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…

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 ⟨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 naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart, which is originally found in all, and of his meer pleasure, he denies it unto other: Or whether finding some morall 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 shew his mercy to whom he will, that is, of his meer pleasure, and denies it to whom he will, I am ready to professe, that let him state Gods eternall 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 proofe and evident demonstration thereof, lye on mee. But if his opinion be, that God bestowes faith and repentance on man, moved thereunto by some morall preparation, which he finds in one, rather then in another, I appeale to the Lutherans themselves, whether this be not in plain termes no better then Pelagianisme.

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.

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.

In the close, it will not be amiss to show, how Mr Mason of St Andrews Undershaft in London, allegeth this carriage of Jacobus Andreas, as a testimony of the Lutheran uncharitableness, in comparison with the charitable condition of their opposites, in a small Treatise of Contentment in Gods gifts. pag. 19. And shall their uncharitableness plead for the truth of their way, or be any just argument, of the untruth of our way, in any sober and wise mans judgement.

In the close, it will not be amisse to shew, how Mr Mason of St Andrews Vndershaft in London, alleageth this carriage of Jacobus Andreas, as a testimony of the Lutheran uncharitablenesse, in comparison with the charitable condition of their opposites, in a small Treatise of Contentment in Gods gifts. pag. 19. And shall their uncharitablenesse plead for the truth of their way, or be any just argument, of the untruth of our way, in any sober and wise mans judgement.

Of Hemingius his leaving his own side, I never heard or read before, unless that of a Papist he became a Protestant. But the difference is well known between the rigid and moderate Lutherans, and these are called by the other Semi-Calviniani. And what I pray hath Hemingius deserved, that his authority should be greater then the authority of Zuinglius, Calvin, Junius; Zanchius, Piscator. The Lutherans themselves (I suppose) will hardly think him worthy to be remembered the same day with Martin Luther. And as for Martin Luther's doctrine herein, to my judgement, he is far more express and resolute then Calvin, and I find that Beza in his Conference of Mompelgard, doth sometimes twit his opposites with Luther's Doctrine, whereunto throughout that Conference, I do not find they answer any thing at all.

Of Hemingius his leaving his own side, I never heard or read before, unlesse that of a Papist he became a Protestant. But the difference is well known between the rigid and moderate Lutherans, and these are called by the other Semi-Calviniani. And what I pray hath Hemingius deserved, that his authority should be greater then the authority of Zuinglius, Calvin, Junius; Zanchius, Piscator. The Lutherans themselves (I suppose) will hardly think him worthy to be remembred the same day with Martin Luther. And as for Martin Luthers doctrine herein, to my judgement, he is farre more expresse and resolute then Calvin, and I find that Beza in his Conference of Mompelgard, doth sometimes twit his opposites with Luthers Doctrine, whereunto throughout that Conference, I doe not find they answer any thing at all.

When he saith, It is a Morsel, which the greatest part of the Christian Churches cannot swallow; What a wild course doth he take in these his Motives. Must we for every doctrine of ours, examine whether the most part of Christian Churches do embrace it yea or no? Why should we not then run out in this our search, and enquire, what is the Moscoviticall and Grecian Faith, what the Ethiopian, and Abyssine, and so proceed in our contemplative perambulations, all the World over, and what we have found preached unto our people also, to their more profound, and substantial edification, if they list to believe us upon our word. But I suppose he looked no farther then to this Western World, secluding the new discoveries within the last hundred years or somewhat more. And very confidently he must exclude all Popish Churches, or presume they are for him in this. Yet as I said, the very last Arminian, I have had to deal with, hath told me to my face, that my Doctrine of absolute Reprobation, I have learned it of the Papists; and another to this purpose, there is no material difference between the Gratia Congrua of the Jesuits, and Cratia praedeterminans of the Dominicans. And secluding Popish Churches, I know not who they are, whom he calls the greatest part of the Christian Churches. Be it, that the Lutheran Churches are a greater Party, then the Churches of the Calvinists (which is more then I find in Sir Edwin Sands his Relation.) Now suppose the number of the Calvinists and their power were greater then that of the Lutherans; ask I pray any Lutheran in the World whether that were any reasonable motive unto him to change his Religion and turn ⟨p. 91⟩Calvinist? If it be of no weight to persuade them, why should it be of any moment to prevail with us?

When he saith, It is a Morsell, which the greatest part of the Christian Churches cannot swallow; What a wild course doth he take in these his Motives. Must we for every doctrine of ours, examine whether the most part of Christian Churches doe embrace it yea or no? Why should wee not then runne out in this our search, and enquire, what is the Moscoviticall and Grecian Faith, what the Aethiopian, and Abyssine, and so proceed in our contemplative perambulations, all the World over, and what we have found preacht unto our people also, to their more profound, and substantiall edification, if they list to believe us upon our word. But I suppose he looked no farther then to this Westerne World, secluding the new discoveries within the last hundred years or somewhat more. And very confidently he must exclude all Popish Churches, or presume they are for him in this. Yet as I said, the very last Arminian, I have had to deale with, hath told me to my face, that my Doctrine of absolute Reprobation, I have learned it of the Papists; and another to this purpose, there is no materiall difference between the Gratia Congrua of the Jesuits, and Cratia praedeterminans of the Dominicans. And secluding Popish Churches, I know not who they are, whom he calls the greatest part of the Christian Churches. Be it, that the Lutheran Churches are a greater Party, then the Churches of the Calvinists (which is more then I find in Sir Edwin Sands his Relation.) Now suppose the number of the Calvinists and their power were greater then that of the Lutherans; ask I pray any Lutheran in the World whether that were any reasonable motive unto him to change his Religion and turne

I come now to the Fourth and last of these Motives.

DISCOURSE. The Fourth Motive. Its affinity with the old exploded and condemned Errors of the Stoics and Manichees.

DISCOURSE. The Fourth Motive. Its affinity with the old exploded and condemned Errours of the Stoicks and Manichees.

The Opinion of the Stoics was, that all actions and events were inevitable, and determined, either by the revolutions of the Heavens, and the qualities of the Stars, which reign at mens births, or by the Concatenation of natural things, and the disposition of the first matters of all things, being so put together from eternity, that one thing must needs follow another as it doth, and the Materia Prima being so disposed, that all things cannot successively come to pass otherwise then they do, but must of necessity be as they are, even invito Deo, though God would have some things to be otherwise then they be.

THe Opinion of the Stoicks was, that all actions and events were inevitable, and determined, either by the revolutions of the Heavens, and the qualities of the Starres, which raigne at mens births, or by the Concatenation of naturall things, and the disposition of the first matters of all things, being so put together from eternity, that one thing must needs follow another as it doth, and the Materia Prima being so disposed, that all things cannot successively come to passe otherwise then they doe, but must of necessity be as they are, even invito Deo, though God would have some things to be otherwise then they be.

The Manichees held, that all mens actions, good or evil, were determined too: Good actions by a good God, who was the author of all good things created, and of all good actions that fell out in the World: Evil actions by an Evil God, who was the primum principium malt, the first and principal author of all evil things that were extant in the world.

The Manichees held, that all mens actions, good or evill, were determined too: Good actions by a good God, who was the author of all good things created, and of all good actions that fell out in the World: Evill actions by an Evill God, who was the primum principium malt, the first and principall author of all evill things that were extant in the world.