The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…

That they did not in their supplication entreat that no disputation should be had of reprobation▪ and therewithal the truth of the matter as formerly I have set down in answer to the former discourse, and as for Beza in the conference with Jacobus Andreas in the point of predestination: It is true at the first motion he declined it, and he gives his reasons, 1. namely that thy were not called by the prince of Mompelgard to dispute on this Article but on another which was expressed in the princes letters, as Jacobus Andreas acknowledgeth: 2 and accordingly they had Commission from their Church that sent them, to dispute on that whereunto they were called and not on any other. 3. and soe they came provided to dispute on that which was expressed in the Princes letters who invited them. 4. Then again it was in a Lutheran assembly. 5. neither would Andeas yield to Beza's motions that the conference might be transacted by writing. 6. nor that which was to be delivered by them should be taken by notaries. 7. Yet they offered to propose their doctrine on that Argument before the Prince, and to hear what Jacobus Andreas had to say against it and promised to return him an answer thereunto; Thirdly, consider it was not predestination alone, whereof they were unwilling at that time and in that place to confer about, But two other Articles also, namely as concerning Baptism, and Images in Churches; why then, doth not this Author plead as well for Images in Churches, as for the conditional nature of reprobation: as well he may upon the same ground? Fourthly, what ⟨p. 21⟩sottishness possesseth this Author to conclude, that because Beza at such a time, and in such a place, and upon such and such terms, did refuse to dispute thereon; Therefore all that profess the same doctrine with Beza do refuse to come to trial there abouts, and consequently that doctrine is suspectable of untruth; whereas it cannot be concluded of Beza simply that he refused to come to a trial, because once at a certain time and in a certain place, and in a conference upon certain terms he did refuse to come to a trial: For my part, I refuse not to come to a trial with any of them upon any particular: But I no way think fit to entertain a conference here about by words of mouth, but rather by writing;

That they did not in their supplication intreat that no disputation should be had of reprobation▪ and therewithall the truth of the matter as formerly I have set downe in answear to the former discourse, and as for Beza in the conferrence with Iacobus Andreas in the point of predestination: It is true at the first motion he declyned it, and he gives his reasons, 1. namely that thy were not called by the prince of Mompelgard to dispute on this Article but on another which was expressed in the princes letters, as Iacobus Andreas acknowledgeth: 2 and accordingly they had Commission from their Church that sent them, to dispute on that whereunto they were called and not on any other. 3. and soe they came provided to dispute on that which was expressed in the Princes letters who invited them. 4. Then againe it was in a Lutheran assembly. 5. neither would Andeas yeild to Beza's motions that the conference might be transacted by writing. 6. nor that which was to be delivered by them should be taken by notaries. 7. Yet they offered to propose their doctrine on that Argument before the Prince, and to heare what Jacobus Andreas had to say against it and promised to returne him an answer thereunto; Thirdly, consider it was not predestination alone, whereof they were unwilling at that time and in that place to conferre about, But two other Articles also, namely as concerning Baptisme, and Images in Churches; why then, doth not this Author plead as well for Images in Churches, as for the conditionall nature of reprobation: as well he may upon the same ground? Fourthly, what