A64002:492
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.
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 ⟨p. 90⟩Fellows conceived of the Lutherans Doctrine, was formerly expressed;
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.
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.
The Maintainers of the absolute decree, do say one of these two things; either that all actions natural and moral, good and evil, and all events likewise are absolutely necessary, or that all mens ends (at least) are unalterable and undeterminable by the power of their wills, which is upon the matter all one. For in vain is our freedom in the actions, if the end which they drive at be pitched and determined, sith, Omnis actio est propter finem, All actions are done for the ends sake, that it might be obtained by them, which without them could not.
The Maintainers of the absolute decree, doe say one of these two things; either that all actions naturall and morall, good and evill, and all events likewise are absolutely necessary, or that all mens ends (at least) are unalterable and undeterminable by the power of their wills, which is upon the matter all one. For in vain is our freedome in the actions, if the end which they drive at be pitched and determined, sith, Omnis actio est propter finem, All actions are done for the ends sake, that it might be obtained by them, which without them could not.
Now in these three Opinions, we may note two things.
1. The substance and formality of them, which is an unavoidableness of mens actions and ends whatsoever they be; In this all of them agree and holding that in all things, undeclinable fates, and insuperable necessity do domineer. And therefore Melanchthon doth not slack in many of his common Places, to call this absolute decree, Fatum Stoicum, Tabulas Parcarum, and to charge the Church of Geneva (the great defender of it) with a labour to bring in the Stoics errors, as we may see in a certain Epistle of Melancthon's to Peucer, where he speaks thus, Scribit ad me Laetius de Stoico Fato usque adeo litem Genevae moveri, ut quidam in carcerem conjectus sit propterea quod à Zenone differret. O Misera Tempora! Doctrina salutis peregrinis quibusdam dubitationibus obscuratur. And Beza too speaking of Melanchthon saies, Philippus de his rebus itascribere caeperat, ut Genevenses quasi Stoicorum Fatum invehentes notare quibusdam videatur.
1. The substance and formality of them, which is an unavoidablenesse of mens actions and ends whatsoever they be; In this all of them agree and holding that in all things, undeclinable fates, and insuperable necessity doe domineere. And therefore Melancthon doth not slack in many of his common Places, to call this absolute decree, Fatum Stoicum, Tabulas Parcarum, and to charge the Church of Geneva (the great defender of it) with a labour to bring in the Stoicks errours, as we may see in a certain Epistle of Melancthons to Peucer, where he speaks thus, Scribit ad me Laetius de Stoico Fato usque adeo litem Genevae moveri, ut quidam in carcerem conjectus sit propterea quod à Zenone differret. O Misera Tempora! Doctrina salutis peregrinis quibusdam dubitationibus obscuratur. And Beza too speaking of Melancthon saies, Philippus de his rebus itascribere caeperat, ut Genevenses quasi Stoicorum Fatum invehentes notare quibusdam videatur.
2. The Circumstances or the grounds of their Opinions. The Stoics derive this necessity from the Stars or first matter, the Manichees from duo prima principia aeterna & coeterna, and these last from the peremptory decree of Almighty God, so that in this they differ, but in this difference, the Stoics and the Manichees in some respects have the better. For it is better to derive the necessity of evil actions, or unhappy events from an evil God, or from the course of nature, then from the decree of that God who is infinitely good. The substance of their Opinions is all one, the ground wherein they differ is but accidental to their error.
2. The Circumstances or the grounds of their Opinions. The Stoicks derive this necessity from the Starres or first matter, the Manichees from duo prima principia aeterna & coeterna, and these last from the peremptory decree of Almighty God, so that in this they differ, but in this difference, the Stoicks and the Manichees in some respects have the better. For it is better to derive the necessity of evill actions, or unhappy events from an evill God, or from the course of nature, then from the decree of that God who is infinitely good. The substance of their Opinions is all one, the ground wherein they differ is but accidentall to their errour.
If it be so, for this very reason alone may this doctrine of absolute reprobation be suspected, because these dreams of the Stoics were exploded by the best Philosophers of all sorts: and this of the Manichees was generally cried down by the Fathers, not only as foolish, but as impious and unworthy of entertainment in a Christian heart, or Christian Commonwealth, not so much for any thing circumstantial in it, but because it made all things and events necessary, and so plucked up the roots of virtue, planted vice, and left no place for just rewards or punishments.
If it be so, for this very reason alone may this doctrine of absolute reprobation be suspected, because these dreams of the Stoicks were exploded by the best Philosophers of all sorts: and this of the Manichees was generally cryed down by the Fathers, not only as foolish, but as impious and unworthy of entertainment in a Christian heart, or Christian Commonwealth, not so much for any thing circumstantiall in it, but because it made all things and events necessary, and so plucked up the roots of virtue, planted vice, and left no place for just rewards or punishments.
These are my Reasons of the first sort.
