The Riches of Gods Love, Part 1 · Treatise · Discourse · Part 1 · Section 3
DISCOURSE. The Third Motive. The Infamy of it.
IT is an Opinion (as it is maintained by the Supralapſarians) odious to the Papiſts, and opens their foule mouthes againſt our Church and Religion, and ſo abhorred (maintained either Way) by all rhe Lutherans, that for this very Tenent, they call us damned Calveniſts, think us unworthy to be above ground, and in their Writings proteſt; that they will rather unite themſelves to the Papiſts, then to us.
Sir Edwin Sands ſpeaks of men, whom he commends for ſingular learning and piety, (whoſe opinion he ſo ſets down, as he declares it to be his own) that they think it were no blemiſh for the Reformed Relat. pag. 194, 198.Doctors to revive their doctrine, and to abate the rigour of certain ſpeculative opinions, (for ſo he is pleaſed to call them) eſpecially touching the eternall decrees of God, wherein ſome of their chief authors have runne into ſuch an utter oppoſition to all the Romiſh doctrine, as to have exceedingly ſcandalized all other Churches withall, yea, and many of their own to reſt very ill ſatiſfied.
At the cloſing up of the Conference at Mompelgard, when Frederick Earle of Wortenberg exhorted Oſtand. Hiſt. Eccleſ. pag. 1040. Colloq. Mompelg. pag. 566, 567.his Divines to acknowledge Beza and his Company for Brethren, and to declare it by giving them their hands, they utterly refuſed it, ſaving, That they would pray to God to open their eyes, and would doe them any office of humanity and charity, but they would not give them the right hand of Brotherhood, becauſe they were proved to be guilty, errorum teterimorum, of moſt peſtilent errours, of which they reckoned this for one. Hemingius left his own ſide, and joyned with us in the poynt of the Sacrament, but would come no neerer to us, but maintained a diſtance in this.
It is a Morſell, which the greateſt part of the Chriſtian Churches cannot ſwallow; and therefore I think it would not down very eaſily with us, and without ſuſpicion.
TWISSE Conſideration.
HIs third Topick place, is drawn from the Infamy of this doctrine, and that amongſt Papiſts and Lutherans. And this is a grand motive with him to abhorre it. But I pray conſider, was not the doctrine of the Goſpell infamous at the firſt, both amongſt Jewes and Gentiles? What time the Jewes were the only people of God, how doth Tacitus out of his worldly wiſdome brand them? Doth he not call them Gentem teterrimam, Cenus hominum inviſum Diis? And as touching Hiſt. l. 5.their religious Rites, marke what cenſure he paſſeth upon them, Profana illic omnia, quae apud nos ſacra, rurſus conceſſa apud illos, quae apud nos inceſta, and comparing them with Annal.the Rites of Bacchus, ſaith, Liber feſtos, laetoſ que ritus poſuit, Judaeorum Mos abſurdus ſordidus que . And ſpeaking of the Chriſtians he calls them, Genus hominum propter flagitia inviſum. This cenſure he paſſeth upon them in the daies of holy Paul, who forbad them to doe evill that good might come thereof, and commands every ſoule to be ſubject to the Higher Powers, even then, when ſoules were at the beſt, and powers at worſt. And ſee I pray what the King of Aſhurs judgement was, concerning the Religion of Samaria and Jeruſalem, in compariſon to the Religions of their Nations, which were heatheniſh. Iſa. 10. 10. Like as mine hand hath found the Kingdoms of the Idolls, ſeeing their Idolls were above Jeruſalem, and above Samaria. So that of an heatheniſh Religion, he had a better eſtimation then of the Religion of the Jewes. Now if ſome Rabſhakeh amongſt them ſhould turne heathen (for ſuch a tradition, as I remember is received amongſt the Rabbins, namely, that Rabſhakeh was a Jew, but turned heathen) and afterwards endeavoured to entice the Jewes to doe as he did, and that becauſe of the infamous nature of their Religion amongſt heathens, how deſerved ſuch a one to be entertained by them? Was he not by the Law of God to be ſtoned to death? In like manner, if in the primitive daies of the Church, ſome Chriſtian ſhould turne Jew or Infidell, and practice to ſeduce others from the obedience of faith, repreſenting unto them how every where it was contradicted, how Chriſt himſelfe was counted a blaſpheamer, a ſorcerer, how the Goſpell was a ſcandall to the Jewes, fooliſhneſſe to the Gentiles, and that in killing the holy Apoſtles, the world thought they did God very good ſervice. Saint Paul himſelfe profeſſing of himſelfe and his fellowes, That they were made as the filth of the world, the offſcouring of all things. Did this infamy prevaile with 1 Corinth. 4. 13.Paul, or any other holy ſervant of God, to remit any thing, in the maintenance of his Chriſtian faith? Nay, doth he not profeſſe, ſaying, I paſſe not for theſe things, neither is my life deare unto me, ſo I may fulfill my courſe with joy, and the Miniſtration that I have received to teſtify the Goſpell of the grace of God? And that in all things, They approve themſelves as the Miniſters of God by honour and diſhonour, by good report and evill report, as deceivers and yet true.Act. 20 2 Cor. 6. 4, 8.
Againe, Is it to be expected, that any doctrine ſhould be well ſpoken of, by ſuch as are oppoſites and adverſaries thereunto? Suppoſe a rigid Lutheran ſhould by Gods providence, be taken off from their ubiquitary doctrine; and in juſtifying himſelfe for the change of his Opinion, ſhould repreſent unto them, the infamous condition of that doctrine, both in the judgement of Papiſts, and in the judgement of Calviniſts; I pray conſider, How in all likelyhood would this plea be entertained? Could he expect any better recompence hereof, then to be caſt out of their Synagogues? Suppoſe a Papiſt ſhould have his eyes opened, and brought to the truth of God in the poynt of juſtification, and, being demanded the reaſon of this change of mind in him, ſhould anſwer, that the infamy of this doctrine, both amongſt Lutherans and Calviniſts is ſo great, and that ſuch a morſell, which neither Lutherans nor Calviniſts can ſwallow, ſhould therefore (in his judgement) not down very eaſily with Papiſts, and without ſuſpicion. Now let any indifferent Reader confider, how this plea in all probability would be received amongſt papiſts. Yet I mean not to quiet my ſelfe, or content my Reader with this parallell. Of that which he here delivers of Papiſts, he gives us no evidence but his bare word in pawne, for the credit of this aſſertion. Neither gives he any teſtimony of Lutherans, their calling us damned Calvenists, and though he had, I pray, what were we the farther off from the kingdome of God for that? And I pray conſider, is it not in our power to recompence them, and call them, damned Lutherans, if we liſt to recompence malice with malice, ſo to ſerve our own turnes? And all this is delivered by him without diſtinction of Papiſts, learned and unlearned, Dominicans and Jeſuits; in like ſort without all diſtinction of Lutherans, whether rigid or moderate. But let us examine his crimination a part.
And firſt, as for Papiſts; not one is here named, nor any reference made to any of of them. St Pauls prayer was, that they might be delivered from unreaſonable men. I think never Sect roſe upmore unreaſonable then this Sect of Arminians. This Writing came unto my hands, before I had diſpatched a large diſcourſe ſent unto me from one of ſame Sect, and therein I have met with pregnant evidences, that more heads then one, were employed thereabouts. And there I am told to my face, that our doctrine of abſolute reprobation, we have learned from the Papiſts. Another with whom I had to doe not long before, profeſſeth in plain manner thus; The Jeſuits ten of them for one, favour the abſolute irreſpective decree, following herein as they think St Auſtin, but eſpecially their St Thomas, and Scotus, with all the rabble of rotten Schoolmen, and the whole Tribe at this day of the Dominicans, who are buzy zelots for the cauſe; of whoſe conſent ſome amongſt us are not aſhamed to bragge. If our irreſpective decree, be ſo joyntly maintained by both Jeſuits, and Dominicans, and that as they think according to Auſtin, how is it poſſible our doctrine herein, can be ſo odious to the Papiſts? Or what Papiſts doth he mean, if neither Jeſuits nor Dominicans, nor any ſuch as concurre with either of them? Or if it be ſo odious unto them, as one Arminian Proſelite profeſſeth, how can it be ſo concordantly maintained by them, as another Arminian proſelite avoucheth? And if we have learned it at the hands of Papiſts, what will theſe Lutherans gaine, by uniting with Papiſts rather then with us, that is, with the Maſters rather then with the Schollars. And if a Lutheran ſhould be converted to the embracing of our Tenent herein, and to juſtify himſelfe ſhould plead; That we Calviniſts are ready to proteſt, that in the doctrine of reprobation and predeſtination, we had rather unite our ſelves with Papiſts then with them, Of what moment think you, would this motive be with them, which this Author moſt inconſiderately propoſeth, as a poynt of very ponderous conſideration?
But as touching Papiſts, their diſlike of us, he confines it only to the Supralapſarian-way. And indeed that diſtinction of the Supralapſarian and Sublapſarian-way. was brought in 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 maintaine, that ſuch 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 profeſſe, that this doctrine is odious unto Papiſts? Whereas the moſt learned in the Church of Rome, are well known to maintain it in expreſſe termes, whereas our Divines courſe is, to keep themſelves to the phraſe of Scriptures. And as for the Jeſuits who oppoſe it, and in the place thereof bring in Scientia Media, and Gratia Congrua, ſhaped after the genius of Scientia Media. I can ſhew an expreſſe acknowledgement under the hand of a zealot for the Arminian cauſe, that between the Gratia praedeterminans of the Dominicans, and Gratia congrua of the Jeſuits, there is no ſuch materiall difference at all, but that the abſoluteneſſe of predeſtination and reprobation doth follow, as well upon the one, as upon the other.
To conclude, I would this Author would be ſo wiſe, as once more to conſult with his Oracle, and enquire, Whether Papiſts are more ready to joyne with Lutherans, in their doctrine of Chriſts Ubiquity, as touching his Manhood, then with us in the poynt of Reprobation, or of Gods concourſe. For ſuppoſe we held as Suarez is pleaſed to ſtate our Tenent, namely, Quod Deus omnipotenti voluntate nobis neceſſitatem imponat; yet the ſame Suarez ſaith, that in this very poynt, we are not reprehended of them, as if we affirmed ought, Quod vel in re ipſâ contradictionem involvat, aut Dei omnipotentiam ſuperet. I preſume no Papiſt is ſo well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the poynt of Ubiquity.
From that which he affirmes of Papiſts, I come to that which he affirmes of Lutherans. And what one inſtance hath he given of any Lutheran, ſpeaking againſt our making the corrupt Maſſe 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 forme of the Maſſe Uncorrupt) doth no way conſtraine us to maintaine, 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 ſinne; no nor to maintain, that God doth intend the ſalvation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the conſideration of him, in finall perſeverance in faith and repentance, provided God ſuffer him, to live untill the uſe of reaſon, as I have ſhewed, and endeavoured to juſtify, and make appeare, 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 damne any man but for ſinne; Neither doe I maintaine, 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 principall, reall (not verball 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 denyes 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; *Et illud fide amplectendum.Hunnius in his refutation of Toſſanus his Theſes, cites Toſſanus to appear before the tribunall ſeat of the Judge both of quick and dead, and to ſhew in what place of his writings, this is to be found, profeſſing that ſuch doctrine is the very Pelagian Hereſy, and that himſelfe 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, foreign Velle credere, modò Velimus? Yet this doctrine I can ſhew in expreſſe termes 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of hell. For ſurely it is fit he ſhould be of farre more authority then Jacobus Andreas; not to ſpeak of the Anathematization of it in the Councell 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 ſcorne with our heeles their Brotherhood, as they ours. But if through the grace of God, we doe not give our ſelves leave to requite their malice, if that be no ſcandall to themſelves, there is no cauſe why it ſhould be any ſcandall 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 Palſgrave and Landſgrave, have with great wiſdome and judgement (to aſlack thoſe flames) impoſed ſilence on that poynt, 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 ſhew 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 beeing meerely the power of their own free-wills. But this is not all I have to ſay in anſwer hereunto.
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 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; Ideo que 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, Ideo que 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 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 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 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, 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 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 Calviniſt? If it be of no weight to perſwade them, why ſhould it be of any moment to prevaile with us?
I come now to the Fourth and laſt of theſe Motives.