Professor in the University of Wittenberg, 
b In epitome. Colloq. Montisbelgar p. 47. & 6●.  Iaco●● Andraeas, 
c In disput 17. pro sanctissimo libro Concord. disput. 10. p. 650.  Gesnerus Professor in W●t●mberg, and diverse other learned followers of Luther, all maintaining 〈◊〉 uncertainty of Salvation; we 〈◊〉 Mclancthon thus expressly to 〈◊〉 ●o 
d Melanct●. in Concil. Theolog. pag. 112.  Excidunt homines à gratia etc. Men do fall from Grace, and do lose their justifying grace etc. In like sort 
e In the harmony of Conf●ssions in English. pag. ●24.  the Confession of Auspurg condemneth the doctrine of Certainty of Salvation for Anabaptisme. And accordingly 
f In his Disputat. Theolog. p. 317. & 318.  Lo●echius (Doctor, and Professor in the University of Restocke) defendeth our doctrine herein, and he allegeth in proof thereof the Confession of Augusta, and diverse Texts of Scripture, charging the defendours of the contrary doctrine, with Anabapticticall Error.  
In like sort, Kempnitius writeth thus of this point: 
g K●mpnit. in his Ex●m. Council. Trident. printed a●no 1578. part. 2. p. 193. & vide part. ● pag 19●.  True lively justifying faith may be lost, and the party made guilty of eternal damnation. Finally (not to charge your memory with a surplusage of the learned Protestants judgement herein) the Protestant Divines of Saxony do in their public Confession thus teach. 
h In the Harmony o● confessions in English. p. 80. & p. ●33.  It is manifest, that who are regenerate etc. are again rejected by God, ●nd made subject to eternal punishment. And further: 
i Harmony etc. p. 195.  justification and regeneration may be shaken of, and we lose eternal ●●fe. Thus much touching the most learned Protestants in this matter of Vncer●●ty of Election, and Predestination.  Enthusiastus. 
Indeed I rest half amazed at the pregnant Testimonies of so many o● our own learned Brethren in defence of this your doctrine, and I freely confess, I would never have believed, that so many of them, and of such eminency, had with so strong an endeavour maintained the same, but that I fy●● you so punctual and precise in alleging their own clear words in 〈◊〉 half thereof. But I pray you (Ar●●nius) proceed to other of your propfes.  Arminius. 
Before I proceed to other proofs, I must subnect to this former discourse one observation touching the judgements of our own learned and Reverend Brethren, either in this point, 〈◊〉 in the doctrine of Freewill above disputed of, or of any other point hereafter to be discoursed of between 〈◊〉 this tyme. The observation is this: that whereas all these eminent Protestants already produced by me▪ or hereafter 〈◊〉 be produced, do with an vnani●●● consent teach, That no dogma●●●●▪ point is to be believed, as an Article of ●ayth (they wholly rejecting all Traditions) but what hath its proof out of the Scripture, either immediately in express words, or else by necessary inference deduced from the Scripture; that therefore we may truly infer, that all these Learned men do ground themselves only upon Scripture, for their maintaining of the said doctrines; and consequently that they conspire with me in the expositions of the said passages of Scripture, already or hereafter to be alleged by me.  
And further, seeing the Scripture cannot teach contrary doctrines; it followeth, that our said learned Brethren by me produced, do interpret with us (and contrary to your construction given of them) all such Countertexts of Scripture heretofore urged, or hereafter to be urged by you (Enthusiastus) for the impugning of those our said doctrines. And now this Advertisement being premised, I hasten in this next place to the Authority of the Ancient Fathers and Doctors of Christ's Church.  
And first, Gregory the Great thus writeth: 
k In primum Regum.  Quia 〈…〉 Dei imperscrutabile est etc. Because 〈◊〉 judgement of God is vnse●●he able, thereof 〈◊〉 man knoweth not from whence be cometh or whither he goeth: The Reason hereof being, in that it cannot be known, whether a man shall persevere unto his end in th●● Grace, which he receiveth.  
Prosper: 
l L. ●. de vocatione Gentium. cap. ultim.  De nullo ante ipsius 〈◊〉 etc. We cannot pronounce before hand of 〈◊〉 any man, that he shall be in the glory of the Elect. And this profitable fear doth preserve in man a persevering humility, that 〈◊〉 who standeth may take heed, that he do 〈◊〉 fall.  
Austin is most full, thus writing: 
m De Civit. Dei. l. 2. c. 12.  〈◊〉 Licet Sancti de suae perseverantiae praemin 〈◊〉 certisunt, de ipsa tamen perseverantia su●● reperiuntur incerti etc. Although Holy men be assured of the reward of their perseverance; yet of their perseverance itself▪ they are found to be uncertain. For what man can know, that he shall persevere i● practise and progress of justice till his end, except it be made known to him by some Revelation?  
Again the same Father thus further amplifyeth upon this point: 
n L. de Corrept. & gratia. c. 13.  Quis ex multitudine fidelium etc. Which of the multitude of the faithful, as long as he 〈◊〉 in this mortality can presume himself 〈◊〉 in the number of the predestinate? And further, speaking of Election, he thus saith: 
o L. de bono perseverantiae▪ c. 13.  Vtrum quis hoc munus etc. It is uncertain who hath received this gift, as long as he leadeth this life.  
Jerome subscribes to the same censure, thus writing: 
p L. 2. adverse. Pelagium.  Ne beatum dixeris ●uempiam antemortem etc. Thou shalt not tell any man blessed before his death: for as long as we live, so long we are in battle, or sight; And as long as we are in battle, so long there is no certain Victory.  
To contract this point touching the Father's judgements herein, I will and with Chrysostome; his words are these: 
q Hom. 1●. in epist. ad ● h●●p.  Si Paulus, qui tanta passus est etc. If S. Paul, who suffered so great matters, was not yet secure of his Resurrection, what then ●hall we say? Thus far concerning the Fathers in the point of Uncertainty of man● Election, or Predestination.  Enthusiastus. 
I can reply little to these so clear and evident places of the Fathers; and indeed I cannot but confess, that the ●aid Fathers did wholly teach the doctrine, which now you a● this 〈◊〉 do defend. But I am de●●rous to 〈◊〉 what Texts you can produce out 〈◊〉 Gods sacred Writ, to fortify this, th● Fathers, and your doctrine.  Arminius. 
God's Holy word affoardeth plentiful store thereof; & those so illustrious and evident, that both the Father's & the former alleged Brothren might securely rest themselves thereon, 〈◊〉 teaching and believing of this doctrine And to begin. I will reduce my Authorities for advantaging your memory unto certain Heads, as in my former proofs I have done. Now my first 
●  Head shall contain such Texts, as teach that our Salvation doth partly depend upon the Condition of our works: but if it be uncertain, whether a man shall continue in the exercise of good works; then must it follow, that our Salvation (as partly resting upon our works) must be most uncertain. Of this Nature (among others) are these 
(r) 2. Tim. 2.  few Texts following: No man shall crowned, but who shall lawfully fight. Again: 
s Math. 1●.  If thou wilt enter into life, 〈◊〉 Commandments. And more. 
t Rom. 8.  If so 〈◊〉 suffer with him, that we may be also ●●●ifyed with him. And lastly: 
u Math. ●.  Except. 〈◊〉 justice do abound more, than the 〈◊〉 of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not ●●ter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  Enthusiastus. 
To these Texts it may well perhaps be replied, that good works are required to Salvation, not as a Condition upon which eternal life dependeth; but only because true faith cannot be without good works: since bad and wicked works (we observe by experience) do exile, and banish away all true faith.  Arminius. 
I do not here labour to search the reason, why good works are necessary (since this to the present point is impertinent) only I rest satisfied, if you grant, that good works are necessarily required, and that without them, we cannot obtain eternal life: for once admitting this, than it most consequently may be inferred, that no man without special Revelation can assure himself to be of the number of the Elect: seeing no man (even in the judgement of ou● Adversaries in this doctrine) can re●● assured, whether he performeth, & sha●● to his life's end perform all such good works, as are prescribed by Christ to him to exercise.  
My second branch of scriptural 
●.  Testimonies shall respect those Scriptures which counsel us to Fear, touching our spiritual state. Among others these here alleged shall serve: 
x Philip. 2.  Work your Salvation, with fear and trembling. Again: the Prophet exhorteth, thus saying: 
y Psalm. 2.  Serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice in trembling: Apprehend discipline, lest the Lord be angry, and you perish out of the just way. And more 
z Apec. 3.  Hold fast that thou hast, lest another take thy crown. And further 
a ●. Cor. 10.  who standeth, let him take heed, he do not fall. And lastly (to omit many other such like fearful admonitions:) 
b john.  Look to, that you do not lose things, which you have wrought. Now to what end are all these dreadful Sentences, if so a man be certain of his own Predestination?  Enthusiastus. 
These sentences of the Holy Scripture 
(*) So answer Calum ubi suprà & Kempnit. in Exam. Concil. Trident.  may be well delivered only to excel that torpour, sluggishness, and carnal security, which otherwise maketh Christian's negligent in good works: ●et from hence it followeth not, that a●y danger should be, that the Justice should. finally fall from their Salvation.  Arminius. 
If this your Answer were  and satisfactory, then would it follow, (a thing not once to be dreamt) that the Holy Ghost should persuade men to Infidelity, by persuading them to fear their own salvation. For doth not he persuade a man to Infidelity, who should persuade him to fear & rest doubtful, whether Christ be the son of God, or ●o? Therefore when we are commanded to fear, we ought not, nor cannot rest certain (certitudine fidei) that we are of the number of the predestinated: though we may and aught to have great hope thereof. But to proceed to a third Head  
The sacred Scripture teacheth, 
●.  that diverse who for a time, have believed, yet after have m●de●ship wrack their faith. And according hereto 〈◊〉 read thus▪ 
c ●. Tim. 4.  In the later days, there sh● depare certain from the faith. And again: 
d V●i supr. c. 6.  Erra●●●●nt a side, they 〈◊〉 from the faith. Now the Scripture te●cheth us, that ●t is uncertain, whe●●● a man losing once grace and ●ayth sha●● after be restored to grace and fayte▪ For (as I observed above) it is said. 
e Io●l. 2.  Quis scit, si convertatur, & Dominus i●noscat? Who knoweth, if he will return that God may pardon him?  
Now, if many believing truly▪ 〈◊〉 after fall from their faith, & are 〈◊〉 by become Reprobates, and that they 〈◊〉 not assured, that after they shall be 〈◊〉 stored to the Faith and Grace of God (as these Testimanies next above 〈◊〉 do prove▪) what other 〈◊〉 can be made, then that a man in not centaine of his Iustification●, and consequently of his Predestination? seeing certainty of Predestination (as is abou●● 〈◊〉 cannot be had without certainty 〈◊〉 Perseverance in faith and justice, 〈◊〉 proper Medium of Predestination, without which Predestination cannot be obtained.  
To all these former sacred passages Scripture, alleged in proof of the ●n certainty of man's Predestination, ●ay be addressed these passages following, though not already ranged to ●ny Class or Head: 
f Hebr. 4  If we abide in his ●oodnes, otherwise we shall be cut off. A●ayne: 
g ●. Tim. ●. ●▪  Some do repel faith, and a good Conscience, 
h Gal. ●▪  and are fallen from Grace. And more 
i Hebr. 6.  Some, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, & ●ere partakers of the Holy Ghost etc. are fallen, and so dangerously, that it is impossible (meaning thereby, very hard) for ●hem to be renewed again to repentance. And yet further: 
k Rom. 11.  The boughs may be ●●oken of. Yea we read, that those, who are said 
l Exod. 32. & Psalm. 6●.  to be written in God's book (to wit, in regard of their present Grace & ●ustice) are notwithstanding said upon their replase, or fall, 
m See Moyse● word● hereof in Exod. 3●. and Gods Answer thereto.  to be razed, or ●lotted forth.  
Now then in regard of the uncertainty of man's justification, Election, and Predestination (proved from these & many other Texts of Gods Holy word above produced) the Apostle had reason to burst forth into this exclamation: 
n Rom. 11.  〈◊〉 how incomprehensible are his judgements?  
Lord, or 〈…〉 Which ●oly Apostle out of hi● 〈◊〉 uncertainty of Predestination, in 〈◊〉 and careful manner 〈◊〉 himself: 
o Philip. 3.  If by any means, 〈◊〉 come to the Resurrection, which is 〈◊〉 dead; 
p 1. Cor. ●●.  Lest perhaps, when I have 〈◊〉 to others, myself become a 〈◊〉  
And thus far from the Holy 〈◊〉 touching the uncertainty of our 〈◊〉 and Predestination; putting 〈◊〉 in mind, Enthusiastus, as afore I 〈◊〉 done, that all the former proofs 〈◊〉 alleged out of Scripture either for 〈◊〉 fortifying of Freewill in man, or 〈◊〉 impugning of the certainty of 〈◊〉, do implicitly and consequent prove the uncertainty of Predes●●●●tion. For once granting Freewill to in man, or that his present justice is 〈◊〉 certain; then followeth it, that by freedom of will, he may relinq●●● his former justice, and thereupon 〈◊〉 his Predestination.  Enthusiastus. 
Arminius I partly yield to you 〈◊〉 this discourse, in regard of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pertinent Authorities by you alleged: But yet before we give the ●●st close to this our disputation, we are according to my intended method, to discourse of the Question of Reprobation, ●●inersly holden by you and me. Touching the which doctrine I must aforehand say: that in regard of these our former disputes of Freewill, justification and Predestination my divining thoughts partly foretell me, that your Proofs willbe perhaps as forcing for that, as they seem to have been for these former doctrines.  
Notwithstanding I would most willingly have this Question throughly discussed, before we break of. And therefore what Authorities either out of the word of God, or otherwise I shall allege in proof of the doctrine, I ●hould therein; I allege them, not so much with an absolute and resolved mind of contradicting, as with a desire of receiving full Answer and satisfaction from you, touching the said Authorities.  Arminius. 
I doubt little, but I shall be as able to untie those knots of doub●● 〈◊〉 yet you have in the Question of 〈◊〉, as already I have done in the former. Therefore Enthusiastus you 〈◊〉 proceed to instance in your authorities, which may seem (though but in an impartial eye) to fortify your doctrine, yet embraced by you therein.  Enthusiastus. 
I will, and continuing in the 〈◊〉 of the method by me above obseru●●▪ I will first produce my testimonies 〈◊〉 of the holy Scriptures. But before 〈◊〉 come to them, I hold it very pertin●●● to show, what the chief Patron●● 〈◊〉 Reprobation do hold therein. Thus 〈◊〉 some chief men and their fellowers 〈◊〉 write: 
q Beza in his Treatise englished, and entitled: A display of Popish practices. p. ●7. & 31.  That God doth create some 〈◊〉 to perdition, appointeth them to his 〈◊〉 and destruction: and again, that God 〈◊〉 decree them to destruction. Further maintaining (to use their own words▪ 
r Beza in respon ad Acta Colloq. Montisbelg. pag. 2●5. & A 1.  That God did not suffer death for the● But some others, as remarkable as th● former, more fully enlarge themselu●● thus endoctrinating their Scholars: 
s Calu. instit. l. 3. c. 23 sect. ●.  God doth ordain by his Council and decr●● that among men, some be borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnation from their mother's womb who by their destruction may glorify God.  Arminius. 
This doctrine is of so horrid a nature, as that I can hardly be induced to believe, that any good Christian will ever maintain it in so full a manner, as it is by you literally delivered; but rather they teach it with some qualification and mitigation; as perhaps their meaning is, that God doth ordain some to destruction, by reason of his foresight of their wicked lives; And also that Christ did dye for the Reprobate, non efficaciter, but sufficienter, not effectually; whereby the Reprobate should actually partake of the benefit of his death (if so themselves will) but only sufficiently; that is, that his death was of sufficient value in itself to save the Reprobate.  Enthusiastus. 
I would to God (Arminius) I could thus charitably (and withal truly) apologise for my own Brethren, as you (though their Adversary herein) do now in their behalf. But the matter standeth so, as that their own 〈◊〉 do wholly preclude them of all such favourable Constructions. For first, to your firster words, touching God▪ foresight of the wicked lives of the Reprobate; one of them in express word● thus writeth: 
t D. Willet in Synops. p. 554.  God hath ordained 〈◊〉 to be vessels of wrath, without any respect 〈◊〉 to their works, either good, or bad. And another as plainly teacheth, thus saying: 
u Peter Martyr in his Common Places. part. 3. pa. 12.  Sins foreseen, are not the caus● of Reprobation.  
And as touching the distinction (by you delivered) of Christ suffering suf●cienter, not efficaciter; some of our most learned Brethren (I relate it wi●● grief) call this distinction, 
x Beza in Respons. ad Act. Colloq. Mou●isbelg. part. altera. pag. 217. & 221.  A me●●●tergiuersation, and impertinent to the point in question: and therefore the same learned man restraineth the death of Christ in these words, ad solos Electos; to wi●● that his death was only for the Ele●●▪ Yea they proceed so far herein, as that they peremptorily maintain (pardo● me in relating their own words) that 
y Beza in Respons. ad Act. Montisbelg part. altera. in Praefat. pag. 11. & 1ST.  many Infants (meaning of believing Parents) though baptised, are damned 〈◊〉 the secret decree of God.  Arminius. 
You have sufficiently enough laid open your own brethren's blemishes and scars; So full hold (it seems) those words of Austin hath taken of you: 
z Contr● Donatist. post Col. ●. 24.  Truth is more forcible to wring out Confession, than any Rack or Torment.) But now if it please you, you may come to your proofs of Scriptures, for this their doctrine: Only I must tell you by the way, that the more direful and execrable any doctrine is, the further off it is from receiving any fortifying from the word of God, being delivered in its true and native sense, or Construction.  Enthusiastus. 
I fully grant so much with you: Nevertheless for my own further satisfying (since unresolued doubts secretly beat upon the understanding) I will relate the chiefest Texts urged, by my Brethren in defence of this their doctrine. First then they insist in those words: 
a 1. Pet. ●.  Christ 
* Objected by Beza in Annot. in Nou. Testam. in 1. Petr. c. ●.  is the chief Corner stone etc. unto you, which believe, precious; but unto them that believe not etc. a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, to them, which stumble at the word, being disobedient, unto which things they were ordained. From hence now they inferred that God was the Author of their disobedience, to the which disobedie●●● they were by God ordained; and consequently ordained to damnation, the fruit of their disobedience.  Arminius. 
The difficulty of this Text rest●●● in those last words, Unto which things (meaning in your brethren's sense, disobedience, and stumbling at the Word) 〈◊〉 were ordained. But here I justify, 〈◊〉 Translation is not pure and sinc●●● since the words, viz, They were ordained have true reference unto those form● words, vz, Which believe; And so th● true meaning of this place is, that t●● were ordained to believe. And thus y●● see, this place being truly urged, maketh directly against your Brethren. Now I justify this my Answer fro● the Greek Text; the words are th●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nec credunt 〈◊〉 quo & positi sunt.  
The sense thereof being, that 〈◊〉 were ordained to believe, but did not. 〈◊〉 point is so evident, that diverse learned Protestants do give the same construction thereof with me. For Snecanus reciting the Text in these words: 
b In Method. descript. pag. 701.  N●● credunt▪ in quod positi fuerant, neither do they believe, unto which they were ordained, thus answereth: Refertur propriè à doctissimis etc. This last clause is properly referred by most learned and Orthodoxal men, yea even by Caluin himself, to the jews, who were placed to believe. And the very same Construction thereof is given by 
c In defence. Translat. pag. 152. 153. 154.  Castalio: So little doth this Text advantage your Brethren, but rather disadvantage them: and yet your brethren's integrity and candour was wanting in their translating the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. were ordained; the word truly signifying only Positi erant. But proceed to others.  Enthusiastus. 
The next shallbe that passage: 
d Proverb. ape● 16.  The Lord 
* Objected by D. Fully against the Rhem. Testam. in Rom. 9 fol. 2, 3.  made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of Evil. From whence my Brethren deduce, that God maketh, or createth wicked men to Eternity of damnation, which may be truly called, The day of Evil.  Arminius. 
Do your Brethren ●rge this 〈◊〉 to prove, that God maketh 〈◊〉 men to be wicked? If so, how th●●, 〈◊〉 they free God, from being the 〈◊〉 of Sin? A Paradox, or rather a blaspheme my (
e As D. Fulk in his defence of the English Translation. pag. 500 D. Whitak contra Duraeum. 1. 8. pag. 524  besides that diverse of themselves shame, at least in words, to be reputed Patroness thereof) directly repugnant to other Texts of Scripture, 〈◊〉 where it is said: 
f Psalm. 5.  Non Deus volens i●●quitatem●tues. Thou art a God, that wo●●dest not iniquity. Is it not their intention to draw the foresaid Inference 〈◊〉 those words? To what end then 〈◊〉 they allege it, since it is then in 〈◊〉 respect most impertinently urged? Ho● do they extricate themselves out of this Labyrinth?  
Therefore for the better deprehending the true Construction of the foresaid passage, we are to conceive, that Gods making, or creating of man in the former words hath reference to man's Materiality (if I may use that word) that 〈◊〉 to him, as he is man, abstracting him from his Morality; but it hath no reference to his wickedness: so man (as he 〈◊〉 man) is created by God, but as Man is ●icked, he cannot be said to be created ●f him; since in this later sense God ●●ould be the cause and Author of his ●●ckednes, whereas his wickedness is ●●om himself. And so if he be wicked, ●●en God ordaineth him to the day of Evil, that is, to the day of punishment; ●nd this he doth, for himself, that is, for 〈◊〉 own glory. The like saying by Ana●●gy, may be used of Princes, who may 〈◊〉 a restrained sense) be said to ordain Malefactors to punishments; 〈◊〉 yet the Princes are neither willing, ●or Authors of their Subject's offences. This our exposition of the former place 〈◊〉 so natural and genuine, as that it is acknowledged for true by 
g In his Decades in English p. 404.  Builinger, 
h In Method. Theolog. pag. 438.  Hiperius, and Philp 
i ●n his disput Theolog. de Prouiden●ia 〈◊〉. sect. 1●7.  Marbachius, all learned Protestants.  Enthusiastus. 
What Answer Arminius can be given to that (at least seeming) pregnant Text: 
k Rom. 9  Hath not the Potter 
* M. Wille● i● Synops. 554.  power over the clay, even of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God wit●ing to show his wrath etc. suffered with long patience the vessels of wrath, ordained to 〈…〉 Now this place seemeth to ●●ict 〈◊〉 God even without any provision 〈…〉 ordaineth some men (being 〈◊〉 the Mass, or Lump of mankind) 〈◊〉 damnation.  Arminius. 
I will be partly silent herein, & A●stin, with some learned Brethren of 〈◊〉 own, & the Apostle himself shall 〈◊〉 were thereto for me. And first I 〈◊〉 Austin to paraphrase this Text in 〈◊〉 words: 
l Epist. 100LS. ad Paulinum. & epist. 105. ad Sixtum.  Haec Massa etc. If this 〈◊〉 (he meaning the Mass, or Lump●● whereof the Apostle speaketh) were 〈◊〉 indifferent, that as it deserved no good, 〈◊〉 so it deserved no Evil; not without cause i● might be thought iniquity, that thereof there should be made certain vessels to dishonour▪ But seeing, that by the Freewill of the first man, the whole Mass did become guilty of Condemnation, it is without doubt of God's mercy, that thereof are made certain Vessels to honour etc. and of his Iudg●●●● (meaning his justice) that other 〈◊〉 are made to dishonour. Thus far Austin According to whose judgement we 〈◊〉 that it is not God's absolute 〈◊〉 without respect to man's wickedness o'erseen; but it is Sin, which is the ●●use, why some vessels are made to ●●●honour, or damnation.  
Now Hyperius (a learned Prote●●ant) shall further answer for me, ●ho saith, That 
m In Method. Theolog. l. 2. pag. 438.  the long patience (mentioned in the Text) wherewith God suffered the Vessels of wrath, demonstrateth, that they were created good, and afterward 〈◊〉 came evil of their proper will; They being ●ade vessels of wrath, because voluntarily they were to become Evil. Thus Hiperius: So certain it is, that their Creation of being Vessels was of God; but being Vessels of wrath, was from their sins foreseen.  
I will conclude this point even with the Apostles explanation of this place, who expressly saith; That 
n 2. Tim.  if a Vessel unto dishonour, shall cleanse itself, it shall become a Vessel unto Honour: So far was the Apostle from judging, that God did absolutely ordain any man to destruction and damnation, without respect and reference to his Sins and Impiety. Thus fare of this place, illustrated by the Apostle, Austin, and the former learned Protestant. And for the closure of all, I will alleyne to 〈◊〉 Authorities, my own Obseru● 〈◊〉 touching our Aduersarius, in this Controversy, their translating out of 〈◊〉 for their own advantage, these wor● Ordained to destruction; whereas it 〈◊〉 the Greek only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, Made apt to destruction. And according hereto, it is in the Latin T●● Apta ad interitum.  Enthusiastus. 
I cannot, nor will not reply again the Apostles judgement herein: But y●● there remain behind diverse 〈◊〉 passages of Scripture (as I may tear●● them) that a man can hardly fall vp●● them without danger: As where w● read: 
o Act. 1●.  As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed; implying hereby 〈◊〉 the restraint of the former words, that some were ordained to destruction.  Arminius. 
This Argument may be tak●● away several ways. First, because 〈◊〉 speaketh only of the Predestinate; 〈◊〉 touching (at least in words) the Rep●●●bate▪  
Secondly, that admitting, the ●ords of the Text were by sequel to concern the Reprobate: yet they prove ●ot (which is only the issuable point in ●his controversy to be proved) a real Reprobation, or ordaining to damnation without respect of Sin foreseen, but only a not ordaining to Mercy, or a dust dereliction of the wicked for their own Sins.  
Thirdly and lastly I say, That whereas these former words are delivered by S. Luke, & withal whereas our Adversary's Inference here is, That those, who did not then believe, were ordained to damnation: now to dream, that the opinion of our Adversaries should be the true meaning of S. Luke, is (I will not say improbable, but) most absurd. My reason is this: The Text there showeth, that, 
p Act. 13.  The whole City came together to hear, viz: that Sermon. By which words it appeareth, that this assembly consisted of all sorts of persons, ●s young, old, women, men etc. Now who is so stupid as to think, that of all that great concourse, they only were saved, who at that time were conuer●ed by that Sermon? For shall we think that all the rest of that assembly 〈◊〉 Reprobates, and could not after be 〈◊〉 to the faith of Christ? So 〈…〉 you see (Enthusiastus) in a ●●●trutination of the words, this 〈◊〉 alleged. But proceed further; For ● assure myself, I shall not meet in all this discourse with any one Text, which will force my understanding; much less necessarily evict the point questioned.  Enthusiastus. 
I take your Answer as partly satisfying; but because there are some f●● Texts behind, which by my near ●●tercourse among my Brethren, I 〈◊〉 heard them produced by them, with great confidence in proof of Reprobation; Therefore I am loath to 〈◊〉 them over in silence, without hearing from yourself, what Constructions you and your party do give of them.  
The next therefore shallbe 〈◊〉 passage, which my Brethren have 〈◊〉 vaunting words ever much prised, 〈◊〉 therefore I should be the more willing to receive a sufficient and irrepli●●●● answer thereto. The T●●● i● this: 
q Rom. ●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serve the younger; I loved jacob, 〈◊〉 hated Esau. From which words 〈◊〉 infer, that God even from his ●●others womb hated Esau, and therefore without regard of his evil works ●●d reprobate him.  Arminius. 
Indeed this is the Masterpiece in all your shops. But I hope (Enthus.) shallbe able to give you full satisfaction herein; whereby you may partly resemble this passage to lightning and thunder, which are fearful to the eye, ●nd do but seldom hurt. And first I ●ay, that if there were no other Answer then this following, yet it were sufficient. We know, that S. Peter admonisheth us, that 
r 2. Pet. 3.  in Paul's Epistles are ●hings hard to be understood. Now, among other places of this nature, this passage of Scripture touching jacob and Esau, was ever accounted the most difficult. Hear than I demand, what equity or ●eason is it, that this one place (being fraught with obscurity and spinosity) should seem in any man's judgement, to frustrate and make void so many most ●leare, evident, and illustrious Texts urged to the co●●r●●y? 〈…〉 said: 
s 2. Pet. 3.  He would not, that any 〈…〉, but all to repent. Again; 
t Ezech. ●8.  〈…〉 not the death of him that d●●th; but 
u Ezech. 33.  〈◊〉 he turn from his ways, and live; 〈◊〉 many other like most express 〈◊〉 moneys, hereafter by 〈◊〉 to be insis●● upon.  
Secondly, I say, that if we admi● this hatred of God to Esau; yet this 〈◊〉 hatred is not to be taken Positively, 〈◊〉 even as the 
x See Christmannus in his diagraphe Electionis. pag. 78. and S●ecanus in his Method. descript. pag. 517.  learned Protestants 〈◊〉 explain, Negatively, that is to say, 〈◊〉 not to love, or not to have mercy: And ●●cording to this my construction, 〈◊〉 find diverse examples in Scripture, 〈◊〉 fearing the like interpretation, as wh●●● it is said: 
y Luc. 14.  If any man come to me, 〈◊〉 hate not his Father and Mother etc. 〈◊〉 again (besides diverse such oth●● 〈◊〉 
z john. 12.  He that hateth his life, shalt keep●● etc. in all which places, the word, 〈◊〉 hate, or Hatred, doth only signify 〈◊〉 Not laving of life, & Parents, accord●●● to acertaine measure and respect, 〈◊〉 not, a Positive hostile hatred.  
Thirdly I answer, that supp●●● that in the foresaid sentence, I loved 〈◊〉 cob, and hated Esau, the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken, positively; yet this Hatred cannot be understood of Esau, as he is God's Creature; for we read, ●hat, 
a Wisdom. 11.  of those things, which he made, 〈◊〉 ●dted none: much less than man, who was made 
b Gen. 1.  according to his own image: but this Hatred is to be understood only of the Sin of Esau, as even 
c Beza in his display of Popish practices▪ pag 17. thus saith: We both confess, that God condemneth nothing in men but guiltiness.  Beza acknowledgeth, which Sin God did foreknow, but did never make. Now that God's foresight and hatred of Esau his Sin (which point this Text only proveth) is not repugnant to Freewill in Esau, is made clear above, by my former reconciling of Freewill with God's foreknowledge, and prevision.  
Lastly I reply, that even according to the judgements of 
d Gesnerus in disput acpro lib. Concord. p. 620 & SIXPENCES. Christmannus in his Diagraphe Electionis. c. 9 p. 72. 73● 7●. Kimodon●n●s in his Redemption of mankind. p. ●94.  diverse learned Protestants: and as the contexture of the place showeth, the first part thereof is taken out of 
e Genis. 25.  Genesis, the second part out of 
f Malach. 1.  Malachy; and that there fore, as the context of Malachy & other words of Genesis do further make evident, the whole sentence above alleged touching jacob and Esau, is to be understood only of the several posterities of jacob and Esau: to wit, of the felicity of the one, and the infelicity or calamity of the other: under which two ●●sterities the different states of the 〈◊〉 & Gentiles are adumbrated & shadowe●. But because the displaying of this poi●● is of itself not conducing to our Question in hand, and requireth a fare longer discourse, than the shortness of th●● time will afford: therefore I purposely forbear to enlarge myself further therein. And thus munch now above said, concerning your Gordians knot, which you, and other of your Brethren thin●● so hard to lose and dissolve.  Enthusiastus. 
Learned Arminins. I fear, that heretofore I did much undervalue you: & I rest fully satisfied with your great variety of Answers to the former Authority: and hereafter I shall never take it as a convincing Text for the proof of Reprobation. But now after I have alleged all the chief Texts (as I take 〈◊〉) which seem immediately and expressly to concern Reprobation or damnation, without prevision of works▪ there remain some other behind, which are urged by diverse, but this by way o● inference and deduction only, for 〈◊〉 proof of the said point of Reprobation: which I will propose to you, to receive your solutions of them. Of which number the first sort of Texts seemeth to prove, that God hardeneth the hart of of man, so as he cannot exercise virtue, or obtain his own Salvation. As where it is said: 
f Exod. c. 11.  God hardened the hart of Phara●. In like manner, we read: 
g john. 11.  Therefore they could not believe, because as Esay said: He hath blinded their eyes, & hardened their hart. And more fully: 
h Esay. 63.  Why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts? And lastly (besides many other like sayings:) 
i Rom. ●●  Ne delivered them up into a reprobate sense.  Arminius. 
To these I answer, that God is said to harden man's hart, not positively (to use the School men's former Dialect) but only Negatively; that is, as 
k Epist. 105. ad Sixtum.  Austin teacheth, not by giving malice, but by not affoarding him grace: Since God in respect of man's former sins withdraweth his Grace; and through that forbearance of his Grace, man's hart is said to be hardened. Thus this Induration is not properly God 〈◊〉 but only by his permission▪ but it is 〈◊〉 own Act. This Construction is consonant to the judgement of the Anci●●● Fathers▪ For even Caluin himself (〈◊〉 elsewhere is said) speaking of Induration, thus confesseth, of the Fathers 
l justit. l. ●. c. 4. sect. 3.  All the Ancient Fathers were afraid 〈◊〉 confess the truth of this matter: And Austin truly was not free sometimes from thi● superstition▪ as where he saith▪ that Induration and excecation pertain not to 〈◊〉 working of God, but to his fore knowledge▪ Yea which is more, diverse 
m Melancthon in loc. Com. de c●us● Poccati & Couting. Bulling●● in his Decades in English pag. 49●. 49●. 〈◊〉 Polanus in Partition. Theolog. l. ●. pag. 75. 76 Besides diverse others.  learn●● Protestants do expound with me 〈◊〉 heardning of Pharao's heart, to be 〈◊〉 the Act of God, but only his permissio●●.  
Now, that God's Permission should be called his work, is frequent and obvious in the Scripture; a● where Esay● saith: 
n Esay 6.  Make the hart of this people 〈◊〉 and shut their eyes. Which point in Esay▪ S. john delivereth in like words, saying: 
o john 12.  He hath blinded their eyes. Yet our 
p Math. 1●.  Saviour, and 
q Act. 28.  S. Paul alleging th● same saying out of Esay, instead of th● former words, say only▪ They 〈◊〉 blinded their eyes; so referring this blindness, to the Act of themselves, and 〈◊〉 to the Act of God, but only by permis●●ion. In like sort, God is said to have 
r job. 1. & 2.  afflicted job. And yet it is clear by perusing the History, that God only permitted the Devil to afflict him. Yea which ●● more, concerning▪ the very Text above alleged touching the hardening of Pharaos' heart; it is else where explay●ed and expressly said: 
s Exod. ●.  That, Pharaoh did harden his own heart.  
Therefore to conclude this point, Induration is not properly the work of God, but only his permission, and forsaking the party for precedent Sins. Which reason of Induration is particularly alleged by the Prophet in these words▪ 
t Psalm. 81.  My people would not hear my voice, and Israd would none of me, so I gave ●hem up to the darkness of their Hart. And ●hus fare in answer of all such Texts, which do seem to imply, that God 〈◊〉 Hurden the Hart of man, or deliver him up to a Reprobate sense.  Enthusiastus. 
I take this your solution most sorting to the Analogy of Faith, expressed in other passages of Scripture by you alleged, as also concordant to the judgement both of the Ancient Fathers, 〈◊〉 diverse learned Protestant. But to proceed further: I have often heard alleged in proof of Reprobation, that in 〈◊〉 betraying of Christ, judas and the oth●● wicked with him, did (as the T●●● saith) 
u Act. 4.  What the hand and Council of God decreed to be. And further it is said ●● 
x Act. ●.  Him etc. being delivered by the determinate Council of God, have you crucified▪ These places make overture, that God even ordained judas, and the rest of those consorting jews, by the production of Christ, to damnation.  Arminius. 
In full Answer hereto, I must ●●●cur to certain principles in divinity▪ acknowledged by all learned 
y Bucanus in loc. Com. lib. 36. pag. 404. Amandus' Polanus in Partition. Theolog. l. 1. p. 73. & 70. D. Whit. contra Duraum. l. 8. pag. ●27.  Protestants; to wit, that in every wick●● Action, we are to consider (as 〈◊〉 where is showed) what is therein Positive or Material, and to distinguish ●● separate it from the malice or deformity, which is in every said wicked Action▪ That which is Material (as having in itself an Entity or Being, proceed●●● from God, in whom it is said, 
z Act. ●7.  W● live and move. But the Malignity o●●●●●●rmity in every wicked Action, is in it ●●lfe (as being a deviation from the ●●ue use of Reason) a mere privation, or ●fect, and hath no Entity or being; and consequently doth not proceed from God; since as 
a L. 1●. de Civit. Dei. c. 7.  Austin truly teacheth: Privations and defects have no Efficient, but a deficient Cause▪ And therefore such privations, or defects proceed only from ourselves.  
Now to apply this doctrine to the Authority urged; certain it is, that the death and Passion of our Saviour was of God, for the Redemption of mankind; But the prodition and particular Impiety of judas and his Complices, in putting our Saviour to death, was of themselves, and not of God, nor his Council, will, or causing, but of their own malice against Christ: Which malice of judas and the rest, God did foreknow, and suffer, but never willed or decreed it. Therefore Sitzlinus (a learned Protestant) writeth well of these former Texts, thus saying: 
b In disputat. Theolog. de providentiâ Dei etc. sect. ●44.  The words (Hand and Counsel) signify the good and healthyfull End, for which God permitted that wicked fact of the jews, which he did neither assist nor allow. Thus you see, that from the former 〈◊〉 we cannot 〈◊〉, that God in cited or caused Iuda● 〈◊〉 commit that wicked act, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it be●ing committed through his own 〈◊〉 impious mind and disposition, God 〈◊〉 his Hand, and Counsel, did turn it 〈◊〉 man's good. And thus much touching the Hand and Counsel of God in the 〈◊〉 of judas, and his Complices. But proceed further.  Enthusiastus. 
What say you (Arminius) to 〈◊〉 often objected place: 
c Math.  ●ead us▪ 
* Objected by D Fulke against the Rhem. Testam. in Math. c. o.  〈◊〉 into temptation? Now these words may●● seem to import, (or otherwise we should not pray for the preventing of it) that God sometimes leadeth man into temptation of Sin, & consequently● prepareth the way to his damnation▪ and the rather seeing these form●●● words make show to import, not only 〈◊〉 Permission, but even an Actual leading● into temptation.  Arminius. 
The answer to this place is implicitly and potentially included in th●● Answer above given, touching In●●●●ration of Pharaoh above objected, and ●●erefore the true sense of these words 〈◊〉▪ Suffer us not to be led into temptation ●f Sin, by withdrawing thy grace from us. Which exposition is most sorting to other passages of Scripture, as where it is 〈◊〉: 
d 1. Cor. 10.  Not suffering us to be tempted a●oue our power; but with the temptation maketh way to escape, that we may be able to ●eare it. In like sort S. james saith: 
e james▪ 1.  Let no man, when he is tempted, say, that he is tempted of God, for God is not a tempter of evils; And he hath tempted no man, but every one is tempted of his own Concupiscence etc. But go on (Enthusiastus.)  Enthusiastus. 
I proceed further. I have read some of ours to urge these Texts following: 
f Esay 45.  I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create Evil. Again, it is thus written: 
g Amo● 7.  Shall there be any Evil in the City, which the Lord hath not done? Where, by creating darkness, may be understood, to create man to eternal darkness.  Arminius. 
In answer. To these Texts you may con●ea●●, that 
h Decad. pag. 40●.  Bullinger, and 
i In Method. Theolog. p. 438.  〈◊〉 perius (two eminent Protestants) 〈◊〉 teach even out of Austin, that they 〈◊〉 to be understood, De malo porna, non 〈◊〉 malo culpa; That is, Of the evil of punishment, not of the evil of Sin: to whos● judgement 
k ●n volume. 1. Thesium Theolog. p. 175. 176. & 20●.  Piscator also (no vulg●●● Protestant) subscribeth. The exposition given by the former Protestan●● and me, of these said places is so allowed by the judgements of other of our own Brethren, that even the same places are so commented in the Marginal Annotations of the English Translation of the Bibles of the year 1576. So as there shall not be any need to answer more touching the same. But yet let us hear of some more of your objected Texts.  Enthusiastus. 
I do assure you, I am wearied (and I think also I have wearied you ●● in these my allegations; and the rat●●r, ●● seeing I find them all so probably (〈◊〉 speak the least) if not fully, answered by you.  
Therefore I will conclude this my Scene of objecting with alleging these following; As how it is said; 〈◊〉 
l ●. Samuel 24.  God caused 
* Objected by Calu. in Instit. l. 2. c. ●8.  David to number the people. That, 
n ●. Samuel 16.  God commanded Semei ●●curse David; And 
o ●. Regum. 22.  appointed Sa●in to be a false Spirit in the mouth of 〈◊〉 Prophets: Besides many other passages of like nature. Now these and the like Texts do seem in diverse of our brethren's judgements to prove, that God would not cause these actions in ●en, which are predestinated to Salvation, but only in the Reprobate.  Arminius. 
Hear again (as in some of the former I have done) I will interpose the judgements of diverse learned Protestants (as a shield) between the former Texts and me; yet before I come to their express Testimonies therein, I must advertise you (Enthusiastus) of two things: The first is, that many things, which are done only by the permission of God, himself (according to the phrase and Dtalect of the Scripture) is said to do; as above I noted touching Pharaos' induration.  
Secondly, you may be advertised, that when God suffereth man to do any thing to this or that particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (by the like form of speech i● Scripture) is said to cause or command 〈◊〉 doing of it, as is ●as where noted. 〈◊〉 to apply these two observations to 〈◊〉 former passages of Scripture: And 〈◊〉 touching God commanding David 〈◊〉 number the People; it is explained 〈◊〉 where in express words, that 
p 1. Chro. ●●.  S●●tan provoked David to number them; So evident it is, that the numbering of th● People was the work of Satan persua●ding thereto, and not the work of God, but only by his permission; & according to this my Answer, the Marginal notes of the English Bibles of anno 157●▪ upon this place do thus comment: The Lord permitted Satan etc. And to this ou● exposition Austin accordeth touching S●mei in these words: 
q L. de gra. & libero arbitrio. c. ●0.  Quomodo dixer●● Dominus Semci maledicere David etc. 〈◊〉 the Lord spoke to Semei to curse David &c▪ this is to be understood, non iubendo, not by commanding Semei etc. For if Semei 〈◊〉 obeyed the Lord commanding him, the● there were reason, why he should be 〈◊〉 praised, then punished.  
In like sort, john Know speaking of the Tyranny of Pharaoh, an 〈◊〉 ●●●●sing of Semei, thus writeth: 
r Against the Aduessaries of God's predestination. p. 374.  Nei●her to Pharaoh, neither to Semei, nor to any ●●ther reprobate doth God give either wicked commandment, or evil thoughts. The ●ruth of which Answer God himself making mention of the sinful actions of the People) may seem to seal up in these his words▪ 
s Hierom. ●●▪  I commanded it not, ●or spoke it; neither came it into my mind. So much are men deceived in dreaming, that God should either command, or cause sin.  
But Enthusiastus, before I end this passage I would demand of you the rea●on, (as above I did) why your party ●o allege these last Texts, and some others above objected by you; to wit, ●ouching Gods leading us into Temptation, touching the Induration of Pharaos' hart, touching judas his prodition of our Saviour & c? If they be alleged by your side, to prove that God i● the cause and procurer of those sinful Acts, tending to man's Reprobation, (as it seems they are to that end alleged;) how then can you and yours exclude God (as afore I urged, touching some Texts above insisted by you) from ●●ing Author of Sin, a confessed blaspheney, and 〈◊〉 such 〈◊〉 
t Contra Duraeum, l. 8, p. 524.  D. whitaker's, 
u In his defence of the English Translation pag. 500  D. Fulke, and 〈◊〉 most learned Protestants? If the 〈◊〉 said passages be not produced to 〈◊〉 former end, than they in no sort 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Reprobation.  Enthusiastus. 
I grant Arminius, I cannot sufficiently to my own satisfaction reply thereto: and to speak more fully 〈◊〉 confess the consideration of this 〈◊〉 so seeming necessary inference, hath oftentimes strongly assaulted my ●●●gement to give assent, that God is 〈◊〉 Author of Sinne. Yea which is mo●● I have often insisted in this consequen●● to many learned men of my side: 〈◊〉 any of them would ever yield in ●●presse words, that God was the Author of Sin: But when upon 〈◊〉 their words I replied, how then 〈◊〉 God be said to obdurate Pharao's 〈◊〉 to lead us into temptation; to cause tomeis to curse David▪ and to cause or p●●cure infallibly these and the like 〈◊〉 wicked Actions, specified in 〈◊〉 the former Texts, commonly all 〈◊〉 for proof of Reprobation ● and 〈◊〉 notwithstanding all this, it should not ●●llow, that God were the Author of ●inne? They (I well remember) would answer this my propounded difficulty several ways, whose Answers I will at this present relate to you, to know how far the said Answers in your level do carry: or whether in your judgement, they are satisfactory to take away your former dangerous illation.  
Some prime men do first answer, That, 
x Beza in his display of Popery. pag. 11●.  Whatsoever God doth, is good: He doth all things; all things therefore ●●re good, as they be done of him: And the difference of good or evil hath place only in ●he instruments. And thus they teach, that such Actions, which are in man wicked, are notwithstanding in God most just and good. Others again would secondly salve the matter in this sort: 
y Aretius' in Loc. Com. pag. 130. & Swingl. tom. 1. do providentia Dei. c. 6. fol. 365.  We answer, God having no Superior, can have no law prescribed to him; And Sin hath only place, where there is a ●aw: from whence it followeth, that in the Astions of God, there is no Sinne. Others again shape a third solution, (so irresolute I did find them in their Answers) by distinguishing, that 
z D. Whitak. contr. Duraeum. ubi supra. l. 8. p. 527. Bucanu● in loc. Com●. loc. 36▪ pag, 4●4.  in ●uery sinful Action, what is Positive & Material is ever 〈…〉 above is touched) the 〈…〉, which is in every such action not of God, but of ourselves.  Arminius. 
All this your diversity of Answres solve not the difficulty above ●●●pounded: but they are mere ter give 〈◊〉 and subtle evasions of the 〈◊〉 handled. And to begin with 〈◊〉 your last Answer: if your compar●●● did mean nothing else, but that 〈◊〉 is material in a sinful action is of 〈◊〉 and the defect, privation, and impiety 〈◊〉 such action doth proceed 〈◊〉 man: then were the difficulty 〈◊〉 and the controversy at an end▪ but 〈◊〉 of your friends are so full 〈◊〉 in their sentences, of God being 〈◊〉 sole causer of our wicked actions as that the said sentences▪ are 〈◊〉 capable of this solution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(a) Swingl. ●om. 1. de provident. Dei. fol. 365.  find some of them thus to write▪ 〈◊〉 When we commit adultery, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the work of God▪ being the 〈…〉, and inciter.  
Hear you see, that not only 〈◊〉 is material in these actions, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and deformity in them, is ascribing to God; as the Author thereof. And 〈◊〉: 
b Swingl. ubi supra.  The Thief, coactus est ad 〈◊〉, is forced to sin: And another 〈◊〉▪ 
c Beza in his foresaid display. pag. 202.  God exciteth the wicked will of 〈◊〉▪ The●fe to kill another. Where you see again, that the wickedness of the Will is attributed to God. And a third saith (to ●●mit diverse others) that, 
d Calu. Instit. l. 1. c. 18. sect. 2▪  Our sin's 〈◊〉 not on●y by God's permission, but by his decree and will: He so attributing both what is Material, and the Deformity in every Sin, to the decree and will of God, and consequently maketh God the Author thereof.  
Add hereto, That whereas diverse of our Adversaries do maintain, that (to deliver it in their own words) 
* Calu. l. 3. c. ●3. sect. 6. And by M. Perkins in his Treatise of God's free grace. pag. 148.  Whatsoever thing God doth foresee, the same he doth will, decree, and ordain to be done, so confounding his foreknowledge and prescience with his Predestination and Decree (a point above re●●●ted.) Now, I conclude from these men's doctrine, that God is the Author aswell of the Deformity, and Sin in every wicked action, as of what is Material and Positive therein, seeing he aswell foreknoweth the one, as the other.  
Now touching the other two ●●●ners of reconciling the former 〈◊〉; if so we but truly consider, what 〈◊〉 the touch of the point herein, the 〈◊〉 of those Answers will instantly (like a cloud before the Sun) vanis●▪ ●way: Since tho●e evasions show. That God is not Author of Sin, in himself (which all men freely grant) but they prove not, that God is not the Author of Sin in us (for this they touch not at all) which is the difficulty only here to be salved, and in which th●● Controversy consisteth.  
But I will conclude this point, and to show, how inexplicable (or rather contradictory) in itself it is, to maintain that God forceth & causeth Sin in man, and yet is not the Author thereof, Caluin shall speak for me, who is constrained thus to acknowledge hereof. 
e De aeterna Dei praedest. contra ●ighium, pag. ●18.  How God is not to be drawn into the fellowship of fault, as being the Author or allower of Transgression, let us not be ashamed to confess our ignorance, seeing▪ it is plain, that it is a secret far above man● understanding.  
And now having spoken, what I hold convenient to be said, touching this foul aspersion, of God being the author of Sin, how truly or untruly 〈◊〉 against some of our own Brothers the Protestants, I leave to other 〈◊〉 indifferency and impartiality to ●ensure; I would, Enthusiastus, know, whether you have finished your discourse in your objecting; or that you will draw other Arguments either from the Authority of the Ancient Do●●ours of Christ his Church, or from any other Head of proofs? For I am ●oath to encircle and confine your liberty within a lesser compass, than ●our self would desire.  Enthusiastus. 
Indeed Arminius it may be, that I could produce some appearing Arguments either from reason, or Authority of the Primitive Doctors, which 〈◊〉 an undiscerning eye might at the first perhaps seem of some force; but seeing I cannot find any one Text in Gods Holy word, to fortify the doctrine of Reprobation (if your former Answers to them be true and solid) therefore I must needs conclude, that all such other Arguments, which might be produced, would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than those 〈◊〉 drawn from 〈◊〉 Writ▪ In respect whereof▪ I ●eer 〈◊〉 from f●r 〈◊〉 objecting the burden 〈◊〉 which labours passed upon you.  Arminius. 
I accept of the pain ● most will 〈◊〉, and in 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 will still perseue●d in my 〈…〉 tho● of 〈◊〉 by degr●●● to the 〈◊〉 Scripture. Therefore my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authorities is taken, 〈◊〉 the Protestant's themselves (〈◊〉 of great ●●●●nency for learning) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 second and more serious review, 〈◊〉 a great aversion of judgement do wholly disau●●● and reject th●● Doctrine 〈◊〉 Reprobation, as most 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Honour and Mercy.  
The Protestants in so great 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full in this point, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for order's sake, I will allege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with us in this doctrine 〈◊〉 as ●●●●ching the Caluinists, I will begin 〈◊〉 with the Caluinists of Engla●●, you● Country men. First I 〈◊〉 M. 〈◊〉 thus waiting. 
f In Apocalyps. pag. 473.  Seeing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redemption, which taketh away the Sinnes the world, is an universal thing; it is demanded, whether the grace of this Redemption, ●● appertain equally to all the posterity of Adam, or be restrained to a certain ●umbers? I answer, that the incredulity of ●en, and ●● default of the Lamb maketh ●●is restraint. Thus M. Fox.  
D. Covell thus teacheth: 
g In his defence of M. Hooker. p. ●●. & 63.  Surely 〈◊〉 hath a general inclination to save all etc. And that with a conditional Will, he ●illeth all men to be saved, who therefore ●●at they are not saved, is not his decree, ●●t their own fault. M. Hooker is no ●●sse strong in this doctrine, saying: 
h In hi● Ecclesiast. Policy. p. 104.  ●ods general inclination is, that all men ●ight be saved. M. Gibbons discourseth ●ereof in this sort: 
i M. Gibb. in his quest. & disputat. upon Genes. quaest. 2. pag. 108.  Surely, there was no ●●use in God, either in his will, or in his knowledge or decree, that man should fall.  
That the doctrine of Universality ●f Grace, which importeth, that God af●●ardeth to every man sufficient Grace ●or his own Salvation) is entertained ●y diverse worthy men of your own ●●●lation (Enthusiastus) is so evident, that 〈◊〉. Willet taketh notice, & complaineth thereof in this manner: 
k D. Willet in his Synops. pa. 784.  Universality ●● grace seemeth much to be approved by 〈◊〉 Country men, and hath 〈◊〉 gotten some ●airo●es in our Church.  
But to come to the judgement 〈◊〉 the learned Coluinicts of other Countries▪ Hemingi●s (that learned Caluini●●●) dis●ours●th of Reprobation, maintayn●● by his Adversaries in this▪ full man 〈◊〉 
l Heming. lib. de Vniversali gratis. pag. ●●●.  Pugnat cum verbo Deivocanti etc. Th●● Doctrine fighteth with the Word of God, calling and inviting all men to repentance▪ It maketh man partly sluggish, partly secure, and partly desperate; For many are 〈◊〉 to despair, whiles by this opinion is overthrown the doctrine of Universal Grace, in which all are commanded by faith to include themselves. For if we respect 〈◊〉 Cause, which is the Mercy of God in Christ● Grace is, truly Universal: But if we respect the event, which dependeth upon the fault of man, it is particular. Thus largely he disputeth hereof.  
Bullinger as fully intreateth of this point, saying: 
m Upon the Reuelat. englished cap 5. fol. 79.  The Lord died for 〈◊〉 but that all men are not made partakers of this Redemption, is through their own 〈◊〉 for the Lord excludeth no man. Yea Bulinger is so absolute in this doctrine, 〈◊〉 that he undertaketh to explain 〈◊〉 
n In his 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉▪ pag▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●●.  Induration of Pharaos' heart, & diu●●●lyke Texts of Scripture, produced against this our doctrine. But to proceed further: Amandus Polanus thus teacheth: 
o Amandus' Polanus, in partition. Theolog. p. 11. 12.  God by his conditional will would have all men saved. And further: 
p Ibid. p. 8.  God doth not cause, but permit men to fall into Sinne. And yet more: 
q Ibid. p. 7●.  God is not the cause of all things, that he forseeth. To conclude, Piscator is so great a Patron of our doctrine, as that he 
r Volume. 1. Thes. Theolog. pag. 174. 175.  allegeth diverse Scriptures for the fortifying of his own Opinion therein; as also answereth diverse Texts of Scripture, objected by our Adversaries.  
Now touching the Lutherans, We find, that 
s In Enchirid. p. 158.  Kempnitius, 
t In Respons. Bez. ad Colloq. Montis●elg. part● alt●ra. pag. 25●.  jacobus Andraeas, 
u In Theolog. Calu. l 1. Art. ●●.  Conradus Schlussenburg, 
x In disput. pr● lib. Concord. pag. 60. 61. 6●.  Ges●erus, the 
y Cent. ●. l. 2. c. 4.  Century Writers, The 
z In the Harm. of the Confess. in English. pag. 268. 269.  Confession of Auspurg, 
a In loc. Com. p. 140.  Manlius, 
b In Syntagm. ●x Nou▪ Testam. Col. 109. ●10▪ & 111.  Wigandus, 
c In disput. Theolog. disput. 1. p. 24. & disput. ●1. p. 507.  Lobechius, 
d In loc▪ Com. come▪ 1. de pr●dest. fol. 29. 3●. ●2.  Sarcerius, 
e In Margar●t. Theolog. pag. ●96.  Adamus Francisci, and (to omit many others) even the learned Melancthon, to conspire with us herein. Which Melancthon, though for a time he was devoted to the contrary doctrine, yet in his later days he wholly disavowed his said doctrine, and agreeth with the former Lutherans therein: For thus he writeth: 
f In Concil. Theolog part. 2. p. ●●●.  Falsa & detestanda accusatio est etc. That accusation is false, and to be 〈◊〉 tested, which saith: God sinneth not, tho● 〈◊〉 he helpeth the wicked to perpeirate their ●●pietyes, because (say 〈◊〉 men) God 〈◊〉 above the Law, it is lawful for him to 〈◊〉 what he pleaseth. And then further: 〈◊〉 tetram vocem etc. O bad saying! For neither God willeth at any time, nor causeth 〈◊〉 works, contradicting and repugnant to his Law.  
And again: 
g Vbi supra. pag. ●●●.  Addunt & hoc, argumentum etc. The foresaid men do adjoin this argument: To wit: All things are done, God seeing and determining the●● etc. But let us persevere ever in this sentence or opinion, that God neither willeth nor affecteth, nor approveth Sinne. Thus fa● of the Protestants judgements in this point; omitting for the avoiding of prolixity the like Authorities of many other Protestants of Eminency: Of whom some do call this doctrine of our Adversaries, 
h Melancth. in loc. Com. de causa peccati.  Hurtful to manners, Others, 
i Christmannus in Diagraphe Elect. pag. 94.  Wicked. Again, Others, (k) Blasphemous. And finally, Others (l) Horrendum dogma, & horrendum auditu.  Enthusiastus. 
I had little thought, before this instant▪ that so great a troompe of learned protestants, had with such an vnani●●ous consent maintained, this your doctrine. But I see, your allegations of ●●em are so precise and punctual, that ●f force I must give way thereto. But 〈◊〉 me entreat you to proceed to o●her proofs.  Arminius. 

(k) Rungius in disput. quindecim ex epist. Pauli ad Corinth. posteriori disput. 14.  In this next place I come to the Fathers. Whose judgement herein is a●oue discovered, touching their judgement in the doctrine of Freewill: seeing (as is above often said) the doctrine of Reprobation, or Predestination is included, 
(l) And●aeas. in epitome. Colloq. M●n●●sbelg pag. 54.  or rather impugned, in the doctrine of Freewill. But to take a little ●tast or delibation of some Father's particular sayings: Thus we found Austin to write: 
m Austin. ad Articul▪ sibi falso imposit. Art. 10.  Detestan la etc. It is a hateful and abominable opinion to believe, that God is the author of any evil will, or action. Vincentius Lyrinensis thus fully writeth hereof: 
n ●. adverse. Haeres. post medium.  Who before Novatianus taught, that God would rather the death of him that dieth, then that he should return and live? Which Father also further saith: 
o V●●. c●nt. Lyri●. ubi supra.  Who before Simon Magus etc. was bold to affirm, God the Creator, to be 〈◊〉 Author of our wicked deeds? Thus you see, these doctrines (to no small blemish of them) take their beginning from Simon Magus, and the Heretic Novatianus.  
But this point of further producing particular Testimonies of the Fathers, willbe not much needful; seeing the learned Protestants (our Adversaries in this doctrine) confess fully thereof: For 
p Beza, in his display, etc. pag. 2●7.  one of them taxeth & reprehendeth Chrysostome, Cyrill, Origen, & others for their different doctrine to them touching Reprobation. And another thus in express words confesseth hereof: (an acknowledgement above alleged) 
q Calulustis. l. 2. c. 4. sect. 3.  Veteres omnes etc. All the Ancient Fathers were afraid to confess the truth in this matter; And Austin truly was not free from this superstition; as where he saith, that Induration and Execation pertain not to the working of God, but to his forknowledge. Thus much for greater brevity, touching the Ancient Fathers herein.  Enthusiastus. 
You may then rise to your other proofs; for these your former Authorities taken from the Protestants, and the Fathers thus fare most evidently carry; that is, that both the Protestant's and the Fathers (next above by you alleged) do agree with you in doctrine, touching Reprobation.  Arminius. 
Well before I arrive up to the Holy Scriptures, I will touch a little upon the ancient jews, who as afore teaching the Freedom of man's will, must therein (as is above often inculcated) necessarily teach our doctrine of Universality of Grace, and the impugning of Reprobation; but how fare the jewish Rabbins are engaged in this our doctrine, it will easily appear from the acknowledgements of 
r In Anno●. in Exod. ● 7.  Munster and 
s In Epist. ad Romanos. c. 9  Peter Martyr; both which confess, that those Rabbins did ascribe the iuduration and hardening of Pharaos' heart only to God's permission, and not as to his proper act or work.  
Now, in regard of these two eminent Protestants confessions in this point, it will be less needful to insist in the particular Authorities of the said jews: but I will content myself with the alleging only 〈◊〉 (that 〈◊〉 learned and grave jew) his words. Th●●● than Philo w●it●th: 
t In lib. de confusione linguarum.  Ipsi e●iim patints etc. It was not convenient or seemingm th●● the powerful God should prepare in the ●●●tionall Soul the way to vice etc. Therefore it remaineth to be considered, that God is the cause only of good, but not of any Evil. And again he thus further discourseth: 
u Lib. de Profugis.  Therefore let ●o wicked act, being perpetrated by affected diligence of man, be reputed or said to proceed from the sentence of God▪ but from our own proper will. And thus briefly touching the judgement of the jews in this Controversy.  Enthusiastus. 
Well Arminius. You have riveted the truth of your doctrine herein by many humane Testimonies, the which I greatly presume are not capable of any sufficient Reply, admitting the said Testimonies to be sortable to the word of God▪ Therefore I much covet, that you hasten to your scriptural proofs, since they are to preponderate all other kinds of proofs whatsoever.  Arminius. 
Now I come to them; and as I said 〈◊〉 of humane Authorities above alleged, in confirmation of Freewill, that they did consequently impugn our adversary's doctrine touching Reprobation: ●o with much more reason may I say, that all the former divine passages heretofore produced, to maintain the doctrine of Freewill: do by necessary inference & deduction overthrew the adversaries said doctrine of Reprobation. Therefore passing over all such former divine Authorities touching Freewill: I will near insist in such Texts of Scripture, as do immediately and expressly impugn this your doctrine of Reprobation.  
And first, I will insist in those Texts, which teach, that God would have all▪ men saved. That done I will descend to such passages, which show, that God was incarnated and suffered death for the saving of All mankind. And to begin with the first sort of proofs. The Prophet Ezechiel in most full manner, and in several places contesteth the truth hereof, thus saying: 
x Ezech. 18.  Have I any desire, that the wicked should die, 〈◊〉 the Lord? Again. 
y Ezech. ubi supra.  Cast away from 〈◊〉 all your Transgressions etc. for I desire 〈◊〉 the death of him, that dyeth▪ Yea 〈◊〉 this Prophet deposeth (as it were) 〈◊〉 intention herein, with a● mo●● vehement ingemination in these 〈◊〉 
z Ezech. 3●.  As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked: but that 〈◊〉 wicked turn from his ways & live 〈◊〉 you, turn you from your ●uill ways 〈◊〉 why will you die▪ O ye house of Israel?  
Again (to leave this Proph●●) do we not find the Prophet I say to 〈◊〉 in the like Dialect (
a Isa. 5.  Text above 〈◊〉 god) saying in the person of God? 〈◊〉 judge I pray you between my Vine & 〈◊〉 what more could I have do●e for it▪ that I have not done? Wherefore then hath it given thorns▪ and I looked for grapes? In like sort the Evangelist (to show 〈◊〉 nothing is wanting on God's side 〈◊〉 man's salvation) thus speaketh of 〈◊〉: 
b Reuelat. 2.  He gave her a time, that she might repent, and she will not repent. And 〈◊〉 this end it is said (I mean, that m●● by leaving their sins, might purchase salvation) by the former Evangelist, that 
c Reuelat. ●.  God standeth at the door (vi● 〈◊〉 our hearts) and knocks; if any will open, ●● will enter into him, and sup with him. And therefore in respect of Gods proceeding herein, it is no wonder, that S. Peter speaketh thus of all men in general: 
d 2. Petr. 3. and see 1. Thessaly. c. 5.  God is not willing, that any perish, but that all return to repentance.  
Now to come to the second kind of Texts, which show, that the end of God's Incarnation and Passion, was the salvation of All men, sorting here to we read: That, 
e john. 1.  God took away the sin●●● of the World; 
f john. 4.  That, He was a Sa●●our of the World; That, 
g 1. Tim. 2.  He gave himself a Redemption for All; That 
h Hebr. ●.  He ●●sted death for All. Finally, that 
i ●. john. ●.  He 〈◊〉 a reconciliation for our Sins; and not ●or ours only, but also for the Sins of the ●hole world. Now whither tend all these ●ost forcing (and indeed most comfortable) passages of Scripture, but to ●●oue, that God for his part createth ●ot any man to damnation, but would ●●ue all men saved; and that for the accomplishing of the same end (if so sinners themselves would) he became incarnated, and suffered death?  
And that no man shall think, that Christ died only for the Elect (and Christ's 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 〈…〉 saith▪ 
k ●. Cor. ● 8. & Rom. ●4.  The 〈◊〉 brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ for whom Christ 〈◊〉. And again: 
l 1. Tim. 4.  Christ is the 〈◊〉 of All men, especially 〈…〉 
(m) 2. Pet. ●.  yet more, speaking of 〈…〉. They deny hi● 〈…〉 bringing upon them speedy 〈…〉 also: 
n Esay. ●●.  Th● Angel of 〈…〉 th●m, and in 〈…〉 etc. But they 〈…〉 Spirit; and therefore he 〈…〉 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 
o Heb. ●0.  Wh● hath trodden 〈…〉 of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and esteeme● 〈◊〉 blaud of 〈…〉 i● 〈…〉 don● 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Ye● then the Wick●● 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 than the blood of the 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 for the Wicked.  
Thus you see (Enthusiastus) 〈…〉 these passages of Scripture do assure that Christ's passion was 〈◊〉 not only for the Elect, but also 〈◊〉 Wicked; if so the wicked will not through their continuance in their ●innes, deprive themselves of the bene●●t thereof; and consequently, that God doth not out of his absolute decree Reprobate any man to damnation.  Enthusiastus. 
Worthy Arminius. I will not forbear to relate, what I have heard answered (or rather objected) by some of our own learned Brethren to most of these Texts, touching Gods will to have all men saved. They have shaped a double Answer hereto. First, they demand, 
* So urged by Kimmedon●ius in his Redemption of Mankind. p. ●●●.  how cometh it to pass, that ●f so God would have all men saved, why then are not all men saved, since it ●s said of God: 
p Psalm. ●●5.  He doth, whatsoever he ●will?  
Secondly, my Brethren do answer to the former Testimonies by distinguishing of the will of God. For they teach, that God hath a double Will, 
q So teacheth Beza in his display of Popish & c. p. 18●. 190. 191. Danaeus in Isagoge Christiana part. 4. l. 3. c. 38. And Kimedon●ius in his Redemption of Mankind englished. pag. 170 ● 162.  The one (say they) secret, fearful, and unsearchable; the other, the revealed Will of God in his Word: They upon this distinction further teaching: That, 
r Kimedoncius ubi supra.  God willeth not the death of a Sinner in his Will revealed in his Word, but 〈◊〉 his unsearchable Will. And in proof 〈◊〉 this double kind of Will in God, a l●●ned man on our side allegeth 〈◊〉 two seeming different sentences. 〈◊〉 
(*) Esay. 45.  Ego Deus, creans malum, And: Non D●volens iniquitatem Tu es, Thus fr●● hence inferring: 
s M. Willee in his Synops pag. 75●.  How shall these pla●● be reconciled to speak one truth, unless 〈◊〉 make a difference between the secret and squealed Will of God?  
Again, some others in 〈◊〉 that God hath both a revealed. Will 〈◊〉 the Word, and a secret Will also different from the former, do object, 〈◊〉 Gods revealed Will by his word was, 〈◊〉 Abraham should offer his Son 〈◊〉 the Mountain, where he had by his Secret Will disposed and determined otherwise. I confess (Arminius) that do not much rest upon these Answere● of my own Brethren, in regard of th● perspicuity of so many places of Scripture already alleged by you to th● contrary: Notwithstanding I have propounded them to you, to know what replies best sort to frustrate, and ta●● away these their said Answers.  Arminius. 
Enthusiastus believe me, They are ●o Answers, but subtle declynings ●f the former Texts. Therefore touching these supposed Answers, I will satisfy you according to my best endeavour. And first, as touching your ●emand, How chancheth it, that All-men 〈◊〉 not saved, if so God would have all men ●●●ed? To this I answer in the words of the learned Protestants themselves, who thus write: 
t A mandus ●olanus in partit. Theolog. l 1. pag. 10. And Piscator in Volume. 1. Thes. Theolog. p 174. Musculus in loc. Com. Loc. de voluntate Dei. p. 415. Hiperius in Method. Theolog. l. 1 p 1●6. Hemingius lib. de Vniversali Gratia. pag. 16. All which Protestant's do teach, that according to the former distinction, God willeth 〈◊〉 absolutely, and other things but Conditionally.  Voluntas Dei, est vel ●bsoluta, vel conditionalis etc. The Will of God is either absolute, or conditional. Now what God willeth absolutely, that ever ●ath its infallible event. But touching things willed by God Conditionally, thus the said men do further teach: The Conditional Will of God is that, by the which God willeth some things, but with an annexed Condition etc. By this his Conditional Will, God would have All men saved etc. Nimirum, si promissionibus etc. But with this Condition, if so they believe and obey the promises and preaching of the Gospel. And then after, the former Protestant saith of this Conditional Will of God: At nequaquamest simulata etc. But this Conditional Will is not 〈◊〉 feyte in God, ●s if God commanded 〈◊〉 things, which indeed he would not. Th● far the former learned Protestant▪  
To these former Protestants D. ●●uel thus subscribes in these words: 
u In his defence of M. Hooker pag. 62▪ 63  〈◊〉 With a Conditional Will, God willeth 〈◊〉 men to he saved, therefore that they are 〈◊〉 is not his decree, but their fault▪ he ther● meaning, because the Wicked will 〈◊〉 answer to God's Inspirations, 〈◊〉 keep his Commandments, and 〈◊〉 like. Thus you have your first▪ Answers refuted from the learned Protestant own pens: Whose doctrine herein 〈◊〉 warranted from many passages of Scripture, signifying Gods Condition●● Will, as where it is said: (as above 〈◊〉 touched.) 
x Revel 3  If any man will hear 〈◊〉 voice, and open the gate, he will sup 〈◊〉 him. And in likesort: 
y Ezech. ●●.  The wicked 〈◊〉 live, if he will turn from his ways, besides many other such sentences in Holy Scripture: in which God doth not compel or enforce our Wills, but affoarde●● to us Condition of 
z Deut. 30.  Choice, and 
a 1. Cor. 10.  〈◊〉 not suffer us to be tempted abouc that, whi●● we are able to bear. Thus though thielges have not ever their event, according to God's Conditional Will, the cause ●●●reof is not God, but ourselves not answering to his Conditional Will. Of which slacks in man, God himself complaineth, saying: 
b Ezech. 14.  I would have amansed thee, and thou art not clean. And again; 
c Isa. 65.  I called, but you would not answer, but did chase the things, which I ●ould not. And finally (to omit diverse uthers▪) 
d Math. 2●.  How often would I gather etc. 〈◊〉 thou wouldst not? Thus far in dis●●ouall of your first Answer to my ●ormer Authorities.  Enthusiastus. 
I well see the weakness of that first ●●asion; therefore I pray deliver your ●udgement touching the second Answer, consisting of the Secret Will of 〈◊〉, and of his Revealed Will in the Word.  Arminius. 
Touching this distinction of God's ●ill, I hold it to be a mere Phantas●●e, or Platonical Idea, forged only in ●●spaire of better satisfaction. Therefore I first answer, that if we do ad●●t God to have two mere contrary wills, and this truly and really; by 〈◊〉 One of which Wills (to wit, his Reu●●led Will) he seriously willeth, the Conversion of a Sinner; by his other Secret Will, He would not have him to convert from Sin, that thereby he may b● damned; then it followeth that God 〈◊〉 one and the same time willeth mere contrary things; which to imagine God 〈◊〉 do, is both impossible and absurd. And if our Adversaries (to disintagle themselves out of this net) do say, that Go● by his Reunealed Will, willeth not indeed▪ and seriously the conversion of a Sinner; but only maketh an outward show thereof, by exhortation and promise set down in his word, whereas indeed 〈◊〉 willeth and determineth the contra●● by his Secret Will; doth it not from hence then follow, that God is to 〈◊〉 charged rather with a revealed dissim●lation, then with a reunealed Will?  
Secondly I answer, That this distinction of Gods revealed and concealed will, fighteth mainly with this, 〈◊〉 Principle of Protestancy; to wit, tha● we are to believe nothing, as matter of fait● but what draweth its proof from Script●●● How then can we believe, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Secret will, different from his squealed will in Scripture? Or if they 〈◊〉, that they pick his Secret will out of ●●e Scripture, then how can they 〈◊〉 it his Secret Will, seeing it is expressed in Scripture? And thus then it would ●●llow, that God should have Two ●eer contrary and repugnant Wills, ●●th being expressed in Scripture: the ●hich to ascribe to his divine Majesty, 〈◊〉 most injurious and dishonourable; 〈◊〉 most absurd, and implying in itself 〈◊〉 manifest contradiction, and consequently thereby weakening the Authority of the said divine Scripture.  
But to proceed further, observe ●●thusiastus the exorbitancy of our adversary's proceeding herein: for if God would not the death of a Sinner by his squealed will in the Scripture, why then do they urge from his said word, that He willeth the death of a Sinner, as of ●sau, Pharaoh etc. Now to come to those ●ormer places of Scripture, which our adversaries make their Basis, upon which they build this Intentional and ●●ry distinction of God's Secret will, and 〈◊〉 Revealed will: to wit: (e) Ego Deus ●●ans malum, and again: Non Deus volens iniquitatem tues: I here 〈…〉 That this firster Text is wholly 〈◊〉 construed, and wrested from its 〈◊〉 sense: seeing, by Evil, in that place, 〈◊〉 Esay, is understood not Iniquity or the Evil of Sin, but only the Evil of punishment, (as is above expressed) as namely War and Adversity; as appeareth more evidently by the opposition of the word Peace, next precedent. For the words in Esay are: I make peace, and create evil; And therefore Hyperius (the learned Protestant) thus commenteth upon this place: 
f In method. Theolog. lib. 2. p●g. ●●●.  Malum pro bello accipitur, utpote quod paci sit oppositum: A point so evident, that the English ●ibles themselves of the year 1576. (as above I declared) in their Marginal notes of this place do thus paraphrase the foresaid place in Esay: I sendpeace and war, prosperity and adversity.  
Now, touching the Example of Abraham; First I answer, That the Text itself sheweth, that Gods even Revealed Will to Abraham, signified by the Angel (and not his Secret Will) wa●● that Abraham should not offer (or, a● the Text saith) 
g Genes. 22.  Lay his hand upon the child. Again, God only commanded Abraham to offer his son (as the Text saith) to 
h Genes. ubi supra.  prove Abraham. Therefore Gods Revealed will was not to have it done, but only to have it commanded for the trial of Abraham.  
Secondly, admitting that it had been Gods Revealed Will, that Abraham should offer his Child, and that this his Will should not have been countermanded by his said Revealed Will to Abraham; yet (according to the judgement of some learned 
i Amandus' Polanus in Partition. Theolog. ●. 1. pag. ●●.  Protestants) it may be well interpreted, that when God willed by this act to try Abraham, the true meaning and intent both of God's Will and words were truly to be performed in Abraham, by the only offering his son up in devotion and faith. And accordingly the Apostle saith. 
* Heb. 11.  By faith Abraham offered Isaac, when he was tempted. Lastly I say, admit, that God had a Revealed Will, and a Concealed Will, touching the offering up of Isaac; Yet this is merely impertinent to convince, or prove, that God by his Secret Will determineth the Reprobation of any man, ordaining him even from his Mother's womb to damnation. And thus much concerning this Subject of Reprobation, defended with 〈◊〉 a strong bent and vehemency, by diverse of our Adversaries.  
But now Enthusiastus, here I give a full stop to this our discourse: what my small talon in defence of these my former doctrines, and in impugning of yours, could afford▪ I have not been (you see) sparing or niggard in making use thereof, and this for the altering (and indeed bettering) of your judgement, Now if I could discern, that they have wrought with you so forcibly, as I do covet, O how bountifully were my labour recompensed, & how large a retaliation should I account it to be for any pains taken therein?  
Your former words (and I hope, they do not stand Neutral to your mind, since such men were worthily rebuked, 
k Rom. ●.  Qui linguis suis dolos● agebant) do partly encourage me, that my discourse hath not fallen upon the stones, or on the barren ground, but that it hath somewhat won upon your judgement. And for your greater strengthening in the belief of these points, which I have proved in our former disputation for most true, Here I do witness before the whole Court of Heaven, that if your contrary doctrines be true, God doth seem to cease to be God, and himself to renounce Himself: Since he should then (by depriving man of Freewill, and reprobating him to damnation, without any prevision of his works) seem partly to relinquish and abandon his own Essential & Incommunicable Attributes of Good●●●▪ and Mercy.  Enthusiastus. 
Learned Arminius. This your serious and zealous Protestation is not much needful (so strong a battery & assault your Arguments have already madeupon my judgement.) Therefore though I have above given sufficient ouer●ure, how highly I prized your proofs, and how working they seemed with me to be: Nevertheless to withdraw the veil, which you (perhaps) may fear to be betw●ene my former words, and my most retired and secret thoughts, Know you (Arminius, and this learned Assembly) that at this present I do freely unbreast myself unto you all, and do confess in all candour and sincerity, that I am convinced 〈◊〉 this our Conflict. I grant, that I 〈◊〉 lost the day (notwithstanding my former windy, ventitation, and presumed confidence) & that you come off, with honour. But what? Is this in a true judgement any disreputation to me? Noe. Since in being overcome, I do overcome, and in my Overthrow, I am Victorious, as now by this means triumphing over those Errors, to which my judgement was afore enthralled. Let Truth ever prevail: Veritas 
m Psal. 116.  Domini manet in 〈◊〉.  
Till the time of this our disputation, I grant, I ever was most strong (I will not say pertinacious) in defence of my former doctrines, & even my Contrall cogitations were ever that way fixed. But since my Cause lies thus wholly prostrate by force of your former Authorities, I will for ever after repudiate (to which I was afore, as I may say, so much espoused) my former Errors, strongly scenting of Innovation. Never therefore more will I entertain the least thought of them. And no more Enthusiastus will I be called, as tasting of aery Illuminations, self-●●●● Placency, and believing in a man's own judgement, Orthodoxus shall hereafter be my Name. I will decline (for the time to come) the obliquity of the paths of such men, who tread aside to all ancient times, and will be content to follow the Tract of Reverend and gray-hayred Antiquity, especially seeing she doth anchor herself so firmly & immoveably upon God's sacred Word. I have hitherto unknowingly been sick (though 
n john. 11.  My sickness hath not been to death:) Now I am healed: Give me then leave to congratulate my own recovery, & suffer me with patience to launch forth a little in words.  
Myself am now cured by this learned Man's discourse, accounting it my honour to become his Proselyte, or Cannertite: & I thirst to cure others, labouring with my former disease. O then, you Worthy men of my own Nation, who did accompany me to this Man's presence, and I you out of England; I have (I speak with grief) often in my public Sermons to you, and in my private discourses, envenomed your judgements with these former dangerous Theories and Speculations: now Charity 
o 1. Cor. 13  quae adificat, omnia 〈◊〉 omnia sperat; commands me to 〈◊〉 (what I can) the hurt already done● Suffer then for your own good, that these my words may be an Antidote to your former poison, by me distilled I Think, what it is to dismantle (as it were) and to disarm Man of Freewill: It is to resemble man (made according to the 
p (Gen. 1.  Image of the Highest) or rather to transform him unto a Beast: who worketh nothing of himself, but only by the push of another (so the knife cutteth not of itself, but as a dead instrument moved by the hand.) In like sort, those other most pernicious Theorems, depending of the want of Freewill, (I mean the Positions of Certainty of Salvation and Reprobation) what most dangerous effects do they work in man's Soul? Do we not see by daily experience, that they open the sluice to all turpitude of manners and Sensuality?  
That man who is persuaded that he wanteth Freewill, and that he is already, and unalterably from all Eternity either Predestinated or Reprobated, what should stay him for ingulfing himself in all enormous Crimes? May he not upon the grounds of his own faith thus justly apologise for himself: I want Freewill; The ten 
q M. Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1●35 and D. wiles in Synops. Pap. pag. 564.  Commandments of God do not belong to me: I am already either Predestinated to Heaven, or Reprobated to Hell: A virtuous life, if I be of the number of the Reprobate, cannot advantage me; nor the most facinorous course can prejudice me, being Predestinated: Why then should I be so unkind, as deny myself the fruition of Pleasures, though never so much prohibited in God's word? So thrall & mancipated must such a man be to all Sin and flagitious Impiety.  
This (no doubt) is the Dialect or language, in the which most men (believing the former doctrines) do expostulate with themselves in the secret of their own Souls: And daily experience doth depose and swear the certainty hereof.  
And you, the Learned Auditory here gathered together. Happy you are in enjoying the daily Conference of this worthy man, who hath indoctrinated you in the Truth of these former dogmatic Points. You see, how affluently, and abundantly he hath fortified these his doctrines from so many unanswered word, and (beside 〈…〉 o● Reason, and of the most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestant's) from all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 word; which 〈◊〉 〈…〉 hand o● Time, hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truth thereof to Posterity. Keep 〈◊〉 this Depositum with an unalterable ●●solution; and think that man to be 〈◊〉 a meretricious and frontless bold 〈◊〉 who da●e oppose himself against 〈◊〉 foresaid, both divine and Humane authorities.  
And England (my most noble 〈◊〉 dear Country) O that it were in 〈◊〉 power, to disenchant their iudgmen● living in thee, of these pernicious doctrines, with which they stand yet bewitched! Is it not a point deserving 〈◊〉 commiseration and pity, to obseru● how many men in our own Country of most elevated Wits, and furnish●● with all variety of literature, do 〈◊〉 their full consent, for their believing 〈◊〉 such exitial and despe●t● doctrinate Desperate I call them, in regard of 〈◊〉 most desperate attempts and 〈◊〉 which diverse of the Believers of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unnaturally perpetrated against 〈…〉.  
O how many, through persuasion 〈◊〉 themselves are wholly Reprobated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 that it is not in their own freedom of Will to concur with 〈◊〉 Grace, for the changing of their 〈◊〉 life's, have become their own 〈…〉? Thyself, My dear Country (〈…〉 it with unutterable grief) 〈◊〉 become the sable and mournful 〈◊〉 Theatre, upon which diverse 〈◊〉 lamentable Tragedies have been ●●●cted.  
But (alas) why should man seek to con●ine God's Mercy, which is like himself, Infinite, Endless, and Interminable: 〈◊〉 
r Psalm. 102.  ater●s & usque in aternum, misericordia eius super ●●mentes se? And what can discourage man from making his atonement with God, with whom, by truly and penitently confessing our 〈◊〉 be Sinners, we cease to be Sinners? Are any Persons, here exempted? No. For we read, Whosoever 
s Ezech. ●●.  shall departed from his wicked ways, and turn to 〈…〉 him. Is any time limited or prefixed for receiving his Mercy? grant and indulgence of 〈…〉 less: If 〈◊〉 
u Esay. ●●  〈◊〉 were 〈…〉, they shall be 〈…〉 S●ing 〈…〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 nor Sin is excluded 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 large and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; why 〈◊〉 n●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (even 〈◊〉 thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 despairing doctrine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much 〈…〉 the boundless Mercy of God) 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 to him, 〈◊〉 〈…〉 
(k) 2. Cor. ●.  〈…〉 But I ●●●re, 〈…〉 your ●ares (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy▪ 〈◊〉) with a tedious ●●●course; and therefore ●●ing the day 〈◊〉 far 〈◊〉, we must 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (●●●eruing 〈…〉 for the 〈◊〉 of your 〈◊〉) and 〈◊〉 back to the 〈◊〉▪  Arminius. 
Good Enthusiastus, ● much 〈◊〉 that my speeches have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉▪ I pray God that 〈…〉 company here, 〈◊〉 yet 〈◊〉 adverse in doctrine to 〈…〉 the like benefit by this our discourse▪ That you are to departed so soon, I much grieve; and rest much doubtful, whether we shall ever see 〈◊〉 another again, during this time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peregrination. But if so you be ●●lling thereto, after your return into England, we will in part supply the want of corporal familiarity by intercourse of mutual and friendly let●●rs by means whereof we may enjoy (as absently present) the one the other: 
y Virg.  〈◊〉 absentem & video▪ & audio.  Enthusiastus. 
Most willingly I accord thereto: and with this, these Gentlemen and I, take of you, and of this your Auditory, our last Farewell.  
Nay, 〈…〉 you, 〈◊〉 〈…〉 of Worthy▪ I will take my 〈…〉 you to your 〈…〉  Enthus●●stus. 
Once more the●▪ 〈…〉 Company and I give you 〈…〉 well.  
FINIS▪  
God save the King