A64002:468
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.
IT is an Opinion (as it is maintained by the Supralapsarians) odious to the Papists, and opens their foul mouths against our Church and Religion, and so abhorred (maintained either Way) by all rhe Lutherans, that for this very Tenet, they call us damned Calvinists, think us unworthy to be above ground, and in their Writings protest; that they will rather unite themselves to the Papists, then to us.
IT is an Opinion (as it is maintained by the Supralapsarians) odious to the Papists, and opens their foule mouthes against our Church and Religion, and so abhorred (maintained either Way) by all rhe Lutherans, that for this very Tenent, they call us damned Calvenists, think us unworthy to be above ground, and in their Writings protest; that they will rather unite themselves to the Papists, then to us.
Sir Edwin Sands speaks of men, whom he commends for singular learning and piety, (whose opinion he so sets down, as he declares it to be his own) that they think it were no blemish for the Reformed 1Doctors to revive their doctrine, and to abate the rigour of certain speculative opinions, (for so he is pleased to call them) especially touching the eternal decrees of God, wherein some of their chief authors have run into such an utter opposition to all the Romish doctrine, as to have exceedingly scandalized all other Churches withal, yea, and many of their own to rest very ill satisfied.
Sir Edwin Sands speaks of men, whom he commends for singular learning and piety, (whose opinion he so sets down, as he declares it to be his own) that they think it were no blemish for the Reformed 1Doctors to revive their doctrine, and to abate the rigour of certain speculative opinions, (for so he is pleased to call them) especially touching the eternall decrees of God, wherein some of their chief authors have runne into such an utter opposition to all the Romish doctrine, as to have exceedingly scandalized all other Churches withall, yea, and many of their own to rest very ill satisfied.
At the closing up of the Conference at Mompelgard, when Frederick Earle of Wortenberg exhorted 1his Divines to acknowledge Beza and his Company for Brethren, and to declare it by giving them their hands, they utterly refused it, saving, That they would pray to God to open their eyes, and would do them any office of humanity and charity, but they would not give them the right hand of Brotherhood, because they were proved to be guilty, errorum teterimorum, of most pestilent errors, of which they reckoned this for one. Hemingius left his own side, and joined with us in the point of the Sacrament, but would come no nearer to us, but maintained a distance in this.
At the closing up of the Conference at Mompelgard, when Frederick Earle of Wortenberg exhorted 1his Divines to acknowledge Beza and his Company for Brethren, and to declare it by giving them their hands, they utterly refused it, saving, That they would pray to God to open their eyes, and would doe them any office of humanity and charity, but they would not give them the right hand of Brotherhood, because they were proved to be guilty, errorum teterimorum, of most pestilent errours, of which they reckoned this for one. Hemingius left his own side, and joyned with us in the poynt of the Sacrament, but would come no neerer to us, but maintained a distance in this.
It is a Morsel, which the greatest part of the Christian Churches cannot swallow; and therefore I think it would not down very easily with us, and without suspicion.
It is a Morsell, which the greatest part of the Christian Churches cannot swallow; and therefore I think it would not down very easily with us, and without suspicion.
His third Topic place, is drawn from the Infamy of this doctrine, and that amongst Papists and Lutherans. And this is a grand motive with him to abhor it. But I pray consider, was not the doctrine of the Gospel infamous at the first, both amongst Jews and Gentiles? What time the Jews were the only people of God, how doth Tacitus out of his worldly wisdom brand them? Doth he not call them Gentem teterrimam, Cenus hominum invisum Diis? And as touching 1their religious Rites, mark 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 2the Rites of Bacchus, saith, Liber festos, laetosque ritus posuit, Judaeorum Mos absurdus sordidusque. And speaking of the Christians he calls them, Genus hominum propter flagitia invisum. This censure he passeth upon them in the days of holy Paul, who forbade them to do evil that good might come thereof, and commands every soul to be subject to the Higher Powers, even then, when souls were at the best, and powers at worst. And see I pray what the King of Ashur's 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 Idols, seeing their Idols were above Jerusalem, and above Samaria. So that of an heathenish Religion, he had a better estimation then of the Religion of the Jews. Now if some Rabshakeh amongst them should turn heathen (for such a tradition, as I remember is received amongst the Rabbins, namely, that Rabshakeh was a Jew, but turned heathen) and afterwards endeavoured to entice the Jews to do 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 days of the Church, some Christian should turn Jew or Infidel, and practice to seduce others from the obedience of faith, representing unto them how every where it was contradicted, how Christ himself was counted a blasphemer, a sorcerer, how the Gospel was a scandal to the Jews, foolishness to the Gentiles, and that in killing the holy Apostles, the world thought they did God very good service.
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 infamous 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
Saint Paul himself professing of himself and his fellows, That they were made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things. Did this infamy prevail with 1Paul, or any other holy servant of God, to remit any thing, in the maintenance of his Christian faith? Nay, doth he not profess, saying, I pass not for these things, neither is my life dear unto me, so I may fulfil my course with joy, and the Ministration that I have received to testify the Gospel of the grace of God? And that in all things, They approve themselves as the Ministers of God by honour and dishonour, by good report and evil report, as deceivers and yet true.2
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 1Paul, 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 Ministers of God by honour and dishonour, by good report and evill report, as deceivers and yet true.2
Again, 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 himself 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 likelihood would this plea be entertained? Could he expect any better recompense 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 point 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 morsel, which neither Lutherans nor Calvinists can swallow, should therefore (in his judgement) not down very easily with Papists, and without suspicion. Now let any indifferent Reader consider, how this plea in all probability would be received amongst papists. Yet I mean not to quiet my self, or content my Reader with this parallel. Of that which he here delivers of Papists, he gives us no evidence but his bare word in pawn, for the credit of this assertion. Neither ⟨p. 85⟩gives he any testimony of Lutherans, their calling us damned Calvinists, and though he had, I pray, what were we the farther off from the kingdom of God for that? And I pray consider, is it not in our power to recompense them, and call them, damned Lutherans, if we list to recompense malice with malice, so to serve our own turns? 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.
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 expect 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 swallow, 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. Neither
And first, as for Papists; not one is here named, nor any reference made to any of of them. St Pauls prayer was, that they might be delivered from unreasonable men. I think never Sect rose up more 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 do 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 St Austin, but especially their St Thomas, and Scotus, with all the rabble of rotten Schoolmen, and the whole Tribe at this day of the Dominicans, who are busy zealots for the cause; of whose consent some amongst us are not ashamed to brag. If our irrespective decree, be so jointly maintained by both Jesuits, and Dominicans, 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 Jesuits nor Dominicans, nor any such as concur with either of them? Or if it be so odious unto them, as one Arminian Proselyte professeth, how can it be so concordantly maintained by them, as another Arminian proselyte avoucheth? And if we have learned it at the hands of Papists, what will these Lutherans gain, by uniting with Papists rather then with us, that is, with the Masters rather then with the Scholars. And if a Lutheran should be converted to the embracing of our Tenet herein, and to justify himself should plead; That we Calvinists are ready to protest, that in the doctrine of reprobation and predestination, we had rather unite our selves with Papists then with them, Of what moment think you, would this motive be with them, which this Author most inconsiderately proposeth, as a point of very ponderous consideration?
And first, as for Papists; not one is here named, nor any reference made to any of of them. St 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 St Austin, but especially their St 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 Dominicans, 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 Jesuits nor Dominicans, nor any such as concurre with either of them? Or if it be so odious unto them, as one Arminian Proselite professeth, how can it be so concordantly 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 Papists 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 consideration?
But as touching Papists, their dislike of us, he confines it only to the Supralapsarian-way. And indeed that distinction of the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian-way. was brought in merely to get thereby some more elbow room. For if they agree with us in the point 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 mere Logical difference, as I have showed in my Vindic. Grat. Dei cap. 1. pag. 1. De Predestinatione digress. 1. Yet as touching the Supralapsarian-way, that opinion is imputed unto 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 profess, that supernaturals were intended by God before naturals; and his discourse hereupon, was taken with admiration by his Auditors in Spain, and he was urged as himself professeth, to set it forth in Print. And the Quatuor signa Francisci Mayronis (mentioned by Mr Perkins De Praedest. Modo & Ordine) do manifest that he took the same way; and these quatuor signa, Franciscus Mayro received from the doctrine of Scotus. It is well known that in the Synod of Dort, there met Divines different in this point, who yet neither hated one another's doctrine nor persons for this difference; like as so it is amongst us, as in the place above mentioned I have showed. Nay it is apparent, that Junius took upon him to reconcile all three opinions there abouts, and Piscator after him, who also hath discharged his part herein, far more clearly then Junius. And no marvel, Junius 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 error: 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 Son 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.
But as touching Papists, their dislike of us, he confines it only to the Supralapsarian-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 Predestinatione digress. 1. Yet as touching the Supralapsarian-way, that opinion is imputed unto 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 Francisci Mayronis (mentioned by Mr Perkins De Praedest. Modo & Ordine) doe manifest that he took the same way; and these quatuor signa, Franciscus Mayro received from the doctrine of Scotus. It is well known that in the Synod of Dort, there met Divines different 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 abouts, 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 maintain, that such ⟨p. 86⟩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 point as difficult, then oppose it as odious. But say I, the doctrine wherein both Jesuits and Arminians do agree, will abundantly serve us to justify us, in the positive and affirmative part of so nice a point 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 used, Adam would not have fallen. Now being pleased to make use of such an administration 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.
The Supralapsarians maintaine, that such ⟨p. 86⟩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 used, Adam would not have fallen. Now being pleased to make use of such an administration 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 determining 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 profess, that this doctrine is odious unto Papists? Whereas the most learned in the Church of Rome, are well known to maintain it in express terms, 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 show an express 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 material difference at all, but that the absoluteness of predestination and reprobation doth follow, as well upon the one, as upon the other.
Again, throughout our doctrine, nothing is more harsh then that of Gods determining 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 doctrine 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 join with Lutherans, in their doctrine of Christs Ubiquity, as touching his Manhood, then with us in the point of Reprobation, or of Gods concourse. For suppose we held as Suarez is pleased to state our Tenent, namely, Quod Deus omnipotenti voluntate nobis necessitatem imponat; yet the same Suarez saith, that in this very point, we are not reprehended of them, as if we affirmed ought, Quod vel in re ipsâ contradictionem involvat, aut Dei omnipotentiam superet. I presume no Papist is so well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the point of Ubiquity.
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 pleased 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 superet. I presume no Papist is so well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the poynt of Ubiquity.
From that which he affirms of Papists, I come to that which he affirms of Lutherans. And what one instance hath he given of any Lutheran, speaking against our making the corrupt Mass 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 form of the Mass Uncorrupt) doth no way constrain us to maintain, that God doth intend the damnation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the consideration of him, as departing out of this World, under the power of sin; no nor to maintain, that God doth intend the salvation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the consideration of him, in final perseverance in faith and repentance, provided God suffer him, to live until the use of reason, as I have showed, and endeavoured to justify, and make appear, in my Vindic. Grat. Dei, in the digressions concerning Predestination. For indeed not any of our Divines was, I think, ever known to maintain, that God did intend to damn any man but for sin; Neither do I maintain, 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 principal, real (not verbal 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 denies 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; *Hunnius in his refutation of Tossanus his Theses, cites Tossanus to appear before the tribunal seat of the Judge both of quick and dead, and to show in what place of his writings, this is ⟨p. 87⟩to be found, professing that such doctrine is the very Pelagian Heresy, and that himself 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, [Greek or Hebrew] Veil credere, modò Velimus? Yet this doctrine I can show in express terms delivered by an Arminian.
But come to the consideration of the instances proposed by him.
