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…

Now albeit for the discovery of the vile vanity of this conclusion, I need take no other pains, then to appeal to your, or any sober mans due consideration of the premises duly examined according to my former answer; yet I think good not to pass it over without such particular consideration as it deserves. First, I pray consider, what is that light that makes all things manifest? Is it the light of Conference? In the Conference of Mompelgard there were diverse other things disputed of, besides this of predestination. Now is the truth manifested hereby in all those particulars? If it be, I pray, let him signify on whose side, whether on the part of Jacobus Andreas, or on the part of Beza? To whom is it made manifest? To either side, or only to that side, on whose side this Author conceives the truth to stand? Do you not manifestly perceive the crudity of this conceit? Nay, who seeth not, that it is not the condition of conference, but the quality rather and ability of the conferrers, that is apt to manifest the truth. And such men are able to manifest, as well out of conference in their discourses, either Positive, or Controversial, as in conference; yea, and far better; Those discourses being more quietly carried, and more free from altercation, then conferences; especially in case they meet with malignant opposites. And indeed it is the Word of God alone, which is that spiritual light, which giveth manifestation to all spiritual truth. And consequently neither are they to be censured as blushing at the light, that prefer to write quietly of these controversies, then to confer about them in some cases; or that prefer conference by the pen as Beza did, before conference by word of mouth, though this better pleased the lips of Jacobus Andreas. Yet neither Beza did refuse to yield to Andreas his own way, neither did either the Contra-Remonstrants at the Hague Conference, or the Divines of Dort, refuse to treat of reprobation, as well as election, as formerly I have showed by authentical evidences. But suppose Beza and his fellows, whether two or three had altogether declined to confer at all, as in my judgement they had good reason to refuse, must this be censured their blushing at the light? Austin professeth as I have formerly vouched him, that there may be many causes of forbearing to deliver the truth at some times.

Now albeit for the discovery of the vile vanity of this conclusion, I need take no other pains, then to appeal to your, or any sober mans due consideration of the premises duely examined according to my former answer; yet I think good not to passe it over without such particular consideration as it deserves. First, I pray consider, what is that light that makes all things manifest? Is it the light of Conference? In the Conference of Mompelgard there were diverse other things disputed of, besides this of predestination. Now is the truth manifested hereby in all those particulars? If it be, I pray, let him signify on whose side, whether on the part of Jacobus Andreas, or on the part of Beza? To whom is it made manifest? To either side, or only to that side, on whose side this Author conceives the truth to stand? Doe you not manifestly perceive the crudity of this conceit? Nay, who seeth not, that it is not the condition of conference, but the quality rather and ability of the conferrers, that is apt to manifest the truth. And such men are able to manifest, as well out of conference in their discourses, either Positive, or Controversiall, as in conference; yea, and farre better; Those discourses being more quietly carried, and more free from altercation, then conferences; especially in case they meet with malignant opposites. And indeed it is the Word of God alone, which is that spirituall light, which giveth manifestation to all spirituall truth. And consequently neither are they to be censured as blushing at the light, that prefer to write quietly of these controversies, then to conferre about them in some cases; or that preferre conference by the penne as Beza did, before conference by word of mouth, though this better pleased the lipps of Jacobus Andreas. Yet neither Beza did refuse to yeeld to Andreas his own way, neither did either the Contra-Remonstrants at the Haghe Conference, or the Divines of Dort, refuse to treat of reprobation, as well as election, as formerly I have shewed by authenticall evidences. But suppose Beza and his fellowes, whether two or three had altogether declined to conferre at all, as in my judgement they had good reason to refuse, must this be censured their blushing at the light? Austin professeth as I have formerly vouched him, that there may be many causes of forbearing to deliver the truth at some times.