Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 12 – Part 13
Dr. H. Pag. 30, 31.
Here the Doctor tells us, That we need not take much pains in looking after the judgement of the Lutheran Churches, which come so neer to that of the Church of Rome, as to be reckoned for the same. That he may not seem to be mistaken in making them the same, he doth pag. 32, 33, extract out of the Augustan Confession the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches in the five points, only adding one clause to the first Article, out of the writings of Melancthon and other learned men of that perswasion. Well, what is this addition? God beholding all Man-kind in their wretched condition, was pleased to make a general conditional Decree of Predestination, under the condition of Faith and Perseverance; and a special absolute Decree of Electing those to Life whom he foresaw would Believe and Persevere under the Means and Aids of Grace, Faith & Perseverance; and a special absolute Decree of Condemning them whom he foresaw to abide Impenitent in their Sins.
Ans. Would not any Man in the World think that we should have had the places quoted out of Melancthon, or some other Lutheran Divine, in which these things are affirmed? But no such quotation is made, or so much as attempted; onelyonly in the Margin we are referred to Appello Evangelium, cap 4. as if all that Mr. Playfer faith concerning the Lutherans were as true as Gospel, and must be believed without any examination. Mr. Playfer hath four considerable Arguments against this, which with him is the fourth Opinion, Why are none of them answered? For my part I see not what there is in these passages, which the most strait, narrow-throated Calvinist may not swallow; for it is not here said, that there is no other Decree of Election but that mentioned: and the Calvinist will readily acknowledge, that God hath decreed to save Man-kind under the condition of Faith and Perseverance; but he will also maintain, that there is another Decree by which God hath determined to bestow Faith, and Perseverance in Faith, on a certain number, viz. all his Elect. Bate us but the impropriety of the phrases used in this addition, which is so great, that the Decrees of Election and Reprobation seem confounded with Justification and Condemnation, and we shall all of us subscribe to it.
But to speak more distinctly about the Augustan Confession, The composition of it we owe to the joynt endeavours of Luther, Melancthon, and Pomeranus, (Iustus Ionas being absent when these three set about the work;) but Melancthon did most in the business, a man whose both Learning and Piety were admirable, but being of too timorous a spirit, he so drew up the Confession, which is also called an Apology, as that he seemed to some not to keep distance enough from the Papists, which made his Friends blame him, nor had it any good effect upon his Adversaries: Pope Pius V. in an Epistle to Sigismund King of Poland thus writing, Augustana Confusio (so he calls it, and not Confessio,) etsi similis est caeteris Haeresium pravitatibus, tamen ob eam causam periculosior est, quod levius quam caeterae a Catholicae Fidei professione declinans, speciem quandam Religionis retinere videatur; eo perniciosior aliis, quo venenum ejus occultius latet, nec eminet foras: so true is the common saying, Media via, neque amicos parit, neque inimicos tollit. Grotius indeed tells us in his Votum pro pace, that the Anathema's of the Trent Councel were not directed against the Augustan Confession, but against the sayings of some private Persons; and that Charls the Emperor did intercede at Rome, that the Augustan Confession might not be put among prohibited Books: But in this, as in most things that did pass between him and Rivet, he doth but delude his Reader. No man that reads over the Trent Canons can choose but see, that some of them are directed against the Augustan Confession. As for the Emperour, that ever he made any such Intercession, it appears not; If he did, he had sure altered his mind, when he commanded that a Confutation of the Augustan Confession should be written: At least this is certain, that the Emperour's Intercession availed not; for it is sufficiently known, that the Confession is put among the prohibited Books. I have by me an Index of prohibited Books, Printed at Antwerp 15…0, but approved by Pope Pius IV. Anno 1554, in which I find prohibited, pag. 16, Apologia Confessionis Augustanae; Augustanae Confessionis Ecclesiarum causae quare & amplexae sint, & retinendam ducant, suam doctrinam: and pag. 21, Confessio Fidei Augustanae. Nor is it any wonder that the Augustan Confession is prohibited, seeing the Epistles of Isaac Causabon (who endeavored to oblige the Roman Catholicks as far as he could, without forsaking the communion of the Reformed Churches) are forbidden also. Doctor Rivet, in his Annotations on Grotius's Cassander, only tells us, that he had heard it so related; but Hornebeck had met with the Papal Bull it self, and exemplifieth it to the full, in his Disputation upon the Bull of Pope Innocent V. pag. 177, 178. It is most certain, that this Confession was never intended (whatever use be made of it now) to be a perpetual rule, or symbol for all Protestant Churches; for it was made in great haste. Scripsi (saith Melancthon in an Epistle to Flachius) Augustanam Confessionem tunc, cum haberem reprehensores multos, adjutorem neminem. Melchior Adam in his life tells us, he would often say, That if he were to make, or draw up that Confession again, he would use more accurateness than before he could possibly use. Melancthon himself in an Epistle to Ioachim. Camerarius, saith, Ego mutabam▪ & resingeham pleraque quotidie: Plura etiam mutatu…us, si nostri foreign permisissent. And in an Epistle to Luther, In Apologia quotidie multa mutamus. But take the Confession as now it is, there is nothing in it which a Calvinist may not well digest. I before noted that the Piedmont Churches, after they had most plainly declared themselves for absolute election and perseverance, do openly profess, that they embr…ced and adhered unto this Augustan Confession. Calvin himself, in an Epistle to Schallingius, Anno 1557 writes thus, N…c vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio; cui pri…em v…lens ac l…bens subscripsi, sicut eam Author ipse interpretatus est. Zanchy also subscribed it with this condition, Mado Orthodoxe intelligatur: which plainly shews, that he thought it capable of an Orthodox interpretation. If any of the Calvinistical perswasion have scrupled subscription, it hath been only on the account of the Sacramentarian Controversie, which hath no connexion with the five Points that we are now enquiring into. Our Quinquarticular Historian confesseth, that in the Augustan Confession nothing is said about Predestination; but we are told that Melancthon, in his writings, hath declared himself not to side with Mr. Calvin, but rather with Arminius in that Point. So Grotius had boasted of Melancthon; but Lubbertus, in his Answer to the Pietas Grotii, makes bold to tell him, that he was mistaken, Erras si Melancthonem stare a remonstrantibus existimas. To prove this he alledgeth Melancthon on the 9th to the Romans, Cur nos vocavit ad Evangelium, & non vocavit Alexandrum Macedonem, Augustum, Socratem, &c. qui non minus civiliter vivebant quam nos? Hic necesse est causam rejicere in voluntatem Dei, & Jacob electus est Esau reprobatus priusquam quicquam boni vel mali f…cissent; ergo opera non erant causa sed voluntas vocantis. Non addam hic quomodo cavillentur ista nonnulli: Tantum hoc meminerit lector si opera secutura in vita crant causa electionis, non licuit Apostola dicere, non ex operibus. Hence Lubbertus in…ers, that Melancthon was of Luther's and Calvin's mind in the Doctrine of Predestination. Therefore the Papists in their writings stick not to charge upon Melancthon, as well as others, that Blasphemy of making God the Author of Sin. But seeing Learned Men do so differ about Melancthon's judgement in this matter, I could not be satisfied till I had made some further enquiry. To the Epistles of Calvin I betook my self, and read over all those that passed betwixt Melancthon and him; in which I found,
1. that the authority of Melancthon had been objected to Calvin, disputing about the secret will and providence of God, on which account Calvin was much troubled: This I gather from Calvin's Letter to Melancthon, dated at Geneva the 4th of the Calends of Dec. Anno 1552, Quidam nebulones, quum nobis de gratuita Dei electione, & misera humani arbitrii servitute, litem moverent, & publice tumultuarentur, nihil ad nos gravandos habuerunt magis plausibile nominis tui praetextu, quum experti essent, quam nobis promptum esset, quaecun que ingerebant commenta refellere, hoc scil. artificio nos obruere tentabant, nisi velimus palam abs te disc…dere; & ea quidem servata fuit a nobis moderatio, ut minim… extorserint quod astute captabant: professi ergo sumus▪ ego & collegae omnes mei, eundem qu… tendis in doctrina scopum nobis esse propositum.
2. Melancthon did very studiously decline the …ull declaration of his judgement concerning Praedestination and Freewill, and almost through all his writings so delivers himself, as to give men occasion to think, that he acknowledges no other Decree, but only that general Decree, viz. to save all Believers. So much may be gathered from the before mentioned Epistle: Me non leviter pungit, quae in nostra docendi ratione, nimis palam conspicitur repugnantia. Equidem non ignoro, si quid detur hominum authoritati, longe aequius esset, ut tibi subscribam, quam ut tu in sententiam meam descendas: verum id non agitur, neque a piis Christi ministris id optandum est; hoc scilicet quaeri utrinque decet, ut consentiamus in puram Dei veritatem. Me autem ut ingenue fatear, religio impedit, ne tibi in hac doctrinae parte accedam, quod nimis philosophice de libero arbitrio disputare videris, & in electione tractanda nihil aliud habere propositum, nisi ut te ad communem hominum sensum accommodes: neque hallucinationi attribui hoc potest, quod homo ac…tus & pr…d…ns & in Scriptura probe exercitatus, electionem Dei cum promissionibus con…undis, quae sunt universae; nihil enim magis notum est quam verbi praedication…m omnibus promiscue esse comm…nem, sed fidei Spiritum solis electis singulari privilegio donari, &c.
3. Mr. Calvin ever thought his Friend Melancthon rather to conceal his consent with h…m, than to dissent from him: So much we may collect from another of Calvin's Epistles, bearing date at Geneva 6. Cal. of Dec. 1554. Scribebam nuper de illo doctrinae capite, in quo magis sersum tuum dissimulas, quam a nobis dissentis. Q…id enim aliud de homine acerrimi judicii, coelestisque doctrinae peritissimo arbitrer? q…um neminem mediocriter in sacris versatum lat…at, quod ipse quasi ignotum tegis; & tamen …unditus perit gratuitae Dei misericordiae cognitio nisi hoc tenemus, mero Dei beneplacito a reprobis discerni fideles, quos in salutem eli…ere v…luit; nisi & hoc deinde constat, fidem ab arcana Dei …lectione manare, quia Spiritu suo illuminat, quos elig…re antequam nascerentur ei visum est, & adoptionis gratia in familiam suam inserit. Hanc doctrinam a summo Theologo convelli, quam absurdum sit, pro tua prudentia expende; manifestum certe dissidium in scriptis nostris notari, pessimi exempli esse vides.
4. All that Mr. Calvin desired was but this, that Melancthon would declare his judgement about these matters, not questioning but it would be agreeable to his own. Calv. ad Mel. 3. Non. Martii 1555, Nique tamen importunius urgeo, sed quoad pace tua licet, etiam atque etiam te rogatum velim, ut tecum de q…ibus scripsi, tacitus saltem expendas; sic enim operam te daturum confido, ut de gratuita piorum electione sincerior quam autehac docendi forma inter nos mutuo conveniat.
5. I found an Epistle of Melancthon's, in which he declares to Mr. Calvin, that he had received his Book De libero arbitrio against Pighius, thanking him for the great commendations bestowed upon himself in the Preface to the Book. In the close of that Epistle he speaks something of the question of Predestination, still holding to his old way of discoursing concerning it, which he conceived to be most plain and fittest for the people; but withal affirming, that what he held, had nothing in it of contrariety to, or inconsistency with, what Mr. Calvin held. His own words are these, Quod ad quaestionem de praedestinatione, habebam Tubingae amicum, doctum hominem, Franciscum Stadianum, qui dicere solebat, se utrumque probare, evenire omnia ut divina providentia decrevit, & tamen esse contingentia, sese haec conciliare non posse. Ego cum hypothesin hanc tencam, Deum non esse causam peccati, nec velle peccatum, postea contingentiam in hac nostra infirmitate judicii admitto, ut sciant rudes, Davidem sua voluntate ultro ruere, & eundem sentio, cum haberet Spiritum Sanctum, potuisse eum retinere, & in ea lucta aliquam esse voluntatis actionem. Haec etiamsi subtilius disputari possunt, tamen ad regendas mentes hoc modo proposita accommodata videntur. Accusemus ipsi nostram voluntatem cum labimur, non quaeramus in Dei consilio causam, & contra cum nos erigamus; sciamus Deum & velle opitulari & adesse luctantibus, foreign, inquit Basilius, foreign: excitetur ergo cura in nobis, & laudetur Dei immensa bonitas; quum & promisit auxilium & praestat, sed petentibus, ut inquit Dominus, hoc est, iis qui promissionem intuentur. Nam a verbo Dei ordiendum est, nec repugnandum promissioni, sed ei assentiam…r, nec disputemus antea, tunc nos adsensuros esse cum arcanum decretum Dei nobis monstratum fuerit, adsentientem autem Deus adjuvat, qui per verbum Dei est efficax. Haec non scribo ut tibi tradam quasi dictata homini & eruditissimo ac peritissimo exercitiorum pietatis. Et quidem scio haec cum tuis congruere, sed sunt foreign & ad usum accommodata. By which it appears, that Melancthon was of his Friends Stadian and Calvin's mind, but was loth to declare so much, because he saw the point was intricate and perplexed, and like to procure him much opposition: which was the cause also why he did not care to publish his mind about the Sacramentary Controversie; though it be now well known, that, in his latter days, he was as much against Consubstantiation, as Calvin himself: therefore the Lutherans, or rather Anti-Lutherans, do some of them distinguish betwixt publick and private. Philip, and Benedict Morgensterus fear not to call Melancthon, the Plague of the German Churches, Epist. ad Schlusselburgium.
If any would know how Calvin resented Melancthon's Answer about Free-will and Predestination, he may be informed from Calvin's Letter, bearing date Iune 28. 1545. De responso tuo magnam habeo tibi gratiam; simul etiam de humanitate non vulgari, quam sibi abs te exhibitam fuisse Claudius testatur. Qualis erga me futurus ess…s, inde conjecturam facio, quod meos tam benigne comiterque accipias. Deo autem maximas gratias agere non desino, qui dedit ut in ejus quaestionis summa de qua rogati eramus, sententiae nostrae congruerent; tametsi enim paululum est discriminis in particulis quibusdam, de re tamen ipsa inter nos optime convenit. Yet it seems by the former Letters, which are of a later date, that others did object Melancthon to Calvin, which made him so earnest with Melancthon to deliver his mind more clearly and plainly. If this give not the Reader so ample satisfaction as he desireth, he may please to consult such as have professedly made it their business to prove, that Melancthon was no Arminian in the five controverted Points. Among whom I principally find two recommended by the Learned Rivet in his Apologetick for Peace; viz. Sopi…g…us in Apolog… tica responsione ad bonam …idem Sibrandi Lubberti a pag. 92, ad pag. 106: and Gaspar Peucerus, the Son-in-law of Melancthon, who, in an Epistle of his to Iacobus Monavius, by many Arguments labours to prove, that the Opinion of his Father and the Geneva Divines may easily be reconciled, and that they differ not so much in the things delivered, as in the way and manner of expressing and delivering them. If any one think this too much trouble, let him consult Melancthon's Epistle to Br…ntius, among those Printed at Leyden 1648, pag. 379, Thou subtilly and afar off, out of Predestination gatherest, that to every one his degree is distributed; and thou reasonest rightly: But I in the whole Apology avoided that long and inexplicable Controversie concerning Predestination; I every where so speak, as if Predestination did follow our Faith and Works; and I do this on purpose, for I will not trouble Consciences with these inexplicable Labyrinths.
Hunnius is thought to be, and that not without cause, a very Rigid Lut…eran; yet hear what he saith in the beginning of his Theses, Quod in divinis & spiritualibus rebus nullum sit arbitrium humanae voluntatis, sed res de solo titulo, est id in nostris Ecclesiis extra dubitationem positum. Et pag. 10, In his ne modiculum quidem Illud, de quo Erasmus disputat, superest homini suis viribus relicto; sed sunt haec unius ac solius Spiritus Sancti virtuti & operationi in solidum adscribenda. I know some, and Doctor Heylin for one pag. 6, do make as if Luther did retract his Book De servo arbitrio; But that is a most gross mistake, there being no Book that he did more glory in than that and his Catechism; as is evident by a Letter written to Capito in the year 1539, which was but 7. years before his death, De tomis meorum librorum dispo…endis frigidior sum & segnior; eo quod Saturnina same percitus magis cuperem omnes d…voratos: nullum enim agnosco meum justum librum, nisi sorte De servo arbitrio, & Catechismum. The Duke of Saxony in the Preface to the Corp. Doct. writes, That they are bewitched with the frauds of the Devil, who say that Luther's Book was ever retracted. Schlusselburgh in his Catalogue of Hereticks, lib. 4. pag. 254, affirms, That the evil spirit cannot excogitate a more evident lye than this, that Luther recanted his opinion De servo arbitrio. The Divines of Saxony, in Collequio Alden. account all them Thieves, Robbers, and Sacrilegious Persons, who repudiate the Book De servo Arbitrio, or endeavour to alienate the Lutheran Churches from it. Now, I think, they that hold with Calvin in the point of Free-will, cannot (if they will be true to their own Principle) dissent from him in the point of Predestination.
Obj. But the Augustan Confession plainly condemns the Anabaptists, who teach, That a man once justified, can by no means lose the Holy Ghost: Therefore certainly the Composers of it did not hold Perseverance in such a way as is commonly taught in the Schools of the Calvinists.
Ans. I must confess this is a specious Objection, and such as at the first reading of it puzzled me; I understood not presently, how the Anabaptists could with truth be charged to hold, that a man once justified, can by no means lose the Holy Ghost; it being rather the opinion of the Anabaptists, that a man once justified, may lose the Holy Ghost: Which made me think, there was some mistake in the printed Copies which we do commonly use; or else, that this was some expression that dropped from Melancthon in haste. I looked over the seventeen Articles that were drawn up by Luther, out of which Melancthon composed the Augustan Confession; in them I found not this expression, nor any like it: But yet I dared not to lay much stress upon this my conceit, because I knew the Anabaptists were a giddy Crew, and might differ among themselves as well as from others; and upon examination, I found that there were Valentinian Anabaptists in those days, who taught that when once a man was regenerate and had obtained the Holy Ghost, he might live as he listed and do what he would, for sin could not hurt him. Such Anabaptists, the Calvinists do as perfectly abhor and would as soon condemn, as the most violent Lutherans: for Calvinists do not affirm, that let regenerate men do what they list, and take what courses they please, they shall continue in Gods grace and favour: but they teach, that he who hath the spirit, walketh after the spirit, and shall by God be made so to do. When it was objected by Bertius to Crocius, the learned Professor of Br…me, that he, in maintaining Perseverance, did contradict the eleventh Article of the Augustan Confession, how doth he clear himself? Thus: de Persev. Sanct. l. 5. c. 5. p. 585, Etsi Articulus undecimus confessionis istius damnet Anabaptistas, qui negant semel justificatos iterum poss… amittere Spiritum Sanctum, tam…n, id meam ment…m non tangit; quippe quae non vult idem quod Anabaptistae: Horum enim multi omnis generis flagitiis se audacter obstringunt, more Borboritarum, nihilque se inquinare opinantur, quod Spiritum Sanctum habeant, quomodocunque vivant. Ab isto …re horret animus. Thus this learned Professor. And if there were nothing else, this one Argument would be to me sufficient to prove, that in the Augustan Confession there is nothing contrary to the conceptions of the Zuinglians or the Calvinists about the five Points, viz. That the very year before that Confession was presented to Caesar there was a Colloquy betwixt the Lutherans and Zuinglians, in which it must not be denied, but that there was too great and scandalous a difference betwixt them in the Sacramentary Doctrine: Nor could it well be conceived that it should be otherwise; for Luther had written to the Landgrave of Hesse, that the Helvetians would scarcely be brought to acknowledge their errors, and he for his part could not possibly lay aside the opinion which he had embraced; and as soon as he met with Bucer thought meet to bestow no better complement on him than this, that he was Homo nequam, & nebulo, i. e. in plain English, A very Knave: But yet, both by what Philip Melancthon writes to Iohn Duke of Saxony, and by what Oecolampadius writes to Bertholdus a Preacher at Breme, it appears, that there was a sweet agreement betwixt the Divines on both sides about other matters: Fourteen Articles were subscribed to, the sixth whereof is this, quod Fides sit donum Dei, &c. Faith is the gift of God: which we obtain by no precedent works or merits, nor attain by our own proper strength; but the holy Spirit giveth and worketh Faith in our hearts, when we hear the Gospel or word of Christ: Which if our Arminians would heartily acknowledge, who is he that would deny them the right hand of fellowship?
Moreover, the later Brood of Lutherans may do well to observe, that harsher speeches do not occur in any Calvinist than are to be found in Luther himself; and that he, as well as Iohn Calvin, was charged to make God the Author of Sin, and to put contrary wills in God, as may be seen 2. Tom. Epist. pag. 281.
Is not this enough? Why then let us proceed further, even to that second meeting at Torga, held, as I take it, in the year 1576, in which these six men were Presidents, Iacobus Andreas, Chemnitius, Selveccerus, Chytraeus, Musculus, Cerverus, and composed that Book which is called Liber concordiae, which contains in it, besides the Apostolical, Nicene, Athanasian Creeds, the Augustan Confession, the Smalcaldian Articles, the two Catechisms of Luther, &c. a solid, full, clear repetition and declaration of those Articles of the Augustan Confession, about which there had been any controversie among Divines. If the Arminians should have recourse to this Concord, all which they would get might (as we say) be put into their eyes, and they see never a whit the worse: The Doctrine of Free-will is laid down as Calvinistically as one would wish. For,
1. 'Tis said, that the understanding and reason of man are altogether blind in things spiritual.
2. That the will of man not yet renewed, is not only averse to God, but also inimicous unto God, so as that a man not renewed, can only will and desire and delight in those things which are evil and repugnant to the Divine Will; and that as much as a dead Body is unable to vivifie or restore it self unto a corporal life, so much is a man who is dead in sins and trespasses, unable to bring himself to a spiritual life.
3. The Composers of that Concord do reject expresly the Errour of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, and the Opinion of those who teach, that, A man not renewed, by reason of his Free-will, is indeed weaker than to be able to make the beginning of his own Conversion, or to turn himself to God by his own proper strength, and obey the Law of God with his whole heart; but yet, if the Spirit of God by the preaching of the Word have laid the foundation of Conversion, and offered his Grace in the Word preached unto man, then mans Will doth contribute something, though it be but very little, to Conversion, by helping it on, and co-operating to the perfection and complement of it.
4. The said Composers do reject the speeches of those, who say, that The Will of man before Conversion, in Conversion, after Conversion, doth repugn the holy Spirit; and that The Holy Spirit is given to those who do on set purpose, and pertinaciously resist him. These speeches they reject, because God, in the conversion of men, of unwilling makes them willing.
5. They further judge, that those speeches of the ancients, Deus trahit sed volentem trahit, & Hominis voluntas in conversione non est otiosa sed aliquid agit, are not agreeable to the form of sound words, and therefore that we must abstain from them.
As to the Doctrine of Predestination, 'tis so soberly and modestly laid down, that a Calvinist may make a very fair interpretation of it, and subscribe unto it. This I had thought to have shown, but I am prevented by the incomparable Zanchy, who descanting upon the agreement made betwixt the Divines and Professors of the Church and School of Argentine, Anno 1563, concerning the Divine Prescience and Predestination, doth also teach us how to interpret the Book of Concord: Which yet, all things considered, might better have been called the Book of Discord; so much variance did it create among those, whose Wisdom and Piety it would have been, to unite against the common Enemies of Reformation.
Here it may not be amiss to take notice, that when Marbachius, about the years 1561, 1562, did accuse Zanchy's Doctrine of Predestination as heretical, the judgement of Churches and Universities and private learned Men was desired; and the University and Church of Marpurg, the School and Church of Heidelberg, the Church of Scaphusinm, the Tigurine Church and School, the Church and University of Basil, besides many private Persons, did justifie him; as may be seen in his second Book of Miscellanies, page 79, 80, &c.
Object. But do not many of the Lutherans decry Calvins Doctrine of Predestination as injurious to God, and destructive of the power and practice of godliness?
Ans. I must needs acknowledge they do, and that at such a rate and height, that they have in virulence exceeded most of the Papists; Like deaf adders they seem to have stopped their ears against the voice of all those who would have charm'd them into any moderation; and to have that alway written upon their hearts, which once dropped from Luther's Pen in a fit of passion, Blessed is the man who hath not gone in the counsel of the Sacramentarians, Epist. ad Iacob. praepositum Brem.nor stood in the way of the Zuinglians, nor sate in the seat of the Tigurines.
The first set and solemn Dispute I find betwixt Lutherans and Cal…inists about Predestination happened in the year 1586, and was managed principally by the learned Theodore Beza, and Iacobus Andreas (a man of mean birth, but advanced at last to be Chancellor of Tubing;) the place Mompelgard; the occasion such, as that no good success could be expected from it. Frederick the Prince was from his youth trained up and instructed in the Ubiquitarian Doctrine; but by going to Berne and Geneva, and frequent hearing the Lectures and Sermons of Beza, began to have some more favourable thoughts of the Calvinists, and therefore gave entertainment to some French exiles at Mompelgard: But as soon as it was buzzed into his ear, that the Duke of Wittenberg had no Heir male, that the Austrians would never endure him to be Successor if he favored the Hugonots, and that he was already suspected so to do, both because he had been at Geneva, and also because he had received and given entertainment to the French Protestants: upon these reasons he yielded to the Conference, not to find out truth, but to purge himself from any suspition of being Calvinistically affected. I would not have charged so great a Prince with so carnal a design, but that Scultetus, in the History of his own life pag. 28, assures me, that To…sanus told all this in his hearing to Pezelius. And indeed by reading the Conference it self, as related by Lucas Osiander, I found reason to suspect some such design: for whereas the Prince in his Letters missive inviting to the Conference▪ mentioned no other cause of it but the unhappy controversie about the Lords Supper; Beza and his Associates, must at the Conference be put upon it, unpreparedly, to discourse about Predestination, and the Prince, as if he could not in conscience endure to hear Beza's blasphemies (forsooth▪) must offer to put an end to his Speech, had not Andreas (who was confident he should be able to answer him) desired his Highness not to give him any interruption, lest afterwards it should be said, that Beza was not sufficiently heard in so weighty and great a matter. And yet I observe, that Andreas so declareth himself about the Doctrine of Election, as that Beza saw no reason to contradict him: Andreas his Positions are these,
1. Deus salvandos non modo praescivit, sed etiam ab aeterno elegit, & ad vitam aeternam praedestinavit.
2. Electio facta est in Christo, priusquam fundamenta mundi posita sunt, h…c est ut per Christum salvarentur.
3. Salvandorum apud Deum certus est numerus.
These things he layeth down as matters that come no… under any Dispute. Beza contradicts not any of these, nor had he any reason to contradict them. But Andreas saith, This is the question, Whether God have so predestinated his own Elect to eternal Life, as that he hath also destinated some, and the greater part of mankind, before they were born, to eternal Condemnation; and that by his absolute and hidden decree, so as that he would not have them repent, be converted and saved? This he denieth, and so would any Calvinist that is in his wits, till the terms be distinguished. I do challenge all the Jesuits and Arminians now living, to name and shew me that man, who hath in Print ventured to affirm, That God did Decree to Damn any one single Person but for Sin. When it is charged on us, that we say, God would no… have men Repent, what is the meaning? Is this it? that there are some whose Impenitence God resolves not to cure, unto whom he decreed not to give the Grace of Repentance? Why who can question this? If the meaning be, that there are some whom God never put under an obligation to Repent, unto whom he never made Repentance a duty, I must needs say, I am yet to learn the name of that Divine who hath affirmed any such thing. Alas! that Scholars should not distinguish betwixt Gods will of purpose determining of events, and his legislative will determining of the creatures duty; or once imagine that there is a contrariety betwixt these two wills. The Conference ended, Beza desired that notwithstanding any difference, they might still look upon one another as Brethren; which Andreas would not yield to, offering Beza dextram humanitatis, but not dextram fraternitatis.
The summ of all that I would have observed concerning the Lutherans, is, That the more ancient of them do not differ from the Calvinists in the Articles of Predestination or Perseverance; the latter do differ from them somewhat (though not so much as the Arminians) in both: yet the latter and worser sort of Lutherans, do so lay down the Doctrine of Free-will, that they may easily be driven to grant both absolute Election, and absolute eternal Non-election or Preterition. For as Hornbeck well, Summa Contro. p. 726, 727, This being once granted, that it is not by our own strength or concourse that we are converted, but only and meerly by the grace and operation of the Spirit, it follows, that men cannot be converted but by this his grace, and that they are then only converted when this grace is given: Now all are not converted, but some; to some therefore, and not to all, is this grace given. Could not God give the same grace of Conversion to others? He could doubtless, but doth not. If he doth not, it is because he would not. Whatever God doth not in time do, he from all eternity decreed and purposed not to do: If God from all eternity decreed not to give his grace, he did also, I trow, decree not to grant them salvation; for salvation is never promised but to the converted.
By this time it appears that the Doctor and his Party have little reason to lay any claim to the Augustan Confession, or those who glory in following it. But if it were granted, that the Composers of this Augustan Confession did symbolize with the Arminians in the 5 Points; yet it would be remembred, that there are extant other Protestant Confessions as ancient as the Augustan Confession ▪ in which the Doctrine of Gods Decree is laid down very Calvinistically. In the Confession of Basil, there are these words which the Arminian ear cannot hear; Confitemur, Deum, antequam mundum creasset, eos omnes elegisse, quos haereditate aeternae salutis donare vult.
Confitemur, hominem ab initio secundum Dei imaginem, justitiam & sanctitatem integre factum: Est autem sua sponte lapsus in peccatum, per quem lapsum totum humanum genus corruptum, damnationi obnoxium factum est, etiamque natura nostra vitiata est, ac in tantam propensionem ad peccandum devenit, ut nisi eadem per Spiritum Sanctum redintegretur, homo per se nihil boni faciat, nec velit.
I now return to the Historian, who, pag. 35, thus proceeds. Dr H.
For the better carrying on of my design, I must go back again to Calvin, whom I left under suspition of making God the Author of Sin, from which though many have took much pains (none more than industrious Dr. Field) to absolve & free him; yet by his Doctrine of Praedestination, he hath laid such grounds as have involved his followers in the same guilt also.
Answ. He had left Calvin under a suspition of making God the Author of Sin: Why but under a suspition? Had he not totidem terminis placed him among those, who by necessary consequence did make God the Author of Sin? And sith other Divines, as vehement maintainers of Hierarchy and Ceremonies as himself, have thought it their duty and the Churches interest, to clear Calvin from the odious imputation of making God the Author of Sin, why doth he take so much pains to prove that great Reformer guilty of so horrid a Blasphemy? At least he should have shewed us, that Doctor Field and those other learned men did but laterem lavare, by confuting what they urge for the justification of Calvin. But not thinking meet so to do, he contents himself to bring one Reason (such as it is) to prove that Calvin in his Doctrine of Predestination hath laid such grounds, as have involved all his Followers in the guilt of making God the Author of Sin.