The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...

TWISSE Consideration.

HIs third Topick place, is drawn from the Infamy of this doctrine, and that amongst Papists and Lutherans. And this is a grand motive with him to abhorre it. But I pray consider, was not the doctrine of the Gospell infa∣mous at the first, both amongst Jewes and Gentiles? What time the Jewes were the only people of God, how doth Tacitus out of his worldly wisdome brand them? Doth he not call them Gentem teterrimam, Cenus hominum invisum Diis? And as touching * 1.1 their religious Rites, marke what censure he passeth upon them, Profana illic omnia, quae apud nos sacra, rursus concessa apud illos, quae apud nos incesta, and comparing them with * 1.2 the Rites of Bacchus, saith, Liber festos, laetos{que} ritus posuit, Judaeorum Mos absurdus sordi∣dus{que}. And speaking of the Christians he calls them, Genus hominum propter flagitia invi∣sum. This censure he passeth upon them in the daies of holy Paul, who forbad them to doe evill that good might come thereof, and commands every soule to be subject to the Higher Powers, even then, when soules were at the best, and powers at worst. And see I pray what the King of Ashurs judgement was, concerning the Religion of Samaria and Jerusalem, in comparison to the Religions of their Nations, which were heathenish. Isa. 10. 10. Like as mine hand hath found the Kingdoms of the Idolls, seeing their Idolls were above Jerusalem, and above Samaria. So that of an heathenish Religion, he had a better estimation then of the Religion of the Jewes. Now if some Rabshakeh a∣mongst them should turne heathen (for such a tradition, as I remember is received a∣mongst the Rabbins, namely, that Rabshakeh was a Jew, but turned heathen) and af∣terwards endeavoured to entice the Jewes to doe as he did, and that because of the infamous nature of their Religion amongst heathens, how deserved such a one to be entertained by them? Was he not by the Law of God to be stoned to death? In like manner, if in the primitive daies of the Church, some Christian should turne Jew or Infidell, and practice to seduce others from the obedience of faith, representing unto them how every where it was contradicted, how Christ himselfe was counted a blas∣pheamer, a sorcerer, how the Gospell was a scandall to the Jewes, foolishnesse to the Gentiles, and that in killing the holy Apostles, the world thought they did God very good service. Saint Paul himselfe professing of himselfe and his fellowes, That they were made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things. Did this infamy prevaile with * 1.3 Paul, or any other holy servant of God, to remit any thing, in the maintenance of his Christian faith? Nay, doth he not professe, saying, I passe not for these things, neither is my life deare unto me, so I may fulfill my course with joy, and the Ministration that I have received to testify the Gospell of the grace of God? And that in all things, They approve themselves as the Mini∣sters of God by honour and dishonour, by good report and evill report, as deceivers and yet true. * 1.4

Againe, Is it to be expected, that any doctrine should be well spoken of, by such as are opposites and adversaries thereunto? Suppose a rigid Lutheran should by Gods providence, be taken off from their ubiquitary doctrine; and in justifying himselfe for the change of his Opinion, should represent unto them, the infamous condition of that doctrine, both in the judgement of Papists, and in the judgement of Calvinists; I pray consider, How in all likelyhood would this plea be entertained? Could he ex∣pect any better recompence hereof, then to be cast out of their Synagogues? Suppose a Papist should have his eyes opened, and brought to the truth of God in the poynt of justification, and, being demanded the reason of this change of mind in him, should answer, that the infamy of this doctrine, both amongst Lutherans and Calvinists is so great, and that such a morsell, which neither Lutherans nor Calvinists can swal∣low, should therefore (in his judgement) not down very easily with Papists, and without suspicion. Now let any indifferent Reader confider, how this plea in all probability would be received amongst papists. Yet I mean not to quiet my selfe, or content my Reader with this parallell. Of that which he here delivers of Papists, he gives us no evidence but his bare word in pawne, for the credit of this assertion. Nei∣ther

gives he any testimony of Lutherans, their calling us damned Calvenists, and though he had, I pray, what were we the farther off from the kingdome of God for that? And I pray consider, is it not in our power to recompence them, and call them, damned Lutherans, if we list to recompence malice with malice, so to serve our own turnes? And all this is delivered by him without distinction of Papists, learned and unlearned, Dominicans and Jesuits; in like sort without all distinction of Lutherans, whether rigid or moderate. But let us examine his crimination a part.

And first, as for Papists; not one is here named, nor any reference made to any of of them. S^t Pauls prayer was, that they might be delivered from unreasonable men. I think never Sect rose upmore unreasonable then this Sect of Arminians. This Writing came unto my hands, before I had dispatched a large discourse sent unto me from one of same Sect, and therein I have met with pregnant evidences, that more heads then one, were employed thereabouts. And there I am told to my face, that our doctrine of absolute reprobation, we have learned from the Papists. Another with whom I had to doe not long before, professeth in plain manner thus; The Jesuits ten of them for one, favour the absolute irrespective decree, following herein as they think S^t Austin, but especially their S^t Thomas, and Scotus, with all the rabble of rotten Schoolmen, and the whole Tribe at this day of the Dominicans, who are buzy zelots for the cause; of whose consent some amongst us are not ashamed to bragge. If our irrespective decree, be so joyntly maintained by both Jesuits, and Do∣minicans, and that as they think according to Austin, how is it possible our doctrine herein, can be so odious to the Papists? Or what Papists doth he mean, if neither Je∣suits nor Dominicans, nor any such as concurre with either of them? Or if it be so o∣dious unto them, as one Arminian Proselite professeth, how can it be so concordant∣ly maintained by them, as another Arminian proselite avoucheth? And if we have learned it at the hands of Papists, what will these Lutherans gaine, by uniting with Papists rather then with us, that is, with the Masters rather then with the Schollars. And if a Lutheran should be converted to the embracing of our Tenent herein, and to justify himselfe should plead; That we Calvinists are ready to protest, that in the doctrine of reprobation and predestination, we had rather unite our selves with Pa∣pists then with them, Of what moment think you, would this motive be with them, which this Author most inconsiderately proposeth, as a poynt of very ponderous con∣sideration?

But as touching Papists, their dislike of us, he confines it only to the Supralapsa∣rian-way. And indeed that distinction of the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian-way. was brought in meerely to get thereby some more elbow roome. For if they agree with us in the poynt of Gods absolute and irrespective decrees, how improbable is it, that the doctrine of any of our Divines, in stating the object of predestination to be humanum genus nondum conditum, will prove odious unto them; considering this is a meer Logicall difference, as I have shewed in my Vindic. Grat. Dei cap. 1. pag. 1. De Predesti∣natione digress. 1. Yet as touching the Supralapsarian-way, that opinion is imputed un∣to Junius by Arminius, as also to Thomas and his Followers. Collat. Armin. cum Juni. pag. 4. and if so, how improbable is it, that such an Opinion should be so odious to the Papists, as this Author upon his bare word avoucheth. And Alphonsus Mendoza spares not to professe, that supernaturalls were intended by God before naturalls; and his discourse hereupon, was taken with admiration by his Auditors in Spaine, and he was urged as himselfe professeth, to set it forth in Print. And the Quatuor signa Fran∣cisci Mayronis (mentioned by M^r Perkins De Praedest. Modo & Ordine) doe manifest that he took the same way; and these quatuor signa, Franciscus Mayro received from the do∣ctrine of Scotus. It is well known that in the Synod of Dort, there met Divines diffe∣rent in this poynt, who yet neither hated one anothers doctrine nor persons for this difference; like as so it is amongst us, as in the place above mentioned I have shewed. Nay it is apparent, that Junius took upon him to reconcile all three opinions there a∣bouts, and Piscator after him, who also hath discharged his part herein, farre more clearely then Iunius. And no marvail, Iunius having first broken the ice. But that the truth may not be carried in the clouds of ambiguities, as they desire, who are in love with errour: All the question between these our Divines consists in this, Whether it were the will of God that Adam should fall by his permission, so to make way for Gods glorious ends, to wit, the manifestation of his glory, in the incarnation of the Sonne of God, as also in the way of mercy, in the salvation of some; and in the way of justice, in the condemnation of others. The Supralapsarians maintaine, that such

was the will of God, least otherwise way should be made for the manifestation of Gods glorious works by accident, rather then by Gods providence. Other Divines that take the Sublapsarian way, had rather decline this nice poynt as difficult, then oppose it as odious. But say I, the doctrine wherein both Jesuits and Arminians doe agree, will abundantly serve us to justify us, in the positive and affirmative part of so nice a poynt as this. For by their doctrine of Scientia Media, God did foresee, that upon such an administration of his providence about Adam as was used, Adam would fall; and more then this, that God could have brought forth other administrations of his providence in very great variety, some whereof were such, that if God had u∣sed, Adam would not have fallen. Now being pleased to make use of such an admi∣nistration of providence divine, upon the purpose whereof, he foresaw Adam would fall; and not being pleased to use such a providence, upon the purpose whereof, he had foreseen Adam would not have fallen; I call here all the indifferent of the World to judge, whether it doth not manifestly follow herehence, that it was the will of God, Adam should fall by his permission.

Again, throughout our doctrine, nothing is more harsh then that of Gods deter∣mining the will of the creature, to every act of his, as touching the substance thereof. Dares this author betray such ignorance, as hand over head to professe, that this do∣ctrine is odious unto Papists? Whereas the most learned in the Church of Rome, are well known to maintain it in expresse termes, whereas our Divines course is, to keep themselves to the phrase of Scriptures. And as for the Jesuits who oppose it, and in the place thereof bring in Scientia Media, and Gratia Congrua, shaped after the genius of Scientia Media. I can shew an expresse acknowledgement under the hand of a zealot for the Arminian cause, that between the Gratia praedeterminans of the Dominicans, and Gratia congrua of the Jesuits, there is no such materiall difference at all, but that the absolutenesse of predestination and reprobation doth follow, as well upon the one, as upon the other.

To conclude, I would this Author would be so wise, as once more to consult with his Oracle, and enquire, Whether Papists are more ready to joyne with Lutherans, in their doctrine of Christs Ubiquity, as touching his Manhood, then with us in the poynt of Reprobation, or of Gods concourse. For suppose we held as Suarez is plea∣sed to state our Tenent, namely, Quod Deus omnipotenti voluntate nobis necessitatem imponat; yet the same Suarez saith, that in this very poynt, we are not reprehended of them, as if we affirmed ought, Quod vel in re ipsâ contradictionem involvat, aut Dei omnipotentiam su∣peret. I presume no Papist is so well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the poynt of Ubiquity.

From that which he affirmes of Papists, I come to that which he affirmes of Luthe∣rans. And what one instance hath he given of any Lutheran, speaking against our making the corrupt Masse the object of predestination or reprobation? Surely not one, either out of Sir Edwin Sands, nor out of Osiander; Nay what cause is there, why either Papist or Lutheran should, in case the object thus stated (or in a more rigid forme of the Masse Uncorrupt) doth no way constraine us to maintaine, that God doth intend the damnation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the consi∣deration of him, as departing out of this World, under the power of sinne; no nor to maintain, that God doth intend the salvation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the consideration of him, in finall perseverance in faith and repentance, pro∣vided God suffer him, to live untill the use of reason, as I have shewed, and endea∣voured to justify, and make appeare, in my Vindic. Grat. Dei, in the digressions con∣cerning Predestination. For indeed not any of our Divines was, I think, ever known to maintain, that God did intend to damne any man but for sinne; Neither doe I maintaine, that God intended to bestow salvation on any man of ripe years, but by way of reward of his faith and repentance. The true and principall, reall (not verball only) difference between us, and the Arminians, is about Gods bestowing of faith and repentance, and his purpose thereof. Now let any learned Lutheran deliver his mind on this, namely, upon the foresight where of it is, that God gives faith and repentance unto some, and denyes it unto others. When Tossanus makes relation of Hunnius his exposition of that place Acts 13. 48. Et crediderunt quotquot ordinati erant ad vitam, thus, id est, qui sese ordinarant & disposuerant ad audiendum Dei verbum; * 1.5 Hunnius in his refutation of Tossanus his Theses, cites Tossanus to appear before the tribunall seat of the Judge both of quick and dead, and to shew in what place of his writings, this is

to be found, professing that such doctrine is the very Pelagian Heresy, and that him∣selfe never approved it, but disproved it rather, and most constantly impugned it. What Lutheran was ever known so absurd, as to say, that God worketh in us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Velle credere, modò Velimus? Yet this doctrine I can shew in expresse termes delivered by an Arminian. But come to the consideration of the instances proposed by him.

The first is the Relation of Sir Edwin Sands. And I remember well to have read in him somewhat concerning the Predestinary Pestilence, so called by some. And I might wonder at this Authors wisdome, in pretermitting that passage; but upon search finding it about Fol. 59. though my Book hath no quotation at all of pages, I ceased to wonder at his concealing of it. I have rather cause to commend his wis∣dome therein, although it expresseth that whereupon this Author formerly touched, as concerning the Lutherans readinesse to returne to the Papacy rather then to admit that Predestinary Pestilence. For predestinary pestilence goeth not here alone, but is joyned with the Sacramentary pestilence, For these two poynts, saith he, are the ground of the quarrell; but he addes I confesse, that the Predestinary pestilence was more scandalous at that day then the former. Yet the same Author professeth Fol. 73. of the Lutherans, that if he fetch an elle forwards one way, for an elle he looseth another way, it is only by a kind of boysterous force and violence against the Calvinists, as in Stras∣borough of late. And the reason hereof he takes to be in part the Absurdities of the Ubiquitary Chimaera. And as for the passage here alleaged, I find it about Fol. 86. Wherein I consider, First that the speculative opinions he speaks of are not about the eternall decrees of God only, or especially above all others, as here by cunning carriage it is pretended. For the words runne thus; It can be no blemish to them to revise their Doctrine, and to abate the rigour of certain speculative opinions, especially touching the eternall decrees of God, the quality of mans nature, the use of works, wherein some of their chiefe Authors have come to such an utter opposition, &c So that the poynts of rigo∣rous doctrine, which were to be qualified in this Gentlemans judgement, are many, but especially three; The first whereof is touching the eternall decrees of God, The second concerning the quality of mans nature, The third concerning the use of Works: So that the doctrine of Gods eternall decrees is not the poynt alone, the rigour whereof especially is to be qualified in this Authors judgement, but this especiall care of qualification, is by him referred to the three poynts formerly mentioned, and that indifferently. Secondly, Whereas this Author relates, that this is delivered, not as out of the relators judgement only, but as out of the judgement of men whom he commends for singular learning and Piety. I find no such matter in the Re∣lation that I have, though I have searched after it, both by considering what went before, and what comes after, as farre as he treats of the same matter. Whether this comes in a second Edition I know not: in mine I find no such thing. So that the weight of this motive hitherto, lies wholly upon the authority of this Gentleman. And surely I should think it were nothing hard to counterballance this authority to the full. And it may be he speaks herein no other thing then wherein he was endoctrinated by his Tutor, as lately an ingenious and grave divine, differing from us in the poynt of reprobation, most ingeniously acknowledged, that he was brought into that opinion of his by his Tutor, who was a Lutheran: And I doubt we have too many such amongst us. Of late I have heard, that one of good place spared not openly to professe, saying, Call us as we ought to be called, for we are Lutherans: I would wee had not too many Popish-hearted amongst us.

Thirdly, whereas this Gentleman adviseth us to revise the Doctrines, and this Author accommodates it only to Gods eternall decrees; I have already performed this, and qualified the rigour of some mens opinions thereabouts. For whereas some have subordinated Gods decree of permitting sinne, to the decree of damnati∣on, I have taken another course, and doe maintain, that in no moment of nature is the decree of damnation, before the decree of permitting finall perseverance in sinne. Again, I presume this Gentlemans meaning is not, that the doctrine of the Church of England is rigorous, as touching Gods eternall decrees. I willingly professe, I desire no better triall of the truth of the Doctrine I maintain hereabouts, next unto the Word of God, then to be tried by the 17^th Article of the Church of England, and by the Articles of the Church of Ireland, set forth in the daies of King James

Thirdly, I would it were put unto this Gentleman, if he be living, Whether in his Opinion, God of his free grace doth bestow faith and repentance on some, thereby to cure that naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart, which is originally found in all, and of his meer pleasure, he denies it unto other: Or whether finding some mo∣rall difference or preparation in one more then in another, is hereupon moved to give faith and repentance unto them, and deny it unto others. If he shall acknow∣ledge, that God doth shew his mercy to whom he will, that is, of his meer pleasure, and denies it to whom he will, I am ready to professe, that let him state Gods eter∣nall decrees after what manner he will, I shall willingly subscribe thereunto; pro∣vided it be suitable unto the former ground: and as for the unsuitable nature there∣of, if in case it so fall out, let the proofe and evident demonstration thereof, lye on mee. But if his opinion be, that God bestowes faith and repentance on man, moved thereunto by some morall preparation, which he finds in one, rather then in another, I appeale to the Lutherans themselves, whether this be not in plain termes no better then Pelagianisme.

As for his calling their opinions in this poynt, speculative opinions (as this Au∣thor would have us observe) I am willing to observe it: and withall I think, he doth it with better judgement, then this Author doth in calling them pra∣cticall.

And whereas it is pretended, that our Divines have been carried into these opi∣nions of theirs, in opposition to Popish Doctrine, This is so out of season in these daies (notwithstanding the raw judgement of this Author) that our Arminians spare not to professe (as formerly mentioned) and charge us to our face, that we have lear∣ned this doctrine of ours, out of the Writings of Papists. And Grevincovius, a∣gainst Amesius, spares not to pronounce, that They may with better credit fol∣low the Jesuits, then Wee the Dominicans, considering that the Dominicans are the great Administrators of the Inquisition in Spaine. This is delivered as touch∣ing the poynt of grace and Free-will: but as touching the poynt of election and reprobation absolute, I can shew under the hand of an Arminian, that herein there is no materiall difference between the Dominicans, and most part of the Jesuits; so little difference there is between the Gratia Praedeterminans of the one, and the Gratia Congrua of the other. So that if this be true, it is not probable, that hereby we scandalize the judicious and learned Papists; and what those other Churches are which we scandalize, excepting Churches Lutheran, either this Au∣thor knows not, or is well content to dissemble it, to wit, the Churches of Socini∣ans and Anabaptists. And how doe we more scandalize the Churches Lutheran herein, then they scandalize us? Was it ever known, that by meer differing in Opinion from other Churches, Christian men were said to scandalize them? Or if it were so, must not the scandall in this case, be equall on both sides?

As for the leaving many of our own very ill satisfied, why should that seem strange? What doth Carryer write of many well known to him in this our Church of England, of the same mind with himselfe, some Papists, some Lutherans? And may there not be as many amongst the Lutherans, as ill satisfied with the do∣ctrine commonly received amongst them, save that they are farre more forward, to excommunicate all such, as soon as they appeare, then Wee? Besides all this, The poynt of scandall is brought in very unseasonably; For if it be a truth that we maintain and professe, if any are scandalized by it, it is a scandall taken, not gi∣ven: God forbid we should grow so profane, as to account it a scandalous thing to make profession of Gods truth; especially this truth we maintain being so neere to a cleare opposition to Pelagianisme, a Heresy condemned by the Church above 1200 years agoe.

When Frederick Duke of Woortenberg exhorted his Divines to acknowledge Beza, and his Company for Brethren, and to declare it by giving them their hands; The answer of refusall was made by Jacobus Andreas a most bitter enimy, and one whom Beza describes, tanquam virum sanguinarium, and his carriage throughout was most im∣perious. And it becomes an Arminian spirit well, to make the rancour of his mali∣cious heart, a rule wherebyto cry down the doctrine which he abhorred. With a farre better grace might a Papist cry down our faith, opposite to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, by the Popes abhorring it, and damning of it to the pit

of hell. For surely it is fit he should be of farre more authority then Jacobus Andreas; not to speak of the Anathematization of it in the Councell of Trent, nor of the common argument of Papists, in that they deny that we can be saved, many amongst us are of opinion, that a Papist can be saved, therefore better to be a Papist then a Protestant; yet surely it is in the power of our corruption to re∣quite malice with malice, and as much to scorne with our heeles their Brother∣hood, as they ours. But if through the grace of God, we doe not give our selves leave to requite their malice, if that be no scandall to themselves, there is no cause why it should be any scandall unto us. In Sir Edwin Sands about Fol. 59. there is such a relation as this, Though the Princes and Heads of the weaker sides in those parts both of Palsgrave and Landsgrave, have with great wisdome and judgement (to aslack those flames) imposed silence on that poynt, to the Ministers of the one Party, hoping that the charity and discretion of the other sort, would have done the like: yet it falleth out otherwise, that Lutheran Preachers rage hither∣to in their Pulpits. Now let Arminians if they think good, conclude herehence, that seeing there was so little charity and discretion, in the Lutheran Preachers, it becomes them in their writings and Conclusions, to shew as little chari∣ty and discretion as they for their hearts; and that grace of God which they fashion to themselves, will bear them out in this, it beeing meerely the power of their own free-wills. But this is not all I have to say in answer here∣unto.

The phrase in Osiander is not, errorum teterrimorum, but haerescωn teterrimarum, of which this Author saith, they reckoned this for one. And let him speak out and tell us, what were the others. Was not the denyall of Consubstantiation another? As also the denyall of the lawfulnesse of that Baptisme, which was administred by Woemen; (the practice whereof King James reformed in our Book of Common-Prayer:) As also their not concurrence with them in opinion about the Person of Christ, which by their Ubiquitary Chimaera (as Sir Edwin Sands call it) they doe misera∣bly deforme. These and other such like were the errours, whereof this Author saith, Beza and his Fellowes were proved to be guilty of in this Conference, for so I take his meaning, pronouncing thereby sentence tanquam ex Cathedra Judicis; or the Lutheran Party throughout in that Conference: which Conference was not of Predestination alone, but de Caenâ Domini, de Personâ Christi, de Imaginibus, de Baptismo, and last of all de Praedestinatione.

Yet I have not done with this. For I beseech you consider, whether this Author, or his Oracle, be not miserably deceived in all this, and that these teterrimae Haereses are not such as Iacobus Andreas with his Lutheran party, laid to the charge of Beza and his Brethren, but rather such as Beza and his Brethren, laid to the charge of the Lu∣therans; and that not in this Conference, but in their Writings, in Scriptis, so goeth the relation. Whereas this Conference was not by writing, but only by word of mouth; Iacobus Andreas not enduring to give way to Beza's motion as touching the consigning of that which they delivered in writing under their hands. For the rela∣tion in Osiander runs thus; Ad haec D. Iacobus respondit, Woortenbergicos Theologos Deum oraturos, ut Bezae & ipsius Collegis oculos mentis aperiat. Ut autem illis dextram fraternita∣tis praebeant non ignor are illos quàm horribilium errorum & teterrimarum haereseω•• in suis Scriptis coram Fcclesiâ ipsos reos egerint; Ideo{que} se mirari quomodo eos pro fratribus agnoscere possint aut velint, aut corum fraternitatem expetant, si pro talibus agnoscant, qui damnatas Haereses ab Orco revocent ut Ecclesiae Dei obtendant. Now these words though at first sight they may seem to be referred, either to the Woortenbergers as accusing Beza and his Brethren, of such errours and heresies; yet the words following, Ideo{que} se mirari quamodo eos pro fratribus agnoscere possint aut velint, aut eorum fraternitatem expetant, si pro talibus agnoscant, qui damnatas Haereses ex Orco revocent: these words I say doe farre more incline to signify, that Beza and his Brethren, laid these horrible er∣rours and heresies to the charge of the Lutherans; and therefore the Lutherans won∣dred, how they could desire their Brotherhood, whom they accounted such hor∣rible Heretiques; rather then the Lutheran party, should wonder how they should affect Brotherhood with Beza, seeing they neither did affect any such, and if they had it was not fit they should wonder at their own actions. But that which followes puts it out of all question; where comes in manifestly, what the Lutheran Par∣ty conceived of the Doctrine of Beza implying thereby, what Beza and his

Fellows conceived of the Lutherans Doctrine, was formerly expressed; the words following are these, Contrà verò in quibus & quàm tetris erroribus ipsi versentur (that is Beza and his company) hac Collatione iis demonstratum esse: In quibus cum adhuc perseverent ipsos intelligere quòd eos pro fratribus agnoscere non possint. In which words Andreas gives the rea∣son why he and his Fellowes cannot acknowledge Beza and his fellowes for brethren, because they maintained, tetros errores (as he calls them;) for proofe whereof he ap∣peales to the present Conference. And this being delivered on the contrary part to that which is delivered before, as appears by the very first word, Contra verò, it fol∣loweth, that in the former part was set down, the reason why Beza and his fellowes, should not desire the fraternity of the Lutheran party, to wit, because they laid to the Lutherans charge, that they maintained horrible errours and most pestilent Heresies, for proof whereof, he appeals not to this present Conference, which was carried wholly by word of mouth, but to their Writings. This being clearely the meaning of An∣dreas, it is apparent, that the charge laid by Beza and his fellowes, upon the Luthe∣rans, was of fouler crimes, by Andreas his relation, then was the charge laid by An∣dreas upon Beza and his Brethren. For Andreas charged Beza only with, errores tetros; but Beza and his are said to have charged the Lutherans with horribiles errores, & haereses teterrimas. So that this Author doth miserably mistake his own evidences, and shame∣fully abuseth himselfe first, and others after him, if they will be abused by him. And whether he hath not taken it from some Achates of his upon trust I know not; and if it be so that some Achates hath helped him hereunto, certainly he hath not proved Fidus Achates in this.

In the close, it will not be amisse to shew, how M^r Mason of S^t Andrews Vndershaft in London, alleageth this carriage of Jacobus Andreas, as a testimony of the Lutheran un∣charitablenesse, in comparison with the charitable condition of their opposites, in a small Treatise of Contentment in Gods gifts. pag. 19. And shall their uncharitable∣nesse plead for the truth of their way, or be any just argument, of the untruth of our way, in any sober and wise mans judgement.

Of Hemingius his leaving his own side, I never heard or read before, unlesse that of a Papist he became a Protestant. But the difference is well known between the rigid and moderate Lutherans, and these are called by the other Semi-Calviniani. And what I pray hath Hemingius deserved, that his authority should be greater then the authority of Zuinglius, Calvin, Junius; Zanchius, Piscator. The Lutherans themselves (I suppose) will hardly think him worthy to be remembred the same day with Martin Luther. And as for Martin Luthers doctrine herein, to my judgement, he is farre more ex∣presse and resolute then Calvin, and I find that Beza in his Conference of Mompelgard, doth sometimes twit his opposites with Luthers Doctrine, whereunto throughout that Conference, I doe not find they answer any thing at all.

When he saith, It is a Morsell, which the greatest part of the Christian Churches cannot swallow; What a wild course doth he take in these his Motives. Must we for every doctrine of ours, examine whether the most part of Christian Churches doe embrace it yea or no? Why should wee not then runne out in this our search, and enquire, what is the Moscoviticall and Grecian Faith, what the Aethiopian, and A∣byssine, and so proceed in our contemplative perambulations, all the World over, and what we have found preacht unto our people also, to their more profound, and substantiall edification, if they list to believe us upon our word. But I suppose he looked no farther then to this Westerne World, secluding the new discoveries within the last hundred years or somewhat more. And very confidently he must exclude all Popish Churches, or presume they are for him in this. Yet as I said, the very last Arminian, I have had to deale with, hath told me to my face, that my Doctrine of absolute Reprobation, I have learned it of the Papists; and another to this purpose, there is no materiall difference between the Gratia Con∣grua of the Jesuits, and Cratia praedeterminans of the Dominicans. And secluding Popish Churches, I know not who they are, whom he calls the greatest part of the Christian Churches. Be it, that the Lutheran Churches are a greater Par∣ty, then the Churches of the Calvinists (which is more then I find in Sir Ed∣win Sands his Relation.) Now suppose the number of the Calvinists and their power were greater then that of the Lutherans; ask I pray any Lutheran in the World whether that were any reasonable motive unto him to change his Religion and turne

Calvinist? If it be of no weight to perswade them, why should it be of any moment to prevaile with us?

I come now to the Fourth and last of these Motives.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hist. l. 5.
• * 1.2

  Annal.
• * 1.3

  1 Corinth. 4. 13.
• * 1.4

  Act. 20 2 Cor. 6. 4, 8.
• * 1.5

  Et illud fide amplectendum.