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…

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.

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.

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 wisdom, 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 wisdom therein, although it expresseth that whereupon this Author formerly touched, as concerning the Lutherans readiness to return to the Papacy rather then to admit that Predestinary Pestilence. For predestinary pestilence goeth not here alone, but is joined with the Sacramentary pestilence, For these two points, saith he, are the ground of the quarrel; but he adds I confess, 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 ell forwards one way, for an ell he looseth another way, it is only by a kind of boisterous force and violence against the Calvinists, as in Strasborough of late. And the reason hereof he takes to be in part the Absurdities of the Ubiquitary Chimaera. And as for the passage here alleged, I find it about Fol. 86. Wherein I consider, First that the speculative opinions he speaks of are not about the eternal decrees of God only, or especially above all others, as here by cunning carriage it is pretended. For the words run thus; It can be no blemish to them to revise their Doctrine, and to abate the rigour of certain speculative opinions, especially touching the eternal decrees of God, the quality of mans nature, the use of works, wherein some of their chief Authors have come to such an utter opposition, &c So that the points of rigorous doctrine, which were to be qualified in this Gentleman's judgement, are many, but especially three; The first whereof is touching the eternal decrees of God, The second concerning the quality of mans nature, The third concerning the use of Works: So that the doctrine of Gods eternal decrees is not the point alone, the rigour whereof especially is to be qualified in this Authors judgement, but this especial care of qualification, is by him referred to the three points formerly mentioned, and that indifferently.

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 wisdome 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 Strasborough 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 rigorous 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 Relation that I have, though I have searched after it, both by considering what went before, and what comes after, as far 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 counterbalance 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 point 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 profess, saying, Call us as we ought to be called, for we are Lutherans: I would we had not too many Popish-hearted amongst us.

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 Relation 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 eternal decrees; I have already performed this, and qualified the rigour of some mens opinions thereabouts. For whereas some have subordinated Gods decree of permitting sin, to the decree of damnation, I have taken another course, and do maintain, that in no moment of nature is the decree of damnation, before the decree of permitting final perseverance in sin. Again, I presume this Gentleman's meaning is not, that the doctrine of the Church of England is rigorous, as touching Gods eternal decrees. I willingly profess, I desire no better trial of the truth of the Doctrine I maintain hereabouts, next unto the Word of God, then to be tried by the 17th Article of the Church of England, and by the Articles of the Church of Ireland, set forth in the days of King James ⟨p. 88⟩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 natural infidelity and hardness of heart, which is originally found in all, and of his mere pleasure, he denies it unto other: Or whether finding some moral 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 acknowledge, that God doth show his mercy to whom he will, that is, of his mere pleasure, and denies it to whom he will, I am ready to profess, that let him state Gods eternal decrees after what manner he will, I shall willingly subscribe thereunto; provided it be suitable unto the former ground: and as for the unsuitable nature thereof, if in case it so fall out, let the proof and evident demonstration thereof, lye on me. But if his opinion be, that God bestows faith and repentance on man, moved thereunto by some moral preparation, which he finds in one, rather then in another, I appeal to the Lutherans themselves, whether this be not in plain terms no better then Pelagianism.

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 damnation, 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 17th Article of the Church of England, and by the Articles of the Church of Ireland, set forth in the daies of King James

As for his calling their opinions in this point, speculative opinions (as this Author would have us observe) I am willing to observe it: and withal I think, he doth it with better judgement, then this Author doth in calling them practical.

As for his calling their opinions in this poynt, speculative opinions (as this Author 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 practicall.

And whereas it is pretended, that our Divines have been carried into these opinions of theirs, in opposition to Popish Doctrine, This is so out of season in these days (notwithstanding the raw judgement of this Author) that our Arminians spare not to profess (as formerly mentioned) and charge us to our face, that we have learned this doctrine of ours, out of the Writings of Papists. And Grevincovius, against Amesius, spares not to pronounce, that They may with better credit follow the Jesuits, then We the Dominicans, considering that the Dominicans are the great Administrators of the Inquisition in Spain. This is delivered as touching the point of grace and Free-will: but as touching the point of election and reprobation absolute, I can show under the hand of an Arminian, that herein there is no material 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 Author knows not, or is well content to dissemble it, to wit, the Churches of Socinians and Anabaptists. And how do we more scandalize the Churches Lutheran herein, then they scandalize us? Was it ever known, that by mere differing in Opinion from other Churches, Christian men were said to scandalize them? Or if it were so, must not the scandal in this case, be equal on both sides?

And whereas it is pretended, that our Divines have been carried into these opinions 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 learned this doctrine of ours, out of the Writings of Papists. And Grevincovius, against Amesius, spares not to pronounce, that They may with better credit follow the Jesuits, then Wee the Dominicans, considering that the Dominicans are the great Administrators of the Inquisition in Spaine. This is delivered as touching 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 Author knows not, or is well content to dissemble it, to wit, the Churches of Socinians 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 Carrier write of many well known to him in this our Church of England, of the same mind with himself, some Papists, some Lutherans? And may there not be as many amongst the Lutherans, as ill satisfied with the doctrine commonly received amongst them, save that they are far more forward, to excommunicate all such, as soon as they appear, then We? Besides all this, The point of scandal is brought in very unseasonably; For if it be a truth that we maintain and profess, if any are scandalized by it, it is a scandal taken, not given: 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 near to a clear opposition to Pelagianism, a Heresy condemned by the Church above 1200 years ago.

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 doctrine 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 given: 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 refusal was made by Jacobus Andreas a most bitter enemy, and one whom Beza describes, tanquam virum sanguinarium, and his carriage throughout was most imperious. And it becomes an Arminian spirit well, to make the rancour of his malicious heart, a rule whereby to cry down the doctrine which he abhorred. With a far 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 ⟨p. 89⟩of hell. For surely it is fit he should be of far more authority then Jacobus Andreas; not to speak of the Anathematization of it in the Council 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 requite malice with malice, and as much to scorn with our heels their Brotherhood, as they ours. But if through the grace of God, we do not give our selves leave to requite their malice, if that be no scandal to themselves, there is no cause why it should be any scandal 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 Palgrave and Landgrave, have with great wisdom and judgement (to aslack those flames) imposed silence on that point, 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 hitherto 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 show as little charity and discretion as they for their hearts; and that grace of God which they fashion to themselves, will bear them out in this, it being merely the power of their own free-wills. But this is not all I have to say in answer hereunto.

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 imperious. And it becomes an Arminian spirit well, to make the rancour of his malicious 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

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 denial of Consubstantiation another? As also the denial of the lawfulness of that Baptism, which was administered by Women; (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 do miserably deform. These and other such like were the errors, whereof this Author saith, Beza and his Fellows 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.

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 miserably 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 Jacobus 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 Lutherans; 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; Jacobus 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 relation in Osiander runs thus; Ad haec D. Jacobus respondit, Woortenbergicos Theologos Deum oraturos, ut Bezae & ipsius Collegis oculos mentis aperiat. Ut autem illis dextram fraternitatis praebeant non ignor are illos quàm horribilium errorum & teterrimarum haereseω• in suis Scriptis coram Fcclesiâ ipsos reos egerint; Ideoque see 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 errors and heresies; yet the words following, Ideoque see 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 do far more incline to signify, that Beza and his Brethren, laid these horrible errors and heresies to the charge of the Lutherans; and therefore the Lutherans wondered, how they could desire their Brotherhood, whom they accounted such horrible Heretics; 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 follows puts it out of all question; where comes in manifestly, what the Lutheran Party conceived of the Doctrine of Beza implying thereby, what Beza and his ⟨p. 90⟩Fellows conceived of the Lutherans Doctrine, was formerly expressed;

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 Lutherans; 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 relation in Osiander runs thus; Ad haec D. Iacobus respondit, Woortenbergicos Theologos Deum oraturos, ut Bezae & ipsius Collegis oculos mentis aperiat. Ut autem illis dextram fraternitatis praebeant non ignor are illos quàm horribilium errorum & teterrimarum haereseω in suis Scriptis coram Fcclesiâ ipsos reos egerint; Ideoque 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, Ideoque 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 errours and heresies to the charge of the Lutherans; and therefore the Lutherans wondred, how they could desire their Brotherhood, whom they accounted such horrible 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 Party conceived of the Doctrine of Beza implying thereby, what Beza and his

the words following are these, Contrà verò in quibus & quàm tetris erroribus ipsi versentur (that is Beza and his company) hac Collation iis demonstratum esse: In quibus cum adhuc perseverent ipsos intelligere quòd eos pro fratribus agnoscere non possint. In which words Andreas gives the reason why he and his Fellows cannot acknowledge Beza and his fellows for brethren, because they maintained, tetros errors (as he calls them;) for proof whereof he appeals 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 followeth, that in the former part was set down, the reason why Beza and his fellows, should not desire the fraternity of the Lutheran party, to wit, because they laid to the Lutherans charge, that they maintained horrible errors 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 clearly the meaning of Andreas, it is apparent, that the charge laid by Beza and his fellows, upon the Lutherans, was of fouler crimes, by Andreas his relation, then was the charge laid by Andreas upon Beza and his Brethren. For Andreas charged Beza only with, errors tetros; but Beza and his are said to have charged the Lutherans with horribiles errors, & haereses teterrimas. So that this Author doth miserably mistake his own evidences, and shamefully abuseth himself 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.

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 reason 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 appeales 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 followeth, 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 Andreas, it is apparent, that the charge laid by Beza and his fellowes, upon the Lutherans, was of fouler crimes, by Andreas his relation, then was the charge laid by Andreas 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 shamefully 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.