A64002:352
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessels of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entitled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two books, the first being a refutation of the said book, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hord's discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceals his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twice ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twice from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeans ...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 ...
Oxford: printed by L.L. and H.H. for Tho. Robinson, 1653
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
3. That Reprobation was the chief cause of all the uproars in the Church at that time.
3. That Reprobation was the chief cause of all the uproares in the Church at that time.
4. That it was accused with open mouth, and challenged of falsehood, and therefore bound in justice to purge it self of the crimination.
4. That it was accused with open mouth, and challenged of falshood, and therefore bound in justice to purge it selfe of the crimination.
5. That it may easily be defended, if (as some say) it be such an apparent truth, for Nihil est ad defendendum puritate tutius, nihil ad dicendum veritate facilius, saith S. Hierom.
The striving to lye close and hide it self, though perhaps it be not so infallible, yet it is a very probable argument of a bad cause. Truth covets no corners, but is willing to abide the trial, whether in men or in doctrines. David knowing his heart to be without guile, offers himself ready to the 1Lords trial, Search me, o God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me. And our Saviour tells us that, Every one that doth evil, hates the light and comes not to the light, least his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth truth, comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. As S. Paul saith of an Heretic, he is [Greek or Hebrew] self condemned, and so may we say of Heresy and untruth, it condemns it self, and by nothing more then by refusing the Touch-stone. He is to be thought an empty Scholar, who is loath to be opposed, and his gold to be light and counterfeit, that will not have it touched and weighed, and these Opinions to be but errors, which would so willingly walk in a mist, and dwell in silence, when it concerns the peace of the Church so much to have them examined.
The striving to lye close and hide it selfe, though perhaps it be not so infallible, yet it is a very probable argument of a bad cause. Truth covets no corners, but is willing to abide the tryall, whether in men or in doctrines. David knowing his heart to be without guile, offers himselfe ready to the 1Lords tryall, Search me, o God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me. And our Saviour tells us that, Every one that doth evill, hates the light and comes not to the light, least his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth truth, comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. As S. Paul saith of an Heretick, he is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 selfe condemned, and so may we say of Heresy and untruth, it condemnes it selfe, and by nothing more then by refusing the Touch-stone. He is to be thought an empty Scholler, who is loath to be opposed, and his gold to be light and counterfeit, that will not have it touched and weighed, and these Opinions to be but errours, which would so willingly walk in a mist, and dwell in silence, when it concernes the peace of the Church so much to have them examined.
Who are these Authors of this Doctrine, who here are said to have been backward to bring it to the standard? Is Beza those Authors? whereof was he the Author? Was it the doctrine of predestination as proceeding of the mere pleasure of God, and not upon foresight of mans faith and works? Is it not apparent that this was the doctrine of Austin 1200 years ago, and that in opposition to the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians? Or was it the doctrine of reprobation, as not proceeding upon the foresight of sin, but of the mere pleasure of God? Is this Author so ignorant, as not to know what are the conclusions of Alvarez in the question, Whether there be any cause of reprobation on mans part. Lib. 10. de Auxil. disc. 110. pag. 866.
VVHo are these Authors of this Doctrine, who here are said to have been backward to bring it to the standard? Is Beza those Authors? whereof was he the Author? Was it the doctrine of predestination as proceeding of the meer pleasure of God, and not upon foresight of mans faith and works? Is it not apparent that this was the doctrine of Austin 1200 years agoe, and that in opposition to the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians? Or was it the doctrine of reprobation, as not proceeding upon the foresight of sinne, but of the meer pleasure of God? Is this Author so ignorant, as not to know what are the conclusions of Alvarez in the question, Whether there be any cause of reprobation on mans part. Lib. 10. de Auxil. disc. 110. pag. 866.
1. His first Conclusion is this, Reprobation whereby God decreed not to give unto some everlasting life, and to permit their sin, is not conditionate, but absolute: neither doth it presuppose in God, foresight of the deserts of reprobates, or of their perseverance in sin unto the last period of their life.
1. His first Conclusion is this, Reprobation whereby God decreed not to give unto some everlasting life, and to permit their sinne, is not conditionate, but absolute: neither doth it presuppose in God, foresight of the deserts of reprobates, or of their perseverance in sinne unto the last period of their life.
2. His next Conclusion is, In the Angels that fell, there is no cause of their reprobation on their part, as touching the whole effect thereof, but before any foresight of their future sin, God, pro sua Voluntate, of his mere will, did reprobate some of them, and suffered them to fall into sin.
2. His next Conclusion is, In the Angells that fell, there is no cause of their reprobation on their part, as touching the whole effect thereof, but before any foresight of their future sinne, God, pro sua Voluntate, of his meer will, did reprobate some of them, and suffered them to fall into sinne.
3. The third, Infants departing in Original sin alone, there is no cause on their part of ⟨p. 61⟩reprobation, if they be considered in comparison with others which are not reprobated, and the like is to be said proportionably of men of ripe years.
3. The third, Infants departing in Originall sinne alone, there is no cause on their part of ⟨p. 61⟩reprobation, if they be considered in comparison with others which are not reprobated, and the like is to be said proportionably of men of ripe years.
4. The fourth, Not only comparatively, but absolutely there is no cause of reprobation. Therefore neither sin actual, nor original, nor both of them foreseen by God, was indeed the meritorious and motive cause of the reprobation of any, as touching all the effects thereof, and the proof hereof he prosecutes at large.
4. The fourth, Not only comparatively, but absolutely there is no cause of reprobation. Therefore neither sinne actuall, nor originall, nor both of them foreseen by God, was indeed the meritorious and motive cause of the reprobation of any, as touching all the effects thereof, and the proofe hereof he prosecutes at large.
5. Reprobation as touching the last effect thereof, presupposeth in signo rationis the foresight of sin original, or actual, for which a reprobate is damned. Mark it well, He does not say as the cause for which God decrees his damnation, but as the cause for which a reprobate is damned. And Aquinas (whose followers the Dominicans are) expresseth this doctrine in this manner, and that more Scholastically and accurately then Alvarez. Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte paenae quae praeparatur reprobatis, in quantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata, &c. in Ad Rom. 9. Sect. 2. in fine, that is, Prescience of sins may be some reason of reprobation on the part of punishment, to wit, in as much as God purposeth to punish wicked men for their sins. Where sin is evidently made the cause of damnation, and that by virtue of Gods purpose, but by no means the cause of the decree it self. And the same Aquinas elsewhere professeth that, No man was so mad as to affirm that merits are the cause of Predestination, as touching the act of God Predestinating: and that it cannot be the cause thereof, he proves, because nothing can be the cause of Gods will, as touching the act of God willing, but as touching the things willed by God, as formerly he had proved. The same doctrine in effect is taught by Durand in 1. dist. 41. q. 2. Bonaventure applies the same distinction to reprobation it self. Odium aeternum, saith he, implies two things, Principal significatum & connotatum &c. & primum non est ex meritis, sed secundum. This he explicates in the words following, Quod patet si resolvatur, quia Odium est propositum puniendi: Propositum autem nullus meretur sed paenam, that is, Hatred (or reprobation) is Gods purpose to punish: Of this divine purpose there is no meritorious cause, but only of the punishment. The same was the Opinion of Gandavensis, Scotus, Halensis, as I have showed in my Vindiciae.
5. Reprobation as touching the last effect thereof, presupposeth in signo rationis the foresight of sinne originall, or actuall, for which a reprobate is damned. Marke it well, He does not say as the cause for which God decrees his damnation, but as the cause for which a reprobate is damned. And Aquinas (whose followers the Dominicans are) expresseth this doctrine in this manner, and that more Scholastically and accurately then Alvarez. Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte paenae quae praeparatur reprobatis, in quantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata, &c. in Ad
Now judge I pray with how little judgement, or modesty this Author intimates Beza to be the author of the doctrine of absolute reprobation. Perhaps he will say his meaning is, that he was the author of the Upper-way, as touching the making of the object of Predestination mankind not yet created. But to this I answer, that Beza doth so indeed, but he was never called to a conference hereabouts, and consequently he never declined it. And that which was declined, he makes to be declined by the abettors, as well as the authors; which cannot be understood of this nice and Logical point, as touching the object of reprobation. The main question is, whether there be any cause of reprobation, as touching the act of God reprobating: the Negative whereof, was maintained very generally amongst School-Divines before Beza was borne. And was it ever known, that those I have named did shrink in their heads or decline the trial thereof? What a silly thing is it then to infer, that because Beza at such a time, did decline the disputation hereof, and the Contra-Remonstrants at another time, therefore it is suspectable to be an untruth? Yet let us examine his instances.
Now judge I pray with how little judgement, or modesty this Author intimates Beza to be the author of the doctrine of absolute reprobation. Perhaps he will say his meaning is, that he was the author of the Upper-way, as touching the making of the object of Predestination mankind not yet created. But to this I answer, that Beza doth so indeed, but he was never called to a conference hereabouts, and consequently he never declined it. And that which was declined, he makes to be declined by the abettors, as well as the authors; which cannot be understood of this nice and Logicall poynt, as touching the object of reprobation. The main question is, whether there be any cause of reprobation, as touching the act of God reprobating: the Negative whereof, was maintained very generally amongst Schoole-Divines before Beza was borne. And was it ever known, that those I have named did shrink in their heads or decline the triall thereof? What a silly thing is it then to inferre, that because Beza at such a time, did decline the disputation hereof, and the Contra-Remonstrants at another time, therefore it is suspectable to be an untruth? Yet let us examine his instances.
Beza he saith did decline the sifting of this doctrine (to wit, of predestination) (for on that they were moved to dispute.) I doubt this Author speaks by rote, and that he is nothing at all acquainted with the story hereof, either in Osiander or in Beza, but transcribes only what another hath prompted unto him. For it is apparent by Osianders History, that they did confer thereof. It is true he stood off at the first, and gave reasons for it, but at length he and his fellows, condescended to the instance and importunity of their Adversaries, and so came on to the Conference hereabout, His words are these. Praefat. in 2. part. Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Mompelg. Quamvis quò evasura essent reliqua satis prospiceremus, mane nihilominus mutata sententia Illustriss. Principe salutato, in reliquam sequentem Collationem consensimus; eâ tantùm conditione additâ, ne propter proximum Paschae Festum, ea disceptatio longius protraheretur. Et ita demùm ad audiendas D. Andreae declamations rursum processimus.
Beza he saith did decline the sifting of this doctrine (to wit, of predestination) (for on that they were moved to dispute.) I doubt this Author speaks by rote, and that he is nothing at all acquainted with the story hereof, either in Osiander or in Beza, but transcribes only what another hath prompted unto him. For it is apparent by Osianders History, that they did conferre thereof. It is true he stood off at the first, and gave reasons for it, but at length he and his fellowes, condescended to the instance and importunity of their Adversaries, and so came on to the Conference hereabout, His words are these. Praefat. in 2. part. Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Mompelg. Quamvis quò evasura essent reliqua satis prospiceremus, mane nihilominus mutata sententia Illustriss. Principe salutato, in reliquam sequentem Collationem consensimus; eâ tantùm conditione additâ, ne propter proximum Paschae Festum, ea disceptatio longius protraheretur. Et ita demùm ad audiendas D. Andreae declamationes rursum processimus.
Was it this point alone the sifting whereof, as this Author phraseth it, Beza declined? It is apparent they were no less then three Points. This appears by the second part of Beza's answer Ad act. Colloq. Mompelg. as also by the answer of Jacobus Andreae, as if he were the mouth of the Prince, namely, that if they list not De Tribus illis ⟨p. 62⟩confer, yet he thought it fit that Theses written by them on those three Articles should be rehearsed in the hearing of all, which afterwards Beza and his fellows might take home with them to address an answer to them afterwards, as they thought good. And these three Articles were concerning, Predestination, Baptism, and the putting down of Images in Churches. Concerning all which Jacobus Andreae gives his reasons, why he thought it fit they should entertain farther Conference; Whereunto Beza makes answer in his Preface to that second part of his Answer Ad Act. Colloq. Mompelg. It is true, this reason Beza gave why he thought it not fit in that place publicly to dispute thereof, to wit, of predestination, Quod haec gravissima quaestio publicè in illo caetu allatis utrinque contrariis sententiis disceptari absque nonnullorum offendiculo non posse videretur. For both the mysterious nature of it is such, as few are capable of it; the Massilienses professed as much, as appears in Prospers Epistle unto Austin, De his taceri exigunt (saith Prosper) quorum altitudinem nullus attigerit. And to the same purpose, even they who durst not dislike Austins doctrine thereof professed as much, as appears by the Letter of Hilarius unto Austin. Consentientibus etiam his qui hanc definitionem improbare non audent, ut dicant, Quid opus fuit hujusmodi disputationis incerto tot minus intelligentium corda turbari? Then again it was in a Lutheran Assembly, and amongst many brought up in the hatred of the doctrine which Beza maintained, who in all likelihood would be the more exasperated. Causas verum tacendi 1tongum est omnes quaerere (saith Austin) quarum tamen est & haec una ne priors faciamus eos qui non intelligunt. No wise man, saith our Saviour, putteth new wine into old bottles. Quanto minus sapit, saith Beza in that Preface of his, qui de praest antissimo vino prius in utres faecibus adhuc, & vappa obsitos immittendo quàm de repurgandis illis & apparandis cogitet.
Was it this point alone the sifting whereof, as this Author phraseth it, Beza declined? It is apparent they were no lesse then three Points. This appears by the second part of Beza's answer Ad act. Colloq. Mompelg. as also by the answer of Jacobus Andreae, as if he were the mouth of the Prince, namely, that if they list not De Tribus illis
Lastly, Beza perceiveth the practice of Jacobus Andreas standing upon a place of advantage, to urge them to confer upon such a point, the truth whereof is most harsh to carnal affections, that so he might have the better opportunity to make them odious. And truly what Jacobus Andreas was, I know not, but Beza sets him forth as a man of a most malevolent disposition to the French Protestants: and our Saviour hath admonished us, Not to give that which is holy unto dogs, or to cast pearl before swine. Yet Andreas to serve his turn, and to draw them into a snare, pleads that the doctrine of Predestination, is not so to be put over in the Schooles, ut non opus sit eam ruddy & imperito populo ponere; yet Hunnius a man of the same profession, is so far different from Jacobus Andreas, that he thinks it not fit to preach before the rude people of prescience divine, but very sparingly; how much less would he think it fit to Preach before them of Predestination divine? De Praedest. quest. & respons. pag. 394. his words are these, Interim hoc repeto quod supra monui rudioribus (quibus Apostolus vult lac propinari, non cibum solidum apponi) non esse multum de praescientiâ Dei disputandum, hâc solummodo de causa quia haud perinde capiunt ea quae alias in Scholis in Disputationibus contra adversarios, &, ut Paulus ait, inter perfectos utiliter & ex fundamentis eloquiorum Dei astrui solent. Coram rudioribus ergo simplicior loquendi ratio & ipsorum captui accommodatior est si dicamus, Deum ad haereditatem regni caelestis elegisse & certo salvare decrevisse eos omnes qui resipiunt, & in vera fide filii Dei ex hâc vitâ decedunt. Its well known what order King James took in his time, in the restraint of preaching this doctrine in the Pulpits, by any under the degree of a Dean, and counselled the States likewise to forbid the preaching of those controversial points amongst them. And if it were wisdom in them to take this course, without any prejudice to the truth of the doctrine, why should Beza's with-holding from conference hereupon, be any thing prejudicial thereto.
Lastly, Beza perceiveth the practice of Jacobus Andreas standing upon a place of advantage, to urge them to conferre upon such a poynt, the truth whereof is most harsh to carnall affections, that so he might have the better opportunity to make them odious. And truly what Jacobus Andreas was, I know not, but Beza sets him forth as a man of a most malevolent disposition to the French Protestants: and our Saviour hath admonished us, Not to give that which is holy unto doggs, or to cast pearle before swine. Yet Andreas to serve his turne, and to draw them into a snare, pleads that the doctrine of Predestination, is not so to be put over in the Schooles, ut non opus sit eam rudi & imperito populo ponere; yet Hunnius a man of the same profession, is so farre different from Iacobus Andreas, that he thinks it not fit to preach before the rude people of prescience divine, but very sparingly; how much lesse would he think it fit to Preach before them of Predestination divine? De Praedest. quest. & respons. pag. 394. his words are these, Interim hoc repeto quod supra monui rudioribus (quibus Apostolus vult lac propinari, non cibum solidum apponi) non esse multum de praescientiâ Dei disputandum, hâc solummodo de causa quia haud perinde capiunt ea quae alias in Scholis in Disputationibus contra adversarios, &, ut Paulus ait, inter perfectos utiliter & ex fundamentis eloquiorum Dei astrui solent. Coram rudioribus ergo simplicior loquendi ratio & ipsorum captui accommodatior est si dicamus, Deum ad haereditatem regni caelestis elegisse & certo salvare decrevisse eos omnes qui resipiunt, & in vera fide filii Dei ex hâc vitâ decedunt. Its well known what order King Iames took in his time, in the restraint of preaching this doctrine in the Pulpits, by any under the degree of a Deane, and counselled the States likewise to forbid the preaching of those controversall points amongst them. And if it were wisdome in them to take this course, without any prejudice to the truth of the doctrine, why should Beza's with-holding from conference hereupon, be any thing prejudiciall thereto.
But were there not other causes of moment, to move him hereunto, which this Author conceals, and which Beza proposeth in the first place? as namely, that the Prince who invited them hereunto, in his Letters Missive, alleged no other cause of that meeting, but Infaelicem de Coenâ Domini controversiam, that unhappy Controversy about the Supper of the Lord. Secondly, that their Cities sent them over accordingly to this Conference for no other cause, but to confer thereabouts. This Jacobus Andreas acknowledgeth, and giveth a reason why in those Letters of the Prince, there was no mention made of those three Articles, whereabout they were afterwards urged to confer, to wit, quod illos in istis quoque dissidere non intellexerat Princeps Illustrissimus. And thirdly, because the Feast of Easter approached, and they desired to be at home in their own Cities by that time.
But were there not other causes of moment, to move him hereunto, which this Author conceales, and which Beza proposeth in the first place? as namely, that the Prince who invited them hereunto, in his Letters Missive, alleaged no other cause of that meeting, but Infaelicem de Coenâ Domini controversiam, that unhappy Controversy about the Supper of the Lord. Secondly, that their Citties sent them over accordingly to this Conference for no other cause, but to conferre thereabours. This Iacobus Andreas acknowledgeth, and giveth a reason why in those Letters of the Prince, there was no mention made of those three Articles, whereabout they were afterwards urged to conferre, to wit, quod illos in istis quoque dissidere non intellexerat Princeps Illustrissimus. And thirdly, because the Feast of Easter approched, and they desired to be at home in their own Citties by that time.
