Cler. Oct 9. 1595. Pag. 7. Pag. 8. Conc. ad he understood the Doctrine of Predeftination doth appear in his Sermon preached a little before thofe Articles paffed at Lambeth, wherein he argueth against St. Auguftine, that Original fin was not the caufe of Reprobation, feeing (according to St. Auguftine's doctrine) it is remitted to many reprobates. He expoundeth, Rom. 9. 21. of the Lump or Mafs of Mankind, not confidered as fallen, or tainted with Pag. 15. Original Sin; and nameth Bucer as concurring with him. And again, he appealeth to our Confeffion in the feventeenth Article, which he is perfuaded delivers the fame Doctrine that he did; not only because those Articles were composed by the difciples of Martyr and Bucer, as he faith, but by the words themselves. How other Bifhops and Profeffors fince have understood that Article, and what influence Martyr and Bucer had in the composition of our Articles, fhall be feen in the next Opinion. It is well known that Dr. Whitacre dying at his return from his journey, thefe nine Affertions were not received with fuch accord, but that the two J. Over- following Profeffors differed from them; and when al D. D. the life of Dr. Whitacre was written by a learned J. Richard-Friend of his, who would have inserted these nine Jon D. D. Conclufions, they were by Authority suppressed; which makes it evident, that, though much was imputed and yielded to the excellent Judgment of Dr. Whitacre of worthy Memory, all in Authority then were not of his mind in this matter: whom yet they would not offend, or lofe, as the times then were. Neither, in the first year of King James, in the conference at Hampton Court, when fuit was made that these nine affertions, Orthodoxal, (as Dr. Reynolds term'd them,) fhould be inferted into the Book of Articles, was this requeft obtained; but Hampton that motion was quenched by the fpeeches of the Court Bishop of London, who had been at the concluding Confer. of those Affertions at Lambeth; and Dr. Overal Dean Pag. 29. of Paul's, who had been a party in thefe Controverfies. And for the Orthodoxy of thefe Affertions in Dr. Whitacre's fenfe; Dr. Barlow, the relater of this conference, puts it upon Dr. Reynolds terming them fo, not upon his own or his Mafters opinion, he having been well acquainted with the carriage of that business at Lambeth, being then Chaplain to the Arch-bishop in his houfe. And his relation tells us, the nine Affertions were fent to the University for the appealing of thofe quarrels that were rifen in Cambridge about certain points of Divinity. If for the appeafing of quarrels, it was wifdom fo to pen them, as they might fatisfy and unite all fides with common and general Truth. As the first Affertion doth, fa ying, That God hath Predeftinated, &c. which is most true, but it faith nothing concerning the Order and Manner, &c. which is now the Queftion, and was then. The fecond fpeaks true of the moving, or efficient Caufe of Predeftination, both in what it denies, and what it affirms; but the queftion is not concerning the Caufe of Predeftination, but the Object of it: for whether it be fimply Man, or Man confidered as fallen, or Man with respect to his repentance, or stubbornness in Sin, nothing in Man is the caufe of his Election. The third of the number is very true, but founded on the infallibility of God's foreknowledge, as well as the immutability of his Will. The fourth is the most ambiguous affertion; for it it fuppofe Non-predeftination to be the cause of the neceffity of condemnation for Sin, it putteth Non caufam pro caufa, (as Logicians fpeak;) for Sin is liable to condemnation, because it is the transgreffion of God's Will, not because it was done by a perfon not Elected; but if it fuppofe Non-predeftination as a mere negative, that is, that God B 2 hath hath not Elected fuch an one, and withall suppose Sin committed, and not repented of by that Perfon, there is caufe enough for the Juftice of God to condemn him that hath Sinned, and hath used no means of recovery. HE fecond Opinion concerning the Order of 1. That God from all Eternity decreed to create Mankind Holy, and Good. 2. That he fore-faw Man being tempted by Satan, would fall into Sin, if God did not hinder it; he decreed not to hinder. 3. That out of Mankind feen fallen into Sin and Mifery, he chofe a certain number to raise to righteousness, and to Eternal Life; and rejected the reft, leaving them in their Sins. 4. That for thefe his chofen, he decreed to fend his Son to redeem them, and his Spirit to call them, and fanctify them; the reft ke decreed to forfake, leaving them to Satan and themselves, and to punish them for their Sins. Many do fay that St. Austin was the first Author of this Opinion, fince whom it hath had for its defenders the Dominicans, Bellarmine, Cajetan and many other Papifts; and among Proteftants the Synod at Dort, P. Moulin, Dr. Abbot Bp. of Salisbury, Dr. Carleton Bp. of Chichester and others: but it is misliked by the defenders of the former, and of the following Opinions also. By the former, because to defend the Justice of God, it fuppofeth Mankind corrupted before any Election or Reprobation was made, which feemeth needlefs; needlefs; for, fay they, there are Elect and Reprobate Angels without, or before any Corruption or Fall. By the following, because with the former Opinion it teacheth Chrift to be fent only to the Elect, and the Word and Spirit only to call them; whereby the Reprobate are but more oppreffed, being called to embrace Salvation offered, which they cannot do, and yet for refufal thereof they are more deeply condemned. By all of them, because it fuppofeth Original Sin the cause of Reprobation, which the former impute to an antecedent irrefpective Decree; the others to foreseen infidelity or difobedience: none of them fimply to that Sin which they fuppofe whitacre remitted in Baptifm to many reprobates. Cygnea. Both thefe Opinions offend much against God's Cant. P.7. Goodness and Truth; but this fecond well acknowledgeth, that God decreed fomething upon his foreknowledge of what Man would do, being permitted: that this foreknowledge is fo certain that upon it God 'builded his greatest Councels of the Myftery of the Gofpel; as upon the foreknowledge of Adam's fall, the Decree to fend Chrift. It provideth alfo for the clearing God's Justice on fuch as die in their Infancy, who have no ther defert of Death but Original Sin; from which, as to the pain of Eternal Death, God's mercy delivereth whom he pleafeth by Baptifm, or the vow thereof in the Holy Church. But the Judgment of the Maffilienfes reported by † Hilary is very right, that is, that the Election or Reprobation which is of Infants that live not to years of Difcretion, is no neceffary pattern for the Election or Reprobation of them that live into a further age. * Cacodamones non fuêre in Massa, & tamen reprobati; Chriftus non fuit in Massa, & tamen ut homo Eligitur. Prideaux I. Lect. ↑ Parvulorum autem caufam ad exemplum Majorum non patiuntur afferri. Hilar. B The The defenders of this Opinion claim our feventeenth Article as agreeing with them, and furely better may they do it than they of the former; for thofe words, to deliver from curfe and damnation, those whom he hath chofen, import a curfe and damnation fallen into, by thofe who are delivered. But how those words, chofen in Chrift, and the Godly confideration of Predeftination and our Election in Chrift, and those words, we must receive God's promises in fuck wife, as they be generally fet forth unto us in Holy Scriptures: how thefe will ftand with a Decree of Election, made before Chrift be thought on, otherwise than as the' means to bring the Elect to Salvation, I fee not. For the Article diftinguisheth, or makes it two things, to choose fome in Chrift out of Mankind, and to bring them by Chrift unto Everlasting Salvation. Nor can I conceive how a general promife will ftand with a particular purpose, meaning or intending the promise but to fome few. Let them confider how they can make it good by their Doctrine, and I will confider how I can make that good which the Article faith, by the Doctrine of the fifth Opinion. As to the appeal to Bucer and P. Martyrs for the fenfe of our Articles, ufed by Dr. Whitacre in his time, and of late by Dr. Carleton Bp. of Chichester, the answer is full, viz. 1. That Bucer is not of the fame Opinion with Martyr, nor Carleton with Whitacre, in the apprehenfion of the order of Predeftination. 2. That it is not true, that the difciples of P. Martyr and Bucer compofed our Articles; for thofe Articles concerning which there is now queftion, were the fame under King Edward the fixth, and Queen Elizabeth; but the Bishops and Divines The Common Service firft, and afterwards the reft of the argy, was finished, at Windfor, by our own Divines, in the under |