Predestination in massá corruptâ, whom he elaborately confuteth, and speaks of very hardly, as I shall faithfully manifest in this following account: First, What the reason should be. why almost all the Anti-Remonstrants should place the object of Predestination after Adam's fall, rather then before it, the Doctor sets down in these very words: That is to say, that God might not be inferred to be the AUTHOR OF SIN.-Hence is my first Observation, (though only in the way to what I princi pally intend,) that all the Supralapsariana do infer God Almighty to be the Author of Sin, in the unanimous judgment of the Sublapsarians; or Dr. Twisse hath lost his aim.— But,' as the Doctor goes on, 'their very refuge is as liable to that 'inconvenience. They unhappily stumble at the very same stone. Flying from Scylla, they fall upon Charybdis. What have we profited,'-saith the Doctor in the first person plural, thereby owning the party, though confuting their opinion in that particular, by our anxious endeavour to decline that rock?' And then he shews that they incur the very same absurd sequel which they would avoid, in the following parts of that fourth chapter, concluding sharply, These are the monsters of opinions which that opinion hath brought forth, worthier of 'the Jesuitical and Arminian Schools than of our own.' hence is my

6

And

"Second Observation. That Dr. Twisse, as a Supralapsarian, (placing the Object of the Decree in Massá nondum conditá,) however differing from the rest of the very Supralapsarians also, (by denying Reprobation to be without the consideration of sin,) doth argue against the Sublapsarians, (though AntiArminian, as well as He, and owned by him as his party in other matters,) as inferring God, by their way, to be of necessity the Author of sin. And they whom he accuseth of so intolerable an absurdity, are no fewer and no less men (by his own confession) than all the brethren in the Low Countries who subscribed the Contra-Remonstrantia; besides Tilenus in France, Sibrandus Lubbertus in Friezland, Kimedontius in High Germany, Zanchy, Ursin, Paræus, Polanus, Bucanus, Bucarius, Peter Martyr, Vermilius Florentinus, Bishop Hutton, Bishop Abbot. Yea, even Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Perkins, are brought by him into the list of such as make God to be the AUTHOR OF SIN. Whom he doth not confute only, but he doth it with bitterness; seeming to love them for their common hatred of a common enemy, but withal to despise them, because many of others, as those authors never intended. And if offices of this description were thus kindly executed for his predestinarian friends, no one will be surprised to find in his massy folio numerous and gross perversions of the meaning of his enemies.-But those enemies were not Popish authors; for, in the midst of his animadversions upon these reputed errors of his friends, he makes large digressions in appealing to the authority even of the Jesuits, whom he uniformly regards as the great masters of scholastic lore.

them, before he was born, did not jump with him in judgment concerning the object of universal Prædestination. Farther yet, that Doctor proves at large against Piscator, that his later opinion was worse than that which he retracted.' Then he disputes against Moulin himself, (one of the ablest of that Party,) in no less than eight large chapters, affirming him to have 'filthily erred, and to have brought flat Arminianism into the Reformed Churches, and professedly to conspire with the Arminians, even in that very book which he painfully composed ' against Arminius.'* And all for no other crime, than for his [Moulin's] being so much quicker-sighted than the vulgar assertors of that cause, as to discern the necessity of granting thus much, That the Decree of Reprobation was not made but upon a foresight of actual sins, and of Perseverance in the " same unto the end."

But the best view of the Doctor's character, and of his sanguine views respecting the ultimate triumph of Calvinism, is afforded by his correspondence with "the pious and profoundly learned Joseph Mede," whose judicious labours on the prophetical scriptures, especially those on the Revelation, excited very great attention at that period. He was a man whose delight it was "to spend his whole age

Within the precincts of a college;"

and on becoming Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, he was enabled to indulge his inclination. He applied his vast attainments to the elucidation of difficult passages of scripture, and in many of his conjectures he must be acknowledged to have been eminently successful. His superiority to the visionary prophets and the vulgar enthusiasts of that age is thus recorded by his erudite biographer :

"So that the utmost which I learn from the long catalogue of writers, is this: That my reverend antagonist is the possessor of many books, whose authors being of his party do write in favour of his opinions, that is, of their own; and, being naturally willing to be well enough thought on, they have done their brotherly endeavours to make the best of a bad matter, that the enormities of the party may be abhorred so much the less. It is one thing to excuse or alleviate a fact, but quite another to plead its innocence. Bishop Abbot did his endeavour to excuse the doctrine of Mr. Perkins, although he called it the seminary of dire contention, which, like some Trojan horse, was brought within the walls of faith;' and also blamed those men, (of 'whom Dr. Twisse must be the chief,) who undertook the defence of so 'great an error, as that which was not only troublesome, but dangerous and scandalous to the Church of God.' In like manner Dr. Twisse doth sometimes labour to excuse the Synod at Dort, although he labours to confute it with all his might; and again doth bitterly inveigh against learned Moulin for his opinion of Reprobation, for which the Synod at Dort thought fit to thank him. I say they thanked him for all his letter without exception of any period, although they could not but know, that he was perfectly Arminian in what he said of Reprobation. It seems Du-Moulin was a favorite, and (for his other opinions' sake) to be commended even for that for which a Remonstrant had had their correptory correption." PIERCE'S Divine Purity Defended.

"By all which it is manifest how necessary it is for the full understanding of several parts of scripture to be acquainted with the Original Languages, Ancient Versions, the Genius and Idioms of the scripture style, and also with History, and the Ancient Customs both of the Jews and others;* without which it would be a fruitless attempt, even for such as otherwise are of good abilities, to undertake to give a pertinent and satisfying account of the forementioned (and other the like) passages of scripture. And as for those who, though they are sensual, not having the Spirit, (Jude 19,) and bring not forth the fruits of the Spirit, would engross the Spirit wholly to themselves, (as the Jews did the Messias to their nation, to the excluding of

* In passing, it may be necessary to shew one instance of his profound knowledge of Antiquity and History. In the following extract of a letter to Mr. Estwick in 1636, he applied the custom of praying for the dead to account for the notion of the Millennium, thus: "The Gothic Missal is that which the Goths in Spain used till they received the Roman; which, though, as all other Liturgies, it be to be supposed to have received many alterations and additions in time, yet no doubt may retain some ancient passages, whereof these prayers pro defunctis may be some, either received from the Spanish or African christians, or from the beginning of their Christianity, which was before Chiliasm was condemned by Damascus, or they plundered the Roman empire. The body of the Gothish nation, or of one part thereof, had received the christian faith before they plundered the Roman empire; as appeared by Alaricus himself, who with his army solemnly observed the christian rites. Yet seems this to have been between the days of Constantine and Julian, and not elder. Howsoever, there is no question but there were many churches among them before, as was in other nations long before the faith was publicly received by them. If so, then without doubt when the nation publicly received the faith, they received likewise that form of Liturgy which had formerly been used in their country by those of the christian rite among them: And thence might remain those passages of praying for the dead to have part in resurrectione prima.-As for that form of prayer for the dead, ut partem haberent in_resurrectione prima, [that they might have part in the First Resurrection,] I believe it was usual in those formula for the dead, till Chiliasm was cried down and then expunged: Namely, that it followed those words, (which appear yet in most of those forms, ut collocet eorum animas Deus in sinu Abrahæ, unde abest dolor et suspirium, [that God would be pleased to bring their souls into Abraham's bosom, where there is neither sorrow nor sighing,] as it does in this Gothish Missal. Whence it is that now in those forms there appears no prayer at all for their resurrection or consummation then; notwithstanding that in the Protasis they compellate God with qui hominem mundi civem mortalem in constitutione sua fecisti, et promisisti ei resurrectionem, [who hast made man a citizen of this world and mortal in his constitution, and hast given him the promise of a resurrection]. Who can believe that in such prayers they should not at all pray for the resurrection? But that passage being, it seems, anciently specificated to resurrectio prima, they thought it sufficient in aftertimes to omit it, without substitution of any other for it: And hence comes that silence of the resurrection."

This is exceedingly ingenious, and accounts satisfactorily for the corrupt practice which afterwards obtained. In praying that their deceased friends might have a part in the first resurrection, the ancient christians meant " a part in the reign of Christ on earth a thousand years with his saints," which, even in St. Peter's days, they apprehended to be near. But when that doctrine was abused by some of the Ancients, nearly in the same manner as by the English Calvinists under the Usurpation, to correct such abuse the phrase was omitted, and a door opened for praying in behalf of the dead generally without restriction.

the Gentiles,) and ignorantly despise all human learning and means of knowledge,-what has been said may abundantly check their vain confidence: Such scriptures being not to be explained without skill in the learned Languages, History and Antiquity, which is not to be had but by a studious converse with the best authors: Except they will say, that such skill ' and knowledge is infused, and that the particular events and res gesto, at large treated of in books, are made known to them by extraordinary revelation; which yet they are so wary as not to pretend to, as they are also so wise as not to pretend to the gifts of tongues or interpretation of tongues, those gifts of the Spirit not unusual in the Apostle's age."

The following accouut of him, by the same able pen, will shew, that he was deficient in several of those qualifications which were then the great passports to favour among the Calvinists, "into the secrets of which his soul disdained to enter." (See note, page 487.) Among the most ingenious and generallyadopted expedients, was one which had been practised by the Dutch Calvinists against the Arminians,-to call the doctrine of Unconditional Election and Reprobation fundamental, the belief of which was absolutely necessary to salvation. The influence of this decidedly Popish principle was uncommonly great in

6

* The reason of its being called a Popish principle may be discerned by an extract of a letter which Mr. Mede addressed to Mr. Hartlib in 1634, who had transcribed, for Mr. Mede's information, the following passage of a letter which he had received from Streso: "I waited upon Dr. Altingius, who wishes very much that I had not prefixed to my exercise against Bodsac that extract from Dr. Field; because those things are false which he relates concerning the modern religion of the Eastern churches, and that of the Western prior to the days of Luther; and because the Lutherans will take 'occasion from this to calumniate us, as if we were attempting to effect some 'universal reconciliation of religions.' Among other arguments for his rejection of Dr. Field's opinion, is this: 'Because certain of the Wurtem

burgh divines formerly transmitted to the Greek Patriarch the Augsburgh Confession for his approval, but he rejected it as heterodox. That the present Patriarch is of a different mind, is entirely a personal matter, and it will easily appear from what kind of writings he derives his sentiments.'" In answer to this, Mr. Mede says: "Concerning that of Dr. Field, I have hitherto subscribed to it, according as I conceived to be his meaning: Though whether the particulars of his narration be every one of them true, 1 cannot affirm; the most, I believe, are. But it is no marvel, though such a tenet make your foreign divines to startle: That notion is almost proper to our English, to maintain that the Roman Church, much more the Greek, erreth not in primariis et fundamentalibus fidei articulis, because explicitly 'they profess them, howsoever by their assumenta implicitly and by conse'quent they subvert them.' This your foreign divines, and some too of our own, think to be an harsh assertion; because they rightly conceive not our. meaning whereof you may be more fully informed by Dr. Crackenthorp against Spalato, cap. 47, and by Dr. Potter in his Charity Mistaken. You may remember also, that Bishop Davenant, (in the Discourse you shewed me at Londou,) by the name of fundamental articles, understands the articles of the creed of all christians, and no other. Take notice likewise, that we say, The Roman Church and ours differ not in the articles WE account to be fundamental: Not that we differ not, and mainly too, in those which THEY account fundamental. Nor do we say, but by consequent they ruin too even those articles WE account fundamental, though explicitly they profess them.

the national troubles which ensued in England; and its operation was constantly directed against the hallowing and scriptural doctrines of Arminianism. In reference to this, the biographer of Mede says:

"He was always so generously honest, so apert and singlehearted, as not to speak wickedly for God or talk deceitfully for him; (Job xiii, 7;) nor would he apply himself to any unwarrantable policies for the promoting or commending of truth to others. Such little crafts and undue practices were below the nobleness and integrity of his spirit. To this purpose we may fitly take occasion here to remember a serious and excellent passage of his: I cannot believe that truth can be pre'judiced by the discovery of truth: but I fear that the main'tenance thereof by fallacy or falsehood may not end with a blessing.* Thus did he upon occasion express himself, with a just reflexion upon some, who, pretending to policy, did advise, that for the better securing and advancing some doctrines, men should be borne in hand that they were fundamental, and accordingly were to receive them as such.' But our author,"In a word," continues Mr. Mede, "we hold, that all the Roman errors consist in the assumenta they have added to the foundation, and not in the foundation itself, which they profess notwithstanding. Besides that in the main points of controversy between them and us, the truths we affirm against them were heretofore freely maintained in their Church, as for the substance, from time to time. And though, for the most part, the opposite faction overtopped them, yet were not the tenets of that faction made the tenets of their church till the Council of Trent decreed them and condemned the other. This is the sum of that tenet of ours.-What though the Patriarch Jeremy rejected the Augustan Confession for heterodox when it was sent him! It is true, that often one sect of religion condemns that in another which itself affirms; because it understands not its own in another's terms and after another way. Besides, though the Patriarch rejected the Confession in gross, yet it follows not he rejected it for those points, whereof Dr. Field affirms; but because it condemned likewise their assumenta. For it is certain, that in the assumentis we differ mainly from them, and they from us."

In a subsequent part of this Appendix, the reader will find a longer account of Fundamentals.

*This is a quotation from a letter which Mr. Mede wrote to Mr. Hartlib in 1638, in answer to an anonymous paper against Fundamentals, which seems, by the contents of a preceding letter, to have been the production of Dr. Twisse's pen. I quote the paragraph which immediately precedes the extract in the text: "Concerning the paper you now send, what judgment should I give but that I like it not? It savours methinks of too much averseness from that business: I believe you think so. The gentleman (whosoever he be) seems himself to be one of those he speaks of, that hath in his eyes to preserve his own opinions from indemnity: But if every man do so, what hope of conciliation? Besides, the matter aimed at in this business, is not that either side should presently relinquish their opinions of difference, but only take notice that, notwithstanding these differences, "both sides do so far agree in other points, that they may and ought to acknowledge each other as brethren; that so, their affections being united and exasperation abolished, they might be the better disposed and fitted to judge of the points of difference between them. And whereas he objects, that such points being declared not fundamental would lose part of their strength "and be shaken,'this inconvenience would be recompensed in that the opinions of the opposite party will suffer as much; and so what we lose at home, we should gain abroad.'