The ,9.11.,eflion flatcar. 23 tierce , and one that undertook in the very Synod to make good againft Lubbert his fellow- Profef3our, chat God did (d) willftnnes, ordain men tofi;tne,and would not at all that f) Vella all mr.a ba feed; and betides this, openly and peremptorily pccata, or, affirmed, That except theft things 'mere heldand mainteined dienare ho- by them, they could not poffibly keep their own ground, mint, ad but mu(t come over to the Remrnftrants this roan was not peccaturn onely not cenfured, but publickiy declared in the Synod to gum Paz netR- be pure and orthodox, and difmif'ed onely 'With this kind and tiquam verle friendly admonition, That he (houldhereafter take heed of ut omnes futh words as might give ofen(e to tender ears, and could homines fa!- not well down with thole who are yet uncapable of fttcb ventun, mylleries. By there inflances it appeareth that they of the firíl fide can eafily bear one with another in this difference. And (to fay the truth) there is no reaf)n why they fhould quarrel about circumftances, Peeing they agree in the fubftance. For they both (t) contend, i. That the moving -caufe of Reprobation is the alone will of God, and not the finneof man , originals or aftuall. 2. That the fnall impenitency and damnation of Re- probates arenecegary and unavoydable by Gods ablolute decree. There two things are the maxima gravamna, principal) grievances, that the other fide ftick at. So that theft two paths meet at lafl in the fame way. Both thefe opinions of the firíl fide I dillike. My reafons why, are of two forts; Such as Gril made me to queff ion their truth. 2. Such as convince me of their untruth, Anfver. THe Remonfirants in this controver- fie concerning Election, Preterition, or negative Reprobation, have not one- ly the Contra-remonffrants for their Op- pofites, but the Church of England al- fo ; which holdeth the middle way , as the learned Bifhop of Norwich bath plainly íhewed The change of your 13 4 opinion,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=