• 1. The Aspersions cast on Foreign Refor­mers, are wiped off.
  • 2. The Doctor's manifold Contradictions, are manifested.
  • 3. The Doctrine of the Arminians in the five points, is proved, to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England.

By HENRY HICKMAN, B. D. The Second Edition Corrected, and Enlarged.

Si moriens mordeat, mordeatur mortuus.
Cato Censor.

London, Printed for Robert Boulter at the Turks-head in Cornhil over against the Royal Exchange. 1674.



I Am told the following Papers are mine. And really I think they be; for I well remember, that sundry years ago, I did, hastily, either write or dictate to others to be written, a Con­futation of Dr. Heylin's Historia Q [...]inquarticularis, that so I might remove a stone of offence which, some told me, I principally had occasion­ed to be laid in the way of yong students. Had I thought [...]o unstudied a scrible meet to be exposed to publick [...]iew I could then have sent it abroad, when, either I [...]uld have procured a Licence to imprint it, or should [...]ot have been esteemed an offender though I had im­printed it without a Licence. Some Friends have now [Page] adventured to put it forth, without my privity, I doubt a little unseasonably, but I am confident with a good in­tention: Therefore I must not be angry with them.

For my self, I must desire thee, once for all, to take notice,

  • 1. That I only relate some mens opinions Histori­cally, and defend them from unjust aggravations; but am not concerned to maintain them to be true or accurately expressed.
  • 2. That I acknowledg there be some depths, in the Con­troversies relating to Predestination and Grace, which I am not able to fathom. Nor are these the only points in Divinity, in which I believe some things, against which I have objections that I cannot answer any o­therwise than by saying, that every Divine Revelati­on must needs be true though seemingly contrary to some­thing which my imperfect and corrupt reason apprehends to be true. It is commonly laid to the charge of the So­cinians, that they make reason the Judg in Controversies of Faith, and so I verily think it is in some sense: but that it should be Judex normalis, the Norma or Rule according to which we are to judge, so as we are to be­lieve nothing but what we could have demonstrated to be true or possible by meer reason, is an opinion so wick­ed, that I hope it is but falsly fathered on the Socinians. I believe the Hypostatical Vnion, a Trinity of persons in the Vnity of Essence: if a reason of this my Faith be asked, I will quote the Scriptures, which clearly assert those two Articles: having so done, I have resolved Faith into its first Principle, and I will continue sted­fast and immoveable in my Faith though I cannot com­prehend, either how three Persons subsist in one numeri­cal nature, or how two natures can be united so as▪ [Page] make but one person, In like manner, I will believe the Doctrine of Original Sin, as it is explained in our Ar­ticles of Religion, because I find that explication of it agreeable to Scripture, though I cannot so clearly make it out to my own or another mans reason, how Original sin is propagated. I will also believe, that God hath mercy on whom he will and hardneth whom he will, bestoweth his determining Grace on whom he will and denieth it to whom he will, because this is a Scrip­ture Doctrine, though the reconciling of Gods eternal Decrees and the efficacy of Grace with the liberty of mans will▪ surpass my knowledge. And I am the more confident, that I am not mistaken in thinking this to be a Scripture Doctrine, because, as I have shewen in the following Papers, it hath been so adjudged by the Anci­ent Fathers of the Church. Nor is it a small confirma­tion to me, that the greatest opposers of Calvinism (as they are resolved to call it) have, after the highest straining of their wits and diligence, been able to say nothing against it, but what the Pelagians and Semi­pelagians had before objected against S. Austin and his Disciples. I know there be many who think quite otherwise: These will say, Q [...]id tandem Arminio cum Pelagio, aut quid Calvino cum Augustino? Arminius learned not his opinions from Pelagius, nor did Calvin owe his notions to S. Austin. Such men I earnestly desire impartially to consider what I have hereafter produced, and if they can answer my allegations, I will thank them for undeceiving me. But this I will tell them, that he who hopes to make me his proselyte, must be,
    • 1. No Railer nor Reviler. I have read that some in old times, through I know not what foolish and wick­ed superstition, thought Garden-Basil (that I suppose [Page] answers to Plinie's Ocimum,) would grow the sooner and better, if it were sown cum convitiis & male­dictis, with reproaches and evil speaking: So, many of late seem to have been of opinion, that the Doctrine which they plant will prosper the better, if they water it with torrents of contumely against those that differ from them. Perhaps the more rank their stile is, the more it may please some Readers: but he was wise who said, As dead flies cause the Oyntment of the Apo­thecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly, him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor, Eccl. 10.1. A very little of any thing that is but a kin to scurrility will make an ingenuous person dis­gust and nauseat the most learned book. Dr. Crakan­thorp hath very s [...]lidly confuted Spala [...]sis, but the uncivil language be every where useth against the Arch­bishop ▪ hath sometimes turned my stomach and made me leave off reading. Dr. Abbot hath most judici [...]usly de­fended the Reformed Catholick against W [...]m Bi­shop, but when I find him calling Wright, foul­mouthed dog, when, &c. I cannot but wonder where a man, that had all his days been bred up among Scho­lars, learn'd such language. As for Bishop Moun­tague, he boasts that never any had handled the Pa­pists as he had done; and I verily believe him. His Gag is a piece for which he may well be denominated a Matchless Scoffer. Fool, Goose, Cockscomb, Ass, Horse, B [...]ind Buzard, Poor Woodcock, Catholick Cockscomb, &c. these are flowers that grow in Mr. Mountagues Garden, are they not very lovely & sweet? will not Popery fall to the ground after one of its Patrons hath been so bespattered with so many unseemly names? or, will not the Papists rather be confirmed in Popery, [Page] when they shall observe a dignified Minister in the Pro­testant Church, to use such unsavoury language without check or controul from his Superiors?
    • 2. I expect if any one answer me, that he faithfully relate Historical matters. For let him not imagine, that I will think the worse of any party, because I [...] slandered. Rather, I shall judge men good, because their Adversaries durst not speak evil of them, till they had first represented them to be what every man may know they were not. Lately there was Printed an History of Presbyterians ▪ Dedicated to both Houses of Parliament, and commended in the Dedicatory, as being for the most part. Nothing but a faithful collection of mat­ters of fact, transacted by the Ancestors of a Sect to this day more than enough warm in the bowels of these Kingdoms. Let me crave leave only to take no­tice how this History begins. Pag. 1, 2, At such time as it pleased God to raise up Martin Lu­ther a Divine of Saxony, to write against the Er­rours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome, Vl­derick Zuinglius a Canon of the Church of Zurick, endeavoured the like Reformation among the Switzers; but holding no intelligence with one an­other, they travelled divers ways in pursuance of it: which first produced some Animosities between themselves, not to be reconciled by a personal con­ference, which by the Lantgrave of Hassia was pro­cured between them; but afterwards occasioned far more obstinate ruptures between the followers of the parties in their several stations. The Zuin­glian Reformation was begun in defacing Images, decrying the established Fasts and appointed Fe­stivals, [Page] abolishing set Forms of Worship, denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence, and consequently all External Reverence in the participation of the blessed Sacrament: which Lu­ther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present. They differed also in the Doctrine of Predestinati­on, which Luther taught according to the current of the Antient Fathers, who lived and flourished before the writings of St. Augustin: so that the Ro­manists had not any thing to except against in that particular, when it was canvased by the Schoolmen in the Councel of Trent. And a little after, The Lutherans have solemnly vowed rather to fall off roundly to the Church of Rome, than yield to those Predestinarian, and Sacramentary Pesti­lences, as they commonly called them.

The Historian saith, It pleased God to raise up Martin Luther. No such good words are used concern­ing the Reformation endeavoured by Ulderick Zuin­glius: Yet Zuinglius, though born four years after Lu­ther, opposed the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome before Luther, and was doubtless of more Modesty Humility and Learning than Luther. And if the differences betwixt him and Luther, at the Conference procured betwixt them and others by the Lantgrave of Hassia, could not be reconciled, Luther must bear the blame: who was so uncivil as to call Bu­cer Knave, and so wedded to his notion of Consubstan­tiation, that he declared he would not recede an hairs breadth from it; and yet had at the Conference, so little to say for it, that he lost the Lantgrave and his Preacher [Page] Francis Lambert, who before had imbraced his Do­ctrine in the point of the Sacrament. Yet dare not I say with the Dr. that Animosities betwixt Luther and Zuinglius were produced, not to be reconciled by a personal Conference which by the Lantgrave of Hassia was procured betwixt them. For first I am not sure that any personal Conference was ever pro­cured betwixt Luther and Zuinglius at Marpurg. In­deed Oecolampadius and Luther had personal Con­ference in private; so also had Melancthon and Zuin­glius: no Conference had Luther and Zuinglius, that I read of, unless for three days in publick: In which three days, though Luther alone spake for his party, (Melancthon, Brentius, Osiander, Agricola being [...],) yet not only Zuinglius but Oecolam­padius answered him and disputed against him. And this it is like the Dr. calls personal Con [...]erence; whether properly or no, is a question. But that I blame him for, is this, that he saith, that the Animosities were not to be ended by that Conference. It had been too much to say, they were not ended. Fourteen Articles were after that Conference subscribed by all the Divines of both parties. The fourteenth recites, how far they a­greed about the Lords Su [...]per. They agreed, it was to be received, according to the institution, in both Ele­ments: and that there was no need of the Mass, to obtain grace for living or dead: and that the Sacra­ment of the Altar, was a Sacrament of the true Bo­dy and Bloud of [...]esus Christ: and that Christians, all and every one, had most need of spiritual man­ducation. In like manner, that the use of the Sacra­m [...]nt as the word, was appointed that weak [Page] Consciences might be moved by the spirit to true Faith and Love. This was all they differed in, whether the true Body and Bloud of Christ were corporally in the Bread and Wine? About this they could not a­gree in opinion, but yet they agreed to exercise mu­tual charity, and to pray for one another, and to leave off writing against one another. So that the A­nimosities were ended. And some think, that had not the raging of that Pestilential disease called Anglicus Sudor put an end to the Conference, the very difference in opini­on as to the Sacrament had been made an end of. But let us go on with the Doctor.

The Zuinglian Reformation, was begun in defa­cing Images, decrying the established Fasts and ap­pointed Festivals, abolishing set Forms of Wor­ship, denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence, and consequently all External Reve­rence in the participation of the blessed Sacra­ment.

When the Historian saith, that the Zuinglian Re­formation began in defacing Images, the Reader will be apt to think, that defacing Images was the first fruit of Zuinglius his Reformation: But if he should so think, he would be mistaken. Zuinglius his Refor­mation began in Preaching of the Word at Zurick: whither he came Anno 1519, leaving another place in which he had a larger stipend than he could there expect, (N. B. Both the Helvetian and German Reformer agreed in this, that neither cared for Gold or sought great Livings.) He laid the foundation also of Reformation in encouraging the study of the learned Languages, the neglect whereof brought in Popery. It was not till [Page] Zuinglius had been five or six years Preacher at Zu­rick, that Idols and Images were burnt in the Market place, and being then burnt by publick Authority, what was there in the fact that deserved not praise? Is it not commendable in Christian Magistrates, after they have heard it proved by their Divines▪ that Images are not to be suffered in Churches or other places of pub­lick resort, and when none either could or would say any thing for the retaining of them, to take them away, that so they may be no farther temptations to Idolatry? As much as this was appointed to be done in our English Reformation: why it is not done in the Lutheran Churches we shall by and by hear.

It is added by the Historian, that the Zuinglian Re­formation did begin in decrying the established Fasts and appointed Festivals. If the meaning of this be, that Zuinglius decryed the multitude of Fasts and Festi­vals, appointed to be observed by the Church of Rome, or that he condemned the necessity and meritoriousness, which the Papists ascribed to the observation of Fasts and Feasts, it is true, and tends to the commen­dation of Zuinglius: but that he decryed every esta­blished Fast, or appointed Festival, is a most noto­rious slander.

So is it also, that his Reformation began in the abolishing of set Forms of Worship: unless the meaning be, that he procured the abolition of some forms of worship, set by the Papists as Papists. And if an Historian, after he hath told us, that a man abolished set forms of Worship may be allowed to in­terpret himself of Popish Idolatrous forms of Worship, then may we think, he hath no mind to be [Page] understood, and, without any blame at all, neglect him.

It follows: the Zuinglian Reformation began in the denying of the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence.

This charge must be intended of Zuinglius his de­nying the Real Presen [...]e of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ▪ and if it be so intended, it is as false as what is most false. Zuinglius had been at Zurick five years, and reformed many things before he let any one know his mind about the Sacrament, and perhaps be­fore he knew his own mind as to the manner of Christs presence in or with the Sacramental Elements. When he after long study discovered his mind about this mat­ter, he never denyed a Real Presence, unless by Real Presence be understood a Corporal Presence. He ex­pounded Hoc est Corpus meum, by a Trope: so did our Reformers in England. He thought the Bread was the [...]ody of Christ Representatively. And, as our King may be and is said to be really present, where there is any one who by his own Authority is appointed to re­present him; so the Body of Christ may be said to be really present where there is an Element, appointed by himself to represent his Body. And if Dr. Heylin did opine that the Body which our Lord Iesus united to his Divine Nature and with which he ascended into Hea­ven, is any other way present in the Eucharist, he both erred and dissented from that Church in which he was bred up.

For a conclusion, the Historian tells us, that the Zuinglian Reformation began in denying all Exte [...] ­nal Reverence in the participation of the Blessed Sacrament.

[Page]Words more strange than any that we had before. For what is meant by the Blessed Sacrament? Sure the Dr. was so much a Christian, as to acknowledge at least two Blessed Sacraments. If so, which of these two would he have us to understand by the Blessed Sa­crament? Baptism, or the Lords Supper? I know not why the later, should rather be called the Blessed Sacrament than the former; nor why more External Reverence is necessary in the participation of this than of that, supposing the Recipient to be adult. If a con­verted Jew should come to be Baptised, why is he not as well bound to kneel when he is sprinkled with water, as when he takes the Bread and Wine? As for Zuingli­us, he never denied External Reverence in the Partici­pation of the Blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The mode and form in the which he first administred it, is recited in Melchior Adam, and in the Historia Sacra­mentaria de Coena Domini, and in it all needful Reverence was used. But, perhaps, not to make the Com­municants receive the Sacred Elements on their knees, is to deny all External Reverence in the participation of the Eucharist. If so, Christ and all his Churches for some Centuries must also be affirmed to have denied all External Reverence.

By this it appears what false witness the Dr. hath born against Zuinglius. Doth he bear a truer witness concerning Luther? Of him these words are used, which Luther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present. Words that either are senseless, or very untrue: If they have any sense, it must be this, that Luther seriously endeavour­ed to preserve the things before mentioned, in the same [Page] estate in which he found them in the Papacy. This sense the words do scarse afford: But if we suppose that this sense was intended, I then say, Nothing more false could have been written, Luther did not seriously endeavour to preserve any one thing before-mentioned in the condi­tion in which he found it.

  • 1. For Images; He was indeed angry that they were taken down, not because he desired or endeavored to have them kept up, but because he would have had the honor of pulling them down, and could not endure that Carola­stadius should adventure to make any alteration in his absence. Yet Carolastadius created Luther Doctor, and made not the alteration on his own head, but with the consent and advice of Melancthon and others.
  • 2. As to Fasts and Festivals set and constant; Lu­ther had as little fondness for them as Zuinglius could have. Might he have ruled the rost, no Holy days had been kept but the Lords day. To be sure, he endeavoured not, after he thought of Reformation, to keep either Fasts or Festivals in the same state in which he found them: He looked not on them as parts of Worship.
  • 3. He defended a not only Real, but also a Corporal Presence of Christ in th [...] Eucharist; but not, the An­tient Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence, nor yet, the new Roman Catholick Doctrine of Real Pre­sence. Finding in an eminent Schoolman, that were it not for the Authority of the Church, he should more encline to Consubstantiation than Transub­stantiation, Luther bethought himself, that he had a­bandoned the Authority of that Church which kept Cameracensis in awe, and so boldly maintained Con­substantiation (though not to his dying day as some [Page] think.) Happy had it been for his Followers, if so absurd an opinion had never been published by him; for they counting themselves concerned to maintain, whatsoever he in his fierce oppositions to Zuinglius de­livered, are fallen into the most monstrous tenent of Ubiquity: which whoever believeth, with all the necessary consequences, cannot believe one quarter of the Apostles Creed.

But what is the External Reverence in the use of the Lords Supper, affirmed by Lutherans and denied by Zuinglianists? Adoration is by the Lu­therans condemned as well as by the Zuinglianists. So is Asservation, and Circumgestation. Luther himself somewhere, if Wendelin abuse him not, advised Christians to Receive in one Kind or Ele­ment where they could not Receive in both: but the Lutherans stifly contend for the necessity of Receiving sub utraque Specie. The differences not already taken notice of, are, 1. The Lutherans think more favourably of Stone Altars, than do the Zuinglia­nists. 2. The Lutherans, at least many of them, better approve of lighting Candles in the Admi­nistration, than do the Zuinglianists ▪ We in Eng­land, in many places, set Candles and Candle­sticks on the Tables, but do not light the Candles. 3. The Lutherans use for one Element, a placenta orbicularis, of which it may be questioned, whe­ther it can properly be called bread? So do not the Zuinglianists. 4. The Lutherans use no break­ing of the Bread: So do the Zuinglianists. 5. The Lutherans give not that which they use for Bread into the hands of the Communicants, but put it into their mouths: So do not the Zuinglianists.

[Page]In no needful point of the External Reverence do they differ.

But perhaps in the point of Predestination, Luther and Zuinglius were at deadly strife and variance. So indeed the Historian suggests; for these are his words, Predestination Luther taught according to the current of the Antient Fathers, which lived and flourished before the writings of St. Austin. But by his favour, Luther taught Predestination as St. Austin and the Fathers that followed him taught it. Had he taught it as the Fathers before him taught it, he had in words at least complied with the wretched Pelagians. Other Predestination did Zuinglius never teach. So that Zuinglius and Lu­ther differed not about Predestination; and the late Ubiquitarian Lutherans, make a difference where they found none.

Obj. But Have not the Lutherans solemnly vow­ed rather to fall off roundly to the Church of Rome, than yield to the Predestinarian and Sacramentary Pestilences? Dr. Heylin ibid.

Answ. That some Lutherans have used words of such an import, I remember is affirmed by Sir Edwin Sands: But to say, The Lutherans have solemnly vowed to turn Papists rather than imbrace Zuinglius his opinion about Predestination and the Sacra­ment, is an untruth of such a bulk, as most men but Dr. Heylin would have strained at. When did the Lutherans solemnly vow this? what Record is there of any place where such a vow was made? or, what gr [...]und had the Lutherans to enter into such a solemn vow? Till these questions can be well [Page] answered which will never be, we might, if we did not reverence the Doctor's degree, well be al­lowed to say Mentitur Petrus: But to give any man such language is so troublesome, that I heartily pray, I may never have to do with any who will give me any such temptation.

3. I do also expect, that he who will answer me, should have so much Logick and Metaphysicks, as to be able to understand the terms of the Questions and the state of the Questions agitated in the Book, and rightly to form Arguments pro & con. For let not any one imagin, that I will be at the trouble to teach him that in Print, which he should have learn'd of his Tutor. Once indeed I did stoop so low, as to inform Mr. Tho. Pierce, that Real and Positive were not the same, and that The absence of a form from the subject, in which it ought to haue been though it were never in it actually, may be called a privation, and that Death is a privation, notwithstanding Christ came to de­stroy it, and that The generation of one thing is the corruption of another thing, not formally but only by concomitance, and that Our English word Sin, is not a concrete, but an abstract term, and that One accident may be the subject of inhesion to another accident, though not the ul­timate subject: But that employment did so little please me, and I had so little thanks for it, that I am almost resolved never to take it upon me more. Yet this I must needs say, for the excuse of my first confident Antagonist, that he is not the only man that adventured to fight, before he either kn [...]w how [Page] to form his weapon or to make use of it. Dr. Heylin, whom the Bishops were wont alway to send out upon the forlorn hope, had written many Books of Contro­versie, before he knew the nature of a conditional Syllogism: as appears from the marvellous check he gives Mr. Baxter for saying after a conditional major, But the Antecedent is true. Ergo, so is the Con­sequent. Such a form of arguing it seems, the Doctor had never read nor heard of: yet I believe every Freshman hath heard of it, and knows the reason of it. Another, that went for a learned man, brings an Argument that he thought unanswerable; viz. Babylon as Babylon is not a visible Church of Christ, But Babylon is Babylon as it is Babylon. Therefore Babylon is not a visible Church of Christ. Not knowing it seems, that, in such kind of Syllogisms, the Reduplicative particle ought al­way to be put to the major term of the Syllogism. But of all men, commend me to the Author of the Appeal to Caesar. Some it seems offended at his Gag, had accused him for saying There ever was and will be a Church, unto whom complaints may be made. This accusation his great stomach could not disgest. But observe, good Reader, how he strains to get rid of it. Doth he, in his Appeal, go about to prove, that the Church is alwayes so visible, as that complaints may be made to her? N [...]: But Appeal page 134 he saith, that in the nineteenth Article of our Church Church and Visible are con­vertible term. A position so absurd, that no one [...]ho knows what convertible terms do mean, can [...]hoose but see tis absurdity. But page 139 he [Page] grows more bold and confident (yet not so bold as to prove the proposition for which he was challenged,) and in these words he swaggers, I will yet add more Popery to the former, and so leave you my Friends and Informers to chew the cud on it, as they did after Lectures.

The Church of Rome hath ever been visible.

The Church of Rome is, and ever was, a true Church since it was a Church.

Therefore the true Church hath been Visible.

If any after Lectures do not chew the cud, i. e. meditate, they are unclean beasts; but wo be to those who must chew the cud on such food as this. The enunciation here concluded is, The true Church hath been Visible, which I never heard any Chri­stian deny. But let us see how this man of learning proveth it. The Premises are, The Church of Rome hath ever been Visible, This Proposition is most false and contrary to all History; The Church of Rome is, and ever was, a true Church since it was a Church, This premise is not apt to infer the conclusion: It should have been thus formed, The Church of Rome is the true Church; but then it had been Popish with a vengeance. Little need have the Puritans to pray, a Montacutii Logica liberes nos Deus.

Indeed I have observed, that many of those who are no friends to the absolute decree, have hut little friendship for Syllogisms; they count themselves put into the Pillory or Stocks as often as they are constrained to argue in form. If they may not be allowed to rhetoricate, to amplifie and [Page] exaggerate, to say horresco referens, to cry out ever and anon, [...]; then are they like Wasps without a sting, or like Soldiers disarmed. Jaco­bus Andreas was earnestly desired by Beza that the Conference betwixt them might be managed syllo­gistically; but Andreas was so far from yielding, that he swore in these or the like words, Per vitam meam nunquam sic vidi in scholis nostris disputa­ri. Vid. Bez. in praef. ad acta Coll. I hope he wronged the Lutheran Schools, or else I must needs say, they had strange Schools, in which a man could never hear a Syllogistical Disputation. In our Schools no Disputations are allowed but what are Syllogistical, and the main work of the Mo­derator is, to keep the Disputants to form. And this was that which Tertullian so much commended, ad lineas & in gradum disputare: that which St. Hierom so often called for, in his Disputa­tions against the Luciferians; Rhetoricaris, & a disputationum spinctis, ad c [...]mpos liberae decla­mationis excurris: verum define quaeso a commu­nibus locis, & in gradum rursus ac lineas regre­dere; postea si placu [...]rit latius disseremus.

And yet the Author of Gods love to man-kind makes this one of his reasons why he suspected the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation not to be true, be­cause the maintainers of it are so loth to have it examined. But the Author, before he died, knew, that the absolute decree did not fear tryal, but was as generally entertained, and as firmly held, after it had endured the most severe tryals, as before. Bu [...] if men will say, We cannot endure to [Page] haave a Doctrine examined, because we do not like that it should be mis-represented and then be­spattered, by those who had rather lose a good Con­science, than a prophane Iest, if we must be ac­couted Cowards, because we tell Rabshakeh, that we understand Latine, and pray him not to talk to us in English in the ears of the People, and answer him not a word when he hath done reviling, we are content to be thought such Cowards. But let those who so call us think what they would do, if the Do­ctrine of the Trinity should be impugned; They would answer him who soberly went about to shew, that the Scriptures we produce do not prove a Trinity, or that should go about by reason to shew, that an increated infinite essence can no m [...]re be one and yet agree to three persons, than the humane nature can: But if any one should write such Books as Servetus did, in which above an hundred times over the Tri­nity i [...] called [...]iceps Cerberus, diabolicum phan­tasma, Geryonis monstrum, illusio Satanae; and the eternal generation is thus derided, Debent di­cere quod pater habeat uxorem quandam spiri­tualem, vel quod solus ipse masculo-fae [...]neus aut Hermaphroditus simul sit pater & mater, &c. and, Si logos filius erat nat [...]s ex patre sine matre, dic mihi quomodo peperit cum, per ventrem, an per latus? they would think it sufficient to say, The Lord rebuke thee.

To conclude, If any one who is a Scholar and will write like a Scholar, will be at the pains to shew me, that Arminianism in the five points is not contrary to the Doctrine of St. Austin (the [Page] hammer of Pelagianism,) nor yet contrary to the Doctrine of our Church, I shall either speedily reply or acknowledge my self his Prisoner. Put if any one shall publish a Book against me, stuffed only with impotent railings or malicious calumnies, I shall punish him, as I have done two or three already, by not buying, not reading his Book.

It will perhaps be said, that the Papists, against whom we should unite our forces, will be too too much gratified by one Protestant's writing against another.

Answ. I doubt not, but the Factors for the Pa­pacy, do with much delight tell their Disciples, how those that are not in Communion with them are divided among themselves: But they should do well to make up their own breaches before they up­braid us wit [...] ours. He, that being scandalised at the diversity of opinions among the Reformed, shall betake himself to the Romanists, will leap out of the frying-pan into the fire. The Papists only agree in that, in which they dare not publish how much they differ: and they then let a Popes decision put an end to their disputes, when they can neither say, that the Pope was misinformed, or that he was not in Cathed [...]a, or know not how by some distinction to evade the determination; that is, they then let the Popes reconcile them, when they have no mind to be any longer at variance. They will not deny, but that there is as much difference between their Dominicans and Fran­ciscans ▪ their Jansenists and Molinists, as there is betwixt Calvinists and Arminians: and yet [Page] they say, that their Church is one, and not ours. How is this to be unridled? One A. D. about the be­ginning of King James his Reign, put forth a Pamphlet which he called a Treatise of Faith; near the later end of which he lets us understand, that the Roman Church is alwayes one and uni­form in Faith, never varying or holding any dogmatical point contrary to that which in for­mer times it did hold. The learned men thereof, though sometimes differing in opinion, in matters not defined by the Church, yet, in matters of Faith, all conspire in one. And no marvel, be­cause they have a most convenient means to keep unity in profession of Faith; sith they do acknowledge one chief Pastor appointed over them (viz. the Successor of St. Peter,) to whose definitive censure, in matters concerning Religion, they wholly submit themselves. The Gentlemans meaning if I can fathom it is, that the Roma­nists are resolved to think their Church is at unity within it self. For though the members thereof have 10000 differences among themselves, yet those differences are not in matters of Faith, because they are resolved▪ as soon as the Church shall decide them, never to differ more. Well, one would think that Protestants also might be at unity; because they profess they will yield to Scripture determination whatever it be. Nay, that the Gentleman will n [...]t grant; because, as he had told us a little before, divers men expound the Scriptures diversly. As if the decisions of their Church were not ex­pounded diversly by divers, and were not as apt to be [Page] diversly expounded as the Scriptures. And, as if they were as much at an end after they had found out the meaning of a decision made by the Pope, as we are when we have found out the meaning of the Scripture. Convince a Protestant, that any one place of Scripture must needs be so understood as to assert Consubstantiation, he becomes a Sy­no [...]siast forthwith: But when you have convinced a Papist, that a decision of the Pope must needs be so interpreted as to cross his opinion, yet he will not lay down his opinion; but will say, perhaps, that the Pope did decide not as Pope but only as a Learned man, or that it may be questioned whe­ther he be a Pope, or whether he be infallible out of a Councel, or whether he was rightly informed of matter of fact? Suppose a Jansenist should thus argue, The Pope did not intend to condemn the Doctrine of Augustine: therefore, He did not intend to condemn the Doctrine of Jansenius. A Molinist would be loth to deny the Antecedent; and yet if he deny the Consequent, then hath the Jansenist field-room enough, and is as far from being proselyted as if nothing had been determined against Jansenism. In the mean time it were hearti­ly to be wished, that Protestant Ministers would v [...]ry sparingly in their Preaching touch upon those p [...]ints wherein they differ am [...]ng themselves. The day is yet to come that ever I preached Sermon a­bout Election or Reprobation, and I look upon it as a great affliction that I have been by the daring provocations of others put upon it to write about them. I could easily have born it that Dr. Heylin [Page] should trample upon my self; but could not so well endure it, that for my sake the honour of some of our best Reformed Writers should be laid in the dust. If Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza may still be read without prejudice and quoted in the Pulpit with due respect, If I can but perswade young Scholars that those who composed our Articles did understand them, and would not enjoyn men to recant such tenents as were agreeable to them; then have I obtained what I principally aimed at. And so, good Reader, I commend thee to the love of God, and to the hatred of Popery and Superstition and every opinion that hath a natural tendency thereunto.


AN Introduction, giving an account of the under­taking,
Page 1, 2.
Of the Blasphemy of Florinus; and whether Euse­bius charge Blastus with it,
p. 3.
Irenaeus his Arguments against Florinus,
p. 4.
The Arguments of other Fathers against his Blas­phemy,
p. 5.
Of the Libertines, and Calvin,
p. 6, 7, 8.
Of Mr. Archers Book, and its burning.
p. 9, 10.
Of Manes, Bardesanes, Colarbas, Priscilianus,
p. 11, 12, 13.
Luther no Manichee.
p. 14, 15.
Calvin no Bardesanist, nor Priscilianist,
p. 16.
Of Socinus denying Gods Prescience; and the Ie­suits. Scientia media,
p. 19, to 23.
Of Pelagius his Heresie, &c.
p. 23, 24, 25.
Of the S [...]mipelagians,
p. 26, 27.
The Arminians follow the Pelagians and Semipe­pelagians; Calvin, Austin,
p. 27, to 35.
Of Godescalk,
p. 35, to 38.
Of the Councel of Trent,
p. 38, to 43.
Of the Condemnation of Jansenius,
p. 43, to 46.
[Page]The Opinion of the Piedmont Churches concerning Predestination and Grace.
p. 46, 47.
Of the Augustan Confession, by whom made. p. 49. not relished by the Papists, ib. drawn up in hast, p. 50. subscribed by Calvin and Zanchy,
Melancthon not against Calvin in the point of Pre­destination, p. 51, to 55. Luther retracted not his Book De servo arbitrio, p. 55. An Article of the Con­fession explained,
p. 55, 56, 57.
Of the Liber Concordiae,
p. 57, 58, 59.
Of the Conference betwixt Beza and Andraeas.
p. 59, 60, 61.
Calvin not proved, to make God the Author of Sin,
p. 62, to 66.
Of his Horribile Decretum, p. 66, 67. Reprobation, as stated by him, not of such reproach among Papists, nor of such offence among the Lutherans as the Doctor pretends, 68, to 71. Iustified as to Castalio, 71, 72. No Supralapsarian, at least not the first,
p. 72, 73.
Of the different opinions concerning the object of Predestination,
p. 73.
Supralapsarians abused by the Doctor,
p. 74, 75.
Sublapsarian Opinion stated out of the Synod of Dort, p. 76, to 79. Answers to Mr Hoards objections against it,
p. 79. to 91.
Of the Remonstrants and Arminians,
p. 9 [...], to 104.
The Doctor's Parallel betwixt the Synod of Dort and the Councel of Trent disproved,
p. 104, to 112.
Of the Deputies of Utrecht and Maccovius,
p. 112, 113.
[...] Remonstrants not used cruelly,
p. 114.
[...] made the Author of Sin by those who charge [Page] others to make him such,
p. 116, to 120.
The City of Sedan abused,
p. 120.
Episcopius his humour described,
p. 121.
The Remonstrants cannot joyn with any Christian Church,
p. 122.
The Charge against the Remonstrants made good,
p. 123, to 127.
Whether their Opinions tend to Popery,
p. 127, to 138.
Wickliff defended,
p. 139, to 146.
Tindal, Barnes, Frith justified and commended,
p. 146, 147.
Dr. Heylin's mistakes about our Reformation and Reformers in England rectified,
p. 148, to 157.
The English Article about Predestination laid down, and its sense, p. 157, to 160. The Historians Observations therefrom considered and confuted,
p. 160, to 165.
Of the Liturgy, p. 165. K. Edw. Catechism,
Of the Iudgment of our Martyrs, Mr. Rogers, p. 166, 167. Cranmer, Ridley, p. 167, to 170. Philpot, p. 170. Bradford,
p. 170, to 175.
Of Peter Martyr and Bucer,
p. 175, to 178.
Of the Geneva Bible,
p. 178, 179.
Hooper and Latimer no Friends to Arminianism,
p. 179, to 182.
Calvin's Reprobation misrepresented by Dr. H. p. 182. as also his Doctrine concerning Perseverance,
p. 184.
Of the sixteenth Article of our Church,
p. 185. to 191.
Calvinists no new Gospellers,
p. 192, 193.
Of Campneys, Veron, Crowley,
p. 193, 194.
Of Queen Elizabeths Articles,
p. 196, 197.
[Page]Of Mr.Nowels Catechisme,
p. 197, to 200.
Of Queen Elizabeths Homilies,
p. 20▪0 201.
Of Mr. Harsnet, and Bishop King,
p. 202, 203.
Of Mr. Fox; His Martyrology vindicated,
p. 205, 206.
Mr. Perkins cleared,
p. 206, to 209.
Of Whitaker, Baro, Barret,
p. 209, &c.
Of the Lambeth Articles,
p. 211, &c.
Of the Questions and Answers put betwixt the Old and New Testament in former Bibles,
p. 214.
Of the Hampton-Court Conference,
p. 217.
Of the Irish Articles,
p. 219.
A Catalogue of Bishops preferred by King James,
p. 221.
Of Overal, Vorstius, our Divines at the Synod of Dort, Sympson, Tompsom, K. James his directions, Bridges, Mountague,
p. 221, to the end.
A Postscript concerning Barret,
p. 232, &c.


IT is an happiness rather to be wished, than hoped for, that the Church of God should stand in need of no. Polemical Divines: for whilst Satan is Satan, and Men Men, and whilst the Righteous Judge of all Mankind sees meet to punish those who receive not the truth in the love of it, by giving them up to strong delusions, there will be He­reticks wresting the Scriptures, and opposing the Faith once [Page 2] delivered to the Saints. Against these, as many as had any re­gard of mens precious and immortal souls, have in all Ages thought themselves obliged to contend earnestly, and that with two sorts of weapons: The first Apodictical, proving the truth, and refelling the errors opposite to it, by evidence of Scriptures, and strength of Reason; the second Historical, confirming Truth by the Testimonies and Authority of men renowned for Learning and Piety. The former are the wea­pons mighty through God to the throwing down of strong holds, but the later have also been used with good success; and indeed he must be a perfect stranger to all modesty and humility, who doth hastily embrace any assertion opposed by all, or the greatest part of the Fathers, Martyrs and Reformers of the Church. With these later Weapons I intend (he assist­ing who worketh in us both to will and to do,) to encounter the Reverend Doctor Peter Heylin, thought, it seems by the many importunate Letters sent to him, as able as any to strengthen the weak hands of Arminius, and his followers. I do in the entrance promise, to have in my eye that golden saying. Hi­storici primum munus est, ne quid falsi dic [...] audeat, deinde, ne quid veri non audeat; ne qua suspicio gratiae sit in scribendo, ne qua simultatis: Which that the Doctor observed not, will be evident before I have done to all▪ but those who cannot or will not see. Our Subject must be the unhappy Quinquar­ticular Controversie, about which the Doctor had written something, in that part of his Certamen Epistolare, which was directed against Mr. Hickman. That Certamen, whether it pleased others or no, it seems pleased the Doctor himself so well, that he hath thought meet to repeat a good part of it in his Historia Quinquarticularis, and that without begging pardon for his Ta [...]tology. But this being a fault against my purse rather than against the Truth, I can easily forgive: and shall make some Animadversions on his History, and in­sert such Digression [...], as I shall judge meet to decide the Controversie, Whet [...]er the Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant opinions be most agreeable to the sense of the Antient and Mo­dern Reformed Protestant Churches, more especially this of England? If I evince not that the Contra-Remonstrant are, I refuse not the hardest Censure.

The Doctor in his first Chapter makes some declamatory attempts against such, ‘As have either made God the Au­thor [Page 3] of sin, or denyed the liberty of mans will, or attri­buted too much to the natural freedom of mans will, in the works of piety;’Whether with that fidelity and candor that becomes an Historian, must now be examined.

Dr. H. Lib. 1. pag. 2.

The Blasphemy which makes God to be the Author of sin, was first broach'd, in terms express, by Florinus, Blastus, and some other of the City of Rome about the year 180, encountred pre­sently by that Godly Bishop and Martyr St. Irenaeus, who publish­ed a Discourse against them, bearing this Inscription, [...], that God was not the Author of sin. For this he refers us to Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 14, & 19, and to no other Author.

Answ. Periculosum est in limine offendere; 'Tis ominous to stumble at the very Threshold: So hath the Doctor done. For though I can easily grant that Florinus did in terminis assert God to be the Author of sin; partly because of the Title of the Epistle written to him, which is, [...], partly because I find him by Irenaeus, in a fragment of an Epistle to him recorded in Eu­sebius, lib. 5. cap. 19, charged to maintain such Dogmata, as [...], Hereticks out of the Church durst never hold: yet is there not the least proof from Eusebius (what ever there may be from others,) that Blastus ever maintained any such blasphemy. From the Title of the Epistle written to him, which is [...], we may guess that his opinions were such as had a tendency to Schism, rather than to any thing which is properly Heresie-Tertullian towards the end of his Book de Heresibus, writes thus of him, Blastus latenter Iudaismum vult introducere: Pa­scha enim dicit, non aliter custodiendum esse, nisi secundum legem Moysis, 14. mensis. Quis autem nesciat quoniam Evangelica gra­tia evacuatur, si ad iegem Christum redigit? Feuardentius in his Preface to some fragments of Irenaeus, saith, It may be easily collected from several Antients (whom he there names,) that Blastus gave the beginning to the Schism of the Quarto­decimani. This is all, peculiar to Blastus, that I can find, though it is scarce to be doubted, but that he held some of the absurd opinions of Valentinus, whose Scholar he was. I only add, If Florinus an hearer of Polycarpe, and a Presbyter [Page 4] of Rome, fell into the highest & most horrid of Blasphemies, no one hath reason to be secure, but every one that standeth, had need take heed left he fall into the same fury, or by running from it, fall into some dotage as contrary to Scripture. For so I find that a Sect of men called by Austin Coluthiani, (by Isidore corruptly Cottiliani, and more corruptly by Platina Quolitiani,) from Coluthus, a Presbyter of the Church of A­lexandria, did; not doubting to assert that God did not Create any sort of evil: whereas he could not be God, if he did not work all evils that are in Cities or Countries, so far as they are fruits and just rewards of mens sins. This errour saith Epipha­nius [...], &c lasted not long, but soon vanish­ed; yet because it is so expresly mentioned by Philaster, Da­naeus conceives it spread it self both into East and West: Cer­tain I am, the Arminian, if closely followed, must either fall in­to this pit, or else depart from some of his beloved opinions.

Dr. H.

Ibid. What Arguments the good Father used to cry down this blasphemy, I cannot gather from any Authour; but such they were, so operative, and effectual, in stopping the current of the mischief, that either Florinus, and the rest, had no followers at all, or such as never attained to the height of their Masters im­pudence.

Ans. What the good Fathers Arguments were, is not so impossible to be collected out of Eusebius, as the Doctor here suggests; For though it be but a very fragment of the Epistle to or against Florinus, which is come to our hands, yet our of that fragment we may gather something, that Irenaeus thought meet to make use of; namely, that Florinus his Dogma was [...], not agreeable to the sentiment of the Church of God that then was; that it did, [...], lead, as many as did embrace it, into the greatest impiety: 'Tis also farther added there by Irenaeus, that he had very perfect remembrance of Polycarpe, who conversed with S. Iohn, and that he could witness, as in the presence of God, that had that blessed and Apostolical Presbyter (so he calls Polycarpe, not Bishop) heard any such thing as was by Florinus asserted, he would have stopped his ear; and cryed aloud, according to his custom, [...], [Page 5] &c. Good God! unto what times hast thou kept me that I should hear such things? yea, that he would forthwith have fled out of that place, in which, either standing or sitting, he had heard any such impiety: Which considerations un­doubtedly do not want their weight, at least they are as material as any brought by Dr. Heylin himself. Upon this occasion it may not be amiss to mention the Arguments by which, if not Irenaeus, yet other of the Antient Fathers have opposed this (not undeservedly called) Doctrine of Devils, that God is the Author of sin.

1. They laid some stress upon this, that sin is not posi­tive, but privative. This Argument is largely prosecuted by Dionysius, commonly (though falsly) call'd the Areopagite: He proveth that Moral evil cannot be from God, because it is [...]: Much more of this nature may be seen in Mr. Hickmans Iustification of the Fathers and School­men. And therefore if any (which God forbid) should be minded to lick up the vomit of Florinus, Mr. T.P. by main­taining the positivity of sin, hath encouraged them so to do: But the best is, his Impartial enquiry into the Nature of sin, is so managed, that one may say to him, as once Gual­ter Haddon did to Hieronymus Osorius, Video librum tuum con­stare ex ignorantia, & impudentia, quarum una cum fiat, ut nihil in­telligas, altera tamen efficitur, ut omnia audeas. There's one con­tinued fallacy runneth through all his Pages, the confound­ing of the materiale or substratum, and the formale of sin; he that can distinguish these (as who cannot that hath but dip­ped into a Systeme of M [...]taphysicks?) hath answered all his reasons, all his Authorities.

2. Basil and others, argue from the Nature of God, unto which Holiness and Righteousness are essential; and there­fore sin so contrary to it, cannot be caused by it.

3. The Fathers much urge the reason drawn from the last Judgment, in which God is to punish all the impenitent, for their ungodliness: Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? God forbid, for then how shal! God Iudge the World? Rom. 3.5, 6. God could have no mind to punish that which he himself caused, nor could he justly punish man for doing that which he had made him to do; [...], as Nyssen excellently.

[Page 6]But it is time that I should pass to that Age, in which the Heresie of Florinus, buried (as the Doctor thinks) for so ma­ny Centuries, was revived: Of that, thus he begins,

Dr. H. Pag. 2.

It never revived in more than thirteen hundred years after the death of Irenaeus, when it was again started by the Liber­tines, a late brood of Sectaries,

Answer. If the Doctor here speak of those, that did by just and necessary consequence make God the Author of sin, there were many betwixt Irenaeus and the two Tailors of Flandria, that did so; but if he would have us think, that the Libertines did [...], in express terms, entitle God to the sins of all men, he must pardon us, if we be not too ha [...]ty in so thinking. For Bellarmine, who possibly read over rhe Hi­story of the Libertines with as much care as the Doctor, tells us expressly, that the Libertines do in words deny, that they make God the Author or cause of sin, de Statu peccati, lib. 2. c. 2. The truth is, their Tenent rather was, that there is no sin, than that God is the cause of sin. They would not deny but that God wrought all the Adulteries and Rapines that were; but then they affirmed that Adulteries and Rapines being wrought by God, were no sins. But under whose wings were these miscreants hatched, and when did they first in­fect the Christian Church?

Dr. H. Pag. 3.

The time of their breaking out affirmed to be about the year 1529. Founders of the Sect Coppinus, and Quintinus, Flem­mings both: and this, Prateolus affirms for certain, to be the Progeny of Calvin, and other leading Men of the Protestant Churches; Bellarmine more remissly, Omnino probabile est.

Answer. About, is a word that will stretch, and hath saved many a lie, yet was it no more than was needful; For so un­certain is our Historian about the time of these wretched miscreants rising, that having in these words placed it at the year 1529, a very few Lines after, he placeth it at An. 1527, but his Friend Prateolus placeth it lower yet, at the year 1525: at which time Mr. Calvin was not much above sixteen years old; being born, if he who writes his Life deceive me [Page 7] not, the sixth of Iune, Anno 1509: and therefore it would be a most strange oversight in Prateolus, if he should af­firm, that the Libertines were the Progeny of Calvin. But the truth is, Prateolus is guilty of no such oversight, though the Doctor is pleased to charge it upon him: There is no necessity in the World, that e Schola nostrae tempestatis E­vangelicorum, (which are Prateolus his words,) should take in Calvin. Bellarmine doth indeed, in the place quoted by the Doctor, say, Omnino probabile est, ut Anabaptistae ex Lu­theranis, sic Libertinos ex Calvinianis promanasse: But he ad­deth a reason, which methinks no one of his admirers should be able to read without blushing. For in the books of Calvin and his Master Zuinglius and his Disciple Beza, as also of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, are found most apert sentences out of which it is collected that God is the Author of all the wickednesses which are perpetrated by men. Let us form this reason into an Euthymem that the goodliness of it may ap­pear. There are in Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, most apert sentences from which it is gathered that God is the Author of sin: Therefore it is altogether probable that the Liber­tines did arise from the Calvinians. The Antecedent he indeed useth all his wit and malice, for many Chapters, to prove; howbeit with most pitiful success, as divers have shewn, divers are still ready to shew. But why did he not use some covering for the Consequent, the nakedness whereof is so visible? Could he think that we without more ado would believe the Libertines were the brood of the Calvi­nians, if the Calvinians have sentences in their writings from whence it may be inferred that God is the Author of sin. Perhaps the Libertines were risen in the world before these mens writings were extant. Perhaps they never saw these mens writings, though they were extant, when they did arise. Perhaps there were other men, no Calvinians, whose writings the Libertines were acquainted with, and sucked their loose opinions from. Why do I use the word perhaps? Most certain it is, that no writing of any Calvi­nian either did or could bring Libertinism into the world. But it is as certain that if the first Libertines were bookish men (as I think they were not,) there were extant many Popish Divines and Professors Books, in which were sen­tences more likely to draw men into Libertinism than any [Page 8] extant in Calvin, or any of his Disciples, or Collegues. Nay, if need were I could shew, even in Bellarmine him­self, such sentences as have a greater shew of making God the Author of sin, than any used by Calvin. But if the Cardinal had a mind to lay those ugly brats of Libertinism and Anabaptism at the Protestants doors, Why did he trouble himself to father them on two dif­fering sorts of Protestants? Why doth he say, that Ana­baptists are the progeny of the Lutherans, and Libertines the brood of the Calvinians? Doth he not confess that Luther and Melancthon did at first teach the very same things, ministring to Libertinism, that the Calvinians teach? If so, Why might not the Libertines learn their lessons from them? Were not the first Anabaptists Liber­tines as well as Anabaptists? If they were not, they are much abused by Historians; And if they were, sure ei­ther Anabaptism is falsly fathered on the Lutherans, or else Libertinism also must call them fathers. But why should we seek any other fathers of Anabaptism than the Papists? Nothing made the Anabaptists so infamous as their pretended euthusiasms or revelations, and their de­spising of dignities, and rebelling against Magistrates: And who laid the foundation of enthusiasm, I shewed a young Scholar above twenty years ago, when he be­gan to be levened with that fanaticism, and he will thank me for it, I doubt not, all the days of his life. What Schools first taught rebellion against Princes, Bishop Morton and twenty more have shewn. As for Rebapti­zing of persons Baptized in infancy (whence Ana­baptists have their name,) it is the most innocent er­rour of all the Anabaptists hold; and yet even this oweth its rise and progress, to Popish principles and practices: as the Papists shall be made to know if they desire it. Nor hath it been my hap, as yet, to hear of any opinion so wild and absurd of our late Sectaries, that I could not derive from some famous Schoolman. Well, the Do­ctor himself is not unwilling to acquit Calvin from being the Parent of these Libertines, and acknowledgeth, that Calvin was not wanting to purge himself from such an odious imputation: And I hope he hath sufficiently purged himself, if a Learned and full Confutation of their opinion [Page 9] be a sufficient Purgation. The truth is, Coppin and Quin­tin, as also Bertrand and Perseval, were all Papists. As for Antonius Pocquius (whom Dr. Heylin according to his mi­staking faculty calls, page 3. Franciscus Porquius) he was undoubtedly a Romanist, and a Romanist in Orders, a Franciscan Fryer. It cannot be denied (nor is it,) that Pocquius was for some time at Geneva, and being to leave that place, he would fain have obtained Letters Testimo­nial and Commendatory from Calvin, as he had from Martin Bucer; but Mr. Calvin, though he then knew not the spirit of the man perfectly, did so shrewdly suspect him to be a Fanatick, that he would never be prevailed with to testifie any good thing on his behalf: Yea when this Deceiver discovered himself, he could not forbear him, but chastised him and Quintin, sharply and by name, in his discourse against the Libertines: And when the Queen of Navarre (who though not tainted with the Libertines Errors, was bewitched with the pretended Holiness of these two chief Sticklers) took her self to be wounded through their sides, this man of God wrote to her with admirable moderation, (so it was meet, considering her dignity, and the good that she had done to the Church of God,) but withal, he reprehended her imprudence for admitting such men, and by this Letter he so far prevailed, that this abo­minable Sect which began to flock apace into France, after­wards kept it self in Holland, and the Countries adjacent: the Epistle is to be seen among Calvins Epistles, pag. 53. To conclude, I do throughly joyn with the Doctor, in dete­sting all those, who either directly, or by any just conse­quence known to them, make the Holy God the Author or cause, of all or any sinfulness. Nor do I know any Calvi­nian, that will not without the least hesitation joyn with us both in this detestation. If there be any that will not, let him be cursed with the severest Anathema's: If he should publish any thing of this nature, let his Book be a Victime to Vulcan; as Master Archers was by the appointment of the two Houses, and at the desire of the late Assembly of Divines. A story of which transaction it will not be a­miss here to insert, from Doctor Arrowsmiths Chain of Principles; ‘In the year 1645. there was published in Lon­don an English Book, wherein God was expresly made [Page 10] the Author of his peoples sins, though not without some li­mitations. The Assembly of Divines, then sitting at Westmin­ster, took offence at this, made complaint of it to both Houses of Parliament: they both censured the said book to be burnt, by the hand of the Common Hangman: and the Assembly of Divines agreed upon a Declaration, ne­mine contradicente, by way of detestation of that abomina­ble and blasphemous opinion; which was also published under that Title Iuly 17. 1945, and in which we meet with these expressions among others, that The most vile and blasphemous assertion, whereby God is avowed to be the Author of sin, hath hitherto, by the general consent of Christian Teachers and Writers, both Antient and Modern, and those as well Papists as Protestants, been not disclaim­ed only, but even detested and abhorred: Our common adversaries, the Papists have hitherto, only calumniously charged the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, with so odious a crime, (in the mean time confessing that we do in words deny it, as well as they themselves;) Now should this Book be tolerated, they might insult over us, and pub­lish to the world, that in the Church of England it was o­penly and impudently maintained, that God is the Author of sin, than which there is not any one point, whereby they labour in their Sermons and popular Orations, to cast a greater Odium, (though most injuriously) upon the Reformed Churches: We are not for the reverence or estimation of any mans person, to entertain any such opi­nions, as do, in the very words of them, asperse the honour and holiness of God, and are by all the Churches of Christ rejected.’

Proceed we to what the Doctor saith about those, who entertaining the same dreadful madness with Florinus, did recommend it to the world under a disguise; Of these, thus he begins; Page 3.

Dr. H.

Of this sort Manes was the first, by birth of Persia, and Founder of the damnable Sect of the Manichees, Anno 273, or thereabouts. This wretch did first excogitate two Gods, the one good, and the other evil, both of like Eternity; ascribing all [Page 11] pious actions to the one, all sins and vices to the other: Which ground so laid, he utterly deprived the will of man of that na­tural liberty, of which it is by God invested; and therefore that in man there was no ability of resisting sin, or not submitting unto any of those wicked actions, which his lusts and passion of­fered to him. Contendebant item peccatum non esse à libe­ro arbitrio, sed à Daemone & eapropter non posse per libe­rum arbitrium impediri, as my Author hath it.

Answ. Who is this Author? Prateolus a Pontifician, who neither took great pains in examining what the Ancients delivered concerning Hereticks, nor was fearful of affixing to men what they never held. It had been more comely for a man of great reading, as Doctor Heylin either is, or seems to be, to have referred us to Epiphanius, or Cyril of Ierusalem, or Austin, from whom we should have taken the opinions of Manes with less suspicion; but seeing he hath consulted his ease more than his credit, and chosen rather to take things upon trust from Prateolus, than to peruse those from whom Prateolus must take what he brings, if it be truth that he brings, I shall let him enjoy his humour, and not put my self to the trouble of an enquiry, whether these furious men did affirm that sin was not from free­will? Though there be some passages that render it proba­ble, that they thought, that man when he sinned did pro­pria voluntate peccare; Though withal they seem to have been of this mind, that the voluntas male agendi was not a thing we brought on our selves by the fall, but something natural to us. However, without offence, I hope the Doctor may be minded that Manes was not the first of that wicked sort of men: for he, first called not as Augus. Urbicus, but as Socrates Cubricus, got into his hands the Books of one Tere­bynthus, who had changed his name into Buddas, and pub­lished them to the World, as if composed by himself; it being not likely that the World should be taken with any Books that did bear the name of Buddas: who though pre­tending to be born of a Virgin, and to be able to work great feats, died not long before miserably, being thrown from an high place, and having his neck broke. Nor was this Tere­bynthus or Buddas [...]: he had got into his custody the four Books entitled Evangelium▪ Liber Capitum, Mysterio­rum, Thesaurorum; but the Books were composed by his Ma­ster, [Page 12] one Scythianus, a Saracen Merchant, who to gratifie his wife lived in Egypt, yet Scythianus himself did not ex­cogitate these two Gods, or first principles, one good the other evil, but sucked in that absurdity from such Writings or Fragments as he had met with of Empedocles and Pytha­goras, as Socrates tells us, lib. 1. c. 21: whom in this whole matter I the more confidently follow, because he faithfully alledgeth every thing out of the disputation of Archelaus a Mesopotamian Bishop, who disputed with Manes face to face. Wherefore seeing this is the undoubted and capital errour of the Manichees, to assert two first Principles, the one good the other bad, I leave it to the serious consideration of our Historian, Whether the opinion of Mr. Pierce and the Eng­lish Tilenus, concerning the positivity of sin, do not border somewhat too neer that absurd blasphemy; and Whether it would not sound better in the ears of Christians and Philo­sophers to say, that the obliquity of the sinful act is but a privation, and to be attributed to the defectible nature of the will; but the Act, which is the substratum of this obli­quity, is positive, and to be ascribed to him who is the first and supreme Agent and Cause; and Whether the admoni­tion that Austin once gave to the Manichees, de duabus anim. contra Manich. cap. 6. in fine, may not [...]itly be given to the two forementioned Authors, ut eos sequi mallent, qui omne quicquid esset, quoniam esset, in quantumque esset, ex uno deo esse praedicarent.

Dr. H. Page 4, 5.

Others not daring to ascribe all their sins and wickedness unto God himself, imputed the whole blame thereof to the Stars and Destinies; the powerful influence of the one, and the irresistible Decrees of the other, necessitating men to those wicked actions, which they so frequently commit. Thus we are told of Bardesanes, quòd fato conversationes hominum ascriberet.

Ans. We are told of Bardesanes, but where? or by whom? In the Margin I find, Aug. de Haeres. cap. 25. quoted. But one would almost think that the Doctor was born under some such Planet, as did either incline or necessitate him to mistake. Nothing is by S. Austin said of Bardesanes, cap. 25. Indeed in cap. 35. the words before mentioned are found; [Page 13] but the Historian (if he had not written in haste) needed not have been ignorant that the Learned judge this passage to be the additament of some later Pen, and they also af­firm, that it is wanting in most antient Copies of S. Austin. Spondanus out of Baronius sticks not to affirm, that nothing was ever more strenuously opposed by Bardesanes than the Doctrine of Fatality; which he proves from the testimony of many, yea all, and from Bardesanes his own Dialogue of Fate, written to Antoninus the Emperor, and recorded by Eusebius, lib. 6. de Praep. Evangelica.

Dr. H. Ibid. Page 5.

And thus it is affirmed of Priscilianus, Fatalibus astris homi­nes alligatos, That men were thralled to the Stars; which last S. Austin doth report of one Colarbus, save that he gave this power and influence only to the Planets.

Ans. Of any such fatalist as Colarbus did I never read. In all Authors that mention him, (which I have met with) he is called Colarbas or Colarbasus, or bassus. Where he was born or where he taught, by all enquiry I have not yet found, but he is commonly joyned with Marcus; whose Heresie was raised out of the Greek Alphabet, subjecting all Men and their Members to the Letters thereof, so as [...] and [...] should rule the Head, [...] and [...] the Neck: perhaps his School-fel­low Colarbasus thought it less irrational to subject us to the Planets. The History of Priscilianus is most exactly de­scribed by Sulpicius Severus, in whom I have read it with care and delight, and find that his Heresie did spread it self most stupendiously, so as not only multitudes of Laicks, but also sundry Bishops were carried away with it: among the rest Hyginus or Iginus, or Adyginus, the Bishop of Corduba and Successor to Hosius, though he was the very first man that set himself against it. The Heresie it self was a mixture of Gnosticism and Manichaism. Idacius and Itha­cius called in the assistance of the secular powers to suppress it, for which they are severely censured by Sul­pitius. However the Emperor did take cognizance of the cause, put Priscilianus, Felicissimus, Armenius, Latronianus and also Euchrocia (a noted woman) to death, banished In­stantius and Tyberianus into our Isle of Sylly: But in all the [Page 14] accusations brought against Priscillianus, I do not find him, in that Author, charged with Fatality; yet seeing he was wont to pray naked, and to keep night Meetings with base women, let him upon Austins authority pass for a Fatalist: and though he was after his death Celebrated for a Mar­tyr, and had in such honor by his followers, as that they were wont to swear by him, yet I hope that his name is abhorred by all professing Reformation, and that nothing of Fatality hath been taught by any whom Protestants ho­nour: The Doctor thinks otherwise, and I must see on what grounds.

Dr. H. Page 5.

Amongst the Philosophical Heterodoxies of the Roman Schools, that of the Manichees first revived by Martin Luther, who in meer opposition to Erasmus, who had then newly written a Book de libero arbitrio, published a Discourse de servo arbitrio, in which discourse he not only saith, that the freedom ascribed unto the will is an empty nothing, titulus & nomen fine re, but holds expressly, that Man is drawn no other way than velut inanì­male quiddam, no other way than as a senseless stock or stone.

Answ. 1. What Christian besides Doctor Heylin would have taken upon him thus to judge before the Day of Iudgment? Had it not been censure high and hard enough, to say of so eminent a Reformer, that he did write his Book partly out of opposition to Erasmus, but it must be also affirmed, that he did it out of meer opposition to Erasmus?

2. What Scholar besides Doctor Heylin would have quo­ted Luther, de servo arbitrio, and never refer so much as in his Margin to any page, where we may find the things that are quoted out of him, and examine their coherence with passages antecedent and consequent?

3. As to the thing it self, Servum arbitrium, is no false Divinity, Voluntas humana non est libera, antequam liberetur; In the first conversion a man is passive, as passive as a stone is in receiving the impression or signature that is made on it; The liberty of the will discovers it self in its actings, not in its passions or receivings. I hope the Doctor holds that the Image of God in which the first man was Created, was di­stinct from the faculties of the soul. If he do not, then must [Page 15] he hold, that when man lost the Image of God, he also lost the faculties of his soul, which is contrary to reason and experience. If he do hold it distinct, I would feign know, whether the Will were not passive in receiving that Image? whether it did in the least cooperate towards the producti­on of it? If it did not, as certainly it did not; Why may not this Image be again restored, the Will not cooperating to the first restitution, and yet its liberty not be dimini­shed? Is it any absurdity to say that a man is dead, i. e. void of spiritual life, before he is quickened? Or that a man is senseless till he have his spiritual senses given him? Yet do not I think that Luther was ever in such a height or heat of passion, as to say, that Gods working on the soul is in all things like to our working on a stone. Similitudes do not run on all four, as the Proverb is. When I draw a stone, no inter­nal change is wrought on the stone, I destroy not those qua­lities that unfit it for motion, nor do I put into it any qua­lities that may fit it for motion; but when God doth out of stones raise up Children unto Abraham, he makes them cease to be stones, he taketh away the heart of stone, and gives an heart of flesh, he makes them a willing people, puts into them a new Nature, and a new motive faculty, and so they run unto and follow after Christ, as readily and cheerfully as the child follows the Parent from whom he expects good things. Well but Luther is beholding to the Doctor, for though he have given him this shrewd knock, yet at last he gives him a stroke, as Bellarmine had done before, intimating his re­cantation of his rigorous opinion, Page 6. Luther after­wards conformed his judgment in this point, unto that of Me­lancthon, as appears by the Augustan Confession, in drawing up whereof, he is acknowledged to have had a principal hand. Let us hear him [...]ant against Calvin.

Dr. H. Page 6.

Calvin will revive the errors of Bardesanes and Priscillian, in charging all mens wicked actions on the Star [...] and Destiny, not positively and in terminis, I must needs say that, but so that he comes up close to them, to tantamount, ascribing that to the inevitable Decrees of Almighty God, which Bardesanes at­tributed to the power of Fate, Priscillian to the influence of [Page 16] Stars; For if God before all Eternity (as they plainly say,) did purpose and decree the fall of Adam, (Ut suâ defectione periret Adam, Calv. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect. 7.) there was in Adam a necessity of committing sin, because the Lord had so decreed it. If without consideration of the sin of man, he hath by his determinate sentence ordained so many millions of men to everlasting damnation, and that too necessariò & inevitabiliter, as they please to phrase it, he must needs preordain them to sin also; there being (as themselves confess) no way unto the end but by the means.

Ans. This is an heavy charge, and had need be well and clearly proved, or else the Doctor will be thought to have little of that, which is the bond of perfection, Charity: Let us examine his proof. The conclusion he is to infer is this, that Calvin doth ascribe all mens wicked actions to the in­evitable Decrees of Almighty God. What are his premises? He is no Syllogistical man, and therefore I will not tie him to the strict rules of argumentation; but examine what he saith as I find it. If God before all eternity (as they plainly say) did purpose and decree the fall of Adam, there was in Adam a necessity of sinning, because the Lord had so decreed it.

1. Who are these they? Before there was no mention of any one save Calvin ▪ Is he now multiplied into these two, Iohn, Calvin, as once Luther was into Martin, and Luther?

2. How do these Iohn, Calvin say plainly, that God did before all eternity decree? Had it been said, that he decreed before all time, or from all eternity, this had been a plain speech; but how any decree should be made before all eternity, which hath no beginning, that is not plain: A man had need have Dr. Heylins wit to understand it.

To the thing; God did purpose and decree the fall of our Father Adam from all eternity: What is the fault in this pro­position? Is this it, that the Decree is said to be made from all eternity? Why surely there are no temporary de­crees. Is it that the decree of God passed upon the fall of Adam? Certainly the decrees of the Almighty do reach every thing that hath happened, or that shall happen, be it good or evil: the very delivering of Christ into the hands of them that Crucified him is said to be, by the deter­minate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Act. 2.23. Well, [Page 17] but hence it will follow, that there was in Adam a necessity of committing sin. Verily a necessity in Adam is a phrase somewhat odd and uncouth. If the meaning of it should prove to be no more than this, that it was necessary Adam should fall or commit sin, I must grant this would follow, but see no imaginable absurdity in it. Imagine God had ne­ver decreed to permit the fall of Adam, Suppose him only to have foreseen it; hence will follow, that it was necessa­ry Adam should fall: But this is necessitas infallibilitatis, or consequentis, not necessitas coactionis, or consequentiae. Let the Doctor prove that any other necessity follows upon the decree; let him prove that we Calvinists do fabricate any decree, necessitating and compelling Adam to fall, whether he would or no, and I will yield him the whole cause. But he hath farther to say; If without consideration of the sin of man, he (God) hath by his determinate sentence ordained so many millions of men to everlasting damnation, and that too necessariò & inevitabiliter, as they please to phrase it, he must needs preordain them to sin; there being no way to the end, but by the means.

Who these they are I know not, nor have any direction to find them out, but a blind one in the Margin, v. Synod. Rem. which I am not Scholar expert enough to make use of; If the Synodalia Remonstrantium be intended, why is not the page in which those words occur quoted? Can the Hi­storian imagine his Readers do so abound in leisure, as to read over a Book of so great bulk as the Synodalia, to find out one phrase? Such an imagination is not worthy of him. To damn is a judiciary act, If any should affirm that this is without respect to, or consideration of mans sin, I'le be no patron of his. Dr. Twisse (who is wont to speak as high as any that ever espoused the Contra-remonstrants quarrel,) though he hold, that God hath made no Law according to which he proceeds, in giving grace unto some and denying it unto others, yet openly and willingly and frequently professeth, in his Latine and English works, that God hath made a Law acording to which he proceeds, in distribution of rewards and punishments, and accord­ing to this Law he decreed from everlasting to proceed, in pronouncing the sentence of salvation and damnation on mankind.

[Page 18] Answ. to Hor. part first page 38. ‘Reprobation doth signifie either a purpose of denying grace, or a purpose of inflicting damnation; and each may be considered, either as touching the act of Gods Decree, or as touch­ing the things decreed: As touching the things decreed, we say,’

  • 1. ‘That God decreed, of his meer good pleasure, to deny unto some the grace of Faith and Repentance, for the curing of that natural impenitence and infidelity which is found in all, without any motive cause hereunto found in one more than in another.’
  • 2. ‘As touching the inflicting of damnation, we say that God decreed to inflict damnation on some, not out of his meer pleasure, but meerly for their final perseverance in sin without repentance.’

I shall conclude all that relates to this matter of Mani­cheism and Bardesanism with two sayings of the Right Reve­rend Father in God Iohn Davenant Bishop of Salisbury, in his answer to Gods Love to Mankind; The one Pag. 73. ‘If any shall go about to set mans will at liberty, and to tie up short the decreeing and determining Will of God, as if this had not the determining stroke amongst all possible evil actions or events, which shall infallibly be and which shall infallibly not be, he may avoid the suspicion of Stoicism or Manicheism, but he will hardly avoid the suspicion of A­theism; for the greater number of mens actions being wicked and evil, if these come into act, without Gods determinate counsel and decree, humane affairs are more over-ruled by mans will than by Gods. The other, Pag. 97. If any Writers among the Protestants have made the Creation of the non Elect, a means by God himself sub­ordinated unto their damnation, and the damnation of such an end aimed at and intended by God, and conse­quently the means of mens damnation (viz. sin [...]ul cor­ruption and voluntary rebellion) procured or wrought by God as the Author of it, they deserve rather to be branded than patronized by any judicious Divine: yet it becometh Orthodox Divines to be careful, as well in maintaining the free and spiritual mercy of God, in gi­ving Faith, Repentance, and perseverance to the Elect, as in maintaining the Justice of God in the punishment and [Page 19] damnation of the non-Elect. The defenders of conditio­nate Predestination, may suppose they clear themselves well in the later, but we are sure they stick in the Semi-pelagian Bryars as concerning the former. For if God up­on the fore-sight of mens faith and perseverance be indu­ced to predestinate them, Gods Predestination is no cause at all of Faith, or perseverance, or any saving grace; this prevision not causing things, but supposing them already produced by other causes.’

Hence I might pass to the Doctors Historiola, concerning the Pelagians, but I think it not amiss to digress a little, and note something concerning another Heresie, of which he takes no notice. There have been a vile Sect of men, who [...]obbed God of his Praescience, as to all future contingencies. That Cicero should be of this mind (as he was if we may be­lieve S. Austin) is not so strange; 'tis more to be wondred at, that the poor blind Heathens should think aright of God and his attributes in any thing, than that in some things they should judge amiss of them. But that any, upon whom the light of the Gospel did shine, should be so absurdly im­pious is marveilous. Yet that Socinus was of this mind is not denied by any: His words are plain, praelec. cap. 11. Cum igitur nulla ratio, nullus Sacrarum literarum locus sit, ex quo aperte colligi possit, Deum omnia quae fiunt scivisse antequam fi­erent, concludendum est, minime a nobis asserendam esse istam Dei praescientiam; praesertim, cum & rationes non paucae, & Sacra Testimonia non desint, unde eam plane negandam esse ap­pareat. Of the same mind is his Scholar Smalcius Dis. 12. de causa peccati, in Thes. 3. as also Crellius lib. de Deo & Attr. cap. 24. pag. 201, 204, 212. This is an errour against which we have as many Arguments, as there are Prophecies in the Old or New Testament, and had we no Prophecies▪ yet from reason it were easie to prove, that God were not God, if he did not foreknow all futurities. Confiteri esse Deum & negare praescium [...]uturorum, apertissima insania est, saith S. Augustine; 'tis a manifest madness to acknowledge a God, and to deny his Prescience; so manifest a madness, that the Remonstrants, who are wont to follow Socinus in many of h [...]s errours, do forsake him in this. Episcopius himself, though he profess, that were it not for the irrefragable Authority of Divine predictions, he should incline to the opinion of them [Page 20] who deny prescience; adding, that if Praescience of humane actions be not attributed to God, we may the more easily rid our selves of sundry difficulties that occur concerning the Divine Providence: yet upon the account of Divine pre­dictions, he is content to let God have his knowledge of things future; but it is but tantisper dum res clarius liqueat. Vid. Beverovicium de termino vitae, pag. 81. So as with Episcopius it is but a probationer attribute, and should be dismissed, if an answer could be found out for that Argument drawn from Divine Predictions or Prophecies: In the mean time he hath most plainly determined, in the fourth Book of his Instituti­ons, cap. 18, that it is not necessary to the attaining of eternal Salvation, that a man should either know or believe, that the foreknowledge of future contingents doth agree to God. I think that Arminianism doth take away the foundation of Gods Praescience, there being nothing but the Will and Decree of God appointing and ordaining, that a thing, in its own na­ture contingent, shall be, which can make it certainly know­able or future; yet this Divine Decree the Arminians will at no hand acknowledge. I grant divers have taken pains to find out another bottom and foundation of Praescience be­sides the Divine Will or Decree, but to very little purpose. Never could I in Iesuit, Lutheran, or Arminian, meet with any thing in this point, that would satisfie a mind inquisitive after truth. Some tell me of the Idaeas in the Divine intel­lect, and say that by these God may know future contingents. Idaeas upon the reasons and authorities alledged by the Schoolmen, I am willing to admit; but it is to me unimagin­able, that an Idaea should represent the futurity of that, which in its own nature is meerly possible, and so indiffer­ent either to be or not be: Who ever found in his mind an [...], representing whether his House were to be built? More I might say, were I not prevented by the Learned Ho [...]nebeck, Socin. confut. l. 2. p. 343, 344. Others tell me of a real presence of things unto God from all eternity: Which real presence if one should deny, I see not how it could be proved; If it should be granted, I know not how on that Divine Praescience could be founded: For the proof of both these I refer to Hornbeck, l. 2. p. 344, 345. But I am most of all unsatisfied with the Jesuits Scientia media: Well may I call it the Jesuits Scientia media; for Molina boasts that he [Page 21] was the first inventer of it, and doubtless unto him it doth owe its Original, or else to Fonseca: The greatest antiquity it can pretend to, is less than an hundred years; for Fonseca tells us, that in the year 1566 he propounded this, as the best way of reconciling free-will and grace, but thought not meet to publish it till 1596, in which interval, namely about the year 1588, Molina published his Discourse de concordia liberi Ar­bitrii & Gratiae, in which he flieth to this Scientia media, professing, that it had not been to his knowledge delivered by any before. If it had not been found These Papers were written about 1663. out till 1660, I should not reject it upon that account; Let's hear what it is, That by which God, before any act of his own will, did know which way the will of the Creature would turn it self, on suppo­sition that he afford such helps and concurses; and by which he would have known the contrary, had the will made use of its li­berty to turn the other way. Against such a conditionate, middle or mixt knowledge ('tis called by all three names,) our Reformed Divines, English and Transmarine, have brought such Arguments as never were answered, never can be answered. The truth is, this kind of knowledge is so un­happy an invention, that it brings in those very things, for the avoiding whereof it was first devised: It was excogita­ted, that the liberty of the will might not be taken away, and that God might not be made the Author of sin; yet a Scholar of Voetius, hath undertaken to shew, and doth prove, that this conditionate knowledge takes away all freedom from God and Men, necessarily brings in the Stoical fatality, and makes God the Author of sin; see Voet. Disp. Selec. Vol. 1. pag. 331, 332, &c. I desire any man to try how he can answer Doctor Twisse his Argument, tending to prove that it is impossible to assign any other cause, of a things passing out of the rank of possible into the rank of future, than the Will of Gods Decree. There is a late nibler at this Learned Do­ctor, who had so much wit in his wrath as not to at­tempt the answering of his Arguments, but yet (which is his way of disputing) rails against this proposition, that Pre­science of a thing future, must needs presuppose a Predestination, or a predetermination of it, as if it contained a senseless errour. [...], p. 128. The senselesness lies in this, because they who make use of this sentence seem to think, [Page 22] that God could decree to do something before he knew what he would decree to do; If God did predetermine before he foreknew, he predetermined at a venture he knew not what: God knew all things, which yet he cannot be conceived to have done, if any thing can be conceived before his knowledge, page 129. There's in these Lines an Argument couched, but not of the Gentlemans own making; it had been before used by Suarez, and it is answered, satisfactorily answered, by that Scholar of Voetius, whom I before commended, Selec. Disp. pag. 394. We grant it would be blasphemously irra­tional, to say, that God decrees he knows not what, but we deny that it will follow that he decrees he knoweth not what, if he know not a thing as future before he hath by his decree made it future. We deny not the received order betwixt the acts and objects of the understanding and will, but we say that the Scientia which in signo rationis pre­cedes the decree, is the Scientia simplicis intelligentiae, not the Scientia visionis.

This unhappy Disputant thought that because all Gods praescience is science, therefore all his science is presci­ence; But he is now to take notice that there is a twofold knowledge,

  • 1. Natural, by which God knows himself, and all things possible, in his own essence, as a necessary cause of them: This knowledge in order of nature doth precede any act of Gods will; It had agreed to him, though he had never made any decree at all concerning things ad extra: But this knowledge is at no hand to be called foreknowledge.
  • 2. There is a knowledge which is called Libera, and this must necessarily suppose the act of the will, as the very name doth imply; Unto this doth praescience belong. We say that God could not from all eternity have a certain foreknowledge that a thing contingent should come to pass in time, if he had not decreed the thing to come to pass in time; but though God hath decreed all actions that are fu­ture, yet according to Austins distinction, decrevit ut bona eveniant ipso faciente, mala ipso permittente. This laid down, I shall consider one argument, by which Mr. P. goes about to prove that prescience precedes the decrees of election and reprobation, and so dismiss him, as a Writer fitter, for my pity than con [...]utation. Thus it is laid down [...]. pag. [Page 23] 129. If Gods praescience preceded not his decrees of Election and reprobation, there was not a moment in which he was free to elect or reprobate; for the Freedom to choose must needs pre­cede the Act of choice, and to deny God his freedom in his Ele­ctions, is as impious as irrational. This is a ratiocination as loose as ever I read, and yet it hath been my unhappiness to be constrained, of late, to read over the Pamphlets of men that made no pretence to Logick. Mr. P. might assure himself any Calvinist would deny his consequence. If prae­science precede not Gods decrees of Election and reprobation, then was there not a moment in Eternity, in which he was free to Elect or reprobate; How hath he proved this consequence? Why, with this reason, Because freedom to choose, must needs precede the act of choice. Were this reason put into an En­thymem (the most proper argumentation to prove the con­sequence of a conditional proposition by) it would be asha­med of it self; though perhaps Mr. P. might not be ashamed of it: Freedom to choose must needs precede the Act of Choice, Ergo, Unless praescience precede Gods decrees of Election and reprobation, there was not a moment in Eternity, in which he was free to Elect or reprobate. Baculus stat in angulo, Ergo, cras pluet may from henceforth be forgotten, and this En­thymem of Mr. P. be made use of, as the example of an absurd unconcluding argumentation. The best Apology I am able to frame for it is, that Mr. T. P. thought that Gods praescience did signifie Gods feeedom to Elect, or reprobate.

Proceed we to the Heresie of Pelagius. Of that thus Doctor Heylin, Page 7.

Pelagius, a Britain born, either mis [...]uided by the lavishness of their (i. e. the Fathers who lived before Austin) expres­sions, or otherwise willing to get a name unto himself by some new invention, ascribed so much unto the freedom of the will in acts of piety, ut gratiam Dei necessariam non putarer, as Vincentius Strynensis tell [...]th us of him: This man associated with Caelestinus and Julianus, two of his Companions, began to spread abroad their errours about the year 405. amongst the which those that especially concern this purpose, are these two that follow,

  • [Page 24]‘1. Non esse liberum arbitrium, si Dei indiget auxilio, quo­niam in propria voluntate habet unusquisque, facere aliquid vel non facere.
  • ‘2. Victoriam nostram non ex Dei adjutorio esse, sed ex libero arbitrio. Add unto these that Orationes quas facit Ecclesia pro infidelibus & aliis peccatoribus ut convertantur, sive pro fi­delibus ut perseverent, frustra fieri.

Pag. 8. These Pelagian Heresies did not hold out long; be­ing solemnly condemned in the two African Councels of Car­thage and Milevis, confuted by S. Augustin with great care and diligence, and finally retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine.

Pag. 9. After this time we meet with no such enemies to the grace of God, no such advancers of mans free-will and the power of nature, as might entitle any man to the crime of Pe­lagianism.

Answ. It must be acknowledged, that great care was used by the Church of God, to pluck up the tares that were sowed by Pelagius, and by (his Scholars shall I say or Masters) Cae­lestius and Iulianus. The Learned and Holy Fathers em­ployed their Pens against them, Councels made use of their authority against them, nor was the Secular power want­ing to make very severe Edicts against them. But why doth the Doctor say that the Pelagian Heresies were retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine? Retractation is when a man out of conviction of judgement revokes his errour: That Pelagius did in that Councel of Palestine do so, appears not. That Councel 'tis well known, is by Hierom cal­led a miserable Synod, not as erring in Doctrine, but as erring in the person; supposing Pelagius to condemn his opinions heartily, which he condemned but feignedly, Hier. Epis. 79. He essayed also to put the same trick on the Church of Rome, but was not able▪ Aug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 11. c. 8. & 9. And I doubt there have been too ma­ny in these two last Centuries, that have too far imitated Pelagius, and seemed to have no enmity against grace (a word they frequently use;) whereas upon examina­tion it will be found that they were the enemies of it, and advancers of nature. To this end I must be more careful in setting down the History of Pelagius, than the Do­ctor hath been. I must also touch upon the story of [Page 25] the Semipelagians, which he doth not so much as men­tion: And if after this it doth not appear, that the Ie­suits and Arminians deserve to be ranked with them; then let the Contra-Remonstrants be accounted as egregious Calumniators, as the Remonstrants are found to be, in laying the blasphemy of Florinus to the charge of the Cal­vinists.

Pelagius is by the Learned Vossius more than once affirmed to be by birth a Scotchman. Being such a Pestilent enemy to the grace of God (unto which we owe all that we have, and all that we are) it might be excusable, if we should let this errour go undetected: but because truth is to be preferred to the honour of our Nation, we will rectifie that mistake, and acknowledge that he was our own Countryman: called (as is conceived) Pelagius, because born near the Sea-side. Some Cantabrigians would have him a Student in their Uni­versity, and so ungrateful to it, as to cause the overthrow and ruine of it, because it afforded Orthodox Divines that opposed his Doctrines. But upon the best search, it cannot be found that Pelagius in person did ever vent his poison in this Nation. They are in the right, who assign the Mo­nastry of Banchor for the place of his education. As to his natural and acquired parts, it is not unknown how sleight­ly Orosius speaks of them in his Apologet: as if he had been a man Cui neque natales dederunt ut honestioribus studiis erudi­retur, neque naturaliter proveniebat ut saperet. But though Orosius be, not undeservedly, by Mr. Mountague called Nobi­lissimus rerum Christianarum Historicus, yet is he not in this in­genuous; it being impossible that he should not have seen that Epistle of Pelagius, which sheweth him sufficiently a Scholar: Had he not been so, the Fathers, and the Church of God, would never have so troubled themselves about him. His conversation is by some commended; by others, who had as much reason to be acquainted with it, as much decryed: Vir egregie Christianus, vir Sanctus, & non parvo profectu Christianus, are Elogiums bestowed on him by Austin, a man who seems to be raised up on purpose to confute him, lib. 3. de pec. merit. & remis. cap. 1. & 3; It appears also by Chrysostom, in his fourth Epis. ad Olympiad. that he was reckoned among the men that did live very temperately and fare hardly, insomuch that the Fa­ther [Page 26] being at that time in exile, Death approaching, did grieve exceedingly, when he heard of his erring from the Faith: But yet I find Pelusiota (a Scholar of this very Chrysostome, so Holy, that he was called by a peculiar name [...],) fastning a quite contrary Character on him, as if he were much under the power of a sensual appetite, and this in an Epistle directed to Pelagius himself, Lib. 1. Epist, 314. pag. mihi 84.


How are these things to be reconciled? Perhaps thus, Pelagius before he swerved from the Faith, did lead a strict life, and had a glorious form of Godliness; but when he fell into his horrid opinions derogatory to the grace of God, then was he a slave to his lusts: and just it was with God, to let him see how impossible it was to lead so much as a sober life without that grace, which he would not acknowledge necessary, no not to the highest acts of piety. Indeed Iansenius hath made this general observati­on, that all the Pelagians were somewhat loose in their lives: Which observation, as he takes abundance of good pains to prove, so can it not▪ I conceive, be too much considered in this Controversie; because the Pelagians do urge nothing more vehemently than this, that the extolling of the Grace of God, and lessening of the liberty of mans will, is the readi­est way to destroy all piety; as shall be seen more here­after. Mean while, we must take notice of a more modest and refined sort of Pelagians, commonly called Semipelagi­ans, and from the place where they did most abound, Mas­silienses. Our England might accidentally occasion the rise of these men. Agricola an Emissarie of Pelagius had infect­ed our Church with Pelagianism; which it was no difficult thing to do, considering the dreadful ignorance, and lasi­ness [Page 27] of the British Bishops in those days: Hereupon it was thought necessary to call in Forreign assistance: Germanus Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus Bishop of Troyes are sent for out of France; who not consulting with flesh and blood came over, and by Preaching and that signal Dispute at S. Albanes, did so prevail, that the people who heard them were gene­rally either established or converted: But this Root of bitter­ness not many years after began to sprout again; which occasioned another voyage of Germanus into Britain, his companion being now not Lupus but Severus: Success an­swered his second endeavours as his first; he so far pre­vailed, that the Pelagians durst scarse shew their heads; yea a Synod was called, in the which their damnable opinions were condemned. All this may more fully be seen in Sir Henry Spelman, who follows venerable Bede and Mat. Westmon. But whilest these good men are thus busied in [...] Neighbour Church, some Tares are Sowed in their own, yea and take deep Root, and spread very far. These Reliquiae Pelagii created S. Austin as much trouble as the down right Pelagians. I know these Semipelagians did always profess to abhor Pelagius, and those Tenents of his which the Church of God had condemned. Vincentius Lirinensis, one of them, gives Pelagius the Epithet of prophanus, and his Scholar Cae­lestius of prodigiosus. But he that will take the pains to exa­mine their opinions, shall find that they did, though not in every point, erre Pelagius his errour.

Prosper in his 41 Chapter against Cassian, whom he calls by the name of Collator, lets fall these words, Paria sunt [...]nius seminis germina, & quod latebat in radicibus manifestatur in fructibus. Non ergo cum istis nova acie dimicandum est, nec qua [...]i contra ignotos hostes specialia sunt ineunda certamina; tunc istorum machinae fractae sunt, tunc in superbiae sociis & principibus corruerunt, quando beatae memoriae Innocentius nefandi erroris capita Apostolico mucrone percussit.

The question is, whether Arminius and his followers do hold the opinions that the Pelagians, and Semipelagians did; Calvin and his followers the same that Austin, Prosper, Ful­gentius did? Affirmatur. My a [...]firmation I'le make good, by comparing the writings of each party; but shall first make use of one Argument, which alone will be sufficient to per­swade my Reader that I am not mistaken: It is this, That [Page 28] the Pelagians and Semipelagians did all along object the same things against, and lay the same imputations upon, the Augusti­nian Doctrines, that now the Arminians do upon the Calvinisti­cal. What are the imputations and aspersions, which at this day are cast upon the Calvinists? Are they not these,

  • 1. That they take away free-will, and bring in a stoical fatality.
  • 2. That they make God the Author of sin, and of all the pu­nishments that do befal the Creature.
  • 3. That they open a gap to despair and slothfulness.
  • 4. That they take away all use of precepts, promises, threat­nings, yea and prayer it self.
  • 5. That they make God an impostor; seeing he commands men to repent and believe, yet doth not seriously will their Faith and Repentance, nor their Salvation, unto which only Faith and Re­pentance can entitle them.
  • 6. That their opinions are against the whole current and stream of antiquity.

All these are urged by the Author, or rather the Authors, of that Tract called, Gods Love to Mankind, and indeed they do utramque paginam facere in all Arminian Writers. If all these horrid things were also laid to the charge of the blessed Au­gustine, it will at least be highly probable, that Austin and Calvin were of the same mind, about the Decrees of God and those other Controversies depending thereupon. Whether they were laid to his charge, we must now make some easie enquiry. As to the first, the taking away of free-will, and in­troducing stoical fatality; six hundred times was it objected to the Father, especially by Faustus in his two Books, de gra­ [...]ia & libero arbitrio. Sub pietatis fronte gentilitatis fatum, & inter gratiae Vocabulum absconditum erit fatale decretum, Fa [...]st. lib. 1. cap. 4. Pros. in his Epistle to Rufi. Scripta ejus (Au­gustini) quibus error Pelagianorum impugnatur infamant, di­centes eum liberum arbitrium penitus submovere, & sub gratiae nomine necessitatem praedicare fatalem.

2. Nor were they wanting to charge the Learned Bi­shop, with making God the Author of sin, and of that dam­nation, which is a necessary consequent of mens dying in their sin. Let any man but read over the Vincentian Objections, which the Learned Vossius thinks were made by Vincentius Lirinensis, he shall find that they harp upon no string [Page 29] more than this, that Austins notion of the Divine De­cree ascribed the sin and damnation of men to God him­self▪ the fourth to the fifteenth of those Objections, is no­thing else but this one charge, prosecuted in different phra­ses and expressions.

3. Nor were they ashamed to say that his principles did lead Sinners to desperation, and taught Saints to be slothful. So much we learn from the Epistles of Prosper and Hilary to S. Austin, in which the Semipelagians are brought in saying, that the Decree as conceived by S. Austin did, & lapsis cu­ram resurgendi adimere, & sanctis occasionem teporis afferre, e [...] quod ex utraque parte superfluus labor sit, si neque rejectus ulla industria possit intrare, neque electus ulla negligentia possit ex­cidere: quocunque enim modo se egerint, non posse aliud erga eos quam Deus definivit accidere, & sub incerta spe cursum non posse esse constantem: cum si aliud habeat praedestinantis electio, cassa sit annitentis intentio.

4. They wanted not a forehead to affirm, that Austins Doctrine took away all use of preaching, exhorting, reproving, praying, Hil. ad Aug. Excludi putant omnem praedicationis vi­gorem, fi nihil quod per eam excitetur remansisse dicatur: Ibid. Si sic praedestinati sunt ad utramque partem, ut de aliis ad alios nullus posset accedere, quo pertinet tanta extrinsecus correptionis instantia? To the same purpose Prosper. But let us hear our Countrey man Faustus lib. 1. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 4. Qui unum ex origine perditum, alterum in praedestinatione af­firmat electum, vide quo improba persuasione declinet; Quid enim aliud dicit nisi quod adjutorio orationis neuter indigeat; Nam jam praeordinatis ad vitam necessaria non erit, deputatis ad mor­tem prodesse non poterit; in isto supervacua, in illo infirma judi­cabitur. Beneficia supplicationis qui in acquisitione praedestinatio­nis est, non requirit: qui vero in perditionis parte, non recipit. Quod si curam impendendam aestimat orationi, indubitanter in­telligat ea quae imminent posse mutari.

5. They charged it upo [...] Austin, that contra [...]y to the plain words of the Apostle, he must needs hold that God would not have all men to be saved. Quod non omnes velit Deus salvos fieri, sed certum numerum praedestinatorum, are the words of the Frenchmen or Massilians, (i. e. Semipelagians,) Cap. 8. Gall. Quod Deus nolit omnes salvare, etiamsi omnes salvari ve­lint, is the second Vincentian Objection.

[Page 30]They said also that the blessed Fathers opinion was de­stitute of all Antiquity, and contrary to the opinion of all that had written before him. So Prosper in the very begin­ning of that Epistle which he did write to Austin, Contra­rium putant Patrum opinioni, & Ecclesiastico sensui, quicquid de vocatione electorum secundum Dei propositum disputasti: and a little after, Obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt, & ea quae, de Epistola Apost. Pauli Romanis scribentis, ad manifestatio­nem Divinae gratiae praevenientis electorum merita proferuntur, a nullo unquam Ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ut nunc senti­untur, affirmant.

It can scarse be doubted, but that we, who have the very same things objected against us that were objected against S. Austin, are of the same mind that Austin was; but because I am resolved to give not only full measure, but also running over, I shall make a parallel betwixt the Pelagian and Semi­pelagian Heresie, and the opinions of Arminius and his Re­monstrant crew.

Pelagius (in this not followed by the Semipelagians) did deny original sin. That in this he and Arminians do not differ needs not much proof; One of our own, highly ho­noured by the men of his own party, in a Book called Unum Necessar. doth in most express terms deny original sin, and take a great deal of unhappy pains to answer or rather elude, all the arguments drawn either from Scripture or experience for the proof of it. But perhaps Arminius, and his more ancient Disciples were modester? I must con­fess, this Writer hath exceeded and gone beyond Arminius, and all the Dutch Remonstrants; but yet Corvinus hath told us, Cont. Til. pag. 388. That, with Arminius, original sin hath not the nature of sin or fault, properly so called. I would feign have passed this as a Criticism, and charitably have sup­posed, that he had only meant that original sin was not a sin or fault, in such a sense as actual sin is, but that I find Arminius himself, Answer to the ninth Question, pag. 174, af­firming, that it is wrongfully said, that original sin maketh a man guilty of death. Had he said that none are actually damned for original sin, it had been more tolerable, but to say that it doth not make guilty, or obnoxious unto death, is to make it no sin at all; and yet thus do the Re­monstrants also speak in Apol. Cap. 7. Peccatum originis nec [Page 31] habent pro peccato proprie sic dicto, quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat: nec pro malo, quod per modum proprie dictae paenae, ab Adamo in posteros dimanet, &c. The Pelagians also were wont much to insist on this, that Nothing could be both a sin and a punishment of sin; because sin is voluntary, punishment involuntary, &c. Austin to convince them, used to produce that place, which indeed carrieth great evidence in it, Rom. 1. Against this, Iulianus would say, those speeches were Hyperbolical; but yet the Father so pressed him, that sometimes he could not but acknowledge that something might be, & peccatum, & paena peccati; whence that, ‘lib. 5. cont. Iulia. cap. 9. Meministine quamdiu disputaveris contrae lucidissimam quae per Apostolum deprompta est veritatem, affir­mans nullo modo esse posse aliquid, quod & peccatum sit & paena peccati? Quid est ergo nunc quod oblitus loquacitatis tuae, &c?’ Doth not Arminius Pelagianize in this? See but the one and thirtieth Article objected to him; It will thence appear, that he took exception against the publick Catechism, because in it is said, that ‘Original sin is a punishment; for if God did punish Adams sin with this, then he must punish this with another, and that other with another, and so there will be a processus in infinitum. My business is not now to answer the Objections of Armi­nius, but only to discover his opinion; yet least any one should think this subtlety unanswerable, I refer him to the lately published Lectures of Doctor Samuel Ward, de p [...]ccat [...] Originali, (pag. 8.) where it is taken notice of and answer­ed satisfactorily.

Our next parallel shall be in the Doctrine, relating to Gods Decree, and the absoluteness or conditionality thereof. The opinion of Pelagius was, that the well using of free-will and natural powers is the cause of predestination: How much or how little the Massilians differed from him, in assigning the cause of Predestination, is shewn largely by Vossius, Hist. Pel. lib. 6. pag. 533, 534, &c. and by Iansenius de Haeres. Pelag. lib. 8. cap. 21. to whom I refer my Reader; And shall now only take notice of Saint Prosp [...]rs Epistle to Saint Austin, in which I find the Semipelagians thus represented, ‘They hold that God, before the Foundations of the World were laid, did foresee who would believe, and who would persevere in that Faith, (to this perseverance in [Page 32] saith they acknowledged the help of gra [...]e was needful:) and predestinated those to his Kingdom, of whom he foresaw that they would be worthy his vocation, and go out of this World making a good end.’ If their judgement was asked about infants dying in their infancy, they would reply, that they were predestinated to life or death according to the good or bad life which God foresaw they would have lead, if they had come to maturity of years.

Do the Arminians, who are so angry when called Pela­gians, differ from them in this? I confess Arminius doth not make a man to be predestinated from foreseen Works, but from foreseen Faith; nor doth he make Faith the cause, but a condition, or decent antecedent, using a less suspected term, but intending the very same thing; for as our in­comparable Davenant hath well observed, ‘Con­ditions are of two sorts,Dissert. de prae. & re­prob. p. 118. common & distinguish­ing; these later, he defineth to be such acts or qualities, which being foreseen, or pre­considered in the subject, contrary Divine Acts are exercised about that subject.’ Arminius when he makes Faith a condition of Divine Election, infidelity a condition of reprobation, takes the word condition in the later sense, and so plainly makes it the same with a meri­torious or motive cause; for he every where maintains that, posita side ponitur electio, negata fide negatur electio; that Faith is a means ordained and appointed by God for the obtaining of Election: therefore as that Learned Profes­sor well concludes, pag. 119, 120. Sunt merae verborum prae­stigiae cum aiunt, praevisam fidem & infidelitatem esse conditio­ones, non modo quae praecedunt praedestinationem & reprobatio­nem communiter & promiscue consideratam, sed etiam ex qui­bus oritur distinctio electorum, & tamen negant habere aliquam causalitatem.

Consequently, as the Pelagians and Semipelagians did hold that the number of Elect and reprobate was not definite, but in­definite and indeterminate; so also do the Anticalvinists or Arminians: Illud pariter non accipiunt eligendorum rejiciendo­rumque esse defini [...]um numerum, saith Hilary Epist. ad August. of the Massilians. Grevincov. Thes. exhib. p. 137, saith the same, Electio incompleta potest interrumpi, ac interdum interrumpitur: [Page 33] suntq [...]e incomplete electi, vere quidem electi; sed possunt fieri re­probi, ac perire: numerusque electorum potest angeri ac minui.

3. Our third parallel shall be in the Doctrine of grace, the efficaciousness of grace. Hilary, in the so often quoted Epistle to Austin, thus describes the Massi [...]ians, They affirm the will to be so free, that it can of its own accord admit or re­fuse Cure or Medicine: and Faustus plainly tells us, that Though it be of the grace of God that men are called, yet the following the call is referred to their own will. Are our Ar­minians any whit more careful to give grace the things that belong to grace? do they not make converting grace to be nothing else but a gentle suasion? do they not every where rant against those who hold, that God doth by an Omnipo­tent and unresistable motion, beget Faith and other Divine Graces in us? I shall among many places that do occur, for the confirmation of this, make choice onely of two: Hague conference pag. 282. A man may hinder his own regene­ration, even then when God will regenerate him, and doth will to regenerate him; And Arnold. against Boyerm. pag. 263. saith expresly, that all the operation which God useth to the Conversion of men being already performed, yet this Conversion still remaineth in mans power, so that he can convert or not con­vert, believe or not believe.

I had thought to have proceeded to the point of per­severance, but that I considered the necessary dependance of that on the other two, concerning Election and Grace. By what hath already been laid down, it is manifest, that if the Pelagians and Semipelagians were in the right, then are not the Arminians mistaken; but if Austin, Prosper, Hilary, and those others whom the Church of God hath been wont to grace with the Title of Orthodox, were not in an errour, then Mr. Calvin and those that follow him are in the right.

Obj. Here I may expect it will be said, that the Doctrine most quarrelled at in the Calvinists, is the Doctrine of abso­lute reprobation, and in favour of that, nothing hath yet been produced out of Orthodox antiquity.

Ans. To that I shall answer,

  • 1. By concession that if by reprobation absolute, be meant a purpose to damn any man without consideration of, or respect un­to sin, either actual or original; such an absolute reprobation [Page 34] is indeed unknown to all antiquity: but as yet I could ne­ver meet with that Calvinist that asserted such an abso­lute reprobation.
  • 2. But if by reprobation absolute be meant, Gods purpose to deny Grace to some according to the pleasure of his will; I then stick not to affirm, that such reprobation absolute is not unknown to antiquity. Indeed the Ancients do rarely speak of reprobation; our Church in her Articles mentions it not at all; both they & she leave us to gather the nature of reprobation, which is but Non-Election or Praeterition, from what we find laid down concerning Election. Now seeing the Fathers, those of them that had to with the Pe­lagians and Semipelagians, did constantly affirm, that Gods own good will, not any foresight of the good use of free-will, was it which moved God to give converting grace unto some; they must also hold that God did out of his own good pleasure, and not from any fore-sight of an ill use of free-will, pur­pose to deny this efficacious converting grace unto others. Indeed it's scarce rational to assert, that God should pur­pose not to cure any one, because he is sick; not to en­lighten any one, because he was by him looked on as dark and blind. But concerning the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter, no more shall be said at present; the Reader that desires further satisfaction, is referred to the Learned Davenant, in the close of his most accurate Dis­sertation, concerning Election and Reprobation. As for Vossius his judgement concerning reprobation, it is consider­ed in a Manuscript by Doctor Twisse, which Manuscript may possibly in a short time be published. From it, the World will soon see, how unjustly the absolute Decree is charged with Novelty.

Object. 2. It may be further objected, that about the year 415 there were a Sect of men called Praedestinati, who were accounted and condemned for Hereticks, whose opinions about the Divine Decrees seem to be the very same that are now maintained by the followers of Calvin.

Answ. This Objection were scarce worth the taking no­tice of, if one R. B. Gentleman, in his English Manual, called a Muster roll of evil Angels, had not placed the Praedestinati among the Capital Hereticks; but since it hath pleased him [Page 35] so to do, upon the credit and authority of Sigebert Monk of Gemblaux, it will be needful to let the English Reader know, that this Predestinarian Heresie is a meer figment, and that there never were any such Hereticks as the Prae­destinati. So much this Mr. R. B. might have learned from Doctor Twisse, Answer to Gods Love to Mankind, Part 1. pag. 58, 59. and more fully from Iansenius, Tom. 1. pag. 219, 220, &c. Had there been any such Heresie Anno 415, or 414, undoubtedly S. Austin and S. Prosper would have taken notice of it, and have endeavoured to distinguish their own opinion from it, which yet no man saith they do: On the contrary, it is manifest that the Dogmata which are by Sigebertus, Hincmarus, and Gennadius fathered up­on the Praedestinarians, are the very Tenents, with which the Semipelagians did asperse Saint Austin and his followers.

From S. Austin Doctor Heylin takes a leap to the Councel of Trent, but I shall not so do; The transactions concern­ing Godescalk the Monk must stay us a while, because they are somewhat differently related by learned Men. Gode­scalk is by Vossius, from Hincmar, described to be one of a fierce mind, Epist. ad Nicol. Pa­pum. impatient of rest, a lover of Novelty; with Rabanus Maurus also, he goes for no better than a Sciolist: But these characters are the less to be regarded, because drawn by the hands of two professed Enemies, and because Walafridus Strabo ▪ a Disciple of this Rabanus Maurus, and as Flacc. Illi. saith, his Notary, gives us a very high and large commenda­tion of Godes. both as to Life and Learning; which com­mendation is to be seen in Bishop Ushers Historia Godes. pag. 38, 39. This Godes. was one that had much read the Fathers, especially S. Austin, with whom he did perfectly a­gree as to the Doctrine of Praedestination, as may be seen in his Confessions, first published by the incomparable Usher; but some not regarding so much what his opinion truly was, as what were the consequences which they thought did flow from it, charge him with blasphemy, as the Massilians of old did S. Austin. Rabanus Maurus by the command of Lewis King of Germany, called a Synod of Bi­shops and Abbots at Moguntia, in which Godescalk is con­demned; but condemned for that which he seems not to [Page 36] be guilty of, as if he had held and maintained that good men were inevitably pre-ordained to a life of happiness, wicked men inevitably pre-ordained to a life of endless misery, and that it profiteth not the wicked if they be converted, nor hurt­eth the Godly if they sin. In this Synod Trithemius tells us, that he recalled and revoked his errour; but if he had so done, then would not both Rabanus and Hincmarus charge him, which yet full oft they do, with obstinacy. However at this Synod, Godescalk was banished Germany, and made to promise not to return, and sent to his own Bishop, i. e. the Archbishop of Rhemes; for unto his Jurisdiction did the Monastery of Orbez (out of which Godescalk came) belong: The Epistle of Rabanus to Hinc­marus signifying this, is to be seen in Historia Godes. pag. 46. One would think at this Synod Godescalk met with hard measure, but harder was measured out to him in the Sy­nod held in the Palace of Carisacum: for being heard a second time, it is decreed that he should be divested of his Sacerdotal Office, if ever he were truly a Priest, (which those Fathers seem not willing to acknowledge, because forsooth he was ordained by Rigbold, Suffragan of Rhemes, the Bishop of Sueston not consulted:) yea, that he should be whipped notwithstanding his Age, and confined for ever to his Cell. But what was all this while become of the Au­gustinian spirit? Was all the World so soon become Pe­lagian? In no wise. Remigius as much appeared for the justification of Godescalk, as did either Rabanus or Hinc­marus for his condemnation. The Church of Lyons stout­ly censureth and confuteth the decrees of this Carisiacan Synod; and whereas one Iohannes Scotus Erigena, a good Philosopher but no great Divine, had written a Book against the cause of Godescalk, consisting of nineteen Chapters, one Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lyons an­swered him. In the year 855 a Councel was held at Va­lens, wherein Canons were made diametrically opposite to the determinations of the Carisiacan meeting, and to the propositions of Scotus Erigena. Learned Baronius mistaking the Phrase Scotorum pultes, thinks that this Valentinian Synod was called against some wandring Scotchmen, of which Godescalk was chief, and that the opi­nion of Godescalk was there again condemned: whereas [Page 37] we there find Scotus his capitula condemned, as contain­ing Diaboli commentum, rather than argumentum aliquod fi­dei. Of the four capitula of Hincmarus indeeed, the Synod speaks somewhat more mildly and favourably, but yet so as to ascribe to them inutilitatem, vel etiam noxi [...]tatem, & errorem contrarium veritati. When these Valentian Fa­thers come to speak of grace and free-will, these are their words: Item de gratia per quam salvantur credentes, & sine qua rationalis creatura nunquam beate vixit, & de li­bero arbitrio per peccatum in primo homine infirmato, sed per gratiam Domini Iesu in fidelibus ejus redintegrato & sanato, id ipsum constantissime & fide plena fatemur, quod Sanctissimi Patres auctoritatem sacrarum literarum secuti nobis tenendum reliquerunt, quod Africana, quod Arausica Synodus professa est. In this Synod were present the Bishops of three Provinces, in number fourteen, though as the Preface plainly in­timates, Ebbo Bishop of Gratianopolis had the chief hand in compiling the Canons. Nor had the great Volumn which Hincmar made against these Canons any great ef­fect; for in the year 859 a Councel being called at Lin­gon, the Canons of the Valentine Synod are again confirm­ed and ordered to be promulged for the instruction of the Lords People, those words onely wherein express men­tion was made of Hincmars four capitula being, to avoid of­fence, left out.

But it is objected in Gods Love to Mankind, that in this ve­ry Valentine Synod it is affirmed, that the wicked do therefore perish, not because they could not, but because they would not be good, and by their own fault original or actual also remained in the masse of perdition: Yea, the Fathers of that Councel denounce Anathema's to those that held, that men are so predestinated to evil, as that they cannot be otherwise: That any should be predestinated to evil by the power of God so as he cannot be otherwise, we do not only not believe, but also if there be any that will believe so great an evil, we with all detestation denounce them accursed, as the Arau [...]ican Councel also doth. And at the Councel of Arles assembled against the Pelagians, these Anathemaes were denounced, Cursed be the man that shall say that the Man that perished might not have been saved; and again, Cursed be the man that shall say that a Vessel of di­shonour may not rise to be a Vessel of honour.

[Page 38]For Answer, It were easie to reject those Anathemaes of the Councel of Arles as spurious, and forged by Faustus that Arch-Semi-pelagian: but we need not trouble our selves so to do, for there is nothing in any or all these passages that may not stand with absolute reprobation; for absolute ne­gative reprobation, preterition, or non-election, may well consist with a possibility of avoiding sin and damnation, as all both Super and Sublapsarians grant, in the Non-elect An­gels and in the Protoplast, in whom they are wont to say, that all and every person, received the posse stare and a posse salvari. A man that of impenitent becomes penitent, may be said to rise from being a Vessel of dishonour, to be a Vessel of honour: But never did any of non-elect be­come elect; never did any who was under a non-predesti­nation unto effectual and infallible means of eternal life, procure to be under a predestination unto effectual and infall [...]ble means of eternal life.

Dr. H. Pag. 12.

In such condition, saith the Doctor, stood affairs in reference to the Doctrines of Predestination, Grace, Free Will, at the first sitting down of the Councel of Trent, in which those points be­came the subject of many sad and serious debates amongst the Prelats and Divines th [...]n and there Assembled.

Which being so necessary to the understanding of the questions which we have before us. I shall not think my time ill spent in laying down the summe and abstract of the same, as I [...]ind it di­gested to my hand, by Padre Paulo.

Ans. 1. I shall shew that it need not much trouble a Chri­stian mind what was determined at Trent.

2. I shall shew that nothing was determined at Trent, but what is consistent enough with the Calvinian Do­ctrine, as touching Predestination, Free Will, Perse­verance.

1. I say 'tis not greatly material what was determined at that meeting of Trent: for notwithstanding it is by Pa­pists honoured with the name of a General, and Oecumenical Councel, yet all Protestants see that it was a Conventicle of a few men, wedded to the Popes wicked interest, and [Page 39] resolved to make such determinations, not as were agree­able to the truth, but as were consistent with the pomp and glory of the Roman See. To evince this, I had thought to present my Reader with a short History of this Councel, gathered out of Padre Paul the Servite, and Sleidan, but the Reverend and Learned Doctor Iohn Cosins hath happy­ly saved me this labour, and done the work to my hand; His Collection I shall transcribe:

The calling of a Councel had been shifted off by Leo the X, Adrian the VI, Clement the VII; but Paul the III, fa­mous for nothing more than dissimulation, condescended so far, that a Synod should be summoned at Mantua in Ita­ly, and sent his Bull of Indiction May 27, Anno 1531: but his design not taking for that place, he sent out another Bull for a Councel to be held May the first 1538, at Vicen­za, a City under the Dominion of the Venetians: this Indi­ction meeting also with opposition, he sends forth a third Bull, which commanded all Bishops and Abbots with other priviledged persons, provided they had taken an Oath to be obedient to the Pope's See of Rome, to repair to Trent, on the Confines of Italy, there to attend the Legates for the celebration of a Councel, to be begun November the first, Anno 1542. Against this Councel, protestations were made by the Princes and all the Reformed Churches in Germany, as also by the Kingdoms of England and Denmark, and many other places besides, which brought it to no­thing. Wherefore he se [...] forth another Bull, and sent his Legates to Trent, to begin a Councel there, March 15, Anno 1545. The Legates being come to Trent, found no Prelate there but the Bishop of the place: Within a few days came three Italian Bishops, who, being dependants upon the Court of Rome, and Men very ready to promote the Popes service, had order from him to be there with the first; for his desire was that the Councel should begin with as few as might be, and that to regulate the rest that came after. In order where­unto he sent his Brief, and gave his Legates a Faculty, [...]o preside in the Councel under his Name and Authority; with special directions, not to suffer any thing to be pro­posed or offered there to publick debate, which had not first been privately approved by themselves, or any th [...]ng to be put to the question and defined, which had not been [Page 40] formerly sent to Rome, and assented to by him; and with power, if need were to do him service in it, either to break up the Councel for altogether, or to suspend and prorogue it from time to time, or to remove and translate it from one place to another, at their pleasure; which was a device whereby all attempts and motions that might be made a­gainst the enormities of the Roman Court, should be sure to be defeated. For above all other things this was the prin­cipal matter, which was given them in charge, that they should not in any case suffer the Authority and Power of the Pope to be questioned. There was a proviso in the first words of the Bull, that they should do nothing without the consent of the Councel, but afterwards that clause was thought needful to be altered, and the Legats had an abso­lute power given them, independent of any but the Pope himself, whose service they only attended.

Two Months passed after their coming to Trent before they got twenty Prelates into their company, and because they were somewhat ashamed to begin their Oecumenical Councel (as they are not ashamed to call it) with so small a number, they perswaded the Pope to put it off for eight months longer; though much a do they had to perswade the Prelates to stay all that while with them. But by the Months of December and Ianuary following (having in the mean while contented the poorer sort of Bishops with a pen­sion of fourty Ducats a piece, procured for them out of the Popes coffers,) they grew to somewhat a greater number. For, besides the Legates and the Cardinal Bishop of Trent, there were present four Archbishops; eight and twenty Bishops, three Abbots, and four Generals. And these three and fourty persons made the general Councel: Among whom two of the Archbishops were only Titular, being the Popes Pensioners at Rome, and now sent to Trent to increase the number, and to depend upon the Legats; but in those Churches whereof they bare the names, had they nothing to do, nor were they any lawful and true Bishops at all. The one of these was Olaus Magnus the Goth, who went for the Archbishop of Upsale in Swedland, and the other blind Sir Robert the Scot, who appeared for the Primat of Armagh in Ireland, and of whom it was then commonly said, that as pore-blind as he was, yet had he the commendation to ride [Page 41] Post the best in the World. And with these men they began their Oecumenical Chapter at Trent.

Thus far the Learned Doctor, whose design was only to take notice of an Anathema, passed in the fourth Session of this Conventicle, by which all were cursed that did not re­ceive the new Canon of Scripture, in such manner and form as was there first appointed; but that design lead him after­wards to observe, that in this Trent Assembly, there were private Congregations, which were appointed to be kept twice a week at one of the Legats Houses, for the propo­sing, debating, and framing of all their Decrees, before they were brought to be voted and defined abroad in any publick Session; for by this means the Legats would be sure, either to have every thing prepared to their own mind, and be able to number the Voices before hand, which way they would be given, or else not to suffer the matter to be brought to any open definition in their Councel at all. Fi­nally, the foresaid Learned Doctor having given us the De­cree concerning the new Canon, saith that it was passed but by a few; for of the Greek Church they had not one, un­less it were some such as blind Sir Robert of Scotland was: of the English as few, (for the Bishop of Worcester, Richard Pates was not yet come among them, and when afterwards he came thither, he was there but in a private and per­sonal capacity, having no employment given him by the Church of England;) of the Helvetian, German, and Northern Churches none; of the French Church scarce two; of the Spanish not many; all the rest were Italians, among whom divers were the Popes Pensioners, and sent thither to out­ballance other mens voices, some of them Titular, and some Unlearned.

He that pleaseth may read the story of the remaining 21 Sessions in Padre Paul; and having so done, let him, if he be impartial, judge whether it be probable, that such a com­pany of men should be blessed by God, to find out tru [...]h, and settle the peace of the Church? But let us suppose there had been at Trent a Meeting of the most Holy, Reverend, and Learned Divines that the Church of Christ then afford­ed; Did they determine any thing either for, or against, the Calvinians in these five points? In no wise; debates indeed there were about the mysterious point of Praedestination, [Page 42] in which those Popish Divines which went the way that Pe­lagius did of old and Arminius of late, prevailed, whilest use was made only of corrupt carnal humane reason; but when the testimonies of Scripture came to be examined, they were manifest­ly overcome, as Doctor Heylin himself tells us out of the in­comparable Servits Hist. pag. 15. The same Doctor confes­seth that the Decrees about this and the points connexed with it were so contrived, that every one might understand them in his own sense, so as to give no distast to the Dominican Fryars and their adherents, pag. 26. Indeed the ancienter Popes of Rome, (notwithstanding the great pretence they made to infalli­bility,) were wiser than to take upon them, to determine the differences betwixt the Dominicans & Franciscans, which are almost the same with the differences betwixt the Contra-Re­monstrant & Remonstrant. Micraelius in his Hetorodoxia Calvi­niana disputatione quinta, shall be my witness for this; who af­ter that he had told the World how much this question had vexed the Pontifician Schools, How God was not the cause of sin, seeing he was the cause of those actions, as to their substance, unto which moral pravity is conjoyned? thus expresseth him­self, Parag. 6. Haec cum ita disceptabantur, factum est tandem Lovanii in Belgio, ut circa 86 annum superioris saeculi, gravis­sim [...] de Praedestinatione, inter Dominicanos & Iesuitas lites ex­titerint, quas quidem Nuncius Apostolicus ad tempus composuit; sed postquam Iesuita Lud. Molina librum de concordia liberi ar­bitrii & donorum gratiae evulgarat, res ad ipsum pontificem de­lata est: qui tamen arbitrum se veritus est interponere, & suam cuique permisit sententiam. At which I do the less wonder, be­cause I find that the Pope had used the same artifice in a controversie depending betwixt the Franciscans and Domi­nicans, about the Virgin Maries being, or not being, concei­ved free from Original sin: alledging the Spirit (of whose perpetual assistance Popes are wont so proudly to boast) nondum mysterii tanti penetralia Ecclesiae suae patefecisse. A brief, but accurate story of this transaction, is to be seen in the learned Apology of Dr. Andrew Rivet, for the most Holy Vir­gin, l. 1. c. 6, 7, 8. Yea, something may be observed in the Councel of Trent, which makes not a little for the Calvi­nists, viz. that not Calarinus (as the Doctor p. 15.) but Ca­tharinus invented a middle way, ‘That God, of his good­ness, had elected some few, whom he will save absolutely; [Page 43] to whom he hath prepared most potent, effectual, and infallible means; and that of these, thus singularly privi­ledged, all the places of Scripture, which do ascribe all to God and which shew infallibility, are to be understood; and that the number of these is certain with God. Yea, Balthasar Meisner in his Anthropologia Sacra, de gratia Dei & Praedestinatione disp. 11, yields, in the examples of Paul and Abram, a grace extraordinary, efficacious infallibly and al­ways, which so calls a man that, as it were, by a necessary will and willing necessity, he is converted unto Faith and the Church, of which no cause can be assigned, but the will of God, the simple and absolute will of God, which cannot be hindred, is always most efficacious.’ From these two mens acknowledgements and confessions I infer, that seeing some are absolutely elected and converted by an insuperable grace, therefore absolute election and grace insuperable are not contrary to Divine Wisdom or Goodness or Justice, do not destroy the Liberty of mans Will, and therefore are but weakly impugned when they are impugned by arguments drawn from these Topicks. But if that will do the Doctor any courtesie, or if he think it any credit to his cause, I will grant him, that tha [...] part of the Papacy which is most Pa­pal, doth favour his Arminianism: and not many years ago a Pope, as wicked as ever sate in the Chair, when he was come to his dotage, was prevailed with to make use of his infalli­bility, and to condemn the Doctrine of Iansenius. A copy of his Anathemaes and condemnations I have thought meet to insert, as I find them in Maresius, the Professor of Gron­ing, his Apology for the Iansenists.

Innocent, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, to all faith­ful people in Christ, Health, and Apostolical benediction.

Whereas upon occasion of publishing a Book Entituled, Augusti­nus Cornelii Jansenii Episcopi Iprensis, amongst other opini­ons of his, there did arise (especially in France) a controversie up­on five of them, many of the Bishops of France did sollicite us, to consider those propositions presented to us, and to give our certain and definite sentences touching every one of them.

The Tenour of the said propositions is as followeth.

The first, Some precepts of God are impossible to just men, willing and endeavouring according to the present power which they have; Grace also is wanting to them, whereby they might be possible.

[Page 44]The second, In the state of lapsed nature, there is no re­sistance made to interiour grace.

The third, To merit and demerit in the state of lapsed nature, there is not required in man liberty from necessity, but liberty from co-action is sufficient.

The fourth, The Semipelagians did admit the necessity of interiour preventing grace to every Act, even to the begin­ning of Faith; and in this they were Hereticks, because they would have that grace to be such as the will of man might resist or obey.

The fifth, It is Semipelagianism to say; that Christ died or shed his blood, for all men without exception.

We, to whom among the manifold cares which dayly molest our mind, it lies chiefly upon our heart, that the Church of God com­mitted unto us from above (the errours of wicked opinions being purged) may safely pass the warfare, and as it were a Ship in a calm Sea, the Waves and storms of all tempests being allayed, may safely sail and arrive unto the wished for Haven of salvation.

For the weightiness of these five Propositions tendred to us, as aforesaid, we have caused every of them to be diligently exami­ned by divers Doctors in Divinity, before certain Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and have maturely considered their suf­frages, delivered both by voice and writing, and have heard the same Doctors, in several Congregations held before us, largely dis­coursing upon them, and every of them. Whereas from the begin­ning of this discussion, we enjoyned, both publickly and privately, the prayers of many faithful Christians to be made, for the ob­taining of the Divine assistance; afterwards the same being more fervently renewed, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit by us care­fully implored; at last by the Divine Majesty of God assisting, we proceeded to this under-written declaration and deter­mination.

The first, of the aforesaid Propositions (Some precepts of God are impossible to just men, willing and endeavoring ac­cording to the present power they have, they wanting grace by which they might be possible,) we declare to be temerari­ous, impious, blasphemous, condemned under Anathema, and He­retical, and we declare it to be such.

The second (That in the state of lapsed nature there is no resistance made to interiour grace,) we declare to be Here­tical, and as such we condemn it.

[Page 45] The third, (That to merit and demerit in the state of lapsed nature there is not required in man liberty from ne­cessity, but liberty from co-action is sufficient,) we declare to be Heretical, and we condemn it as such.

The fourth, (That the Semipelagians did admit the neces­sity of interiour preventing grace to every Act, even to the beginning of Faith; and in this they were Hereticks, be­cause they would have that grace to be such as the will of man might resist or obey,) we declare false and Heretical, and as such we condemn it.

The fifth, (That it is Semipelagianism to say, that Christ died, or shed his blood, for all men without exception,) we declare false, temerarious, scandalous, and (being understood in that sense, that Christ should have died only for the salvation of the Predestinated) impious, blasphemous, contumelious, deroga­tory to Divine goodness and Heretical, and as such we con­demn it.

We therefore command all faithful people in Christ of either Sex, that they do not presume to think, teach or preach other­wise, of the said propositions, than is contained in this our pre­sent Declaration and Determination, under the censures and pe­nalties against Hereticks and their Favourers expressed in Law. We likewise command all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries of Places, Inquisitors of Heretical pravities, that they repress and restrain all the Contradictors and Rebels whatsoever, by the censures and penalties aforesaid and all other opportune remedies, by Law, fact, and usage, the help also of se­cular power being called in hereunto, if need be. We do not in­tend nevertheless by this Declaration and Definition made upon the five Propositions aforesaid, any way to approve other opini­ons which are contained in the aforesaid Book of Cornelius Jan­senius. Given at Rome at St. Mary Major, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1653. Kal. Jun. the ninth year of our Pontificat.

  • Hi. Datarius.
  • G. Gualterius.
  • P. Ciampinus.

[Page 46]In the year of the Nativity of our Lord Iesus Christ 1653, the sixth indiction, the ninth year of the Pontificat of our most Holy Father in Christ, and our Lord Innocent, by the Divine Provi­dence Pope X. the ninth day of the Month of June, the aforesaid constitution was affixed and published, in Eccles. Lateranens. ac Basilicae principis Apostolorum de urbe, necnon Cancellariae Apostolicae valvis, ac in acie campi Florae, per me Hierony­mum Marcellum Sanctissimi D. N. Papae cursorem.

Pro D. Mag. Corsurum.
P. Paulus Desiderius Cursor.

A good part of this condemnation of Iansenius is men­tioned by Arnoldus Poelenbergius, in an Epistle to Christia­nus Hartsoeckerus, Epistolae Ecclesiasticae, pag. 845: in which he pretends (good man) to be grieved that the Pontifi­cians, who do too often deviate from Scripture when they attribute too much to Tradition, should sometimes be more wise in Divine things than our Reformed Divines, who yet acknowledge Scripture alone to be the norma and regula of our faith. And that the poor Iansenists might have no starting hole, by slipping into which to a­void the force of this condemnation, the Jesuit did put a new Article into his Creed the 12th. of December 1661, Datur in Ecclesia Romana controversiarum fidei index infalli­bilis extra Concilium Generale, tam in quaestionibus juris quam facti. Unde post Innocentii X. Alex. VII. constitutiones, fide Divina credi potest, librum cui titulus est, Augustinus Jan­senii, esse Haereticum, & quinque propositiones ex eo decerptas, esse Jansenii, & in sensu Jansenii damnatas.

Whether the Doctor hath so many and so firm Friends a­mong the Protestants, must now be tried. But we shall not presently fall upon the Augustan Confession: It would be inju­rious to the Evangelical Churches in the Valleys of Piedmont, if we should take no notice of their Confessions; Churches, of which Doctor Heylin was pleased, in a former Edition of his Geography, to say, That they did never bow the knee to [Page 47] Baal: of which the Frier Rayneirius Saccon, writing against them Anno 1254, confesseth, That they continued from the times of the Apostles. In Mr. Moreland's History of these Churches, I find pag. 39, 40, A brief Confession of Faith, made with general consent, by the Ministers and Heads of Families of the Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, assembled in An­grogne Sept. 12. Anno 1532, but said to contain that Doctrine which was delivered to them by Tradition from their Fore-fathers. In that Confession these are three Ar­ticles:

  • ‘1. All those that have been and shall be saved, have been elected of God before the foundation of the world.’
  • ‘2. It is impossible that those that are appointed to sal­vation, should not be saved.’
  • ‘3. Whosoever upholdeth Free-will, denieth absolutely Predestination, and the Grace of God.’

I find also page 61, &c. another Confession of the said Churches, which was published but in the year 1655, consisting of thirty three Articles; whereof the eleventh is this:

‘God saveth from Corruption and Condemnation, those whom he hath chosen from the foundation of the World, not for any Disposition, Faith, or Holiness that he saw in them, but of his meer Mercy in Jesus Christ his Son, pas­sing by all the rest, according to the irreprehensible rea­son of his Free-will and Justice.’ The twenty sixth is as followeth:

‘The Church cannot erre, nor be annihilated, but must endure for ever; and all the Elect are upheld and pre­served by the power of God in such sort, that they all persevere in Faith unto the end, and remain united in the holy Church as so many living members thereof.’

In the close of this they protest, That they do agree in sound Doctrine with all th [...] Reformed Churches of France, Great Brittain, the Low-Countries Germany, Switzerland, Bohe­mia, Poland, Hungary, and others, (as it is represented by them in their Confessions;) as also we receive the Con­session of Augsburg: Therefore certainly they did not ap­prehend that their opinions about Predestination, Grace, Perseverance, had any thing in them contrary to either the [Page 48] Articles of the Church of England, or to the Augustan Con­fession; both which, it seems, are by Doctor Heylin thought to be Anti-Calvinistical, but without any reason, as shall (God willing) be made to appear.

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; onely 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 [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] 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 [...] 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; [Page 51] 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, [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] 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, [...], inquit Basilius, [...]: 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 [...] & 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 [Page 54] 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; [Page 55] 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.

[Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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, [Page 61] 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 [Page 62] 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 [Page 63] 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.

Dr. H. Ibid.

Not content to travel a known and beaten way, he must needs find out a way by himself, which neither the Dominicans, nor any other of the Followers of S. Augustine's Rigors, had found out before, in making God to lay on Adam an unavoidable ne­cessity of falling into Sin and Misery, that so he might have opportunity to manifest his Mercy in the Electing of some few of his Posterity, and his Iustice in the absolute Rejecting of all the rest.

Answ. A very high charge; Which if it be not made good, all must needs say, that Dr. Heylin's heart did not much stand in awe of that Precept, Thou shalt not bear false witness. And made good it is not to be sure; for we are not so much as directed to any of Mr. Calvin's Works in which these words, or any words of like import, are to be found. This is sufficient Answer; but yet we will a little scan the Opinion here laid down by our Historian, and exa­mine wherein the heinousness and singularity of it doth lie: Is this the heinousness of it, that man being fallen, God should design to glorifie his Mercy in the electing of some, his Iustice in the passing by of others? I should [...] her think it had been a crime to say, that God would ever have suffer­ed the fall, had he not known how, and actually intended, to bring about his glory by it. Is it strange that h [...] should choose to shew his Mercy in electing but of a few, and his Iu­stice in the rejecting of the greatest part of men? To me this is not strange; for when all are alike obnoxious, and of [Page 64] themselves unmeet for Mercy, what more injustice is there in rejecting millions of men, than in rejecting of one single man? I, but this is harsh, that God should lay on Adam an unavoidable necessity of falling into Sin and Misery: Perhaps if it had been said, that God had laid on Adam an avoidable necessity, it would have well enough pleased the Doctor; but then others would have thought, that an avoidable necessity had bordered a little too near the coasts of non-sense and contradiction. But is it not unworthy of God, to say, that he did lay on Adam a necessity of falling into Sin and Misery? Not unworthy of him to be sure, to lay a necessity of be­ing miserable in case he sinned: Some rather question, whether it would not have been unworthy of him to let sinful man pass without punishment, unless on some such valuable consideration as the suffering of a Mediator? As for laying a necessity on Adam of falling into Sin, that is indeed an uncouth phrase; and if the meaning of it be this, that God compelled Adam, of himself unwilling, to fall, I have not charity enough to excuse it of Blasphemy. But, as I said before, we are not told where the phrase occurs in Mr. Calvin. This seemeth to be the whole of his opinion, That God did eternally decree to permit the fall of Adam; and God having decreed to permit his fall, it was ne­cessary he should fall. That man, whom we shall shortly have our Historian endeavouring to justifie, Arminius, hath laid it down as a truth, That if God permits a man to will this or that, it must needs be, that no kind of argument can move him not to will it.

Dr. H. Ibid.

In which as he can find no countenance from any of the anci­ent Writers, so he pretendeth not to any ground for it in the holy Scriptures: for whereas some objected on God's behalf, De certis (Disertis he should have written) verbis non ex­tare, That the decree of Adam's fall, and consequently the in­volving of his whole Posterity in sin and misery, had no founda­tion in the express words of holy Writ, he makes no other answer to it, than a quasi vero; as if (saith he) God made and created man, the most exact piece of his workmanship, without determining of his end.

[Page 65]Answ. In which as he can find. In what doth the Doctor mean? Nothing till now hath he quoted out of Calvin; and that Chapter which he now refers us to, viz. Chapter 23. lib. 3. Institut. manifests that Mr. Calvin had some coun­tenance from S. Augustin, who is one of the ancient Wri­ters; for in all his Answers to the Objections of his Adver­saries, he fortifieth himself with the Authority of Augustin. Well, however we will consider the Objection made by Calvin against himself, and his Answer to it, Disertis verbis hoc extare negant▪ decretum fuisse a Deo ut sua defectione periret Adam: That's the Objection which our Historian either would not or could not rightly translate. What is the Answer? Quasi vero idem ille Deus quem Scriptura praedicat facere quaecunque vult, ambiguo fine condiderit nobilissimam ex suis creaturis. Who seeth not that the Answer doth most fully enervate the Objection? Who seeth not that Master Calvin doth here quote Scripture, and Scripture from which (if it be to be understood as he understands it) it necessarily [...]ollows, that God did decree and will that Adam should fall, and by his fall perish? He advanceth ano­ther Objection against himself in the words immediately fol­lowing: They say he had Free-will to make his own Fortune, and that God decreed nothing but only to handle or deal with him according to his d [...]serts. ‘If so cold a figment be recei­ved (saith Calvin) where will be that Omnipotence of God, by which he moderates all things according to his hidden counsel, which depends on nothing else? But Predestination, whether they will or no, discovereth it self in the Posterity of Adam; for it did not come to pass by any natural necessity, that all should fall from happy­ness by the fault of one. What makes them they will not confess that concerning one man, which whether they will or no, they must yield of all mankind? Why should they lose their labour by tergiversation? The Scripture pro­claims, that all Mortals, in the person of one Man, were adjudged to Eternal Death: this, seeing it cannot be ascri­bed to Nature, comes plainly from the admirable Coun­sel of God, &c. What sayest, Reader? Was it not an im­modest calumny to affirm, that Mr. Calvin pretends not to have any ground for his Opinion in the holy Scriptures?

Dr. H. Pag. 36.

Whereas others had objected on God's behalf, that no such un­avoidable necessity was laid on mankind by the will of God; but rather that he was created by God unto such a perishing estate, because he foresaw to what his own perverseness at the last would bring him: He answereth, that this Objection proves nothing at all, or at least nothing to the purpose. Which said, he tells us further out of Valla, though otherwise not much versed in the holy Scriptures, that this Question seems to be superfluous, because both life and death are rather the acts of God's will, than of his pre­science or foreknowledge, &c.

Answ. For this, and what follows, we are referred to lib. 3. cap. 23. sect. 6. That Section I have read, and by reading of it have taken up this resolution, that I will ne­ver trust the Historian more. The Objection is framed in these words, Si quis causetur nullam cis inferri ne [...]essitatem ex Dei providentia, sed potius ea conditione ab ipso es [...] creatos, quoniam futuram eorum pravitatem praeviderit; To which is answered, Neque nihil dicit, neque [...]otum, that is, He neither saith nothing, nor yet the whole: Whose confi­dence besides Doctor Heylin's, would have sufficed to English, Neque nihil dicit, neque totum, He either saith nothing, or nothing to the purpose? As for what is added out of Valla, 'tis undoubtedly a truth, that To appoint or de­termine life or death, is rather an act of God's will than of his prescience: No wise man can think that life or death do depend on the Divine prescierce.

Dr. H. Ibid.

Notwithstanding all these shifts, he is forced to acknowledge, the Decree of Adam's fall to be Horribile Decretum, a Cruel and Horrible Decree: as indeed it is a Cruel and Horrible De­cree, to pre-ordain so many millions to destr [...]ction, and conse­quently unto sin, that he might destroy them.

Answ. The expression of Horribile Decretum is indeed Ma­ster Calvin's; and glad I am that the Doctor takes notice of it, because Master Pierce, who drew him into the lists, makes such a noise about it, as also the Lutherans and Gro­tius [Page 67] had done long before him. As for the Lutherans, I should think Wendelin in his Divinity, Cap. de Reprobatione, had written enough to stop their mouths; for he there pro­duceth out of Luther (whom his Followers will scarcely ac­knowledge ever to have written a word amiss) several pla­ces, in which the word Horribile is used in the same sense that here it is by Calvin. As to Dr. Heylin and Mr. Pierce, I wonder why they should go about to perswade the World that Calvin by Decretum Horribile, intended a Cruel and Hor­rible Decree. Are Horribile & Crudele alway equivalent? God is not cruel, but righteous in all the torments that he hath laid on the fallen Angels: yet, I hope, one might venture to call them Horribiles Cruciatus. Who would construe Horri­bile supplicium, which sometimes occurreth in good Authors, Cruel Punishment? The clamor that is made against Mr. Cal­vin for using the word Horribile, brings to my mind a pranck that was plaid by some Sectaries in Bark-shire against their Minister, (a man of good parts and unblameable life;) They come and ask him, What was the meaning of the Psalmist in that phrase, so he giveth his Beloved rest? He unawares re­plied, It was a plaguy hard place; meaning, doubtless, no more, than that It was an huge hard place. But upon this, these malignant Sectaries, betake themselves to the Com­missioners for ejecting of ignorant and scandalous Ministers, and put in a complaint against their Parson, and make this one Article, That he had spoken blasphemously, or at least irre­verently of the holy Scriptures. Some colour had these Secta­ries for their simplicity or malice, because the word plaguy doth male sonare: but so doth not Horribile; signifying no more, than that which doth incutere horrorem. Therefore the outcries against Calvin for using it, and applying it to the Decree of Reprobation, are very vain, and apparently, [...]rivolous and malicious.

Dr. H Ibid.

A Doctrine so injurious to God, so destructive of Piety, of such reproach amongst the Papists, and so offensive to the Lutherans of what sort soever, that they profess a greater readiness to fall back to Popery, than to give way to this Predestinarian pestilence (by which name they call it) to come in amongst them▪

[Page 68] Answ. Whether the Doctrine of Reprobation or Re­jection, as stated by Calvin and his Followers, be injurious to God and destructive to Piety, shall be tried in the ex­amination of what the Doctor hath compiled out of God's love to mankind. Now, we shall be content to en­quire, 1. Whether this Doctrine be of such reproach as is here intimated among Papists? 2. Whether it be so offen­sive to Lutherans?

1. If it be of reproach among the Papists, it is so without any cause: because, men of the highest esteem and renown amongst them say as much in this matter, as ever did Cal­vin or any of his Followers. This I would the rather prove, because it will wipe off the aspersion of singularity, which was in some former words most unjustly cast upon Calvin. Who are of greater esteem among the Papists than Lom­bard, Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure, Scotus?

1. Peter Lombard, the Father of School-men, named (as e­very Fresh-man knows) the Master of the Sentences, who li­ved about the year 1140, thus determines, Lib. 1. dis. 41. A. Cum gratiae, quae apponitur homini ad justificationem, nulia sint merita, multo minus & ipsius praedestinationis (qua ab aeterno Deus elegit quos voluit) aliqua possint existere merita, ita nec reprobationis, qua ab aeterno p [...]aese [...]vit quosdam futuros malos & damnandos: sicut elegit Jacob, & reprobavit Esau, quod non f [...]it pro meritis eorum quae tunc hab [...]bant, quoniam nec ipsi ex­istebant; nec propter futura merita quae praevideret, vel illum [...]legit, vel illum reprobavit.

2. Thomas Aquinas ▪ the Angelical Doctor, Canonized by Pope Iohn XXII, said to have got his Knowledge more by Prayer than Labour and Industry, upon whose Scholastical Labours are publ [...]shed as many Commentaries as on the holy Scripture, is rather an Hypercalvinian than not a Cal­vinist in this matter of the absolute Decree. The Supralap­sarian way is, by Arminius in his Conference with Iunius, imputed to him. Least Arminius should be thought so kind-hearted, as to grant more than was needful, let us hear Matthaeus Rispo [...]is: Divus Thomas, ubicunqu [...] de ea re loquitur, semper docet, nullam esse causam reprobationis; sed sicut prae­destinatio, ita & reprobatio, voluntatem Dei ut causam ha­bet. Quam opinionem sequuntur omnes Thomistae, & praeci­pue, &c. Lib. de Praefia▪ qu [...]st. conclu. 3. But, it may be, Re­probation [Page 69] is not the same thing with Thomas and Calvin. Let Aquinas speak for himself, part. 1. q. 23. art. 3. Reproba­tio non nominat praescientiam tantum, sed aliquid addit secun­dum rationem, sicut & providentia: sicut enim praedestinatio in­cludit voluntatem conferendi gratiam, ita reprobatio includit vo­luntatem permittendi aliquem cadere in culpam, & inferendi dam­nationis poenam propter culpam.

3. Bonaventure, Reader among Dr. Heylin's Franciscan Fri­ers much about the same time that Aquinas was Reader a­mong the Dominick-Friers, canonized by Pope Sixtus IV, called generally the Seraphical Doctor, of so much sanctity of life and integrity of manners and profound knowledge, that his Master, Alexander Ales, was wont to say, In hoc uno Adam non peccavit, thus declares himself, Lib. 1. disp. 40. q. 1. Simpliciter loquendo, quantum ad principale significatum, neutra (i. e. neque electio, neque reprobatio) cadit sub-merito; quantum autem ad connotatum, reprobatio cadit sub merito sim­pliciter, praedestina [...]io vero secundum quid. By the principale sig­nificatum, he means the Act or Decree of Reprobation; by the connotatum, he intendeth the effect of Reprobation, viz. Damnation.

4, Finally Iohannes Duns, a man of stupendious subtlety, called by the admirable Scaliger lima veritatis, is very ex­press and punctual for absolute Election and Reprobation. Places twice ten might be produced, but it is needless to produce testimonies in a matter confessed by the Adversa­ries of the Absolute Decree. Let Micraelius speak, Heterodox. Cal. disp. 40. parag. 49. Scotus, alias Iohannes Duns, Doctor ille [...], seculo 14, contra Thomam defendit illam rigidam sen­tentiam, quod, Quicquid Deus operatur circa creaturas opere­tur beneplacito voluntatis suae, ut s [...]per hoc non sit ratio vel causa petenda (lib. 1. dist. 41.) quodqu [...], Deus sola beneplaciti voluntate de tota massa perdita voluerit quosdam homines mise­ricorditer liberare, quosdam non, ut bonitatem manif [...]staret, in electis quidem per misericordiam, in reprobis p [...] justitiam. Et cum alii Scholastici, ut Henricus, istam propositionem gra­viter arguerent, dicendo, 1. Defectum culp [...] non requiri per se ad manifestationem bonitatis. 2. Malitiam in mundo & mise­riam non esse de perfectione universi, & propterea non pla­cuisse Deo simpliciter ut aliqui in malitia & miseria permane­rent. 3. Dei intentionem non fuisse dum peccata permittit, ut [Page 70] habeat quod puniat sed ut bonum inde eliciat. 4. Malitiam praevisam esse rationem motivam ob quam damnare repro­bum Deus constituerit. Scotus hic sese opposuit, & defendit illam certam praevisionem futurorum contingentium esse ex de­terminatione voluntatis divinae; & si offerantur duo aequa­les in naturalibus, & ex iis unus praeordinetur ad gratiam & vitam aeternam, alter non, non esse aliam rationem assignandam nisi voluntatem divinam: quae quidem est ipsissima sententia Calviniana.

Is that a Doctrine of reproach among the Papists, that hath been defended by so many learned Doctors of the Papal Church? Perhaps though the Doctor will not ac­count the Puritan Protestant, worthy the name of a Pro­testant, yet he thinks the Puritan Papist or Jesuit, the onely Papist: If so, I cannot deny but that the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation is to them odious enough. Molina in his 23. Quest. Art. 4, 5, having granted, that his Schoolmen do commonly maintain absolute Reprobation, and not daring to deny but that Austin maintained it too, concludes that Its too hard and unworthy of the Divine good­ness and clemency, more meet for a fierce and cruel than for a most clement Prince, the Author of all consolation, good­ness, piety.

But yet I am sure Bellarmine and Benedictus Pererius were both Jesuits, and (if we may believe the judge­ment of learned men concerning them) as learned as any two that ever were of that Order; yet either I understand not their Latine (which is easie enough,) or they do not speak with reproach concerning the absolute Decree. Bellarm. de grat. & lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 16, Dicimus repro­bationem duos actus comprehendere, alterum negativum, al­terum positivum; siquidem reprobi opponuntur electis contradi­ctorie, & contrarie. Primum enim non habet Deus voluntatem illos salvandi, deinde habet voluntatem eos damnandi: Quod attinet ad priorem actum, nulla datur ejus causa ex parte ho­minum, sicut neque praedestinationis. Benedictus Pererius, in his Comment. on the ninth to the Romans, roundly takes up Ambresius Catharinus, for reproaching the opinion of the absolute Decree with those ugly names of cruel, impi­ous, desperate.

2. The Doctor tells us that this Calvinistical Doctrine is [Page 71] offensive to the Lutherans of what sort soever. Which whe­ther he ever intended that we should believe, I know not; but I cannot in the least imagine that he himself believed it. For, pag. 34, he told us of some Rigid Lutherans, who having separated themselves from Melancthon and the rest of the Divines of Wittenberg, did gladly entertain those Doctrines, in which they were sure to find as good assistance as the Domini­cans and their party could afford them. What Doctrines were these in which they might promise themselves as good as­sistance as the Dominicans and their party could afford them, unless the Doctrine about the absolute Decrees, and some other points annexed to them? Not many lines after, it is acknowledged, that The Calvinian Faction's (so the Doctor will miscal) Doctrines, though condemned by the Coun­cel of Trent, yet found countenance, not only from the whole Sect of Dominicans but the Rigid Lutherans. What! are the Calvinian Tenents countenanced by a sort of Lutherans, and yet offensive to Lutherans of what sort soever? This I'le undertake to prove, that unless the present Lutherans will reject the Opinion of Luther, Brentius, Heshusius, men whom they pretend highly to reverence, the Calvinian opi­nion cannot be offensive to them. If therefore any of them have said or written, that they would sooner fall back to Popery, than give way to this Predestinarian Pestilence, they were sure in some high fit of passion; such as they are in when they speak of the Sacramentarian Pestilence, such as that Arminian was in who professed, he would sooner turn Atheist than Calvinist.

Dr. H. Pag. 36, 37.

Having so great a Founder as Calvin was, it came to be gene­rally entertained in all Churches of his plat-form, strongly oppo­sed by Sebastian Castalio in Geneva it self: but the poor man so despightfully handled both by him and Beza, that they never left pursuing him with complaints and clamors, till they had cast him out of the City, and at last brought him to his grave. The terror of which example, and the great name which Calvin had attained unto, as it confirmed his power at home, so did it make his Doctrines the more acceptable and esteemed abroad.

[Page 72] Ans. Was ever more dirt cast into the face of Calvin, Beza, Geneva and other Reformed Churches in so few lines? What! Were they, who had suffered so many things from the blood-thirsty Papists, so startled with Castali [...]'s banish­ment, as not to dare to enquire into an opinion before they embraced it? Had all the Reformed pinned their faith on the sleeve of one man, who never made any pretence or laid any claim to infallibility?

Be it so: that, of what account the Master of the Senten­ces was in the Church of Rome, the same had Calvin amongst the Preachers of the Reformed Churches purchased; yet we know that the Papists themselves have their Points, in which they say that Hic Magister non tenetur: so the Preachers of the Reformed Churches would undoubtedly have rejected Cal­vin in the Point of the absolute Decree, had they appre­hended it to be either disconsonant to Scripture, or injuri­ous to God, or destructive to the power of godliness.

I cannot also but take notice of another Calumny, viz. that the cause of the removal of Castalio, was his contradicting of Cal­vin and Beza in the Doctrine of God's Decrees: whereas upon ex­amination it will be found, that he was commanded to depart Geneva for his notorious Calumnies against those that had de­served better of the Church than himself. Indeed the man was grown to that impiety, that he feared not to call the Divinely inspired Song of Solomon, an impure and obscene Bal­lad, and to rail and reproach all those, who would not con­sent to have it expunged the Canon. How great a Saint so­ever he may seem to some, the Histories of those times tell us, that he was perj [...]red.

Page 37, 38.

Doctor H [...]ylin takes notice, that Though Ecclesiastical Dis­cipline was made use of, to crush all those who durst oppose the Doctrine of Calvin, yet it was permitted to Beza to be some­what wilder than his Master, in placing the Decree of Predesti­nation before the Fall, which Calvin himself had more rightly placed in Massa corrupta.

Ans. And yet, p. 38. circa sinem, he tells us, that The Do­ctrine of the Supra [...]apsarians was first broached by Calvin. A contradiction so gross, that whosoever can reconcile it, must [Page 73] have a greater faculty than ever Aristotle himself pretend­ed to, or thought possible. But let us, to gratifie this Author, and for once, suppose that Iohn was a Sublapsarian, and Calvin a Supralapsarian; yet it would require a greater charity than ever I could attain unto, to pardon his mis­carriage, in making the Supralapsarian Doctrine no older than Mr. Calvin. Est nobis necessario fatendum, non esse nuper natam aut ignobiliorum Theologorum sententiam, quae ponit Praedestinationem priorem praevisione peccati, saith Bishop Davenant, Diss [...]rt. de prae. & reprob. cap. 1. pag. 115. This way went Scotus, gone to the generation of his Fathers some centuries before Calvin: yea, and Aquinas, some­what older than Scotus. And, for a conclusion, the Bi­shop addeth, Heac a me in eum finem adducuntur, non quod huic sententiae adhaerescam, sed ut obiter perstringam illorum inscitiam dicam an malitiam, qui Calvinum aut Bezam lacerant ma­ledictis, quasi primarios hujus sententiae Autores, quae inter Scholasticos & inter Pontificios ipsos non minus recepta est quam illa contraria, quae ponit hominem peccato infectum subjectum Praedestinationis. Which done, he proceeds to produce two clear passages out of Calvin, by which it appears, that he made Massam corruptam, or in Austin's phrase, Massam damnatam, the object of Predestination.

The next thing we shall take notice of in our Historian, is the account that he gives of the Supralapsarian and Sublap­sarian Opinion, and the Arguments he brings against the one and the other. His account is drawn by the Pen of pro­fessed Adversaries, viz. the Remonstrants, and Tilenus. His Arguments are all of them transcribed out of that English Pamphlet, called God's Love to Mankind; composed by the joint labours and endeavours of two Men that were no Punies in these Controversies, viz. Mr. Mason and Mr. Hoard.

Where, first, I might take notice of this, as one instance of his failing, that he hath not reckoned up all the Opi­nions about the object of Predestination. For as some make it to be mankind not yet created, massam nondum conditam; others mankind created and corrupted: so there are who make it to be mankind created indeed, but yet not corrupted or fallen. Nor are they, who go this way, so obscure as not to de­serve to be mentioned, by him that undertakes to write the History of these matters. But this I could easily pardon, [Page 74] did I not find him highly disingenuous, in laying down the Opinion of the Supralapsarians: Which he represents from their professed Enemies charge in the Hague-Conference. Just as if some angry Neighbour having preferred a Bill against Dr Heylin, and in that Bill charged him with more than could be proved, I should afterwards make use of this Charge as a Picture to draw Dr. Heylin by. A dis­passionate Heathen would have had more candor than to Father upon any party of Men, every Brat which a pro­voked Adversary had laid at their door. What evidence is there, that the Opinion laid down by the Doctor, page 38, is the Opinion of the Supralapsarian Divines? Have all of them or the most famous of them either jointly or severally declared it to be their Opinion? The Writings of some Antelapsarians I have read, and have not found that they have, simply and without distinction, asserted that God or­dained certain to eternal life, certain to eternal death, with­out any regard had to their righteousness or sin, to their obe­dience or disobedience: Nay, they seem to me plainly to say, that God never decreed to bestow salvation on any adult person, but as a reward of obedience, nor to inflict damnation upon any person, but as a reward of disobedience: Only they say, If Election be considered quoad actum elgientis, and Reprobation quoad actum reprobantis, then there can be no cause assigned either of Election or Reprobation, but only the will and pleasure of the Almighty. Res volita, & actus volendi, should not be confounded in a Disputation so mysterious, as this about the eternal Decrees. Whereas therefore Dr. Heylin, page 39, adds, That the Supralapsa­rian Doctrine, first, makes God to be the Author of Sin, as both Piscator and Macarius, (I suppose it should be Maccovius,) and many other Supralapsarians, as well as Mr. Perkins, have positively and expresly affirmed him to be; and then, concludes him for a more unmerciful Tyrant, than all that ever had been in the World, were they joyned together, I do with some confi­dence aver, that this is a most manifest and malicious Calumny, exceeding (I think) all the Calumnies that ever were uttered by any Arminian. Mr. Mason in his Addi­tions to Mr. Hoard had said, That none of the Supralapsarians (Piscator only and a few more of the blunter sort excepted,) had said, directly and in terminis, that God is the cause of sin. [Page 75] The Doctor hath changed Mr. Mason's few into many, and names Macc [...]vius and Mr. Perkins, whereas Mr. Mason had only named Piscator. But this is strange, that neither Mr. Mason nor Dr. Heylin should direct us to any one place of these Authors, in which any such phrase or speech doth oc­cur. Do they think that their Readers have leisure to turn over all the Writings of these blunter Supralapsarians? or any divining faculty to find out, who are intended by the few others, and the many others? For my part I will not think that any one Supralapsarian ever affirmed God to be the Author of Sin, unless I see the very place in which such af­firmation is contained. But should I see any such thing in the Writings of Mr. Perkins, I should be under a tempta­tion to turn Cartesian, and disbelieve my eyes; so impro­bable, and and almost impossible doth it seem to me, that a Person▪ of his piety and learning, should leave upon Record, a Position so sensless, absurd, impious. I shall ex­pect that the Doctor, in some good convenient time, do gather together those expressions of Piscator, Maccovius, Perkins, in which God is expresly made the Author of Sin, and publish them to the World; or else he must give the World leave to think, that he hath too much communion with the Father of Lies. Further I say, that it doth not from any Principle of the Supralapsarian follow, either that God is the Author of Sin, or that he is a verier Tyrant than ever lived upon earth; though I shall grant, that for man to do as God doth, would be the highest cruelty. I believe, with the Supralapsarian, that God hath decreed, not to bestow converting Grace upon many whom he could easily (had he so pleased) have converted. Should any man who could convert millions not convert them, and afterwards punish them with eternal torments for not being converted, he would be more cruel than ever Nero was. But is God therefore cruel, in not giving his converting Grace to those millions who perish eternally for want of it? Not at all; because he is not under a Law to contribute all that in him lieth towards the conversion of Souls: but so would man be, if he had such a conver [...]ing power. Suppose we, that the Doctor had been endued with a power to work those wonderful things in Tyre and Sidon which would have made the Inhabitants repent in dust and ashes, he would [Page 76] have been cruel with a witness had he not caused those wonders to be wrought; but I trow so was not God, though he never did nor ever intended to work Miracle in either of those places.

Dr. H. pag. 39.

Well, but the Doctor proceeds further, and tells us, that this extremity being every day found more indefensible, the more moderate, and sober sort of the Calvinians, for­saking the Colours of their first Leaders, betook themselves into the Camp of the Rigid Lutherans, and rather chose to joyn with the Dominican Friers, than to stand to the Dictates of their Master Calvin.

Answ. It would be endless to discover all the weaknesses of this period. 1. Calvin was a Sublapsarian; therefore surely not the Master of the Supralapsarians. 2. The Domi­nican Friers do not all make the object of Predestination massam corruptam; nor yet the Rigid (if rigid) Lutherans. 3. Those that are Sublapsarians, do not judge the Supra­lapsarian way indefensible: Witness Davenant, who hath defended the Supralapsarian way against the impertinent Objections of the Author of God's Love to Mankind; and yet was himself of the other perswasion.

Thus of the Supralapsarians: Now follows the Evidence brought in against the Sublapsarians, and the Dreadful Sen­tence pronounced upon them. Witnesses against them, are the Remonstrants in the Hague Conference, published by Bertius and Daniel Tilenus: which our Historian hath taken word for word out of a supposititious Tilenus, who hath troubled himself and the world with an empty piece, called Arcana Dogmata Contraremonstrantium, or the Calvinists Ca­binet unlocked, Printed for Richard Royston, 1659, having also Printed an Examination of Tilenus before the Triers of Utopia. Mr. Baxter, in his Discovery of the Grotian Reli­gion, charged this Gentleman, with giving a false and odi­ous account of the Doctrines of the Synod of Dort. He in his Defence alledgeth, that he never tied himself to the Decrees and Canons of that Synod. Yet Dr. Heylin, page 41, calls them the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort, which is to be conceived to have delivered the genuine sence of all the Parties, as being a Representative of all the Calvinian Churches in Europe, except those of France, some few Divines of England [Page 77] being added to them. The truth is, Not one of his five Con­clusions, pag. 41, 42, are the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort; nor, as they are worded, are they so much as agree­able to the Conclusions of that Venerable Synod. The Judgement of the Synod of Dort in the first of the five Points, against which alone, or rather, against one part of which alone, viz. that of Reprobation, the Arguments tran­scribed by the Doctor, page 42, 43, 44, 45, out of God's Love to Mankind do militate, though he through a stupen­dious inadvertence, speaks of them as alledged against the whole frame of the Synods Conclusion: The Judgement, I say, of the Synod, in the matter of the Divine Decrees, was as followeth. Article 7, ‘Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, by which before the foundation of the World, according to the most free pleasure of his Will and of his meer Grace, out of all mankind, fallen through their own fault from their first integrity into sin and destruction, he hath chosen in Christ unto sal­vation, a set number of certain men, neither better nor more worthy than others, but lying in the common mi­sery with others: Which Christ also, from all eternity, he appointed the Mediator and Head of all the Elect, and Foundation of Salvation, and so he decreed to give them to him to be saved, and by his Word and Spirit effectually to call and draw them to a communion with him; i. e. to give them a true Faith in him, to ju­stifie sanctifie and finally to glorifie them, being mightily kept in the communion of his Son, to the demonstration of his mercy, and praise of the riches of his glorious grace, Ephes. 1.4, 5, 6. Rom 8.30.’ Article 15, ‘The Holy Scripture herein chiefly manifests and commends unto us this eternal and free grace of our Election, in that it wit­nesseth, that not all men are elected, but some not elect­ed or passed over in God's eternal election; whom doubtless God, in his most free, most just, unrepro­vable and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery (whereinto by their own default they precipitated themselves,) and not to be­stow saving faith and the grace of coversion upon them; but leaving them in their own wayes and under just judgement, at last to condemn and everlastingly [Page 78] punish them, not only for their unbelief but also for their other sins, to the manifestation of his Justice.’

The Reader may perhaps expect, that I should give him an account of the Judgement of the Reformed Gallican Churches, in the five controver [...]ed Points: But Grotius in his Epistle to N. N. Epist. Eccles. pag. 746, hath saved me this labour, averring that Moulin, a leading man in the Gal­lican Churches, was, though absent, a chief forger of the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and the only cause why they were without any examination received in France. Only I must needs take notice of Grotius his calumniating humour, whilst he gives out, that the Dort Canons were received in the French Churches without any examination; ‘Whereas it is cer­tain, that in the National Synod at Alez. Anno 1620, the Canons of the Synod of Dort were read, and ex­pended severally and attentively, and by the common consent of all and every one present approved, as agree­able to the Word of God and the Confessions of the French Churches, as written purely and wisely, and as meet to eliminate false Doctrine and to conserve true Doctrine: Every man also swearing, that he did approve these Canons, and would, according to his strength, defend the same to his last breath. It was also then ordained, that these Canons should be sworn to and subscribed, by all that were afterwards to be admitted, ether to the Ministry or to any Office in the University. All this was also confirmed in the next ensuing National Synod at Charenton, Anno 1623. Vid. Corp. Confess. edit. Gene [...]. Anno 1654. Can. Dordre [...]htan. pag. 55.’ It is here said, that the Dort Canons were agreeable to the former French Confessions of Faith: and that they were so, cannot be denied by any, who will read the Confession of Faith exhibited to Charles IX, Anno 1561; for these are the words of that Confession, Article 12, Credimus ex hac cor­ruptione & damnatione universali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem eripere, quos videlicet aeterno & immutabili suo consilio, sola sua bonitate & misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu, in Iesu Christo elegit: alios vero in ea corruptione & damnatione relinquere, in quibus ni­mirum juste suo tempo [...]e damnandis justitiam suam demonstret, sicut in aliis divitias milericordiae [...]uae declarat. Neque enim [Page 79] alii aliis meliores sunt donec illos Deus discernat, ex immutabili illo consilio quod ante seculorum creationem in Iesu Christo deter­minavit; neque posset quisquam sua vi sibi ad bonum illud aditum patefacere, quum ex natura nostra ne unum quidem rectum motum vel affect [...]m seu cogitationem habere possimus, donec nos Deus gratis praeveniat & ad rectitudinem formet.

Against the absolute Decree, as stated by the Synod of Dort, and the French Divines, let us hear what can be ob­jected out of God's love to mankind; for thence doth the Doctor transcribe as confidently, as if there had never any Answer been returned to that Book: whereas there are few Scholars (any way inquisitive after Books) who do not know, that it hath been answered by Bishop Davenant, Dr. Twisse, Amyraldus; not to mention Dr. Ward and Mr. Ayles­bury, who have took occasion to refel some of the Book, though not all: it is out of that Pamphlet that the Sub­lapsarian opinion is argued against, as,

Dr. H. pag. 42.

1. Repugnant to plain Texts of Scripture, Ezekiel 33.11. Rom. 11.32. 2 Joh. 3.16. 2 Tim. 2.4. 2 Pet. 3.9. Gen. 4.7. 1 Chron. 28.9. 2 Chron. 15.2.

Ans. Now if it should prove contrary to any one of these Scriptures, it were meet to be abandoned by all good Chri­stians: But many Opinions are confidently affirmed to be contrary to Scripture, which are not; Such perhaps is this. I needed not to have said perhaps; for let it be re­membred, that the Opinion of the Sublapsarians is but this, That God hath decreed the infallible Conversion and Salvation of certain singular Persons, and also the permission of some mens Impenitence and Perdition, and it will soon be seen, that the Scriptures produced, have not so much as as a seeming contrariety to it.

1. Ezek. 33.11, God saith, yea sweareth, that He hath no pleasure in the death of a Sinner; Therefore God never de­creed to let sinful Creatures finally run on in their wicked wayes.

What a wild conclusion is this? Hence indeed it might be inferred, that neither spiritual nor Eternal Death do fall under that Will of God which is called his Voluntas simplicis complacentiae: But Sublapsarians do not say, that [Page 80] they do fall under that Will. If they did, they must also necessarily maintain, that they be things in themselves good and lovely; which none of them (that I ever met with) do.

2. It is said, Rom. 11.32, God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. What can hence be collected? Why, The two Alls are of equal extent; How many Unbelievers there be, on so many God hath a Will of shewing Mercy; and if every Man be under Mercy, then there is no precise Will of shutting out any from possibility of Mercy.

Well, 1. Let it be remembred, that here it is granted, that God hath shut up all under unbelief: Which is as high an expression concerning God's providence about, and concurrence unto evil, as any used by Mr. Calvin.

2. When it is said, that God hath a Will of shewing Mercy on all Unbelievers: If by Mercy be understood a general Mercy, we can grant it; All Men are not only under a possibility of this Mercy, but also have some actual parti­cipations of it.

But 3. It is plain, that the Mercy intended in the Text is not a general Mercy common to all Mankind, but such a Mercy as was never vouchsafed to some whole Nations, much less to every individual Member of those Nations; V. 30, For as ye (i. e. the Gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their un­belief: even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. Doubtless the mercy that the Gentiles obtained by the unbelief and hardness of the Jews, was the hearing of the word, and that which comes by hearing, even Faith: The mercy also that the Jews ob­tained through the mercy of the Gentiles, was the being provoked to jealousie; the seeing of him whom they had cruci­fied, and being in bitterness; the turning of them away from iniquity, and the turning of iniquity from them. Now, doth Dr. Heylin indeed think, that God did shut up every Jew and Gentile in unbelief with a design and purpose to have the Gospel preached to the singula generum? If so, he must unavoidably grant, that the Almighty is marvelously fru­strated in his design and purpose; for he is too good a Geographer and Historian to think, that the Gospel was ever preached, or entertained by all men that have lived, or do now live in the World.

[Page 81]3. Iohn 3.16, God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

From hence it undeniably follows, that God will not damn any man meerly for not coming up to the terms of the old Covenant of Works; and that none shall perish, whose heart is brought to believe in Christ. Nor have the Contra-remon­strants denied this; and more than this cannot hence be in­ferred: For whereas Mr. Hoard argueth, God loveth the whole lump of mankind, and loved it fallen into a gulf of sin and mi­sery: He did not therefore hate the most of them lying in the fall; for love and hatred are contrary acts in God, and cannot be exer­cised about the same objects. He sure could not but think, that we would reply, that God doth not love the whole lump of mankind with the same degree, measure, and kind of love; and that a less degree of love is sometimes in Scriptures called by the name of hatred. God had not such a love for the whole lump of mankind, as to decree to bestow upon every particular person that special grace which shall infallibly bring him to eternal life and glory. Any love less than this, many consist with absolute eternal Non-election or Preterition. Nay, God did never so love the World, as to purpose to bestow on all the parts of it the very means of knowledge: How many, notwithstanding the love this Text speaks of, are everlastingly punished, who never heard of the way to Salvation!

4. 1 Tim. 2.4, Who would have all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. In these words the Apostle delivers two things: 1. That it is God's will that all men should obtain an happy end. 2. That it is his will also that they should use and enjoy the means, which is the knowledge of his truth, that they might attain the end: There is no let in God, but that all men may believe and be saved; and therefore there is no absolute will, that many thousands of men shall never believe nor be saved.

The thing that should be proved, is, That there is a will in God to save all men and to bring them to the know­ledge of the truth; and we have here a Scripture brought to prove, that God would have all men to be saved, as if there were no difference betwixt these two Proposi­tions, Deus vult omnes salvos fieri; Deus vult omnes salvos facere. If a man should lay down this assertion, that [Page 82] Dr. Heylin hath a mind or purpose to bestow an hundred pounds per annum on Abingdon, and when he is called to make good that assertion, should only prove, that Dr. Heylin could be well pleased that an 100 per annum were given to the Town, and that there is no let in him why it hath not been given, would he not become ridiculous? Never did sober Sublapsarian say, that there is any let in God, but that all men may believe and be saved; but they do not think, that a man must presently believe and be saved, if God do not hinder his faith and salvation. 'Tis required that God should remove all the le [...]s and hin­drances of faith, cure us of our unbelief, and put his fear into our inward parts, else we shall never believe, or be saved. Let any Arminian prove, that God hath willed and purposed to do all this for every one.

5. 2 Pet. 3.9, Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. This is a negative Proposition, and must be taken distributively; and therefore it flatly contra­dicteth absolute Reprobation.

Here is Logick that may well make younger men than Dr. Heylin and I to smile. 1. The Scripture produced is not one Proposition, but two; and if the first be negative, the second is affirmative.

2. What if it be taken distributively? Is there no di­stribution, but only into the singula generum? I thought that there might be a distribution into genera singulorum.

3. I could (notwithstanding any thing brought by Mr. Hoard to the contrary) hold, that the words are to be re­strained to the Elect.

4. But because I can be not only honest but also liberal, I will grant, that God is not willing that any one should perish, that he is willing that every one should repent: But then I deny, that either of these two Propositions do contradict Gods decree of Reprobation; which, as hath been often said, is his decree to permit, that many shall perish in their impenitence. Mens being under this decree doth not hinder, but that God may, voluntate complacentiae, will their conversion, and patiently expect it, and afford them such means as will leave them without excuse, though such as he foreknew they would frustrate and receive in vain.

[Page 83]The conditional Texts of Scripture that follow, are so apparently impertinent, that I will trust any Reader with them.

Dr. H. pag. 42, 43.

2. The Sublapsarian Opinion fighteth with God's holiness, and makes him the cause of sin in the greatest number of men, 1. In regard that of his own will and pleasure, he hath brought mem into an estate, in which they cannot avoid sin: that is to say, by imputing to them the transgression of their Father Adam. 2. In that he leaves them irrecoverably plunged and involved in it, without affording them power or ability to rise again to newness of life: In which case that of Tertullian seems to have been fitly alledged, In cujus manu est ne quid fiat, ei deputatur cum jam fit; In whose power it is that a thing be not done, to him it is imputed when it is done.

Answ. If absolute Reprobation do indeed rob God of his holiness, let it for ever be abandoned, and not so much as named with the least approbation among Divines. But what wretched ignorance is this! whilst a man is pleading for the holiness of his Maker, to lay down such a rule, which if it prove true, doth entitle him to all the wicked­nesses that ever were perpetrated by the sons of men! I ask the Doctor, Could not he who kept the Heathenish King from touching Abraham's Wife, Laban and Esau from doing mischief to Iacob, the Israelites Enemies from having so much as a mind to hurt them, so restrain the lust of all and every man, as that it should never conceive and bring forth sin and death? If he could not, he is not Omnipo­tent, nor fit to govern the World: If he could, sith he hath not, he is, by the Doctor's rule, become the Author of all the pollutions that have been in the World through lust. The best is, the rule is most apparently false even in reference to the creature; for a man is not guilty of all the sins which he had power to hinder, but only of those sins which by virtue of his calling and place he was bound to hinder. Let us see whether the Sublapsarians be more happy in their Principles than the Historian in his. Two Principles of theirs are taken notice of,

  • 1. That God, of his own will and pleasure, hath brought men [Page 84] into an estate in which they cannot avoid sin; that is to say, by imputing to them the transgression of their Father Adam.

    Little did I expect to find this Principle charged with any opposition to the holiness of God: For though it be most unhandsomly expressed, yet that which is intended by it, is but this, that It was the free constitution of God, that if Adam stood, he should transmit holiness to all his Posterity, and if he did fall and rebel, then his Posterity should be born in a condition of sin and misery.

    If this be a truth, then it is not contrary to the holiness of God: If not a truth, what shall become of Rom. 5.12? Let [...] be rendred either in quo or eo quod, it must needs hold forth this, that, when Adam sinned we sin­ned: Which could not be, if Adam had not been made by God a common Person, a faederal as well as a natural head. If he was made a common Person, so as that his will was reputed our will, his fall our fall, he was made such by the meer will and pleasure of God; for who can think that there was any thing that necessitated God to make him such? It may be the second Principle is more hainous: That is thus laid down,

  • 2. He leaves men irrecoverably plunged and involved in sin, without affording them power or ability to rise again to newness of life.

If this be understood of all men, it is a notorious ca­lumny: For the Sublapsarians hold, that there are a great number of men, upon whom God hath eternally purpo­sed to bestow that grace which shall infallibly bring them out of sin and misery. But there are some to whom he af­fords no such power: Well, What then? Is he not there­fore holy? Absit. If he had let all the race of mankind perish, never sending his Son to take flesh, and so be­come a Mediator betwixt God and Man, he had notwith­standing been every way as holy as now he is. But it seems it is again come to that pass, that Deus non erit Deus nisi homini placuerit, God shall not be God (God he is not if he be not holy,) unless he have made such Decrees as please our Semipelagians.

Dr. H. page 43.

3. This Sublapsarian Doctrine is inconsistent with the mercy of God, so highly signified in the Scriptures; in making him to take so small and speedy occasion to punish the greater part of men for ever, and for one sin once committed, to shut them up under an invincible necessity of sin and damnation.

Answ. Who would have looked for such stuff from the Pen of a Divine? If God make man after his own image, allow him liberty to eat of all the trees but one, and tell him most expresly, that if he eat of that tree he shall die the death, Must he needs be thought, if he punish man for ever for eating of that tree, to take a small occasion to punish man? Had not this eating of the fruit of the for­bidden tree, all the circumstances in it that may render it out of measure sinful? Had it not something in it con­trary to all the Precepts of the natural Law? But besides, This charge of destroying God's mercy is grounded on a gross mistake: For Sublapsarians do not make Reprobu­tion to be Gods punishing men for ever, or shutting them up under an invincible necessity of sin and damnation: It is, with them, only the denying or not giving of an undue favour, which yet he is pleased graciously to vouchsafe to others, who could as little deserve it as those to whom it is denied.

Dr. H. Ibid.

4. This is incompatible with the Iustice of God, who is said in Scripture to be righteous in all his wayes according unto weight and measure, that the far greatest part of man­kind should be left remediless in a state of damnation, for the sin of their first Father only: that he should require faith in Christ of those, to whom he hath precisely in his absolute pur­pose denied, both a power to believe and a Christ to believe in: or, that he should punish men for the omission of an act, which is made impossible for them by his own decree, by which he purposed that they should partake with Adam in his sin, and be stript of all the supernatural power which they had in him before he fell.

[Page 86] Answ. All this is but a bundle of impertinencies, impro­prieties, calumnies. No opinion destroys the Justice of God, but that which ascribes injustice to him: Injustice is not ascribed to God, till he be affirmed to do something that is contrary to his goodness or his truth; Which he is not by those who maintain his Decree of Reprobation. Sublap­sarians do not say, that the far greatest part of mankind is left remedilesly in a state of damnation, for the sin of their first Father only. They affirm, that the first transgression was as truly the transgression of every one descended na­turally from the loins of Adam, as of Adam himself the common Progenitor. They maintain not, that any is left remediless in a state of damnation. They acknowledge, that a remedy is by God prepared, sufficient to deliver them from the wrath to come, and that it is through the fault of men, living in the Church, if the remedy become not effectual. They also make damnation to come upon the Reprobate, not because he is a Reprobate, nor meerly and solely for original sin; but for their habitual and actual sins. It is also most false, that by the Sublapsarians God is made to require faith in Christ of those, to whom he hath denied both a power to believe, and a Christ to believe in. Those who did never hear of Christ, are not required under pain of damnation to believe in him; faith to them is no duty, and therefore infidelity is no sin: Those to whom Christ is manifested, have a Christ given them to believe in; for he is propounded to them as able to save them to the uttermost, as willing and resolved and engaged to save them upon his own terms: which are no other, than their receiving of him, and submitting to him as their Lord, to rule and govern them, &c. Yea, the Sublapsarians affirm God to give the Reprobate a power of believing, as great a power as the Arminians make him to give to any whether Elect or Reprobate. God never purposed effectually to work in the Reprobate both to will and to do, say the Sublapsarians: He never pur­posed effectually to work to will and to do in any, say the Arminians.

I, but God punisheth the Reprobates for the omission of an act, which is by his own Decree made impossible to them, say Sublap­sarians; ergo, he is unjust.

[Page 87]I deny the antecedent; Some Sublapsarians say, that faith is not impossible to any who is in statu viatoris; no Sublapsarian saith, that it was the decree of God which made the act of faith impossible to any man. It is the corruption and hardness of mens hearts that makes the act of faith impossible to men, (if absolutely it be impos­sible;) but this corruption and hardness of mens hearts is not an effect of God's decree.

Dr. H. pag. 43.

5. It is said to be destructive of God's sincerity, in calling them to repentance and to the knowledge of the faith in Iesus Christ that they may be saved, to whom he doth not really intend the salvation offered: Which is as if a Creditor should resolve upon no terms to forgive his Debtor, and yet make him offers to remit the whole upon Condition, and bind the same with many solemn oaths in a publick Auditory.

Answ. This is indeed said (the more some mens shame and impudence) too too often; but it is not proved. Sub­lapsarians do not feign God to have any purpose to remit the debt upon no terms: they plainly say, that he hath purposed to remit, on the conditions of faith and repen­tance; should any Reprobate perform and come up to these conditions, the whole sum, how great soever, should be forgiven, and he put into the actual possession and enjoyment of the salvation offered to him in the preach­ing of the Gospel. I, but these conditions are such as God knows the Reprobate will not, cannot come up to: therefore, to offer salvation on such terms, is but to delude. Why, but did not God foreknow, in the Arminian way, that the Reprobate would not repent and believe? Ay; but they do not say, that God ever decreed that he should not repent and believe. Well, however he decreed, not to cure his impe­nitence or unbelief. If this be granted, the Sublapsarian hath as much as he need contend for; Reprobation be­ing with him, only a denial of that grace which makes men actually believers. Judge now what cause the Doctor had, so reproachfully to conclude this piece of his Charge,

Dr. H. pag. 44.

All God's passionate wishes, all his terrible threatnings, the whole course of the Ministry, are by this Doctrine made to be but so many acts of deep hypocrisie in Almighty God: though none of the maintainers of it have the ingenuity to confess the same, but Piscator only, in his Necesse est ut sanctam aliquam si mu­tationem (lege simulationem) in Deo statuamus; which is plain and home.

Ans. Some maintainers of absolute Reprobation do not de­ny this, but ascribe unto God Sanctam simulationem, duplicem personam, duplicem voluntatem, saith Mr. Hoard. But Dr. Heylin, taking this to be a piece of commendable ingenuity, will not allow any but Piscator alone to have any portion of it: all others are disingenuous, and do indeed make God a dissembler, but will not say so much. Surely did the Sub­lapsarians conceive that so [...]orrid a consequence did follow upon absolute Reprobation, they would acknowledge it, and withal renounce and disclaim their opinion. Till they be thus convinced, it is no great charity to fasten disingenuity upon men so renowned for Learning and Piety, as are the Sublapsarians. But let us look once more on this scoffing passage; All God's wishes, &c. must be but so many acts of deep hypocrisie; though none of the maintainers of this Opinion be so ingenuous as to confess the same but Piscator. The Opinion he is speaking of, is the Sublapsarian Opinion; and so the sense is, None of the Sublapsarian Opinion, save only Piscator who was no Sublapsarian, but a Supralapsarian: Is not this fine sense? Besides, sanctam quandam simulationem, cannot well be rendred by deep hypocrisie. Lastly, how shall I be assured that any such words as these here quoted, are to be found in Piscator? Neither Page nor Book is quoted, yet I have met with the place; and by reading it can easily gather, that Dr. Heylin either never read it, or had not ingenuity e­nough to quote it aright: For whereas Vorstius had objected to Piscator, that he fastned simulation on God in the case of the Ninevites, and the message sent to Hezekiah ▪ he replieth, Tu hic pugnas sine adversario; nam neque ego affirmavi facile aliquam simulationis speciem Deo tribuendam esse, neque exempla illa Ezekiae & Ninivitarum huc retuli: interim non puto ab illis exemplis alienum esse, ut sancta Dei simulatio in illis statuatur. [Page 89] Here is no necesse est; nothing like an affirmation, that the maintainers of absolute Reprobation must necessarily ascribe a simulation unto God. Honest Piscator never dreamed that the message sent to Hezekiah by Isaiah, or to the Ninevites by Ionah, was the Decree of Reprobation: All he seems to intend, is but this, that God seemed in those messages to be peremptorily resolved of that, which he never resolved should come to pass: And if his expression were not so accurate, Dr. Heylin, who almost in every period lieth at the Readers mercy, should not have cavilled at it.

By the way let it be noted, that how slightly soever our present Arminians do think or speak of Piscator, yet Armi­nius himself either had honourable thoughts of him, or else was a most notorious dissembler: For writing to Utengobard concerning one to succeed Iunius, then la [...]ely dead; after mention of some other, he saith, Si Piscatoris aetas non ob­stet, illum unum omnium commodissimum existimo, quem etiam fors non admodum erit difficile a Comite Nassovio impetrare, si Comes Mauritius & D. Ordines intercedere non dedignabuntur. Doctus est, diligens est, facilis, planus, & perspicuus. Nominis celebritatem sibi editis scriptis comparavit apud multos. Hoc potissimum videtur hoc Academiae statu requiri, ut succedat qui possit locum pro dignitate tueri, unde tantus vir excessit; & quem posse, publice innotuit. The Letter beareth date 3. Cal. Nov. 1602, and is recorded Epistol. Eccles. pag. 134.

One Arrow more the Doctor hath to shoot at the abso­lute Decree, and then his Quiver is quite emptied.

Dr. H. page 44.

Finally, it is alledged, that this Doctrine of the Sublapsarians, is contrary to the ends by God proposed in the Word and Sacra­ments; to many of God's excellent gifts to the sons of men; to all endeavours unto holiness and godly living; and to those grounds of comfort by which a conscience in distress should be relieved.

Ans. All this is indeed alledged by Mr. Hoard, but it is de­nied also by all the Sublapsarians; and had the Doctor vouch­safed to bring Mr. Hoard's Reasons, they should have had their Answer: but where he counts it sufficient barely to af­firm, there I count it enough to deny. But however, I shall take notice of two Stories; whereof the first is said to illu­strate, the second to evince.

[Page 90]The illustrating History in concerning Tiberius Caesar, of whom Suetonius saith, Circa Deos & Religiones negligentior erat, quippe addictus Mathematicae, persuasionisque plenus, omnia fato agi.

The evincing Story is the miserable example of the Landgrave of Turing (related not by Heistibachius, but Heisterbachius,) who being admonished of his vitious con­versation, and dangerous condition, made his Friends this Answer, Si praedestinatus, nulla peccata poterint mihi Regnum Coelorum auferre; si praescitus, nulla opera mihi illud valebunt conferre.

A man would almost think that this prophane Land-grave was a piece of an Arminian, because he opposeth prae­destinatus & praescitus: whereas the Calvinists take Pre­destination in its latitude, and make Election and Repro­bation to be contained under it. But however, this I am sure of, that a Monk in S. Austin's time, being reproved by his Friends for his wickedness, answered, Whatsoever I am now, I shall be such as God foreseeth I will be. Shall we deny God's Prescience, because a wretched Monk abused it? No more must we deny Predestination, because the Land-grave of Turing did turn it into wantonness and la­sciviousness. Had either Supralapsarian, or Sublapsarian, been present when the Land-grave uttered these words, it would have been answered, That though he were Pre­destinated, yet should he never be saved if he continued in his sins; and That though he were Reprobate, yet he should not miss of Heaven, if he continued by patience in well-doing to seek for it. Salvation and Damnation are alway (if we speak of the adult) secundum bona, & mala opera.

Tiberius confuted himself; for though he pretended a full perswasion of a Mathematical fate or destiny, yet, as the same Historian observeth, he was out of measure afraid of Thunders, and when the Air was cloudy, he always did wear on his head a Crown of Laurel. We may pity his ignorance, in thinking that there was any virtue in the Laurel to keep him from Thunder; but cannot choose but detest his Hypocrisie, who in words maintained a Fate, and yet endeavoured to secure his life by as many means as were used by them that held no Fate. As much [Page 91] is their Hypocrisie to be abhorred, who take occasion from the irreversibleness of God's Decrees to neglect their Souls: and yet the irreversibleness of those Decrees notwithstand­ing, mind their Bodies as much or more, than any persons in the World besides.

To conclude; Would it not exasperate, I could in­stance in those, who whilst they were prophane, were Ar­minians to the full: but left their Arminianism as they left their loosness; their own experience in conversion con­vincing them, that Faith was the gift of God in another way than the Arminians ever thought of. He that question­eth this, may be in part satisfied by reading the History of the Life and Death of the executed Irish Bishop, published by Dr. Bernard. To my grief I observe, that there are multitudes of stupid and prophane wretches in the World: With some of them I have occasion to converse; and I find, that one main thing which keepeth them in their car­nality is a perswasion, that there is an universal grace of­fered and tendered to all, by which they may repent and believe when they will: they therefore resolve, they will enjoy the pleasures of sin a little longer, and then they will receive and entertain the grace of God; and so get to Hea­ven as sure as the strictest and earliest Puritans. Yea, this was the refuge and [...] of that grand Propagator of Arminianism Mr. Thomson: If any one in a fit of intemper­ance, minded him of the wrath of God threatned against such courses, he would answer, I am a Child of the Devil to day; but I have Free-will, and to morrow I will make my self a Child of God.

So I come to the fifth Chapter of the Historian, in which we have some account given of the Remonstrants; Unto whom it will be found, that he hath discovered too much charity, though he could find in his heart to shew none at all to the Contraremonstrants.

Dr. H. Pag. 47.

His first Proposition is this, That the Remonstrants Opinion though accused of Novelty, is Ancienter than Calvinism in the Churches of the Belgick Provinces; which being originally Dutch, did first embrace Religion according to the Lutheran mo­del, [Page 92] though afterwards they suffered the Calvinian platform to prevail upon them.

Answ. A Proposition, concerning which he hath reason to pray, that it may meet with very easie and credulous Readers, else he may well expect it will be queried, 1. How it appears that the Lutheran and Calvinian model were then, as to the points of Grace and the Decrees, any way opposite? 2. How it can be proved, that on supposition the Lutheran and Calvinian platform were distinct, the Belgick Churches did first embrace Religion according to the Lutheran, and not the Calvinian platform? To which second Question, it will in no wise be a satisfactory Answer to reply, That Hardingbergius, Clemens Martini, Henricus Antonides, had opinions about Predestination differing from Mr. Calvin: For granting this, yea, and granting further, that they had been through-paced Remonstrants, it need not be yielded, that the Belgick Churches were Lutheran; for there might be at the same time men every way as fa­mous, and as likely to draw Disciples after them, that were Calvinistical. It is a truth known to all that are not alto­gether unacquainted with the Stories of the Low-Countries, that though in the dawning of Reformation, the Preachers were not all of a mind; yet as things grew to a settle­ment, the Pelagian Leaven was purged out, a Confession of Faith published, (which was afterwards called Belgica Con­fessio,) in which the Doctrine of Predestination is so ex­plained as Mr. Calvin explained it at Geneva: this was in the year 1566, or 1567.

Dr. H. Ibid.

Object. This Confession was ratified in a forcible and tu­multuous way.

Answer. 1. This is said, not proved out of any Re­cord. 2. There is usually something of disorder cleaving to the best things that are done in dissetled times. 3. Anno Christi 1571, there was a full Synod at Embden (the Town e [...]olled by the Doctor,) in which it was ordained▪ That none should be admitted for a Minister, till he had been examin'd, and subscribed this Confession and the Ca­techism of Heidelberg. Which De [...]ree was confirmed in [Page 93] the ensuing Synods of 1576, and 1586, and approved of by the States of Holland: Yet not so practised, but that in the want of others more Orthodox, there crept in some that taught things contrary both to the Confession and Cate­chism, whose hard names I will not fill my papers with. These men had not, notwithstanding all their restless en­deavours, any great success: all things were reasonable quiet, till Arminius came to be Divinity Professor at Leyden, which was Anno 1603. Concerning which Arminius or Van Har­mine, we must give a short account.

He was at first a Tapster or Chamberlain in a common Inn, from whence by the care of some Guests (who were pleased even to admiration with his prompt wit) he was removed, and set to School; maintained there out of the Publick Treasury of Amsterdam: where in process of time he was by the Magistrates of the City made Pastor, and preached with that accurateness and solidity, that every one thought him for his parts meet to be a Professor. Indeed magnus esse potuit, si minor esse voluit: he might have been high enough, had he not thought meet to raise himself higher, by trampling upon those whom the Churches of Christ have most deservedly had in the greatest admiration. The learn­ed Iunius being dead, Utengobard thought none so meet to succeed him as Van Harmine; but the Belgick Churches knew him too well, to let him easily come to such a place, in which he might influence all that were Candidates for the Ministry. The Deputies of the Churches did admonish Utengobard, that he would cease to commend a man so sus­pected, to the Curators of the University of Leyden: but he, too proud to regard such admonitions, desisted not to commend Arminius, till he had brought him in to Iunius's Chair. But first a dismission must be obtained from Amster­dam, which could not easily be got; the Inhabitants of the City being taken with his Eloquence, the Presbytery (at least the wiser part of them) thinking that he did far less hurt at Amsterdam than he would do at Leyden, a place where Youth was formed, and where there was more liberty of teaching and prophecying than in a particular Church. However, dismissed he was at last; bu [...] upon this condition, that he should first have a Conference with the Learn­ed Gomarus, and, in that Conference, by a most free [Page 94] and open declaration of his Opinion, free himself from all suspition of Heterodoxy; and that he should promise, if he had any singular Opinions, he would not discover them to the disturbance of the Churches. Arminius, if we may judge of his mind by what he writes to Utengobard, was not unwilling to come to this Conference; for these are his words, from Amsterdam, to Utengobard, 4. Martii, 1603, Non vereor in Arnoldi, Helmichii, Gomari, & quorumvis aliorum, qui istarum rerum peritissimi habentur, conspectu & praesentia de illis disserere, probe mihi conscius de sententiae meae veritate, & illorum censuram minime reformidans; quod tibi idcirco dico, ne hoc ipse timidius urgeas. Haesi quidem aliquando circa non­nullos articulos, non eousque tamen, ut quae de illis creditu ne­cessaria ex Scripturis probari possunt, non adprobaverim; sed jam per diuturnas & assiduas meditationes id consecutus mihi videor, ut de omnibus & singulis rationem reddere non exti­mescam. Accordingly a Conference there was, before the Curators of the University, and the Deputies of the Synod; in which Arminius most expresly denied and condemned the Opinions of the Pelagians, concerning Grace, Free-will, Original Sin, Perfection in this Life, Predestination; adding, that he approved all that Augustin, and other Fathers had written against Pelagius; promising also to read nothing dissonant to the received Doctrine. Hereupon he was admitted Professor; and for some time he defend­ed the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches in the Points of Christ's Satisfaction, Iustifying Faith, Iustification by Faith, Perseverance in Faith, Certainty of Salvation, and such other matters as afterwards he denied, and which he then (as is acknowledged by his good Friend Corvinus) maintained against his conscience. He seems by all his carriage, to be one that was resolved not to venture any further into the sea, than tha [...] he might have opportunity to step when he pleased upon the shore. Would Barnevelt have publick­ly undertaken his Patronage, then he would have ventured to proclaim defiance to all Dissenters; but Barnevelt not daring so to do, the valiant Professor contented himself mostly to instil his Notions and Principles into some of his Confidents: magnifying Castalio, Cornhertius, Suarezius, and as much vilifying Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Zanchy, Ursin; yet when he was accused so to do, he peremptorily denieth [Page 95] himself to be in the least guilty of discommending Calvin, or commending Cornhert; as may be seen in his Epistle to Sebastian Egbert, bearing date May 3. 1607, pag. 236. (Which is the usual way and method of Hereticks,) he expressed himself in such terms, as would serve to insinuate his own private Heterodox Opinions: and yet if he were questioned for them, he knew how to reconcile them to the Confessions and Catechism; contrary to which he pre­tends, in a Letter to Utengobard, that he never did say any thing in publick. He dreaded a Synod as the shadow of death; and thereupon set himself to make the Authority of the Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs, to be all in all: and when he saw that all his Policy notwithstanding, a Synod was like to be called, and he in that Synod like to be made answer for himself, seised upon with sorrow and overwhelmed with grief, he fell sick and died, Anno 1609, Octob. 19.

Two things more I would have observed concerning Arminius, 1. That in the set Conference betwixt him and Gomarus, not long before his death, he declared that he had never opposed the Doctrine of the certain Perseverance of Saints, and that he would not then oppose it: because such testimonies might be brought for it out of the Scriptures, as he was not able to answer: he would therefore only propound such places as made him somewhat to scruple and doubt about that matter.

2. He would not then consent to have Adolphus Ve­nator dismissed, and to take another Pastor in his place; though Venator was at that time, as well for the impu­rity of his life, as his Doctrine, under the just censure of the Church.

If the Remonstrants count it any way for their honour, to fight under such a Captain or Leader, let them enjoy their phantasie. Had not our first Reformers been endued with more courage and resolution, Religion had never made that progress among us, that now it hath. I'le never think any Opinion worth embracing, whose Author either doubts of it, or durst not suffer for it. However, glad I should be if they who follow, or rather out-run Arminius in the five Points, would be of the same mind with him as to the Pope of Rome: of whom he thus writes in an Epistle to Se­bastian [Page 96] Egbert, bearing date Septemb. 24. 1608, Aperte profi­teor me Pontificem Romanum pro membro corporis Christi non habere; sed pro hoste, pro perduelle, pro sacrilego, pro blasphemo, pro tyranno, & violentissimo injustissimae in Ecclesiam domina­tionis usurpatore, pro homine peccati, pro filio perditionis, pro exlege illo celeberrimo.

Well had it been for the Belgick Churches, if Armi­nianism and Arminius had both died together: but they did not. Breaches, as the Doctor truly notes, pag. 49, grew wider and wider. The Remonstrants, having no hopes their cause should succeed, if debated in a full and lawful Sy­nod, endeavour to shelter themselves under the wing of the Civil Magistrates; whose favour that they might be the more sure to gain, they ceased not upon all occasions to imbitter the Civil Powers against all the Pastors that were of a perswasion contrary to theirs, speaking and Printing of them, as if they were enemies to Magistracy, and introduced an Ecclesiastical Power collateral and equal to the Civil: (an Artifice that Hereticks have alway used when they have been put to their shifts.) Not content thus to reproach their Brethren, they further propound, if there must needs be a Synod, it might consist not of Persons delegated by the Churches, but of certain nominated by the Magistrate. Thinking that by this device they had put themselves out of all fear of Synodical censure, they make an open Schism, and pre­sent a Remonstrance to the States of Holland and West-Friesland; in which they neither nakedly and plainly declared their own Opinions, nor candidly represented the Tenents of their Adversaries. Much they endeavoured that no Copy of this Remonstrance might be given out; but at length a Copy was got, and a Contraremonstrance made. The Doctor tells us, that

Dr. H. Pag. 49, 50.

The Remonstrants gained exceedingly upon their Adver­saries: for the whole Controversie being reduced to these five Points; the Method and Order of Predestination; the Efficacy of Christ's Death; the Operations of Grace, both before and after Conversion; and Perseverance in the same; the Parties were admitted to a publick Conference at the Hague, Anno [Page 97] 1611, in which the Remonstrants were conceived to have much the better of the day.

Answ. But if a man may be so bold, Who were they that conceived the Remonstrants had much the better of the day? The Remonstrants themselves? Proprio laus sordet in ore. The Contra-remonstrants? They never so conceived, but rather reported themselves Victors. When were the Differences reduced to five Heads? Not before the Hague Confer­ence, I am sure; for the Deputies of the Churches charged the Followers of Arminius with Heterodoxies, in more Points than the five now mentioned, as appears by all the complaints exhibited against them. And there fell out something, which might justly give the World occasion to think, that the Remonstrants were leavened with Socini­anism, as well as with Pelagianism. For care being taken to chose one who might succeed Arminius in his Professors place, the Remonstrants thought none so meet as Vor­stius; a man strongly suspected to be a great favourer of Socinus, and who had then newly Printed a Book, in the which he ascribed unto God, Quantity, Composition, Muta­bility, Passive Power, and such other imperfections, as are alto­gether repugnant to his perfect Essence: yet at the Confer­ence, the Remonstrants professed unanimously, that they had found nothing in the Writings of Vorstius, contrary either to Truth or Piety. At the Conference also the Contra-remon­strants urged, that there were more things controverted betwixt them and the Remonstrants, than were contained in the five Articles.

I shall make a few Annotations on the five Articles of the Remonstrants,

1. That Almighty God ordained to save all those, in Christ, for Christ, through Christ, who being faln, and under the com­mand of sin, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, do pers [...]vere in Faith and Obedience to the very end.

This Article is such, as no Christian would deny; yet the Remonstrants do lay down such Assertions, as do by most necessary consequence quite overthrow this De­cree. For Poppius, a man of note and renown among them, seems much to doubt, ‘Whether a late, though ne­ver so serious Repentance, do avail a man to Salvation? Nay, he expresly affirms, (in praxi Consolationis aegrotantium.) that [Page 98] he is destitute of any Promise so universal, as that by it any one who dies with but a death-bed serious Repentance, can be assured that he shall go to Heaven; and that it is un­certain whether such late serious Penitents, go with the Thief into Paradise, or with those that die in their Sins to Hell.’ Nor is this the singular opinion of Poppius, I can shew the same in Episcopius; not to mention some of our own here in England. ‘The Sublapsarians make the object of Reprobation, man fallen into Sin; the Remonstrants say, that man recovered out of Sin by true Repentance, may be the object of Reprobation and Damnation.’ How easi­ly might I, if I took pleasure in recriminations, tell them of ascribing Tyranny, Hypocrisie, Respect of Persons unto God? But I only desire my Reader to consider, whether the Remonstrant do not Preach another Gospel, than what hath been hitherto taught in the Churches of Christ? Nothing was thought more undoubted, than that he who believes shall be saved: The Remonstrant saith, this is not necessarily true; and that thousands and millions of true Believers may go to Hell. How will such as these deal with an Unbeliever that is but twenty years old? Will they perswade him to believe in Christ? He will ask them, what encouragement they can give him to believe? Will they reply, Salvation is promised to Believers in Christ? He will rejoyn; Can you give me any Promise, that I shall live long enough to shew sorth my Faith by my Works? If you cannot, there's but small encouragement to believe; for, to a late, though serious Believer, you say, there is no certain promise of Salvation. But let us leave the Remonstrants to reconcile themselves to their own Decree, and take notice, that at the Conference the Remonstrants were further ask­ed, 1. Whether they made this Article to contain the whole and entire Decree of Predestination? 2. Whether they made Faith and Perseverance in Faith, causes or conditions which did antecede Election unto Salvation, or fruits which grow out of Election and so follow it? After some ter­giversation, they said, 1. ‘That they acknowledged no other Predestination, than that which they had in their first Article expressed. 2. That Faith did, in the consi­deration of God▪ precede Election to Salvation, and was not a fruit of it.’ This is their opinion about the Decree, [Page 99] which, now that it is opened, appears to be as repugnant to Scripture, as before, when it was wrapped up, it seemed a­greeable. Were this Opinion true, it should not be said, that we are elected that we may be holy, but because we were holy: nor would the Holy Ghost have said, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed; but, as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.

The second Article, as translated by the Doctor, pag. 50 is, That Iesus Christ suffered death for all men, and in every man; that by his death upon the Cross [...] he might obtain for all mankind forgiveness of sins, &c. with this condition notwithstanding, that none but true Believers should enjoy the benefit of the reconcilia­tion, and forgiveness of sins.

I have, if I forget not, in the Pamphlets of some Quakers, read this phrase of Christ's suffering death in every man, and looked upon it as non-sense; so I do still, and therefore will hope it never dropped from the Doctor's Pen, but is to be put among the Errata's of the Printer. As to the Article it self, I can easily grant it to be a truth, (though all Contra-remonstrants do not); but it is not all the truth. Christ died not with an intent onely to make man reconcileable and salvable, but also to pur­chase for some, whom the Scriptures call Elect, the very graces of Faith and Repentance. Here therefore is the Question betwixt us, Whether Christ died with the same intention for all? Remonstrants affirm, Contra-remonstrants deny. Christ hath procured, that whoever comes to the Father through him, shall be saved; but there are also some, for whom he hath procured that they shall come to the Father.

The third and fourth Articles are so worded, as to con­tain nothing but the truth, though not all the truth; save that in the end of the fourth it is said, that

As for the manner of the co-operation of Grace, it is not to be thought irresistible, in regard that it is said of many in the holy Scriptures, that they did resist the Holy Ghost, Act. 7, and in other places.

Which is a very rude Assertion, either impertinent or false. If the meaning be, that some operations of the Holy Spirit are resisted, some of his motions quenched, who ever denied this? If the meaning be, that the con­verting [Page 100] work of the Spirit may be resisted in some degree and measure, that will not be gainsaid neither: But this we say, that converting Grace doth determine the Will: that Grace effectual, doth not leave the Will at liberty utterly to resist it, or not; but taketh away that which would resist or make head against the Spirit.

As for the fifth Article, it seems they did not know their own minds: They profess that such as are ingrafted into Christ by a lively Faith, may be Conquerours; Christ is ready to assist them, if for the [...] parts they prepare themselves to the encounter, and beseech his help, and are not wanting to them­selves in performing duties: But they say, it is first to be well weighed and proved by the holy Scripture, Whether they may not by their own negligence, forsake those Principles of saving Grace, by which they are sustained in Christ? before they can publick­ly teach these Doctrines with any sufficient tranquility or assu­rance of mind.

All which is no more than may be said of that funda­mental Doctrine concerning the Trinity: for it must first be well weighed, Whether the Scriptures do hold forth a Trinity of Persons? before a man ventures pub­lickly to Preach that Mystery. I think that if we search the Scriptures, it will soon be found, that though the Regenerate may lose the Spirit of God, and would soon lose him if they were left to themselves; yet there is a promise by which God hath engaged himself, not to let sin so far prevail in them as quite to extinguish the Spi­rit, totally to destroy the new Creature and workmanship of God.

One would think that the Remonstrants, who thus poor­ly sought to hide their Opinions, should not have much reason to brag of the success of the Conference; yet Dr. Hey­lin is resolved to tell us, that

Dr. H. Pag. 54.

The Contra-remonstrants had the worst, and finding them­selves not to have thrived much better by their Pen-combats, than in that of the Tongue, they betook themselves to other courses, vexing and molesting their Opposites in their Clas­ses or Consistories, endeavouring to silence them from Preach­ing [Page 101] in their several Churches, or otherwise to bring them to Pub­lick Censure.

Answ. It would better have beseemed the Doctor to have answered Dr. Ames his Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, than thus to have boasted of an imaginary success; especial­ly seeing the States ordered to leave these Articles just in the same state that they were in before the Conference. Af­ter this Conference, I find the States enjoyning both par­ties to give in their judgements, what they thought the best way for the composing of the Controversies that were in the Church, which did much endanger the Peace of the Commonwealth. The Remonstrants, in order to accommo­dation, propounded, that there might be a Toleration, both Parties being permitted freely to Teach and Publish their Opinion. The Contra-remonstrants judged the best way for the com­posing of the Differences was this, that a National Synod should be called, in which it might be determined which Opinion was most agreeable to Scripture, and to the common judgement of the Reformed Churches. These two ways being propound­ed to the States, they were divided in their Opinions, and so nothing could be determined: only they enjoyned, in order to the crushing of the Vorstian Party, that none should teach otherwise concerning Christ's Satisfaction for our Sins, the Iustification of Men before God, Saving Faith, Original Sin, Certainty of Salvation, than had been taught in other Reformed Churches, and in those Provinces. If ever men forsook the Word, and betook themselves to the Sword, the Remonstrants did. Adolphus Venator, when Magistrates were chosen that favoured not his Opini­on, stirred up the common Rabble against them; nor would this Rabble rest, till their Magistrates had been thrown out of their places, and others put into them: who had no sooner got the Government of the City into their hands, than they proceeded, by the instigation of Venator, to lay by the Elders and Deacons, and to deprive the two Pa­stors, Petrus Cornelii and Cornelius Hellenius, of their places. The like was done by the procurement of that Superficiary Creature Grevinchovius to Cornelius G [...]selius. What should I speak of the Persecutions raised by the Remonstrants against all those that (not knowing how to joyn in communion with them) did only go to some Orthodox Mi­nister, [Page 102] that would feed them with Bread and not Poison? The banishing, or incarceration of so many Contraremon­strants shews, that the Remonstrants would not grant that Toleration unto others, which they so earnestly desired for themselves. But at last King Iames and the Prince of Orange prevailed so far upon the States, that a National Synod was like to be called: What do the Remonstrants now? Why they go about to perswade some States-men, that a National Synod was contrary to the Liberty of the Provinces; for every Province had a Power, a supream independent Power, to determine concerning Religion as was by the Rulers of the Province judged most conveni­ent: that this Power was to be maintained even to the taking up of Arms, and the Hazard of their Lives. These Seditious Speeches did so wor [...] upon some Governours of Cities, that making a conspiracy, they decreed to raise Souldiers, that should be neither under the States General, nor the Prince of Orange. In how many places this was done, it matters not to relate; but by this means such a Civil war had been raised, as would have had worse conse­quents than ever had all the Wars with the King of Spain, had not the States General required the Prince of Orange to imprison the Heads of this Conspiracy, viz. Barnevelt, Hager­betius, Grotius, Ledenbergius; to disband these new Souldiers; to purge the Cities of disaffected Magistrates, and to substitute better in their rooms: All which the Prince with incredible courage and speed effected, and that without the effusion of the least drop of bloud. So at length Per varios casus, per tot discrimina rerum — a Synod is called, and did as­semble at Dort, 1618. This Assembly is sufficiently re­proached by the Doctor, whilst it is for some Pages com­pared with the Councel of Trent, the worst meeting that ever pretended to assemble in the name and fear of God. Yet may not the Assembly think much to be thus maligned, when he is so hardy as to affirm, that

Dr. H. Pag. 55.

The States General put Barnevelt to death contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Countrey, and the Rules of the Union▪

[Page 103] Answ. Had he been pleased to name what fundamental Law this execution of Barnevelt was contrary to, we might then have been in some capacity to examine the truth of so high and deep a charge; but sith he hath not descend­ed to particularize wherein the contrariety did consist, we must look on the charge as a calumny; so much the more improbable, because one of Barnevelt's Confederates, viz. Ledenberg, was after his condemnation surprized with so much horror of Conscience, that he turned his own Executioner: concerning which let me have leave to say, I have but seldom observed, that true Christian Patriots have been given up to self-murder, unless in some fit of frenzy or deep melancholy, which I do not find the best Friends of Ledenberg alledge on his behalf. Barnevelt died more manfully, acquainting those who were present at his Execution, how faithfully he had served his Countrey. I much wonder what was the source of his zeal for the Remonstrants: Doubtless it was not any love to their Opi­nions; for in the continuation of the incomparable Thuanus, ad annum 1618, we have his Apology to the States of Holland and Wes [...]-Friesland, in which he tells us what his Opinion was then, being 71 years old, and what was his Opinion whilst he resided at Heidleberg ▪ and this Opinion was such as methinks should not please the Ar­minians, I am sure it is a n [...]te above my ela, viz. ‘That every good Christian must believe that he is by the grace of God, and satisfaction of our Lord and Redeemer Christ Jesus, predestinated to Salvation; that by the same grace of God he had received Faith, by which he firmly believes that his Salvation hath not any other foundation than the grace of God, and merits of our Lord Jesus Christ; that if it happen that he fall into grievous sins, he must firmly lean on this confidence, that God will not permit that he should persevere in sins, and that it will come to pass, that if he ask pardon, God would convert him through his mercy, call him to repentance, and make him persevere in faith to the end. He adds, that he had shewed this his Opinion to sundry Divines, and even to Olevian himself; by whom he was told, that he might acquiesce in that Doctrine, and that there was no need he should search [Page 104] deeper in the secrets of this mystery. Again, speaking of Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants, he saith, that he did not more incline to one Opinion than another.’ So that we may think that he had only some Political de­sign to drive on. What it was, and how much it failed him, I will not say; but go on to see, whether the pa­rallel do hold good betwixt the Councel of Trent, and the Synod of Dort.

Dr. H. page 55.

1. Neither of them was concerned to confute, but condemn their Opposites.

Answ. What shall be done to thee thou aspersing Pen? Did not the Synod of Dort count themselves concerned to confute their Adversaries? Let all the English Arminiuns, laying their heads together, name me that part of just liberty that was denied to the Remonstrants. It was not only allowed, but also enjoyned them, by all the Power Civil and Ecclesiastical, to lay down their Opinion con­cerning Predestination and Reprobation, together with their Reasons: But the Politick Disputants say, they would begin at Reprobation, or do nothing at all; they pe­remptorily re [...]used to set down their own Tenents, and to confirm them; and will needs make themselves Op­ponents, and put the Synod to Answer Cavils scraped up out of the Writings of Men dead, or not there to answer for themselves. If they may not have a liberty to propound, explain, and defend their cause in that very way they judge best, they will not lay down their Opi­nions. Must the Synod be thought not to account it self concerned to confute Adversaries, because men cited and summoned to appear, are not permitted to give and pre­scribe Laws, to those whom in Reason they are bound to Obey? The Doctrine of the Remonstrants is confuted in the Canons of the Synod of Dort, by plain Texts of Scrip­ture, or by covincing Reasons, and common experience. Their Synodalia are refelled abundantly by Ames, by Wallaeus, Twiss, &c.

Dr. H. pag. 55.

2. The Councel of Trent consisted for the most part of Italian Bishops; some others being added for fashion sake, and that it might the better challenge the name of General: as that of Dort, consisted for the most part of the Delegates of the Belgick Churches, to whom the foreign Divines were found inconsiderable.

Answ. What a wilde parallel is this? Is it equally faulty for a National Synod to consist mostly of the Delegates of the Belgick Churches, and for a Councel pretending to be Oecumenical, to consist mostly of Italian Bishops, and those many of them but titular? Far better, and with more co­lour of reason it might be objected against our Synods, or Convocations here in England, that they consist not mostly, bu only of English Divines; not one Foreigner being ad­mitted either to consult or to decide, nor the Puritan Non-conformists so much as invited to declare their Opinions, or to alledge any thing in their own Justification. Who ever till now found in any History, a National Synod brand­ed and censured, because as many Foreigners were not ad­mitted to it, as there were of that very Nation for whose sake the Synod was assembled?

Dr. H. Ibid.

The Differences as great at Dort as they were at Trent; and as much care taken to addulce the discontented Parties in the one, as the other.

Answ. In this also the Parallel is unparallel. Differences there were at the Councel of Trent about the very funda­mentals of Faith: but the Differences at Dort were very slight and inconsiderable; lying in the way and manner of expressing and wording the Doctrine, rather than the Doctrine it self; as will▪ appear by examining particulars. 'Tis said that

Dr. H. page 55, 56.

The British Livines, together with one of those that came from Breme, maintained the Universal Redemption [Page 106] of mankind by the Death of Christ: but this by no means would be granted by the rest of the Synod.

Answ. Concerning this matter of Universal Redemption, it is noted in Dr. Balcanqual's Letters, page 2, That as there was difference touching it in the Synod, so there was much difference about it in their own (i. e. the English) Colledge: The Question among them was, whether the words of Scripture, which are likewise the words of our Confession, Christus ob­latus est aut mortuus, pro toto humano genere, seu pro peccatis totius mundi, be to be understood of all particular men, or only of the Elect who consist of all sorts of men? Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward (saith the Letter,) are of Marti­nius of Breme's mind, that it is to be understood of all parti­cular men: the other three take the other exposition, which is of the Writers of the Re [...]ormed Churches, and namely of my late Lord Bishop of Salisbury: both sides think they are right, and therefore cannot yield one unto another with a safe Conscience. Yet page 4. S. D. C. Lord Ambassador, is desired to acquaint (if he thought fit,) his Grace of Canterbury, that this mat­ter is like to be a difference, not in the English Colledge, but in the Synod. How well this may be accorded with the former Letter, is not for me to judge. Page 8, 'tis said that some of the Provincials did use Martinius very uncivilly. He is a man very learned and honest, sound in all the five Ar­ticles, as any man in the Synod, except the second; in which when the Canons come to be made, your Lordship will hear there will be more of his Opinion besides himself. Page 25, Dr. Balcan. gives us a relation of the Iudgement of the British Divines and others, concerning the second Article. The Bremenses are affirmed, ac­cording to the number of their Persons, to have delivered three se­veral judgements. Martinius his judgement was first read, who did stand in effect to the Tenents of the Remonstrants in the se­cond Article, he mainly overthrew the received distinction and re­striction, and did determine that Christ did truely die for all and every man; that he was made a propitiation both for the godly and the wicked; and that by his death he did impetrate recon­ciliation with God for them all: at the latter end he condemned many things both in the Remonstrants and in the Contraremon­strants Opinion; but more in the Contraremonstrants. Issel­burgius defended both the received distinction and restriction. Crocius propounded a middle way b [...]tween his two Colleagues, [Page 107] granting (which we also in our Colledge did,) that Christ by his death did merit some supernatural things for the wicked, but no­thing belonging to the remission of sin, or reconciliation with God: and so indeed, for any thing I could perceive, his judgement was directly against that of Martinius, and in effect all one with that of Isselburgius. Finally, we are told page 26, that in the second Article there was not altogether so uniform a consent, both in regard of phrases and forms of speaking and in regard of some Propositions, as were in the first; yet certainly there was very great, more than could be expected from so great a number of learned men, in so hard and controverted an Article. So that whereas Dr. Heylin counts it a reproach to the Synod, that there was so much difference about universal Redemption, Dr. Balcan. thinks it an honour there was no more. But not to leave this matter so much in the dark; If Martinius was for the Arminian equal indifferent universal Redemption of every one of mankind, I am well assured, that neither all the British Divines nor any one of them was of his mind: but indeed his Opinion and the Remonstrants Opinion, seem to be heavenly wide; as may be proved from his subscriptions to the Synodal Determinations about the Death of Christ, and mans Redemption by the Death, Acta Synodi pag. 356. for no man can think, that in those Determinations, the Opinion of the Remonstrants was not condemned. But if this be not thought proof sufficient, let the Reader be pleased to turn to Acta Synodi pag. 639, &c. where the judgement of this Martinius is fully recorded. In the very entrance he professeth to follow Ambrose, Si Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, specialiter tamen pro nobis passus est. Pag. 643, 644. he rejects seventeen Errors, the far greater part of which are the Tenents of the Remon­strants. As for Ludovicus Crocius, he hath in his Duodecas Dissertationum (provoked thereunto by the cavils of some) taken a great deal of pains to state this Question about the universality of Christ's Redemption; in the tenth dissertation, he explaineth the terms, and re [...]ecteth the extream Opinions; in the eleventh, he delivereth his own Opinion, in no fewer than nineteen Conclusions, in any of which, if the Remonstrants can find any lettice for their lips, much good may it do them. For my part, I wonder that Dr. Balcanqual should here write, that for any thing he [Page 108] could perceive, the judgement of Crocius was directly contrary to that of Martinius. The judgements of both those Learn­ed men are recorded about the second Article, and there is not the least contrariety betwixt them. Both hold uni­versal Redemption in the sense laid down by Dr. Davenant, in his most excellent Dissertation de morte Christi: Neither of them maintain it in any other sense. Both of them heartily agreed and subscribed to the Canons of the Synod of Dort made in the second Article, as did also our British Divines; who yet had received it in charge from King Iames, not to deny that Christ died for all and every man. Moreover, it is most manifest, that Crocius did in the Synod maintain the Universality of Christ's death, by a Letter written to him from one of his Colleagues from Brente, during the Session of the Synod Anno 1619, Feb. 25. For in that Letter, he hath thanks given him for maintaining the Universality of Christ's death; and is told, that his Opinion was approved by all to whom he had shewn it. Vide Crocii Disser. secundam de Peccato Originis, pag. 61, 62.

Dr. H. page 56.

The general Body of the Synod not being able to avoid the inconveniences which the Supralapsarian way brought with it, were generally intent on the Sublapsarian way: but on the other side, the Commissioners of the Churches of South-Holland thought it not necessary to determine which were con­sidered, man faln or not faln, while he passed the Decrees of Election and Reprobation. But far more positive was Gomarus, who stood as strongly to the absolute, irrespective and irrever­sibls Decree (exclusive of mans sin, and our Saviours sufferings,) as he could have done for the holy Trinity, and delivered his own judgement in writing apart by it self.

Answ. Thus our Historian: But what saith Dr. Balcan. page 25, So ended the reading of the judgements of all the Col­ledges concerning the first Article; in which, praised be God for it, there was not the least suspition of dissention in any thing: And it is to be noted, that all of them determined homo lapsus to be the subject of Predestination, except Gomarus, whom all men know to be against it, and the South-Hollandi, who only said, they would determine nothing of it. One [Page 109] Doctor upbraids the Synod with Dissention, another praises God (as there was reason) for their Unity. Indeed if the difference betwixt Supra and Sublapsarians be calm­ly considered, it will be found to be only in Apice Logico (as Dr. Twiss speaks;) and to determine of Logical Nice­ties, is not work proper for a Synod of Divines met to­gether to settle the Peace of the Churches. I believe the Divines Assembled in this present Convocation, have as considerable differences among themselves about the Do­ctrine of the Trinity, as this comes to; nor is it to be expect­ed that we should all agree in minutiis Logicis aut Metaphysicis, any more than that we should be all of the same stature or complexion, as to the outward man. Mr. Hoard, so much made use of by our Quinquarticular Historian, plainly confesseth, there is no reason that the Supra and Sublapsa­rians should differ about circumstances, since they agree in the substance. Iunius thought the three Opinions about the object of Predestination were rather seemingly than really opposite. Piscator will not grant that they are opposite, but only different; and therefore, that all three may have place, he resolves the matter of Predestination into three Acts, The first is, the Decree of creating men to different ends; this must needs have for its object massam nondum conditam. The second Act is, the Decree of permitting Sin; and this must needs have for its object man created, but not yet corrupted. The third Act is, the Decree of Electing and Reprobating; and this must have for its object, man both created and corrupted. 'Tis besides my purpose to enquire, how much or how little is to be said against this way of reconciliation: but this I undertake to prove, that the di­stance betwixt the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians is not so great, but that they both may and ought to look upon one another as Brethren, and walk in love, which is the bond of perfection and fulfilling of the Law: The more pity is it that they should so bitterly inveigh against each other, as it cannot be dissembled that sometimes, they do; but this must be imputed to that [...], of which we shall have some degrees, as long as we live in this World. But the Doctor, as if he were perfectly free from this crime, thus throweth his stones at others.

Dr. H. pag. 56.

Nor were the differences managed with such sobriety as became the gravity of the Persons, and weight of the business; but brake out many times into such open heats and violences, as are not to be parallel'd in the like. Assemblies: the Provincial Divines banding against the Foreigners, and the Foreigners falling foul upon one another.

Ans. For proof of this we are referred to the Letters of Mr. Hales and Dr. Balcanqual; from which-it doth indeed appear, that some very unhandsom language was used by Gomarus and Lubbertus against Martinius, and by Scultetus against him and Crocius. But sure Scultetus was not Fo­reigners, but one Foreigner. Gomarus and Lubbertus were, though Learned men, yet constitutionally hot and chole­rick, and therefore apt to break out into unseemly speeches against those who opposed them. Dr. Balcanqual saith, he could no more blame them for being angry, than he could a stone for descending to its center. I more wonder that Scultetus, a man of better temper, should so far forget himself; but he was transported through a misapprehension, that his reverend and dear Colleague was abused. I scarce ac­count it Christian in Dr. Heylin to rake up and bring to remembrance the passionate speeches of men who have many years since given an account unto their Master, and never to mention the satisfaction they made to the men whom they had injured: For it is said, page 15, that they protested they had no hard opinion of Martinius or Crocius; but accounted them Learned, Religious, Orthodoxal, were sorry for what they had done, and would do so no more.

Page 64, we have an attempt to make another parallel betwixt the Councel of Tren [...] and Synod of Dort, the sum whereof is this:

Dr. H.

That the Canons and Decrees of the Councel of Trent were so drawn up, as that both Soto the Dominican, and Vega the Franciscan, did expound them all according to their own Opi­nion; which yet did not only differ, but also were expresly con­trary: [Page 113] And so the Conclusions and Results of the Synod of Dort were so drawn up for giving satisfaction to the Sublapsarians, that those of the Supralapsarian faction might pretend some title to them also; in so much that there was a bitter contention be­twixt Voetius and Maresius about the sense of the Synod.

Answ. A comparison that halts not on one foot, but upon every soot; concerning which it is hard to say, whether it be more spiteful or ridiculous. The Opinions of the Franciscans and Dominicans differ far more, than do the Opinions of the Supra and Sublapsarians. Nor is it so material to determine, whether truth lie on the side of the Supralapsarian or Sublapsarian, as whether the Dominican or Franciscan be in the right. The parallel (a Fanatick would say) had run better if it had been thus drawn, As both Franciscan and Dominican lay claim to the Canons of the Councel of Trent, so both Arminian and Anti-Arminian lay claim to the seventeenth Article of the Church of England. The holy Scriptures themselves are not so penned, but that men of contrary perswasions do lay claim to them; upon which score yet, none but a professed Papist or Infidel, will accuse them of insufficiency or ob­scurity: Particularly the Apostle makes use, Rom. 9, of the Greek word [...], borrowed from the ancient Prophets; some say, that by it he intends the Mass corrupted; others say, the Mass uncorrupted: some circumstances are picked up out of the Text and Context that do favour both Opi­nions, What then? Must the divinely inspired Scriptures be condemned? God forbid. Besides, how doth it ap­pear that the Supralapsarian Divines in or about Holland do pretend some title to the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort, or that there hath been a bitter contention betwixt Voetius and Maresius about the sense of the Synod? Voetius indeed is a Supralapsarian; In his first Volume of Select Disputations p. 55, he layeth down the several moments of the decree of Reprobation: but p. 356, 357, professeth, he easily beareth those who are of a contrary or different judgement from him; provided, they do not rashly con­demn the Supralapsarian Opinion maintained by so many and great Divines; and confesseth, the Synod propounded the common opinion, concerning Election out of Man­kind; but not so as to reject the ascending above the [Page 112] fall: with other Heterodoxies, and dangerous improprie­ties. If Maresius had any bitter contention with him on this score, he may do well to enquire, whether such con­tending be not a fruit of the flesh; and if Voetius in other Writings lay no more claim to the Synod, than he doth here, he can scarce be said to pretend any title to it.

Dr. H. page 65.

Here we have the old and several times confuted Ca­lumny, of The Synods not giving the Remonstrants leave to speak for themselves before condemnation, renewed; and a Story concerning the Hard measure meted out to the Dele­gates of the Province of Utrecht, which is the only thing that deserves to have any notice taken of it.

Answ. Concerning these Deputies, I shall first observe what Mr. Hales saith of them in his Letters, page 29, and then relate the whole story concerning them; and so leave it to any one, but Dr. Heylin, to judge, whether they were hardly dealt with? I marvel much that the Province of Utrecht, being the strength of the Remonstrants, could find no wiser men to handle their cause; for as they did very foolishly in bewraying their private instructions, so in this whole altercation they did not speak one wise word: So Mr. Hales. Matter of fact stands thus; A doubt was moved concern­ing the Deputies for the Remonstrants of Utrecht, Whether they were to be a part of the Synod, or in the number of the Remonstrants who were cited to appear before the Synod? The Reasons of the doubt were sundry; but the chief was, because in their credential Letters, they were charged to defend the cause of the Remonstrants: now it could not be, that they should be both Defendants and Judges in the same Cause. The answer to this was, that they were not so limited, but that in their private instructions they had leave to do otherwise if they thought good. But when the private instructions were read, all that could be found was but this, that they had commission to defend their Cause, or to labour at least for an accommodation, or to­leration of it: but that they had power to pronounce de­cisively, that did not appear. Hereupon it was deter­mined, that they could not be Members of the Synod in [Page 113] this Cause (for in any other they might,) but only as Citati. Yet notwithstanding, that they might see the equity of the Synod, it was permitted them to keep their places, on these conditions: 1. If they would quit their Defence of the Cause. 2. If they would give no Advice or Counsel, either directly or indirectly, to the Citati; and by no means meddle with them in their Cause, &c. Not liking these Conditions, they declared that they re­solved to leave their place of Judges, and to adjoyn them­selves to the other Remonstrants: which they did. What in all this proceeding is unjust? what unworthy of a Synod?

Dr. H.

Page 66, the Synod is charged with being too favourable to the Supralapsarians, and particularly to Maccovius, who openly maintained, that God willed sin; that he ordained sin as sin; and that by no means he would have all men to be saved; that God doth propound his Word to Reprobates for no other end, than that they might be left without excuse, &c. yet was he only dis­missed with a friendly admonition.

Answ. 'Tis true, that some of these speeches, though not all, were charged on Maccovius: Nor could the Synod condemn them simply, unless they would also condemn St. Austin, who is known in his Euchir. cap. 29, to have delivered this maxime, Non aliquid sit nisi omnipotens fieri velit, vel sinendo ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo: Many Scripture-expressions of like import might be produced. But yet if Maccovius did use such expressions before persons not seen in these Controversies, he did ill, and was to be blamed; for all truths are not fit for all ears. Sufficient for the Synods vindication it is, that Maccovius was brought before the Synod upon a by-occasion; and that the business betwixt him and Lubbertus waas committed to the examination of some few Delegates, according to whose report he was dismissed.

But the Contraremonstrants are cruel and malicious; How so? Forsooth,

Dr. H. page 67.

Because when the Synod had concluded in the condemnation of the Remonstrants Doctrine, they next proceeded to the destruction of their Persons; calling upom them to subscribe to the Acts of the Synod, and setting them a peremptory day for conforming to it: And when they saw, that would not do it, by their incensed importunity they procured a Proclamation from the States Ge­neral, to banish them from their native Countrey, with their Wives and Children, and so compelling them to beg their bread, even in desolate places.

Answ. A very lamentable story▪ that Remonstrants should be banished and their Wives and Children, and that they should be compelled to beg their bread, and their begging be confined to desolate places! But what were the names of these Remonstrants, who were put to all this extremity? Where is this Proclamation of the States General recorded, that such an ignorant man as I am may come to the sight of it? Certainly whatever these Remonstrants had of Free-will, they had not much Wis­dom in them, or else they would never have made choice of desolate places to beg their bread in; places inhabited, and populous Cities, are the places that our English Beg­gars resort to. The Histories that I meet with, relate of attempts and endeavours, that were used in order to an accommodation; and the Contraremonstrants easily grant­ed, that the simple meer Arminian, might be continued, and cherished in the bosom of the Church, provided, that he would not disturb the peace of the Church: But the Re­monstrants unhappily choosing Episcopius to write their Confessio Fidei, broached and vented so many Socinian Errors, that there was no possibility, without violating all rules of discipline, of taking them into Church-fellowship. That no severity was used against the Remonstrants pre­sently upon the concluding of the Synod, I am not able to say; It is not unlike, they might have a little of that mea­sure meted out to them, which they had meted out unto others: But I am sure that Curcellaeus himself acknowledgeth, that Episcopius an Arminian, and somewhat more than an Arminian, was not long after he was put out of his Pro­fessors [Page 115] place, suffered both at Rotterdam and Amsterdam, to enjoy a preferment honourable and gainful. Might the Non-conformists, who differ only in a point of Ceremony and Discipline, have so fair quarter from their Episcopal Brethren▪ as the Remonstrants had from the Contraremon­strants, they would not sure make such loud Complaints of Trouble and Persecution, as now they do.

That the Remonstrants may be the more pitied, the Doctor acquaints us with

Dr. H. pag. 67, 68.

An History of the Netherlands, written by one Cross, a Fellow of no parts or iudgement; In which History it is af­firmed, that there was a Synod called at Dort to suppress the Arminians; and that the said Arminians held among other Heresies, 1. That God was the Author of Sin. 2. That he created the far greater part of mankind only of purpose to damn them; with several others of that kind: Which every man of reason knows, not only to be the consequence and resuits of Calvin's Doctrine, but to be positively maintained and taught by some of his Followers.

Answ. But first, What if some ignorant Writer, abused with a false report, or not well understanding the Lan­guage of the Dutch with whom he conversed, did thus mis­represent the grounds of the Arminians condemnation, is this any other cross (to borrow one witticism from our Hi­storian) than what hath befallen men as honest and famous as the Remonstrants? Was not our own Countrey-man Wickliff, who did write professedly against begging Friers, reported by his Adversaries to be a favourer of begging? If it could be proved, that the Contraremonstrants had set this Mr. Cross thus to traduce and calumniate the Remonstrants, it had been a soul crime in them; but that they did so, is not pretended. The whole blame therefore of this false report must be on our English Bishops, who would ad­mit a Fellow of no Parts or Judgement into holy Orders, and license his History; and on the Author himself, who would venture to write the History of things that he un­derstood not. But what if this Cross was of the Remon­strants own making? It hath been usual for men, upon [Page 116] some accounts truly guilty, and deservedly blamed, to procure themselves to be accused of some other things that they were never guilty of, that so the World finding them abused in one point, might think them innocent in all. In the late Wars, I believe some Wags have framed stories against their own Party, and sent them up to London to be Printed, with no other design than this, to make the Diurnalists and Intelligencers ridiculous, and suspected even when they related truth.

2. If this Cross is so much to be blamed for his malice, why doth Dr. Heylin imitate him, if not exceed him, in saying, that every man of reason knows that these blasphemies are the consequence and result of Calvin's Doctrine? Were all those eminent Professors and learned Preachers, who in their Sermons and Lectures and printed Treatises, have maintained, that it doth not from Calvin's Doctrine fol­low, that God is the Author of Sin, men of no reason? or were they so base, as to go about to maintain a thing against their knowledge? Certain I am, that they are not followers, but forsakers of Calvin, who positively maintain and teach, either that God is the Author of Sin, or that he created the far greater part of mankind only of pur­pose to damn them. That he again and again denied God to be the Author of Sin, no man will gainsay, that hath read either his Institutions, or his Answer to the Calumnies of a Knave, or his Discourse against the Libertines. As so creating men on purpose to damnthem, let the Reader but observe what he saith for himself, de aeterna Dei provi­dentia, Etsi quid toti generi humano futu [...]um esset, Deus ab initio decrevit; haec tamen loquendi ratio, nusquam apud me oc­curret, Finem creationis esse aeternum interitum.

3. What if a man should say, that some at least of the Remonstrants are guilty of these Blasphemies? They make God to be the Author of Concupiscence, and Concu­piscence is Sin; therefore they make God the Author of Sin. They also make God not to have decreed to any one that Grace, which alone can keep men out of Hell; therefore they make him to create mankind with an in­tention to damn the whole race. In the Calvinists me­thod, some are sure to be saved: but in the way of the Arminians, no man can be saved; all being left to the li­berty [Page 117] and indifferency of their own corrupt wills, which must necessarily ruine them at last.

I will not justifie Mr. Cross in what he relates concerning the Remonstrants; but I will say this, that I can manifestly prove, that sundry who pretend the greatest zeal against making God the Author of Sin, do themselves make him the Author of Sin, or say he may be the Author of Sin. It is not unknown that Socinians deny God's prescience of the free actions of men. Si omnia futura Deus praesciret, opor [...]ebit omnium causas jam ante ab ipso ordinatas esse, at (que) ita necessario efficeretur auctor peccatorum, are the words of the Compendium of Socinianism, confuted by Cloppenber. cap. 6. When we urge against them that of Iohn 6.64. he knew from the beginning who should betray him: What answers Volkelius? That the sin and punishment of Judas contained in them somewhat singular. Well, allow them to have in them somewhat singular; yet this Proposition, the sin of Judas was certainly foreknown, must needs be true: If it were foreknown, then it was forede­termined: If foredetermined, then God was the cause of it. I instance secondly in Episcopius, from whom I thus argue;

Christ may be the Author of Sin.
Christ is God: Ergo
God may be the Author of Sin.

The Major is most clearly laid down by Episcopius; and for many Pages together defended in his Answer to the acute Camero, cap. 13. Yea, and he wonders that Camero should think he had any fear, when this, so at least ill-sounding a Proposition, was delivered by him. He al­ledgeth that some School-men had said so before him: Which may not be denied; but yet seeing actus sunt sup­positorum, he will be as hard put to it, not to make God the Author of Sin, as any Calvinist.

I instance thirdly in Mr. Th. Pierce, from whom thus I argue:

God is the Cause of every Being, whether visible or invisible:
Therefore God is the Cause of Sin.

The Antecedent is an Article of our Creed. The Con­sequent is proved; because Mr. Pierce again and again as­serts Sin to be positive. His beloved Author Dr. Iackson ▪ in h [...]s eighth Book of Commentaries, hopes to bring himself off from this argumentation, by limiting the Proposition, God made all things visible and invisible, to substances; which only [Page 118] are the immediate and direct effects and proper objects of creati­on. Accidents had their beginnings as appurtenances to their subjects, by resultance only. But I answer, that I suppose he is the first that ever said, that All accidents had their be­ginning by resultance; and the first that so limited this maxime to substances. For though it may be granted, that both creation and generation, strictly so called, are termi­nated to substances; yet accidents are truly things, and must have a cause, a real cause: and doubtless the Chur­ches did ascribe the production of all things, whether ac­cidents or substances, unto God: and, in reason, he is as truly the cause of what is comproduced and concreated, as of what is produced and created. In page 35, this Dr. Iack. tells us, what emboldned Divines to assign unto sin only a privative being, viz. the maxime that Omne ens est bonum: but that he tells us, is meant only of a Metaphysical goodness. No Divines thought otherwise, but they were afraid to assign so much as a Metaphysical goodness to sin, which is simply evil: and such fear would have seised on Dr. Iackson also, had he but well weighed, what that is which goodness Metaphysical doth superadde to entity. But that he had never weighed; and yet talks confidently, in this whole Controversie, concerning the nature of sin, and the efficient of sin, as if his eyes had been blessed to see the things that scarce any saw before him. Book 10, pag. 3012, &c. cap. 5, 6, he goes about to make Apologies for the harsh expressions of some good Writers, and well deserving of all Reformed Churches: Yea, and for the Errors of the Dominicans, or other Schoolmen, (more faulty than, as he saith, Zuinglius or his Fol­lowers, in this point.) He wisheth that Paraeus had never entred into dispute with Becanus about this Question, Whether God be the Author of Sin? and is sorry he came off no better, for Cal­vin's credit, or for his own. Avers t [...]at Bellarmine, and Aquinas his Followers, do make God the Author of Sin, by as clear and infallible consequence, as either Zuinglius or his Fol­lowers have done. He saith the best Apology that can be made for Aquinas, or Calvin, is this, that they were homines [...], Authors of many various Works; but of this Apo­logie we that follow them are not capable. That if we were called to a strict account, or examination of our Doctrine by the rules of Art, a new question would have risen in our Schools, Whether [Page 119] to attribut such acts and decrees unto God as we do, and yet withal to deny, that we concludently make him the Author of Sin, doth not argue as great a measure of artificial foppery or super­natural infatuation, as it would of impiety, to resolve dogmati­cally, in terminis terminantibus, that God is the Author of evil? But what is it that may make this Question allowed in any Academical Act? Why, it might be justly allowed, though the Answerer were furnished with no other ground besides that usually avouched distinction, between the act and obliquity of the act: especially if the distinction were applied unto the first sin of our first Parents. In that sin, the act and obliquity, are altogether as unseparably annexed, as rotundity is with a sphere; and to ima­gine there should be one cause of the act, and another of the ob­liquity of the act, would be as gross a solecism, as to assign any other cause of the rotundity of a sphere besides him that frames it. A discourse so loose, that I much wondered it could find any place in the writings of an Author so famed for learn­ing: For every Fresh-man knows, that there is not the same relation betwixt the act and its obliquity, as there is between rotundity and a sphere; every Fresh-man knows, that there may be a sufficient ground of distincti­on, betwixt things that are inseparably annexed; every Divine also knows, that the Calvinists do make man to be the cause, of the sinfulness of the act as well as of the act it self: all that they say is, that the first cause may af [...]ord that concourse to a sinful action, which is necessari­ly required to every action, and yet not be the cause of the sinfulness of the action. If Dr. Iackson think this impos­sible, he should have told us, how God could concur to the good actions of his Saints, and not be the cause of the sinful imperfection which is inseparable from every action that doth not flow from a principle that is per­fect. I account he hath forsaken the Reformed Churches, who saith, that God gives any one, in this life, such a holiness as doth not fall short of the Law: That habitual holiness which falls short of the Law, must necessarily, when it is put forth, produce actions short of the Law; and so far as they fall short of the Law, they are sin­ful: Now I ask, is God the cause of my imperfect act of love to himself? If he be not, why do I either pray to him for it, or praise him for it? If he be the cause, then he [Page 120] is either the cause of that sinful obliquity necessarily clea­ving to it, and making it need pardon; or else he may be the cause of the act, and not of the sinful obliquity that doth inseparably cleave to it. If Dr. Iackson affirm the latter, he contradicts his own Principle; If the former, he avoucheth that blasphemy which all good men abhor. Wherefore he might have done well to reserve the ex­cuse of Polygraphy for himself: Calvin and Aquinas in this matter do not stand in need of it. As little need had Paraeus of his sorrow for entring into dispute with Becanus; for if ever man had the better, Paraeus had it that day. About the year 1604, Becanus at Mentz had a disputation, concerning God's being the Author of Sin; in which he expresly said, that the God of the Calvinists was the Devil: For this, among other things, Paraeus undertook him, and Fe­rarias and Malhusinus, and brought them to acknowledge, that whatever became of Calvin, it could not truly be said, that the Devil was the God of the Calvinists: What is victory, if this be not victory? when did innocence triumph, if not that day, which was Aug. 1, An. 1608.

For a conclusion of the fifth Chapter, the Doctor takes a leap out of Holland into the City of Sedan, and tells us, that

Dr. H. pag. 68.

It is said, that Franciscus Auratus was shamefully ejected out of that City, for no other reason, but because from Jam. 1.13, he largely declared, that God was not the Author of Sin.

Answ. This is said; but by whom? or upon what grounds? Were we promised that the Hi­storical Narration should be collected out of the Vide Title Page. Publick Acts and Monuments of the several Churches? and must we now be put off with a 'tis said? If I should write all that hath been said of Dr. Heylin and his Party, the World (till such calumnies were confuted) would have but little charity for them. It is said so perhaps by a Fellow of as little judgement as Mr. Cross, or by some, who had taught his tongue to utter lies. That there was such a Minister as Auratus, and that he was (being a well meaning man but no deep Scholar) inveigled by the [Page 121] eloquence of Daniel Tilenus Professor at Sedan, to favour and to vent the Remonstrants Opinions, I grant: but that he was forced to leave his place, only for preaching that God was not the Author of Sin, is a story fit only to be reported by those who have learned from the Jesuits calumniari for­titer. I was much concerned to know, who it was that had so much abused the Doctor, and at length I found him to be Episcopius, in his Examen of the Theses of Iacobus Capellus. In the first page of that Examen, he relates this improbable story: but neither tells where he read it, nor from whom he heard it: and we all know, that Episcopius did never so re­gard his conscience, but that he would sometimes defile it with a lye; for he came into the Synod with a lye, and went out of it with a lye. On which account, the Reader may be the less troubled, to find in the same page the Reverend and Religious Peter Moulin accused, as one that was feign to leave France, not for his zeal in Religion, but for pragma­ticalness. Indeed I have rarely observed Episcopius, either to give a Contra-remonstrant his due praise, or not to give a Remonstrant more than his due. Vorstius, in his Answer to Camero, is a man than whom he had never met with one more modest, and more studious of a good conscience: in his Theological institutions, he counts it not sufficient to vindicate the La­tine Translation of Castalio from the censures of Albericus Gentilis and Thuanus, but he must also commend the faithful­ness and elegance of his French Translation; whereas Doctor Rivet, a more competent judge of the elegancy of a French Translation, assures us, that no French man can read it with­out indignation and laughter, so foolish and ridiculous is it in many places.

Dr. H. Pag. 70.

We are now come to the sixth and last Chapter of the first Part of the Quinquarticular History: in which the Doctor goes about to enquire after the causes that might move the Synodists to use such cruelty (severity, he saith, is too mild a word to express their rigor) towards all those who did maintain the five Articles.

Answ. An enquiry which supposeth that which is not to be supposed, viz. that the Remonstrants errour in the five [Page 122] Points, was the sole ground of all the penalties that were inflicted on them. All men, who are any way acquainted with the History of the Belgick Churches, do know that the Remonstrants were not proceeded against meerly for erring in these five Points, but also for Socinianism and Scepticism, of which to this day they have never been able to purge themselves. Indeed the Holland Remonstrants are a Sect of men, that are not fitted for communion with any Christian Churches, except we will call the Assemblies of the furious Anabaptists or the blasphemous Socinians, by the name of Christian Churches. They can have no commu­nion with any Church, that is either idolatrous, or that maketh any opinion necessary which they judge not necessary, or that teacheth that the Magistrate may hinder and [...]orbid the meetings of Sectaries; by which means they exclude Papal, Calvini­stical, Lutheran Churches from their communion, and so se­parate from all Christendom. Whatever they write about Moderation, Toleration, Syncretism, is but hypocrisie; for they cannot have communion with any Churches that will not deny the Magistrates power to repress Conventicles, and the Churches power to define Heresies and determine what is necessary to be believed. Arnoldus Poelenbergius in that little piece of his, wherein he labours to prove, that the Remonstrants can­not with a safe conscience joyn in communion with the Contra-remonstrants, layeth the necessity of separation, not on the Heterodoxy of the Contra-remonstrants in the five Points, but on their tyranny in imposing Confessions to be subscri­bed, and in going about to define what is necessary to be believed. Episcopius in an Epistle to Grotius, bearing date A­pril 29, 1631, saith Quinquarticulanam litem tanti non facerem, nisi conjunctam sibi haberet eam, quae est de discretione necessa­riorum dogmatum a non necessariis, sive de mutua Christianorum tolerantia. Video esse qui aliter sentiant, & intra quinque ar­ticulos rigide & [...] consistendum esse arbitrantur; at eorum sententiae ego non possum accedere, Epist. Eccles. pag. 694. Among which Epistles also it may be seen how Andreas Reuchlinius doth school the incomparably learned Isaac Casaubon, because in his Epistle to Cardinal Perron, he let fall an expression com­mending the fact of the King and Archbishop, in burning the Book of Vorstius, de Deo & Attributis. But let us see how well the Historian can acquit the Remonstrants in the five Points.

Dr. H. Pag. 70.

Their Doctrine (saith he) is impeached in these Points of no smaller crimes, than to be destructive of God's grace, intro­ductory of Popery, tending unto spiritual pride, and to sedi­tion or rebellion in the Civil Government. Which Objections I shall here present, as I have done the Arguments of most im­portance, which were excogitated and enforced against the con­clusions and determinations of the Synod in the said five Points: and that being done, I shall return such answers as are made unto them.

Answ. Here I cannot but observe, 1. That whereas he drew up the Charge of the Remonstrants against the Contra-remonstrants, and took no notice of any Answer that was or might be returned by the Contra-remonstants; yet now that the Remonstrants are to be impeached, he either finds or makes Answers for them: which is not fair in an Historian.

2. That one part of the impeachment is the creature and figment of the Doctor's own brain, viz. that of tendency to sedition or rebellion in the Civil Government, No Contra-remonstrant chargeth this on the Doctrine of the Remonstrants, as to the five Points; though sometimes they charge sedition and rebellion on the persons of the Remonstrants.

3. That all the impeachment is not exhibited. For the Remonstrants are charged to overthrow the praesci­ence, the simplicity, the immutability of God; yea, and all piety and Christian consolation. But it is wisdom to raise no more enemies than a man thinks he shall be able to contest with. I believe, had the Doctor consulted with his Friends, they would have advised him to have menti­oned no Objections at all, so miserably and unfortunately are they answered.

Dr. H. Pag. 70.

First, It is objected, that this Doctrine (viz. the Doctrine of the Remonstrants) is destructive of God [...]s free-grace, revi­ving the old Pelagian Heresies so long since condemned, To [Page 124] which objection it is answered, that the Remonstrants speak as honourably of the grace of God as any other whatsoever; as may be proved by comparing the first branch of the fourth Article with that golden saying of S. Augustine, Sine gratia Dei praeveni­ente ut velimus, & subsequente ne frustra velimus, ad pietatis opera nil valemus.

Answ. So much do all true Christians abhor whatever Doctrine doth derogate from the grace of God, that the greatest opposers of grace have found it necessary to speak honourably of it. Pelagius indeed in his first attempts, ne­ver so much as mentioned the word grace; but he soon saw, his opinions so propounded would never take: there­fore he began to use the word grace, but by it understood no more than Free-will, as appears by that known and com­monly quoted place of S. Aug. Serm. 11. de Verb. Apost. cap. 7, Disputantes contra gratiam pro libero arbitrio secerunt auribus piis & Catholicis offensionem: coeperunt horreri, coeperunt ut certa pernicies devitari, coepit de illis dici quod contra gratiam dispu­tarent: & invenerunt ad revelandam istam invidiam tale com­mentum; non, inquit, contra gratiam Dei disputo quod liberum arbitrium defendo: videte acumen sed vitreum, quasi lucet vani­tate, sed frangitur veritate: that is, God gave us our Free­will, and therefore whatever we do by the strength of Free­will, is to be ascribed unto Grace. When this would not do, then he began to allow another Grace, that was commonly called Gratia legis aut doctrinae: allowing God not only to bestow on us Free-will, but also by his Law and Precepts to shew and discover unto us our duty. Aiunt ideo ista si [...]e ope divina non sieri, quia & hominem Deus creavit cum libero ar­bitrio, & dando praecepta ipse docet quemadmodum homini sit vi­vendum, saith S. August. de spirit. Lit. cap. 2. adding also in other places, that they acknowledged a Grace of remission vouchsafed to all such as did unfeignedly turn themselves to him. Yea, he stuck not at last to anathematize any one that should say or think, that the grace of God was not ne­cessary, not only for every hour & moment, but also for every one of our actions. Who would think that Pelagius were not now become as Orthodox as any of the Fathers of the Councel before whom he was summoned to appear? But the wretch was as Heterodox as ever; for by grace neces­sary for every moment, and every act, he understands ei­ther [Page 125] only that it is needful that we should keep in me­mory that our sins are pardoned, or that we should al­way have in our eye the example or Law of Christ. I list not further to prosecute the several states and steps of Pelagianism; Great art was used, as may be seen both in Vossius and Iansenius to refine the errour, that it might be the more easily swallowed down. What I have already no­ted shews sufficiently, that men may in words acknowledge grace, and yet in works deny it, sacrificing to their own nets, and burning incense to their own drags. Whether the Remonstrants are not to be put into this number, will ap­pear, if we compare and put together their writings con­cerning converting grace. I grant that they in the third Article, and in the greatest part of the fourth, speak fairly concerning grace; but, Did they not in the Hague Conference deny the infusion of any habit or new vital principle? Did they not say, that the Spirit acted no other­wise upon the Will than by moral swasion? and that nothing was put into the will, or did properly inhere in the Will, but na­tural Liberty? That one clause, as for the manner of the co­operation of this Grace, it is not to be thought irresistible, doth (saith Paraeus) take away all that from grace, that was before given to it. Acta Synod. p. 311. & p. 317. If the grace which causeth conver [...]ion be not irresistible, but resistible, such as may be by the will of man hindred or not hindred, all that in the third or fourth Article is attributed to grace is but an empty smoak of words, and those effects they speak of cannot be ascribed to the grace of God but indifferently and remotely, to the wills of men not resisting they must be ascribed specifically and neerly. If so, then all they so magnificently write of grace, will be either a fal­sity, or a cheat: It will be a cheat, or a falsity to say, 1. That man hath not faith from himself, and in the strength of his Free-will; for from himself he will have the specification of the operation of grace, because by not resisting grace, he hath distin­guished himself from others. 2. That he cannot of himself think, will, or do any good; for it is good, of a mans self well to spe­cifie a resistible indifferent operation. 3. That God by his holy Spirit doth regenerate and renew us, &c. for God by his Spirit shall only resistibly, indifferently and remotely, and therefore improperly; we our selves shall specifically, immediately, and properly regenerate and renew our selves. Many other things [Page 126] of this nature are by this learned Professor there urged, which the Remonstrants will never be able by all their so­phistry to evade.

This also will make good the other charge against the Remonstrants Doctrine, taken notice of by the Doctor page 73, viz. That it doth naturally encline a man to the sin of pride: For the removal of which he would offer something, but such a something as is next to nothing, viz. that

Dr. H. Page 74.

That Doctrine must needs more cherish humane presumption, which puffeth men up with the certainty of their election, the infallibility of assisting and persisting grace, and the impossi­bility of falling from the attaining of that salvation which they have promised themselves; than that which leaves these Points uncertain, which puts a man to the continual necessity of calling upon God, and working out the way unto his salvation with fear and trembling.

Answ. For who will not reply to him, that in the Con­tra-monstrant way there is more ground for prayer and for fear and trembling; since the Contra-remonstrants ascribe to God the working in us both to will and to do, which the Remonstrants cannot? The Remonstrants must needs, if they will not contradict themselves, affirm, that God doth, pari gradu & modo, in the like degree and measure, will and work antecedently, the conversion of those who are converted and of those who are not converted. If so, what ground for fear, sith man can convert himself when he pleaseth, and restore the lost habits when he listeth? The Apostle Paul, one of the rarest examples of humility, did sure best know, what's most likely to quel and subdue high thoughts and proud imaginations: and what weapons doth he make use of to this end? Why two such interro­gations, as must needs prick the bladder, with the Contra­remonstrant, but not with the Remonstrant. Let it be de­manded of a Calvinist, What hast thou, that thou hast not re­ceived? He will answer, Nothing. Let it be enquired, Who made thee to differ? He will reply, The meer undeserved omni­potent grace of God. But a Grevincovius will say, He made himself to differ. But perhaps no Arminian else will say so: [Page 127] Yes, Mr. Playser in his Appello Evangelium hath said so; and all Remonstrants must say so, that will not fly from their principles. To manifest which, I shall only English something out of the Declaratio sententiae Remonstrant. circa Articul. cap. 3, & 4. pag. 21, If it be enquired, why this man is converted, and another not? We answer, this man is convert­ed, because God converts him, not opposing any new contumacy; the other is not converted, because he doth oppose new contumacy. But you will enquire, why this man opposeth new contumacy, not the other? We answer, this man opposeth, because he will oppose; the other opposeth not, because he is moved by grace, ne velit opponere, to have no mind to oppose. If you enquire, whether he who opposeth not new contumacy, and by consequent is con­verted, hath greater grace than he that opposeth, and by conse­quent is not converted? We answer, that antecedent and pre­venting grace may be equal; but the former hath co-operating, the latter hath not. Hence it is plain, that it is man, ac­cording to the Remonstrants, who makes sufficient grace to be effectual; and by necessary consequence, man doth make himself a penitent, a believer, a regenerate person: than which Pelagius himself could not write or speak, higher or more proudly.

Dr. H. Page 72.

The Historian is pleased to mention another charge a­gainst the Remonstrants Opinions, viz. That they sym­bolize so much with the Church of Rome, that they serve onely as a bridge for Popery to pass over into any Church into which they can obtain admission. And further tells us, that this clamor being first raised in Holland, was afterwards much cherished, and made use of by the Puritan or Calvinian party among us in England.

Answ. Where I take notice, 1. That he gives a false account of the rise and first beginning of this charge, that These points do▪ where they are entertained, dispose mens minds for the reception and entertainment of Popery. For before the troubles raised by Barnevelt, our Divines did suspect conditionate election, and falling away from grace, &c. to be an inlet to Popery: as is manifest from the Letter of the Heads of the University of Cambridge to their Chan­cellor, [Page 128] written upon the occasion of Baret's and Baro's preaching or reading things agreeable to the Opinions that are now called Arminian; in which Letter, bearing date March 8. 1595, 'tis affirmed, that if passage were permitted to those Errours, the whole Body of Popery would by little and little break in upon them; to the overthrow of Religion, and consequently the withdrawing of many there, and elsewhere, from true obedience to her Majesty; and therefore in the close they humbly beseech his Lordships good aid and assistance, for the sup­pressing in time, not only of these Errours, but even of gross Po­pery, like by such means, in time, easily to creep in among them, as they found by late experience it had dangerously begun.

Unto this and many other testimonies, alledged by Mr. Hickman in his [...], the Doctor will yield no assent; but answereth three things,

Dr. H. Pag. 73.

1. Why should not a general compliance with the Friers of S. Dominick, be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery, as any such compliance with the Friers of S. Francis?

Answ. To which the Answer is easie, Because the Domi­nicans opinions do much tend to the exaltation of grace, and the subjection of carnal reason to Faith; so do not the Tenents of the Franciscans or Jesuits. Now where grace is exalted, and carnal reason is sub [...]ected, there Popery, which hath its foundation in carnal reason and pride, doth not so easily prevail or obtain. This the Pope understood well enough; which made his Bull to roar so loud against the, in this point, Orthodox Iansenians.

Dr. H. Ibid.

2. The Melancthonian, or moderate Lutherans, which make up infinitely the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, agree in these points with the Iesuits or Franciscan Friers, and yet are still as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as when they made the first separation from it.

Answ. Where, 1. It is strange that one pretending to History, should represent the infinitely far greater part of the Lutheran Churches as Melancthonian, or moderate Lu­therans: [Page 131] When as it is known, that a very great, if not the greatest part of the Lutherans, are as far from being Me­lancthonians, or moderate, as Dr. Heylin is from being a Presbyterian or Puritan. But it seems, if men be never so violent for Ubiquity, Consubstantiation, Images, if they be but against Predestination, they shall pass for meek and mode­rate, and Melancthonians.

2. It may a little be questioned, Whether the pre­sent Lutherans be as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as were those Lutherans who made the first se­paration from it? I know not how much there may be of truth in the talk that hath lately filled our ears, concern­ing Unions and accommodations betwixt the Lutheran and Roman Churches. It would be very strange if the Lutherans, having all this while been bred up among Ima­ges, should be as averse from Image-worship, as were the first Reformers.

3. It is as false as what is most false, that the Lutherans do agree with the Franciscans or Jesuits in these Points. Micraelius in his Heterodoxia Calviniana, disput. 5. par. 15, rejecteth both the Dominicans and Jesuits: the Domi­nicans, as inclining to the Stoicks; the Jesuits, as fal­ling in with the Pelagians. Afterwards he rejects the Je­suits Scientia media, confessing that Voetius doth well and unanswerably prove against them, that there is nothing knowable but what is the object either of the knowledge of simple intelligence, or vision. Speaking also of Arminius, he will not undertake for him. Tarnovius openly rejects the Arminians, as of a contrary judgement from the Lutherans, Miscel. Sacrorum lib. 2. pag. 710, Vorstiniani, Arminiani, & si­miles in Belgio, quando aiunt fide nos praedestinari ad vitam ae­ternam, idem dicunt, non idem nobiscum sentiunt. He that would be more fully convinced of this, that the Lutherans are not Arminians, may please to consult what Durfieldus, a Divine of Rostoch, hath written against Iohannes Assuerus Amsingus; where he shall find the Arminians accused of Pelagianism, before the chief Doctors of those Universi­ties, that follow the Augustan Confession. This I take on trust from Dr. Rivet, having not as yet had the oppor­tunity to see the Author. But casting my eye on Ger­hard's Son's Epistle Dedicatory, prefixed to his Father's [Page 132] Comment on Deuteronomy, I found him use no obliging lan­guage of the Arminians; for he saith, that they have ad do­gmata Socinianorum admodum prurientes aures, and he calls Si­mon Episcopius, the Infaelex Arminianismi interpolator. But the cutting killing Answer (which he cannot mention without triumph) is still behind, and is thus worded:

Dr. H. Pag. 73.

3. If Arminianism be so ready a bridge for passing over to Popery, it would be very well worth the knowing, how and by what means it should come to pass, that so few of the Remon­strants in the Belgick Provinces, and none of those whom they call Arminians in the Church of England, should, in so long a time, pass over that bridge, notwithstanding all the provocations of want and scorn, which were put upon the one, and have been since multiplied upon the other.

Answ. If this be so well worth knowing, I shall be the more easily pardoned, if I take some pains for the Doctor's information.

1. It is asked, Why so few of the Belgick Remonstrants did turn Papists? For answer, I might ask, How, if the Con­tra-remonstrants Opinions did as much encline and dispose men to Popery as the Remonstrants, it came to pass, that not one Contra-remonstrant ever went over to Rome? But I forbear that, and shall offer two reasons which might (as I conceive) hinder the Belgick Remonstrants from turning Roman Catholicks. 1. Their Wives and Chil­dren might hinder them from passing over this Bridge: forsake these dear Relations they could not, and yet if they did not forsake them, they could promise them­selves no good reception, or kind entertainment among the Pontificians. 2. The Remonstrants might therefore not turn Papists, because they were resolved to turn to a worse sort of Hereticks, viz. the Socinians. But did the Remonstrants strike in with the Socinians? Yes, that they did; as I will undertake to prove by as good evi­dence as can be expected in matter of fact. Till I be called to make good this undertaking, I refer my Reader to Vedelius's Arcana Armin. and Horn [...]beck's Apparatus ad Soc. conf.

[Page 133]2. It is asked, Why none of those whom they call Arminians in England, notwithstanding all provocations of want and scorn, are turned Papists? To answer this, times must be di­stinguished;

  • 1. Before Bishop Laud ruled and governed, those who embraced the Opinions since called Arminian, were in­deed out of the way to preferment; but who knows not that many of them turned Papists? Barret did so in Queen Elizabeth's time: And the Heads of Houses in Cambridge complain in the before mentioned Letter, that they had found by experience, that Popery came in a­mong them at the door of Arminianism, (so I may call it by a prolepsis.)
  • 2. When Bishop Laud ruled and disposed of all Ecclesiasti­cal preferment, Arminians had no provocations from want or scorn, yet even then some of them turned Papists.
  • 3. Since the breaking out of the late unhappy Civil Wars and Confusions, there hath a cup of trembling and astonishment gone round the three Nations, and Divines of all perswasions have been made to drink of it; all Ministers, by what names soever dignified, by what opinions soever di­stinguished, have been made the filth and off-scouring of all things: but that scorn or want hath befallen any one meer­ly for being a favourer of Arminianism, is more than I know, more than Dr. Heylin can prove. Sure I am, that ma­ny of those Army-men, who gloried in nothing more, than in trampling all Law and Right under foot, were Armini­ans; and he who was the only Divine that dared to ju­stifie that horrid fact, the murdering of the late King, is known to all to be a great stickler for Arminianism. But it were to be wished, that no Arminians had, during the late Troubles, forsaken the Church of England, and took sanctu­ary in the Synagogue of Rome. I was bred up with Mr. W. H. at Katherine-Hall in Cambridge, who was looked upon by the whole Society, as a very studious, ingenious, hopeful per­son, and was thereupon chosen Fellow before he was Ma­ster of Arts; but by acquaintance with some, he began highly to dote on the Common Prayer-book, and would leave good Sermons at Cambridge, and walk over to Coton on pur­pose that the might hear the Liturgy; withal he had [...]ucked in Arminianism: but within the compass of two years, he [Page 134] fell to downright Popery, and is now, as they say, a Se­minary Priest. I would not have mentioned this story, but that it is notorious, I suppose, all Cambridge over. What shall we think of the late Bishop of Glocester? was not he called and reputed an Arminian? and did he not die a Son and Member of the Church of Rome? The pre­sent Bishop of Exeter, I confess, makes an Essay to clear him from Popery, but very unhappily: whilest he goes a­bout to prove that he did not die a Papist, he makes him not a Christian for the former part of his life. These are the words used concerning him, pag. 637, No wonder if dying and dejected, he chose rather to depart in communion with the Church of Rome, than to adhere to the Church of England, which he thought now decayed and dissolved (at least as to its visible order and polity,) if not quite destroyed: not that he owned (I hope) a communion, or conciliation with the Roman Church as Popish, but as far as it was Christian. If dying he was recon­ciled to the Church of Rome as Christian, then before he was at enmity with it as Christian; and if so, he was not a Chri­stian. I hope a man may adhere to the Church of England, and yet depart in communion with the Church of Rome as Christian? In a word, there was not many years since a Book published, in which were contained the names of many of those who had lately revolted to Popery: Let Dr. Heylin read over that Catalogue, and then tell me, whether it was not a strange piece of boldness to ask so confidently, Why none of those who are called Arminians, had in all these times turned Papists?

Dr. H. Pag. 75.

Finally it is objected (but the objection rather concerneth the men than the doctrine) that the Arminians are a Faction, a turbulent and seditious Faction, so found in the United Provin­ces from their very first spawning. To this he answers, pag. 77, that there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Arminians (as it re­lates to the five Points in difference) which can dispose the Pro­fessors of it to any such practices.

Answ. I know not that any one hath in print affirm­ed, that the Arminian Doctrine doth naturally lead men to Faction and Sedition; but if any one have affirmed [Page 135] any such thing, he may prove his affirmation by an argu­ment which cannot easily be answered, viz. Those Doctrines which do encline men to Pride, do naturally lead men to Fa­ction and Sedition. The Arminian Doctrines do incline men to Pride; ergo. The Minor hath been before confirmed, the Major is undeniable, as being built upon plain express Scripture.

But the Doctor, contenting himself nakedly to affirm, that there is nothing in the Arminian Doctrines, which can dispose the Professors of it to seditious practices; tells us from some, that it is not so with the Doctrine of the other Party,

Dr. H. Pag. 78.

By which mens actions are so ordered & predetermined by the will of God, even to the taking up of a straw, ut nec plus boni nec minus mali, that it is neither in their power to do more good, or commit less evil than they do; and then according to that Doctrine, all treasons, murders, and seditions are to be excused, as unavoidable in them that commit the same, &c.

Ans. There is, I remember, a very noted story out of Hol­land, concerning an Anonymous Libeller, who would needs father it upon the reverend and learned Dr. Carolus de Maets, that God hath decreed and determined, that all things should be done in that time, manner, place, and order, that in time they are done; and that according to this decree and divine determinati­on, a man cannot do more good or evil than he doth or omitteth: quite leaving out the explication that was used by the ju­dicious Professor, viz. that in a divided sense, a man may do more good, and avoid more evil than he doth. Just so doth our Historian proceed, making the Calvinists to affirm that ab­solutely, which they affirm not but with a distinction. In sensu composito, a man cannot do more good than he doth, nor ab­stain from more evil than he abstaineth from; but in a divi­ded sense he may. Which made our Divines of Great Britain, in the Synod of Dort, among the Heterodox assertions which they rejected, place this; Hominem non posse plus boni facere quam facit, nec plus mali omittere quam omittit: falsum hoc est & absonum, sive de homine irregenito & ani­mali intelligatur, sive etiam de renato & gratia sanctificante [Page 136] suffulto. The learned Camero was charged by his angry Ad­versary Tilenus, to hold, that man could not do more good than he doth, nor omit more evil than he omit­teth. To this, what answereth he? Ego vero libens agnosco multa esse, &c. (pag. mihi 704,) I willingly acknowledge, that there are many things, which uttered simply, do, and that de­servedly, breed offence; which very things, if they be ex­pressed conditionally, appear such, as that no man dare con­tradict them; e. c. If any one shall say, that Pharaoh could not let Israel go, he would offend the ears of all, if he add not, unless God soften the heart of the wicked man: but God hath not decreed to do that, therefore it shall not be, it cannot be, that Pharaoh let Israel go. Now his speech will offend no man, no not Tilenus himself; who doth not deny, but that on hard­ened persons there doth lie, and that by the decree of God, a ne­cessity of sinning. Nor can the Arminians (those of them who assert Divine praescience) tell how to extricate them­selves out of the labyrinth, but by the help of this distin­ction, in sensu composito & diviso: which is made use of by Curcellaeus, in his Epistle to Limburgius from Amsterdam, Decemb. 13. 1653.

To be short, there is no Doctrine that can more encline the heart to quietness, patience, contentedness, (all which are perfectly contrary to sedition and rebellion) than doth the Augustinian, or (if that must be the name) Calvinian Doctrine. For this being once firmly imprinted on our hearts, that all things come to pass according to the deter­minate counsel of God's will; that the worst of Persecu­tors are but the staff of his indignation, do fulfill the will of his purpose when they most cross and go against his legislative will, what place is there left for murmuring? what place for envie or revenge against second causes or instruments? It was not an Arminian, but a Calvinistical apprehension of God's providence about sin, which Ioseph had, when unto his Brethren, fearing lest after their Father's death their old unkindness should be remem­bred, he answered, Gen. 50.19, 20, Fear not, for am I in the p [...]ace of God? but as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive. Nor would he be understood of the otiosa permissio (that Mr. Calvin writes against) [Page 137] when he saith, Gen. 45.8, It was not you that sent me hi­ther, but God.

This notwithstanding, Dr. Heylin will quote some testi­monies and authorities tending to prove, that Calvinism or doctrinal Puritanism, is destructive to all Civil Policy and Government. Some scraps he produceth from the old Lord Burley, from the Bishop of Oxford, Rochester, St. Davids, from Dr. Brooks, once Master of Trinity Colledge: But he is, I believe, afraid to come either to the pole or to the scale; either to weigh, or to number authorities with us. We'll undertake among English Protestant Di­vines and Statesmen, to produce forty who deny Calvi­nism to have any tendency to Sedition, for one who hath laid any such thing to its charge. And 'tis a shrewd sign that the Doctor was hard put to it to find out Abettors for his Cause; else he would not have set Cerbe­rus to bark against his Adversaries, which yet, to his no small shame, he doth, page 79, 80. This Campneys was in Edward the Sixths time a Papist, a railing furious Papist; and as such did suffer, though not unto death. At the be­ginning of Queen Elizabeths, he began to make disturbance in the Church, nibling at the Doctrine that was generally received and entertained, by men every way his betters; in so m [...]ch that he was generally voiced to be Popish and Pelagian. His Pamphlet, (if it might be called his) unto which he was ashamed to put his name, was quickly con [...]uted by Mr. Crowly and V [...]ron, men famous in their generation; of more judgement and insight in the ancient Fathers, than to ascribe the Questiones Vet. & Novi Testamenti to St. Austin, which every Puny knows to be the fruit of some Pelagian brain.

I had thought to have followed our Historian, and to have given some account of his second and third Part, in which he goes about to perswade us, that the Doctrine now called Arminianism, was and is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England: But this work is already done to sa­tisfaction by Theophilus Churchman, in his Revi [...]w. If any say, this is but a shift; I do here desire either Dr. Heylin, or any Friend of his, to direct me to the best Argument in either of those two Books, and if I do not presently make it appear that that Argument is either so weak as not to [Page 138] need an Answer, or else already answered, I shall then yield the Cause. Till this be done, I shall not think, that that can be the Doctrine of the Church, which was contradicted by all or the major part of our learned Divines and Professors; or that the whole Church, or any lawful Authority in the Church, would impose it on her own Members, to recant her own Doctrine. See­ing the Church is wont to enjoyn Recantation to those who contradict her Articles; why she should enjoyn the Recantation of Arminianism, if that be agreeable to her Articles, he had need have the wisdom of all the seven wise men that can shew a reason. I conclude, humbly beseeching all those who are entrusted with Ec­clesiastical Authority, that they would not be so intent on Discipline, as to neglect Doctrine; that they would not let Pelagianism enter in, under pretence of opposing Puri­tanism; that Calvin's Institutions, and the 39 Articles, which a Convocation in Oxford joyned together, may not now be put asunder.

Here I had thought to put an end to my Animadversio [...] on the Doctor's History; supposing it needless to wipe of [...] the aspersion of Arminianism from the English Church, which scarce any one of our own for fourscore years had the con­fidence to cast on her. Yet having since considered, that men easily believe that which they greatly desire, and finding ma­ny, very many mens wits at work, to gather up any thing that may evince so much as the least probability, that a meerly conditional election, was never reprobated by the Martyrs, Composers of our Homilies and Articles; I have taken up a resolution to give my self the unpleasing trouble of running through the second and third Part of the Do­ctor's History, that so the Reader may not have so much as a straw left to stumble a [...].

The first thing done in the second Part, is to lay down the Doctrine of our Church, concerning the fall of man, and his recovery [...]y Christ. Which Doctrine should have been gathered from our Articles, or from some Homilies pur­pos [...]ly written of those subjects; but the Doctor gathers i [...] f [...]om the Homily of Chr [...]st's Nativity. Many of his dear Fr [...]ends w [...]ll con [...]im no thanks for so doing; But I am conte [...]t [...]o [...]et a [...]l that he hath collected, pag. 4, 5, 6, pass, [Page 139] as the unquestionable Doctrine of our Church: Yea, I re­joyce to find it acknowledged, that Adam by his Fall be­came the Image of the Devil, the Bondslave of Hell, and nothing else but a Lump of Sin; and that this so great and miserable a Plague, fell not only on him, but also on his Posterity and Children for ever. Hence I infer, that they are no Sons of our Church, who either quite deny Original Sin, or make it to be no Sin properly so called. I infer also secondly, that the story of which the Doctor is so proud, page 7, doth not represent the case in which God found fallen man. For the King of Lombard found in Lamistus both a power to lay hold on his Hunting-spear, and a willingness to save himself by it: but if man be the Image of the Devil, and nothing but a lump of Sin, he hath no power till it be gi­ven him, so much as to accept of Grace offered; nay, his carnal mind is enmity against all the Laws by which God would bring him to happiness. As for the Principle laid down, page 6, towards the end, that as were the Acts of God in their right production, so were they primitively in his intention, it is very unfitly expressed, and either the mean­ing of it is only this, that as God did put forth his Acts in time so he purposed eternally to put them forth, or else it is most absurd and contrary to all Principles of Philo­sophy and Theology.

The next attempt is fouly to bespatter Wickliff, Frith, Barnes, Tindal. As concerning Wickliff, it is said,

Dr. H. page 8, 9.

That it cannot be proved, that our Reformers had any eye at the man: and that his Field had more Tares in it than Wheat: and that his Books afford all the Sects and Heresies among us, the grounds of their several dotages. To make good this charge, we are referred to Thomas Waldensis, and Nicholas Harpsfield; and lest we should except against them, to (that which is more liable to exception) the Convocation in Henry the Eighth's time, Anno 1536.

Answ. To which I say first, that neither Waldensis nor Harpsfield, nor that discontented Convocation, are meet Witnesses against Wickliff or his Followers; for they all [Page 140] lay to their charge things which we can manifestly prove they alway abhorred.

2. I set against these,

1. The University of Oxford, which in a Convocation Anno 1406, gave Letters testimonial to Wickliff, declaring him to be a man of honesty and great worth. 2. The judgement of Iohn Huss, and Hierom of Prague, who are acknowledged to have lighted their Candle at his: and Iohn Huss had such an opinion of him, that he wished no greater happiness, than to be where the Soul of Wickliff was. 3. Finally his own works, whether printed or manu­script; out of which, or some of which, Dr. Iames hath collected enough to prove his conformity with the Church of England Reformed.

3. I will take a particular view of all the Errors fa­thered on him by these men, or rather by the Doctor out of them.

  • 1. That the Sacrament of the Altar is nothing but a piece of Bread. Mr. Fox makes mention of Wickliff's Wicket, and I my self have it, as it was reprinted at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes Prefaced by the Reverend Henry Iackson of Corpus Christi Colledge; by the which any one may see, he speaks re­verently of the blessed Eucharist, and strongly confuteth Transubstantiation. It is there expresly said, the Bread consecrated is Christ's Body in figurative speech, which is hid to the understanding of Sinners.
  • 2. That Priests have no more authority to minister Sacraments than Lay-men. This is a calumny, as Dr. Iames his Apology for Wickliff will manifest: Yet if he had maintained, that a Lay-man, or Woman, in case of necessity, may administer the Sacrament of Baptism, he had been in an error, but in an error common to him, with the Popish Church, and the Lutheran Church, and our own Church, till headed b [...] King Iames; yea, had he held that a Lay-man, or woman, may administer the Lord's Supper, I hope the Doctor will not much swagger against him on that score, seeing the be­loved of his Soul, Simon Episcopius, affirms as much as that comes to, making also the immortal Grotius his Vouchee for this opinion: Lo his words in his Answer to the sixty four Questions, page 39, ‘It is not absolutely necessary, that the Administration of the Supper should be performed by [Page 141] some Officer of the Church; and therefore because in Christ there is neither male nor female, it may in like manner be performed by all. Where that Order ob­tains, that some Officer should perform the Administra­tion, that Order is to be kept for peace-sake, and reve­rence of the Order. Where the Officer is not present, or cannot be present in the publick Assembly, it is lawful for any man, especially a meet man, to perform that Administration: For why should the Administration of the Lord's Supper be thought forbidden to them, unto whom it is allowed to speak and teach in the Assembly? But unto all men doth the Apostle permit to speak in the Church, because he does except women, though meet understanding women, that are married, and sub­ject to Husbands, as is manifest out of both Texts, 1 Cor. 14.34, 35. 1 Tim. 2.12. For Virgins and Widows the Apostle seemeth not to except, especially if endowed, with the gift of Prophecy from God, 1 Cor. 11.5; be­cause unto them do not belong the reasons for which the Apostle would have women hold their peace in the As­semblies, not to teach, but to be in silence. Although it is certain where men, especially meet, are present, that it is fit that they should be prefer'd to any kind of women whatever in teaching and administring. I add, where no men meet, but only women religious and godly, that there is no cause why they may not teach one another, and celebrate the Lord's Supper among themselves, see­ing that the precept of celebrating the remembrance of Christ's death, and of testifying our mutual communion, belongs not less to women than to men, Gal. 3.28. Ve­rily if we view the ancient custom of the Church, which Grotius hath alledged out of Tertullian and Cyprian, we we cannot doubt but that the Administration of both Sacraments were granted to Laicks, and sometimes to women.’
  • 3. That all things ought to be common. This is a most per­fect calumny; Wickliff held no community, except that which hath nothing against it, but covetousness the root of all evil, as Dr. Iames hath manifested.
  • 4. That it is as lawful to Christen a Child in a Tub of Water at home, or in a Ditch by the way, as in a Font-stone in the [Page 142] Churches. And what if Wickliff, at a time when the publick Administration of Baptism was defiled with most dreadful Superstition, did tell the People, that Baptism was not by God's Law tied to a Font-stone in the Church? would not the Doctor have told them as much had he lived in those dayes? yea, do not all say as much at this very day? For my part I heartily rejoyce in the usages of those Churches, that have Baptisteries placed in the Temple, so as the Administration of the Ordinance may be observed by all the Members of the Congregation. Nevertheless Antiquity used Tubs of Water, and Ditches, or Lakes, not Font-stones. Of the Apostolical times this will not be denied. For the two following Centuries it is manifest by Iustin Martyr, in his second Apology, and Tertullian in his third Chapter de Corona Militis, that it was custo­mary not to bring water to the Church, but to carry the Church to the Water. I would thank that Scholar that would from any undoubted Record of Antiquity shew me that Font-stones, placed near the Church door, came in before the fourth Century.
  • 5. That it is as lawful at all times to confess unto a Lay-man as unto a Priest. Is not this a shrewd Here­sie? delivered long before Wickliff by Saint Iames; who not only allows, but enjoyns us to confess our faults one to another? Yet to say, that Confession unto a Lay-man, is to all intents and purposes as availe­able, as unto a Priest, is an Error, and never owned by Wickliff.
  • 6. That it is not necessary, or profitable, to have any Church, or Chappel to pray in, or to do any Divine Service in. A Church is not necessary to perform Divine Service in, that is certain: no, nor yet profitable, so as to commend our Services to God. But yet usually Temples are more convenient than any other places in our Parishes: and therefore we are to rejoyce, that they are continued to us, notwithstanding the fury of the late Wars; and to use them, making no question for conscience sake. Wick­liff doubtless used to Pray and Preach in his Church at Lutterworth, neither thinking that his Church did sancti­fie his Services, nor defile them: and of this belief am I. Never do I find it so much as mentioned or objected [Page 143] against Wickliff, that he performed Divine Service in any other than a Consecrated place. ‘To Wil­liam Swinderby indeed I find it was objected,Vide Fox in Richard II. that many times and oft he had come to a Desart Wood, cleped Derwalf Wood, and there in a Chappel not hallowed, but accursed Shep­herds Hulk, presumed to sing, but rather to curse in contempt of the Keys.’ But he replies, that this was falsly put on him; saying, it was a Chappel where a Priest useth to sing certain dayes in the year with great solemnity.
  • 7. That burying in Church-yards is unprofitable, and in vain. Wickliff's own Body was buried in his Church-yard, after he had served God in his generation: Had he accounted it unprofitable to have such a burying place, why did he not take order with some of his Friends to have his Car­case laid elsewhere? Were it not a custom received in our Church to bury in the Church, or Church-yard, I would never petition that it might be made a custom; knowing that from the beginning it was not so, either in the Jewish or Christian Church.
  • 8. That Holy-days ordained and instituted by the Church (and taking in the Lord's day for one) are not to be observed and kept in reverence, in as much as all dayes are alike. The Pa­renthesis here is of the Doctor's own adding. The Con­vocation represents the Wickliffists as distinguishing be­twixt Sundayes and Holy-dayes, Article 35. We may give a shrewd ghess at Wickliff's Opinion, by the Opinion of Hierom of Prague, which was as Bernard Luzenberg represents it, that we must cease from work no day but the Lord's day. To this the Bohemian Churches do stand to this very day; keeping some dayes indeed besides the Lord's day, but meerly as circumstances, not as parts of worship: and therefore so soon as Divine Service is over, allowing people to follow their work; yet granting no such allow­ance on the Lord's day, which they aver to be of Divine institution.
  • 9. That it is sufficient, and enough to believe, though a man do no good works. This is but the Heresie of St. Paul, only maliciously represented by Wickliff's Adversaries; and it is at this day the stone that every Papist carries in his pocket, to throw at the heads of all Protestants whatsoever, [Page 144] whether Calvinist or Lutheran. It were to be wished that some Lutherans had no more given occasion to this re­proach, than Wickliff did.
  • 10. That no humane Laws, or Constitutions, do oblige a Christian. 'Tis added by the Convocation, but such as be in the Gospels, or Paul's Epistles, or the New Testament. And why the Doctor omitted this addition, or restriction, no man can give a good reason. Such limitation doth take off all the offensiveness of the Universal negative; for there can be no good Law, or Constitution humane, but what is to be found either expresly, or implicitely in the New Testa­ment. The New Testament requires obedience to all hu­mane Laws, that are not contrary to the eternal Rule of Righteousness or some Divine positive institution, under the severest penalties, and from the most perfect motive.
  • 11. That God never gave grace or knowledge to a great person, or rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same. This was indeed the opinion of Pelagius, with whose He­resies Wickliff was never thought to be infected: that Wickliff ever held any such opinion, is neither true nor probable. He was so much favoured by the Nobility and Gentry of this Nation, who had great estates, and ever upon increase, that it cannot be thought he would ever broach a Tenent, that left none of them any hope of sal­vation. Dr. George Abbot, afterwards Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury, mentions in his Answer to Dr. Hill, a Manuscript he had seen of one Henry Knighton, a Canon of Leicester. That Manuscript is now published, with some others, by Cornelius Bee; the learned Selden having put a large Pre­face to the whole Book. From that Preface I collect, that Knighton was contemporary to Wickliff, and so was the more able to give us right information of him. He never chargeth Wickliff with denying grace or salvation to all rich men: Some such thing indeed he fathers upon William Swinderby ▪ page 2646, but if he had indeed held any other impossibility of rich mens salvation than what is the clear result of our Saviours own speech, why was no such thing charged on him in the Process made against him by the Bishop of Lincoln, or Hereford? Both which are related by Mr. Fox, and have not one tittle of this import in them.

[Page 145]All that I shall further add, is

First, Wickliffists did maugre all the malice of their Ad­versaries increase. Knighton saith, page 2666, Secta illa maximo in honore illis diebus habebatur, &c. that Sect in those dayes was in great honour; and so multiplied, that you would scarce see two in the way, but one of them was a Disciple of Wickliff.

Secondly, That Wickliff laid the Foundation of our Re­formation in England, as well as of that in Bohemia. By three means especially did he advance our Reformation in England,

  • 1. By Translating the Scriptures into the English Tongue: by this means kindling in his Countrey-men a de­sire to understand the last Will and Testament of their blessed Saviour. By him, saith Knighton, page 2644, the Gospel was made vulgar, and more open to Laicks and Women knowing how to read, than it was wont to be to the Clergy­men very learned and well understanding.
  • 2. By asserting the due power of Kings in their own Kingdoms, against the Usurpations of the Popes of Rome. Of this the Pope was very sensible, and feelingly com­plained of it, in his Letter to the University of Oxford, and to King Richard the Second, 1378, saying, Wickliff broach­ed the Errors of Marsilius of Padua, and of Iohn of Gan­dune of unworthy memory. The very same complaint did Pope Gregory the Twelfth make, in the time of King Henry the Fourth: A Copy of this Letter I have not seen; but Dr. Abbot had seen it, and any Oxford man may see it in the Book that Mr. Hare gave to the University. How much Marsilius had shaken the Pillars of the Papal Jurisdi­ction, is not unknown to Scholars: It were to be wished that his Defensor were in more of their hands. And Wickliff indeed trod in his steps, (or rather in the steps of William Ocham, his Senior in Merton Colledge;) for he strenuously asserted, ‘That the Lordship of all Temporalities, both of Secular men and Religious, pertained to the King; for else he were not King of England, but of a very small part of it: and that the Kingdom of England may law­fully (in case of necessity) for its own defence, detain and keep back the Treasure of the Kingdom, that it be not carried away ro foreign and strange Nations, the [Page 146] Pope himself demanding and requiring the same under pain of Censure, and by virtue of Obedience.’
  • 3. He corrected and curbed the exorbitance of the Episcopal power also: asserting, that the Order of Priest­hood in its own nature and substance, receiveth no de­grees of more or less; and yet notwithstanding, the power of inferiour Priests is in these dayes, upon due considera­tion, restrained, and sometimes again in time of necessity enlarged. See his exposition on the Conclusions in Mr. Fox, Rich 2. page 567. One of his Articles condemned by the Councel of Constance was, that Hallowing of Churches, Confirmation of Children, the Sacrament of Orders, be reserved to the Pope and Bishops only for lucre. This notion was sucked in by all our Martyrs, and even by those Papists that were not wedded to the Court of Rome, as well as to the Church of Rome; as may be seen in the Institution of a Christian man, concerning the Sacrament of Orders. And that our first Reformers in King Edward's dayes, pro­ceeded on the same Principle, will appear undeniable by that which Mr. Stillingfleet hath Printed in his Irenicum, out of Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Manuscript. But enough of Wickliff.

Dr. H. pag. 9.

Tindal, Barnes, Frith, are the next whom the Doctor mentions; and about them he spends pag. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

Ans. To what purpose he spent so much Paper, or made so bold with the Readers patience, I wot not. Mr. H. H. had only said, that they, and as many others as lived and suf­fered before the Reformation, if they gave us their judge­ments in the five Points, gave them agreeable to Mr. Calvin. This the Doctor in effect grants [...]; only adds for a close, that

Dr. H. page 15.

As those suf [...]ered death before the publick undertaking of Re­formation under Edward VI, so nothing was ascribed to their Authority by the first Reform [...]rs.

[Page 147] Answ. The latter part of which clause is as false, as the former is true. Something was by the first Reformers ascribed to the Authority of Tindal; for notwithstanding King Henry the Eighths Proclamation, the Act of Parlia­ment, and Sir Thomas More's active endeavours, to sup­press and smother and abolish Tindal's Translation, yet it came to light, and was, being corrected by Thomas Mat­thews, printed with Annotations, by the special privi­ledge of King Edward the Sixth, Anno 1551. Yea, the Bibles used in Churches from 1549, to 1577, were those of Tindal's Translation; called also Coverdale's, because he had made some corrections of Tindal's. And they who have taken pains to compare Books, say, that the Psalter now enjoyned to be used, is agreeable to Tindal's Transla­tion: as also were the Epistles and Gospels, till this last Edition of the Liturgie.

And if any thing in this kind was ascribed to the Autho­rity of Tindal, something also was ascribed, at least by Arch-Bishop Cranmer (one of our Reformers,) to the Au­thority of Iohn Frith; for he seems to have received his Faith in the Doctrine of the Sacrament from him: and with his Heifer did he plow, in his Answer to Stephen Win­chester; Rationes argumenta atque e Doctoribus petita testimonia (Johannis Frithi) singula commemorare, ut immensi esset negotii ita nec valde necessarii: praesertim cum Archiepiscopus Cantu­ariensis in suo adversus Wintoniensem Apologetico idem ab­unde praestitisse videatur; hinc contracta maxima praesidiorum materia, quibus adversus cum nititur, nec scio an ulli magis Authori hujusce doctrinae fidem acceptam debuit Archiepiscopu [...] quam huic adolescenti: Iohn Fox in his Commentary in La­tine, pag. 130.

Dr. H. page 18.

Here the Doctor supposeth a Question to be asked, On whom, or on whose judgements the first Reformers relied in the weighty business? And answers it first negatively. They had no respect of Calvin, whose offered assistance they refused, when they went about it; of which he sensibly complains unto some of his Friends in one of his Epistles.

[Page 148] Answ. Here are three things affirmed, 1. That our first Reformers had no respect to Calvin. 2. That the Refor­mers refused his profered assistance. 3. That Calvin sen­sibly complaineth of this in one of his Epistles. But the Historian is wiser than to tell us in what Epistle for num­ber, Calvin makes this complaint, or what was the name of that Friend to whom this Epistle was directed. Such a refe­rence might have spoiled his whole design, and discredited his future proceedings; for it would have let his Reader understand, that he could confidently aver things, that were neither vera, nor verisimilia. Is any man so facil as to believe, that our first Reformers had no respect to Calvin? when as, among the different opinions concerning the Sa­crament, they followed his, and sent for Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer, and Paul Fagius (men that they might be sure he had influenced and would influence) to assist them in carrying on their work, and to defend them by their learning against all opposition. I will once more look in­to Calvin's Epistles and Answers, that I may see what thoughts our first Reformers had of that now so much de­cried man. One, and but one Epistle, I find written by Cranmer to Calvin, intimating his desire that learned and godly men, who excell others in learning and judge­ment, might meet in some safe place, where they might handle all the heads of Ecclesiastical Doctrine, and agree, not only as to the things themselves, but also as to words and forms of speaking. This his desire being signified, he intreateth Calvin that he and Melancthon and Bullinger would deliberate among themselves, how such a Synod might most commodiously be congregated: The Letter bears date March 20. 1542. Calvin from Geneva answers this Letter; approves the Arch-Bishops design of calling an Assembly of Divines; adds, that if there might be any use of him, he would not refuse to pass over ten Seas to further it, but hoped that his tenuity would effect that he might be spared; he would think he had done his part if he should accompany others with his Prayers. This cer­tainly is not profering his service, and complaining that his serv [...]ce when profered was refused. Calvin also did write to the Protector, the Duke of Somerset: that Letter was so kindly accepted, that he of his own accord offered [Page 149] to present another Letter, which Calvin sent to King Edward himself. But it may be this Letter to the King was not accepted. I answer, It was not only accepted by the King, but also pleased his whole Council. And Cranmer admonished Calvin, that he could not do any thing more profitable, than to write often to the King; as I find in a Letter to Farel from Calvin, dated Iune 15. 1557. Bucer at Cambridge undestood that Calvin's Letters pre­vailed much with Somerset, and therefore intreats him, when he did write to him to admonish him, not to suffer the Churches to be left void of Preachers and so to be be­trayed. Bishop Hooper so much valued Calvin, that he did write to him, even when he was imprisoned; saluting him with the Compellation of Vir praestantissime, earnestly [...]begging his Churches prayers, and at last subscribing himself Tuae pietatis studiosissimus Jo. Hooperus. These things put to­gether, make it impossible that our first Reformers had no respect to Calvin.

Let the Doctor now have leave to tell us, to whom or to what our Reformers had respect.

Dr. H. pag. 18.

In the first place, saith he, to the most pure and sincere Chri­stian Religion in the Scriptures, and in the next place to the usages of the Primitive Church.

Answ. This I grant, but must also add, that they had a respect unto the condition of the English People, much at that time wedded to Superstition; and therefore they were feign to recommend to Authority for establish­ment, not every thing which they accounted best, but what they thought the weak People would be able to bear.

Dr. H. Ibid.

Being satisfied in both which waies, they had thirdly a more particular respect to the Lutheran platforms, the English Confession, or Book of Articles, being tak [...]n in many places word for word out of that of Ausberg.

[Page 150] Answ. If this be true, that our Reformers had such an eye to the Augustan Confession, I infer, that seeing Calvin could, and did subscribe to the Augustan Confession, there is nothing in our Articles but what he might have subscri­bed to. ‘But the present Lutherans will hardly be perswa­ded, that the Composers of our Articles had so tender a respect to the Con [...]ession of Ausberg, at least as now by them understood; for Ubiquity in the Article concerning the Lord's Supper, is plainly condemned, whiles it is de­fined, that the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places.’

Dr. H. Ibid.

Fourthly, in reference to the Points disputed, they ascribed much to the Authority of Melancthon, (not undeservedly called the Phoenix of Germany,) whose assistance they earnestly desi­red, whose coming over they expected, who was as graciously invited hither by King Edward, his coming laid aside on the fall of the Duke of Somerset; therefore since they could not have his company, they made use of his Writings for their direction.

Answ. Of this passage I am not able to give such an ac­count as I desire. Well I remember I have read, that Melancthon in an Epistle to Camerarius, mentions his being invited into England by King Henry the Eighth, about the year 1534, and the cause of his refusal to accept the invi­tation, some intelligence he had received, that the King had no great care of the affairs of the Church. That he was ever in­vited by King Edward, I can neither affirm nor deny, ha­ving not Melancthon's Epistles at hand. But when was it that this great Scholar's assistance was so earnestly desired? The fall of the Duke of Somerset is placed by Mr. Fox at the 22. of Ian. 1552, the sixth year of the King's Raign, but a few moneths before the King's own death. He had indeed two years before lost his Protectorship, and so as to that may be said to be fallen. Before either his fall as Duke of Somerset or as Protector, Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, had been in England. Now both these Worthies I shall prove to be Calvinistical in the Points under debate. And certainly the sending for two Calvinists, is a better [Page 151] and stronger Argument, that our first Reformers had a respect to Calvin in drawing up the Articles of Faith, than the sending for one Melancthon is, that they had an Anti­calvinistical project: especially if it be considered that Hierom Zanchy, a Calvinist if not more than a Calvinist, was also sent for over into England, and had come over to assist in carrying on the Reformation, if when he was just upon his journey, a call to another Church had not di­verted him. Let me also ask, What Writings of Melancthon be they that our Reformers had for their Directory? The first Edition of Melancthon's Common places, approved by Luther, was written as Calvinistically as to the matter of Predestination, as Calvin himself could desire. Calvin's own Book against Pighius was approved by Melancthon, and indeed dedicated to him. If in any other writings he seems to contradict Calvin (he doth but seem) in these matters, it is to be imputed not to any contrariety in his own judgement, but to a contrariety in those mens tempers that he had to deal with: and there is even betwixt St. Iames and St. Paul, writing against contrary errors, such a seeming contrariety, as every man is not able to re­concile. Something there is in what Lampadius writes, in the continuation of P [...]zelius his History, page 409, Philip­pus rigidissime olim, si quisquam alius, de praedestinatione scrip­sit in Loc. communibus, Anno 1523. Postea cum videret infir­mos duris Lutheri phrasibus offendi, & perduelles eas passim cippo affixas ad inflammandum Evangelium traducere & calum­niari, mitigavit sententiam suam: ut qui satis esse putaret, auditores deduci ad Christum, vitae librum; & tanto magis fructus fidei deposceret, & urgeret, viz. concordiam & chari­tatem; neque tamen ob hanc sobrietatem ab Orthodoxis unquam est repudiatus aut condemnatus; neque ipse propterea a severio­ribus syntheticis alienior fuit, sed ad Bezam se per omnia cum Genevensibus Orthodoxis [...]acere scribit. No Church can be more Melancthonian than the Church of Breme: it answer­ing by Pezelius to the Bes [...]huldigung van Calvinischer the ac­cusation of Calvinism, hath these words (translated:) ‘We and our Predecessors have alway so declared our selves, and by this do again declare our selves, that as by the Magistrate of this City we are called to the Function Ecclesiastical, to teach according to the Prophetical and [Page 152] Apostolical Writings, the Catholick Symbols of Chri­stian, the Augustan Confession, the Apology, the Franck­ford Recess, and the whole Body of the Doctrine of Philip Melancthon; so we have by the grace of God hi­therto taught congruously thereunto, and by none have been convinced by solid reasons to teach any thing dif­ferent therefrom: in which kind of teaching, by the help of God, we have moreover decreed to persevere.’ Yet the three Divines of this Church did not refuse to sub­scribe the Canons of the Synod of Dort; so that in the opinion of these men, who seem to have studied the five. Points as much as any, Melancthonism and Calvinism are not irreconcileable: And if our first Reformers were re­gulated by M [...]lancthon, they and the Calvinists may shake hands as good Friends. But how comes the Dr. in this History to speak more favourably of Luther than of Calvin? It was but Iu [...]e 6th 1654, that he did write a Preface to his Fides Veterum, In that, thus he expresseth himself, ‘Though I had a good respect both to the memory of Luther, and the name of Calvin, as those whose Writings had awakened all these parts of Europe out of the igno­rance and superstition under which they suffered; yet I alwaies took them to be men: Men as obnoxious unto error, as subject unto humane frailty, and as indulgent too to their own opinions, as any others whatsoever. The little knowledge I had gained in the course of story had preacquainted me, with the fiery spirit of the one, and the busie humour of the other: thought thereupon unfit by Arch-Bishop Cranmer, and others, the chief agents in the Reformation of this Church, to be em­ployed as instruments in that weighty business. Nor was I ignorant how much they differed from us in their Doctrinals, and forms of Government. And I was apt enough to think, that they were no fit Guides, to di­rect my judgement in order to the Discipline, and Doctrine of the Church of E [...]gland, to the establish­ment whereof they were held unuseful; and who by their practises and posi [...]ions had declared themselves Friends to neither.’ Here's plain downright dealing indeed, sentence given impartially. Luther and Calvin both, [...] by th [...]ir practises and positions declared themselves [Page 153] to be Friends neither to our Doctrine nor Discipline: both much differed from us in their Doctrinals and Forms of Go­vernment: both were thought un [...]it by Arch-Bishop Cran­mer, &c. to be employed as instruments in the Reformation of this Church. Luther was of a fiery spirit, Calvin of a busie humour, and yet the Doctor presently adds, he was never Master of so little manners as to speak reproachfully of either Luther or Calvin. All other men whatever, I suppose, think he hath spoken reproachfully of both those Reformers, in sundry of his Books; and in the passage before us, he speaks not over respectfully concerning either of them: and I believe vilely wrongs both, and Cranmer too; For where doth it appear that the Arch-Bishop thought either Luther because of his fiery spirit, or Calvin because of his busie humour unfit to be employed in the Reformation of this Church? Our Church was not reformed to any great purpose till Luther was in his grave; for he died the 8th of Feb. 1546, not a month after King Henry the eighth, whose decease is placed by Iohn Speed 28 Ian. 1546. How far Reformation was advanced by that King, may be collected from his Will signed Decemb. 30. 1546, in which Masses, multitudes of Masses, are appointed to be said for his Soul. Indeed Mr. I. Fox acquaints us from A. Cranmer, that the King the August before he died, declared his purpose to abolish all Masses, and in stead of them to set up the Communion. Had he lived and performed that resolution, and had Luther lived to hear of the Performance of it, yet might not Cranmer perhaps have accounted it adviseable to keep any correspondence with him, because he had written against his Soveraign more bitterly than was meet, and had repented of that repentance which he sometime ex­pressed for his bitterness. No such thing had the Arch-Bishop to charge on Calvin, and therefore, it is like e­nough▪ would have desired his assistance in King Edward's time, had he not known, that G [...]n [...]va could not, or would not, have parted with him. Certain I am, Cranmers and Calvins principles differed very little either as to Doctrine or Discipline; nor did either greatly dissent from L [...]ther, unless in the matter of the corporal pre [...]nc [...] of Christ in the Sacrament. I have done, only desiring the R [...]ader to con­sider, (1) Whether it be not difficult to reconcile the [Page 154] Author of the Fides Veterum, and the Historia Quinquar­ticularis? seeing the one saith that our first Reformers had [...]n eye to the Lutheran Platform, and took the Ar­ticles of our Church word for word out of the Augustan Confession, the other saith that Luther (by a spirit of Prophecy no doubt) declared himself no friend either to our Doctrine or Discipline. And if any one can reconcile this contradiction, then let him (2) compare our Articles with the Augustan Confession, and see whether our Re­formers were such plagiaries as to take their Articles of Religion, all or any, out of those drawn up at Ausberg. And then (3) let him also well weigh, whether it be not a great discouragement to all good endeavours, to say that Luther and Calvin after all their prayers and study were as subject to error and humane frailty, and as indulgent to their own opinions as any men whatever. Learning and Piety would scarce be so earnestly prayed for, if after we had attained both in some good measure, we should still re­main as subject to error, as obnoxious to humane frailty, as indulgent to our own private opinions as any men how unlearned and wicked soever.

Is there any one else that the Doctor thinks the first Reformers attributed much unto? Yes, one; viz. Erasmus. Of whom he tells us, that he was Greek Professor in Cambridge: Which every one knows, (as also that he is put in the Catalogue of the Lady Margarets Profes­sors of Divinity in that University; but died 1536.) And though it be true which the Doctor relates out of Fox, that by the Protector, in the first year of King Ed­ward's Reign, it was commanded, ‘That Erasmus his Pa­raphras [...]s on the four Evangelists should be set in some convenient place in Churches, and that every Priest should have of his own one new Testament in English and Latine, with the Paraphrases of Erasmus on the same: yet it doth not follow, as is inferred, that our Reformers intended not to advance any other Doctrine, than what was countenanced in the writings of that Learned man.’

I say this follows not: or if it do follow, then if fol­lows much more from the Canon of our Convocation, [...], that our Church never intended to propagate any Doctrine, but what had countenance in the Marty­rology [Page 155] of Fox. But that consequence the Doctor will at no ha [...]d allow, but sets himself against it totis viribus, Part 3. [...]. 56. See the difference; King Edward's Council in the first year of his Reign, when the Church was scarce crept out of Popery (if crept out of Popery) placed Erasmus his Paraphrases in Churches; therefore the Church intended no Do­ctrine, but that which was countenanced in Erasmus: This is a good Argument. Queen Elizabeth, when Reformation was come to a great height, by the advice of her whole Con­vocation, placed Mr. Fox in Churches and Houses of great resort; therefore the Church intended no Doctrine, but what was coun­tenanced in the writings of Mr. Fox: This is no good Argu­ment, because the case is altered. But, I hope, the Doctor thinks the Protector did intend to propagate some other Doctrine, than what was countenanced in the Writings of Erasmus; Why else did he go to fight against the Scots, which War was unlawful on the Principles of Erasmus? If the Protector warred against his conscience, yet, I trow, the Articles were not drawn up against the minds of those that form'd the [...] yet in one of them War is justified. Yea, I heartily wish that the Article of the Trinity, were not against some Doctrine countenanced in the Writings of this learned man Erasmus. The blot of Arianism shall not fall on his face from my pen: but our new Arians, the Soci­nians, do boast of him as their own. I hope not upon so good grounds as they may boast of Hugo Grotius his Coun­treyman: But boast of him they do. ‘The Ministers of Transilvania, in the most cursed Book of the Knowledge of one God, number him among their Ancestors: and Socinus himself in his Epistles saith of him, that he was, not undeservedly, suspected by the Trinitarians of Arianism; and of the Antitrinitarians, reckoned among those who somewhat darkly renounced the Trinity.’

But now at last, that Dr. Heylin may say, that he hath met with a very good natured man, I will give but not yield, that Erasmus his Paraphrases were eyed by our first Reformers, in making their Confession of Faith: What will he gain thence? Truly just nothing at all, or less than nothing, if nothing more be found in them than what is picked out, and set before us pag. 109, 110, 111, For in all those collections, there is not one phrase or sentence, that [Page 156] doth contradict any one of the five Points, as stated by the rigidest Calvinists. Even those who say, that Christ died only for the Elect (in which number I never put my self,) will bring themselves off from all and every thing that is here alledged out of Erasmus.

Dr. H. Pag. 110.

Of universal Redemption, saith the Doctor, he tells us thus, ‘This Lamb is so far from being subject to any sin, that he alone is able to take away all the sins of the whole World.

Answ. Will Amesius, Gomarus, or any other that most re­strains the death of Christ, deny this? Do they not all di­stinguish, betwixt the worth of the death, and the will of him that died? and say, that the worth of the death was such, that God might without any indecency, have accepted it for the redemption of ten thousand Worlds, if there had been so many. But Erasmus further adds,

Dr. H. Ibid.

‘He is also so gentle, and so desirous of mans salvation, that he is ready to suffer pains for the sins of all men, and to take upon him our evils, because he would bestow upon us his good things.’

Answ. This is so dilute a speech, that I will strengthen it, and say, that he did suffer pains for the sins of all men: and yet dare peremptorily aver, that no Gomarist would refuse to subscribe the saying; for he can grant, that Christ died with an intention to purchase some benefits for the very Reprobates: and he will further say, that for ought appears to the contrary, Erasmus might, by all men, mean the genera singulorum, and not the singula generum; for doubtless that phrase in Scripture, sometimes signifies no more, than men of all sorts, ages, countries. I wish men would either not at all dispute for the amplitude of Redeeming grace, or else bring more apposite and concluding testimonies and au­thorities than any that the Doctor hath here brought.

Nor is the Doctor more advantaged by any thing that he alledgeth out of the Institution of a Christian Man; for if the Reformation in Henry the Eighths time were looked on as a [Page 157] standard, (which it is not by any Protestant;) yet is there not a tittle in all the five particulars gathered by him, Par. 2. p. 21, 22, that hath so much as a face of opposition to any opinion of Mr. Calvin's concerning Predestination. Had the Authors of that part of the Institution put the Pen, after they had made it, into Calvin's own hand, he would not have dashed out any one period or expression in it.

Many and just exceptions might be taken against sundry passages relating to the Composers, and composition, of the first and second Book of Liturgy, and the Book of Homilies of King Edward, pag. 23, 24. But being aprosdionysous to our main Controversie, let them pass.

Nor will I wrestle with the Historian concerning any thing he saith about the Composers of the Articles, or the Articles themselves, or the authority they carry in respect of the making, or how they are to be understood in respect of the meaning, from pag. 25. to pag. 33. Though if I should wrestle, I were sure to lay him on his back.

I will also submit to every Rule by him laid down, for the interpreting of the Article concerning Predestination, pag. 34.

Let this be agreed on, 1. That that only is the Doctrine of our Church, which is laid down expresly in our Ar­ticles, or by good consequence may be thence deduced. 2. That if any phrase occur, about which there is any doubt, that be taken for the meaning, that shall be found agreeable to the mind of those who first composed, or were authorized to review the Articles, or were familiarly ac­quainted with such, and may be presumed to know their meaning, or to have received their notions from them. 3. Let this also be taken for granted, that none are to believe, or think themselves elect, but those who find in them­selves a faith working by love: or that none can take unto themselves the comfort of being given to the Son by the Father's decree, but only those who are come un­to him: and that no ones reprobation can be known by himself, or another in any ordinary way, unless by dis­cerning some such sin as is alway accompanied with final unbelief and impenitence; (such is only the sin against the holy Ghost.)

[Page 158]But the thing to be enquired, is, Whether God's purpose to save out of fallen man all that believe and persevere in believing, be his whole decree of Predestination? and his purpose to condemn all who continue in unbelief, the whole of his Reprobation? So say the Remonstrants. If our Church acknowledge no other decree of Election or Re­probation but this, Dr. Heylin then hath got the day: But if the Church, besides this general purpose, do acknow­ledge a decree, to give to a certain number of persons grace and glory, and a decree, to leave others in that sin and misery that they brought on themselves by the fall, then he loseth the day.

But do the Remonstrants acknowledge no other Election and Reprobation besides these?

Answ. Sometimes they do not; and then, all their Ele­ction notwithstanding, no one man may be saved: but sometimes they are in a better mood, and give us notice of another Election, according to which some shall certainly be saved. This their decree is terminated to singular per­sons, but it is nothing else but God's purpose to save S. Iames, or S. Clement (for example,) whom he eternally foresaw persevering in faith unfeigned to the end of their lives. This latter decree they speak of but rarely; (what our thoughts are of it, will be seen by and by:) Nor doth it honour Divine election at all; for when they are closely examined, they say, the designation of S. Iames to salvation, was founded on the foresight of a faith, not which he attained unto by virtue of any grace prepared for him by Divine election, but which he attained unto by the good use of his own Free-will. Never do I find them, or any that follow them, acknowledge an Election of the Son of Zebedee, or any other person▪ unto Faith, or unto any other part of Holiness. Other Questions there be be­twixt the Calvinist and Anticalvinist, besides the Question of Election; but such as are reduceable to it, or at least such, about which they would easily agree, could they but agree in this. I for my part would only ask that angry man, who calls me Manichee, Blasphemer, &c. Why did Iames believe? why did he persevere? why was he ordained to eternal life? If in answering these, he fly to a special discrimina­ting love and mercy, then will I never look on him as an [Page 159] Adversary: But if he shall say, the cause of all is to be re­ferred to Iames his own using of such sufficient means as were vouchsafed to Iudas as well as to him, then must I needs think, that he taketh from God to give to man; I must also needs think, that he shapeth his Notion of the Divine decree and grace, neither according to Scri­pture, nor according to the Doctrine of the Fathers who wrote against Pelagius, nor according to the English Church.

As to our English Church, thus runs her Article, accord­ing to the Doctor,

Dr. H. Pag. 27.

Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly ordered by his Council, secret unto us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting sal­vation, as vessels made to honour.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; and in our do­ing the will of God, that is to be followed which we have ex­presly declared to us in the Word of God.

One would think that the many words used in this Article, were sufficient to determine what kind of Pre­destination the Church meaneth; For, 1. If she had meant nothing but God's purpose to save all Believers, it had been but bringing some one Scripture, in which eter­nal life is promised to Believers, and all had been done. Nay, what needed any Article at all concerning Predesti­nation and Election, when we had one before concerning Justification; which according to this Notion very little differs from Election? God's Justification considered as an internal immanent act in himself, was nothing but his pur­pose to justifie fallen man believing in Christ. How much Mr. Playfer is gravelled with this Argument, may be seen App. Evan. pag. 360. 2. ‘If Election be nothing but God's purpose to save Believers; why is it said, that as many as are endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be cal­led according to God's purpose; by his Spirit working in [Page 160] due season, they through grace obey, and they walk reli­giously; and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity?’ The benefit that any man hath by E­lection in this way, is but to know, that if he believe he shall be saved. And are all that know so much, called, ju­stified, made to live righteously, and saved? We know they are not. ‘Again, it is said, that the godly consideration of Election in Christ, is of unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ.’ But in the Doctor's way, Predestina­tion is comfortable to those who feel nothing of the Spirit; for the promise is to them, that if they believe they shall be saved: and other promise the godly man hath not; he may the next hour lose all his holiness, and what certainty hath he then of salvation? ‘It is also said, that for curious and car­nal persons, to have alway before them the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, where­by the Devil doth thrust them into desperation, or into wretchlesness of living.’ But now for any men to have the Doctor's Election, or sentence of Predestination alway be­fore them, is no way dangerous, or apt to beget either de­spair or wretchlesness. We cannot advise carnal persons to a more profitable and pertinent object of meditation. In a word, the very calling of Election by the name of Predesti­nation, is enough to determine what kind of Election is meant: The Doctor's Election is a Postdestination; for it then only makes men ordained to eternal life, when having over­come all temptations, they are possessed of it.

But I must hear what the Historian hath to observe from this Article, viz.

Dr. H. Pag. 35.

1. That Predestination doth suppose a Curse, or state of Damnation, in which all mankind was represented to the sight of God, which plainly crosseth the opinion of the Supra­lapsarians.

Answ. I have no fondness for the opinion of the Supra­lapsarians (though I honour the memory of some Supralap­sarians;) but yet cannot deem, that there is any thing in the Article that doth overthrow their Opinion. He that is [Page 161] of another mind, may do well to frame a Syllogism out of the Article, and to try his strength: And withal, he may do well to refute Mr. Wotton, who hath so expounded the Article, as to draw the Supralapsarian platform out of it; and his Argument is not inconsiderable, pag. 137, Answer to Mountague.

Dr. H. Ibid.

2. That it is an act of his from everlasting; because from everlasting he foresaw into what misery wretched man would fall.

Answ. Our Article doth indeed call Predestination, the everlasting purpose of God: but that it therefore calls it so, because God foresaw what misery man would fall into, is to speak mildly an unproved dictate.

Dr. H. Ibid.

3. That he founded it, and resolved for it in the Man and Mediator Christ Iesus, both for the purpose and performance: which crosseth as directly with the Sublapsarian.

Answ. The Article in describing those whom God hath predestinated, saith, they are such whom he hath chose [...] in Christ; therefore God founded Election, and resolved for it in the Man and Mediator Christ Jesus, both for the purpose and performance: This is an Argument that hath scarce sense in it, so far is it from having any strength of reason.

But how doth this cross with Sublapsarian? Why, because,

Dr. H. Ibid.

They place the absolute Decree of Predestination to Life, and of Reprobation unto Death, both of Body and Soul, be­fore the decree or consideration of sending his onely beloved Son into the World, to be the common Propitiation for the Sins of Men.

[Page 162] Answ. This may perhaps be true of some Sublapsarians; of all I am sure it is not. The Sublapsarians I converse with, say, that if we respect God's nature and perfection, he doth, by one most simple act and at once, decree all things; but if respect be had to the things decreed, some priority and posteriority hath place. They also say, that the Controversie betwixt them and the Arminians, is not concerning the order of the Divine decrees, (which al­most every considerable Author hath framed with some variety.) Would the Remonstrants but acknowledge, that God did by his decree ordain men to Faith, as well as to eternal life, they would permit them to abound in their own sense, Whether he did first ordain to the means, or to the end? Christ is by all Sublapsarians, that I ever heard of, made the meritorious cause of our Salvation; but they say, he is not the impulsive cause, why one rather than an­other is chosen to Eternal life, any more than he was the cause of sending himself into the World. Whether the con­sideration of the Mediator did in God's decree precede the consideration of Salvation to be obtained by him; or the Salvation appointed to the Elect precede the consideration of the Mediator? is a thing disputed among the Calvinists themselves.

Dr. H. Ibid.

4. That it was of some special ones alone, and not generally extended unto all mankind; a general election, as they say, being no election.

Answ. This is a great truth, that Election cannot be of all; a General election being oppositum in apposito: But the Doctor would have merited much of the Arminians, if he had shewn us what Election they acknowledge, which is not of all. Arminius makes four Decrees, 1. The Decree to send Christ to Redeem mankind. 2. The Decree to give Eternal life to Believers. 3. The Decree to give Grace and Strength sufficient to Believe. 4. The Decree to give Sal­vation to those particular Persons whom he foresaw would Believe, and persevere in the Faith. The three first con­cern all, or at least all that hear of Christ. As for the fourth, methinks it is not worth the name of a Decree, nor [Page 163] beseeming the Divine Wisdom; for if our King foreknow­ing who would come in and acknowledge their Rebellion, should decree that all comers in, &c. should be pardoned; would it be suitable to Royal Wisdom to make another de­cree, to pardon those whom he foresaw would come in, &c? Besides, this fourth Decree can be of no use or efficacy to any man in this life: it conferred no more benefit to David than to Saul, to Abel than to Cain; for this Decree suppo­seth perseverance in Faith to the last breath, and so be­longs to the other world. Now let all Christians judge, whether the Scriptures describe not such an Election, as hath its efficacy and fruit in this life.

Dr. H. Ibid.

5. That being thus elected in Christ, they shall be brought by Christ (but not without their own consent and co-operation) to everlasting salvation.

Answ. The Historian would do well to ponder, Whe­ther Infants be not brought to eternal salvation, without their own consent or co-operation? whether they are all placed among the Elect? S. Austin was wont to urge such an Argument against the Adversaries of absolute Electi­on, and it gravelled them: the Doctor dealt wisely to take no notice of it. Of adult Persons his observation may be granted.

Dr. H. Ibid.

Finally, That this Counsel is secret unto us; for though there be revealed to us some hopeful signs of our Election unto Life, yet the certainty of it is a secret hidden in God, and in this life un­known unto us.

Answ. The Doctor should have said, if he would have kept to the words of the Article, that God hath ordered by his Counsel secret to us: the meaning whereof seems to be, that the reason which moved God to predestinate this or that person, is unknown to us. But this would have overthrown the whole Arminian fabrick. Therefore an­other sense is pitched on, no way deduceable from the phrase; contrary to Scripture; contrary to the se [...]se and [Page 164] judgement of our Martyrs and Confessors: viz. that in this life we can have no certainty of our predestination unto life.

Against this, thus I argue: If a man may certainly know that he believes in Christ, he may know certainly that he is predestinated unto eternal life. But the antecedent is true, ergo so is the consequent.

I prove my major, Because every one that believes, is or­dained to eternal life. Which enunciation, if any one shall deny, I prove it, first, by the saying of Mr. Latimer, quoted with applause by the Doctor, If thou believest in him, then art thou written in the Book of life, and shalt be saved: which connexion were not good, if there were any man, a Believer, whose name were not found in the Book of life, or not saved. I prove it, because Faith is called, the Faith of God's Elect, Tit. 1.1. I prove it finally, because it is said, that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, Acts 13.48. Why is it said, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, if any could believe but those who are ordained to eternal life? But there is a place not to be eluded, Whom he calleth, those he justifieth; and whom be justifi [...]th, those he also glorifieth: Whoever are called according to the purpose of his will, are justified and glorified.

As to the minor, that A man may certainly know he hath saith, methinks no Christian should doubt it. We should not so earnestly be pres [...]ed to try, whether we be in the faith, if we could not know, whether we be so or no. Are there not some effects that are proper to saving faith? If there be, why may not he who feels them in himself, con­clude thence that he hath faith?

As for our first Reformers, so far were they from think­ing that Election is not knowable, that some of them pla­ced Faith in an Assurance of a mans Election and Christ's dying for him. If I prove this, I shall prove ex abundanti, that they were for personal absolute Election. Of others I shall prove, that they have in terms express owned Calvin's Predestination, or some such Doctrine as is necessa­rily connexed with it. Secondly, I shall answer every Te­stimony that Dr. Heylin brings to prove, that the absolute Decrees were decryed by any of our Martyrs, and pass to the other Points.

[Page 165]1. I begin with the Liturgy; In the Catechism whereof, after rehearsing of the Creed, Question is made, What dost thou chiefly learn in these Articles of thy belief? Answer is re­turned, 1. I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me and all the world. 2. In God the Son, who hath re­deemed me and all mankind. 3. In God the holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God. The object of the Father's Creation, is here made, the Respondent and all the World; the object of the Son's Redemption, is the Respondent and all Mankind; the object of the Spiri [...]s Sanctification, is the Respondent and all the Elect Peo­ple of God. The second object is not so large as the first, nor the third so large as the second▪ and the Catechumen is as well taught to number himself among the Elect people of God, as among mankind. Who are these chosen of God? Surely they are the Elect ac­cording to the foreknowledge of God the Father; and to such is the Sanctification of the Spirit here limited. So that if any one be chosen, he is sanctified; and if he be sanctified, he is chosen; and every one who comes for Confirmation, is taught to profess himself one of those whom the Spirit Sanctifieth, and God Elected. I dare not direct every Baptized person so to say: But by this we may see, what the opinion of the Composers of the Litur­gy was.

In the Catechism appointed by King Edward's Au­thority to be taught by all Schoolmasters, fol. 38, it is said, To the furnishing of this Commonweal belong all they, as many as do truly fear, honour, and call upon God, wholly applying their mind to holy and godly living; and all those, that putting all their hope and trust in him, do as­suredly look for the Bliss of everlasting life. But as many as are in this faith stedfast, were forechosen, predestinate, and appointed out to everlasting life, before the world was made: Witness whereof they have within their hearts, the Spirit of Christ, the Author, earnest un [...]ailable, and pledge of their faith. How much Calvinism is here? As many as fear God, were forechosen, predestinate and appointed out to everlasting life before the world was made: therefore, if any man [...]ail or miss of eternal life, he never feared God; or, God never put his fear into any, [Page 166] but those whom he so fore-ordained to everlasting life. Yet there is more, fol. 39, The first, principal, and most perfect cause, of our justifying and salvation, is the goodness and love of God, whereby he chose us for his before he made the world. Now the Arminian election is not sure the most perfect cause of our justifying and salvation; nor is it God's chusing of us to be his before he made the world. And let it be ob­served, that it is said, that after that he hath chosen us for his, he granteth us to be called by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when the spirit of the Lord is poured into us.

2. Our next task is to look into the sentiments of our Martyrs and Confessors; such as lost their lives, or left their Countrey, or were deprived of their Liberty or Di­gnities and Preserments, for bearing witness to the Doctrine that was established by all Authority, Ecclesiastical and Civil, among us. Our first Martyr in order of time was Iohn Rogers; our first in order of Dignity, were Cranmer of Canterbury, and Ridley of London, Bishops. I have not met with any writings of either of these, in which they have ex­presly declared their judgments in the Points under de­bate: yet we will see what may be at least guessed con­cerning their mind.

For Mr. Rogers, I find he was the Convert of William Tin­dal, and Miles Coverdale, and that he joyned with them in making that Translation, which now goes by the name of Matthews Translation: and what opinions that Translati­on doth favour, I leave it to indifferent persons to judge. I find him also among those worthy Persons, who subscribed a Declaration sent abroad May 8. 1554. all whose names are to be seen in Mr. Fox his third Volume, pag. 102, of the London Edition, 1631. (which Edition I shall still follow, having not the last Edition by me.) The purport of that I eclaration, is to shew Reasons why they will not otherwise [...]ispute, than before indifferent Judges. In the Declaration also is couched a Confession of their Faith, worthy to be [...]ead by all, who would understand the spirit of our Mar­tyrs aright. The fourth branch of that Declaration, is con­cerning Justif [...]cation by Faith only; Of which having de­livered their mind, they add in the close, By this we dis­allow Papistical Doctrine, of Free-will, of Works of Super­erogation, [Page 167] of Merits, of the Necessity of Auricular Confession, and Satisfaction to God-wards. If they disallowed the Pa­pistical Doctrine of Free-will, whose Doctrine did they allow but the Doctrine of Calvin and Luther, who in this matter perfectly agreed, (Luther's high flown expression being abated.) All that I shall more observe concerning this Mr. Rogers, is 1. That he was a Non-conformist even to ex­cess, (his zeal out-running knowledge, unless he had some reasons proper to those times;) for he never went other­wise than with a round Cap, and would not agree to use the Attire proper to the Order of Priesthood, unless the Popish Priests might be enjoyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice with an Host. 2. That he was very zeal­ous to put to death the two Hereticks condemned by Archbishop Cranmer, and burnt 1550, 1551. A familiar Friend of his came to him, and desired him to make use of his interest with Cranmer, that they might not be put to death, or if they were put to death, that they might not be burnt; be­cause that kind of death seemed not so agreeable to Evangelical meekness. He answered, that the punishment of burning men a­live was not so tormenting, but mild enough. His Friend re­plied, with a great ardor of spirit, holding his right hand, and striking his own against it, Go too, perhaps it will come to pass, that your selves may have your hands full of so mild burning. And he was indeed (as I before suggested) the first that tasted of the Marian Meekness.

A. B. Cranmer must needs be supposed to have a great stroke in the framing of the Articles of Religion agreed on 1552. So must Bishop Ridley also; for though Cranmer was Metropolitan in Title, yet Ridley seems to be the greater Stickler of the two, especially in the matter of Rites and Ceremonies. He forced Hooper to be Canonically Ordained, against his inclination, against the King's Letter, and the Earl of Warwick's Letter, the one bearing date Iuly 23. 1550, the other August 5. Yea, so violent was he, that he threatned or caused to be threatned, death to Hooper, if he persisted in refusal. Haec Theologomachia sic tandem exiit vincentibus Episcopis: Hooperus vel ad palinodiam, vel ad eas conditiones adactus est, ut semel saltem in concio­ne publica se ostenderet populo, more caeterorum Episcoporum insulatus. Quod ni fecisset, sunt qui putant Episcopos ultimum [Page 168] supplicium ei molituros: nam ita audivi a famulo ipsius, Duc [...]m Suffolciensem clam Hooperum, qui eorum conatus non ignorabat, monuisse, Fox in his Latine Commentary, pag. 280. I much wonder what stirred up this heat in Ridley, and much doubt, it was some personal pique against Hoo­per, because of his popularity, and boldness in reprov­ing the manners of the time and the corruptions of the Church. Marvelously was Hooper flocked after: Saepe ad­fui (saith Fox) quum in templi fores nemo ingredi concio­nante Hoopero potuerit; tanta ejus diligentia fuit, ut nullum diem sine binis, aut ternis quandoque concionibus praeteriret. Rursus ea in Scripturis promptitudo, ut si sexies ei faciendum esset, tempore ci [...]ius quam materia eguiss [...]t, pag. 279. I say, I doubt there was somewhat of a pique, because I find that the same Ridley did ordain Iohn Bradford a Deacon, with­out any of those Canonical Rites that were then in use, as appeareth Acts and Monuments, pag. 280. But Ridley ac­knowledged his fault, and God forgave him, and so must man too. In the Letter in which this acknowledge­ment is made, he also accquaints Hooper, that he un­derstood by his works, which he had superficially seen, that they throughly agreed, and wholly consented in those things, which are the grounds and substantial points of our Re­ligion, against which the world so furiously raged in those days. By which works, in all probability, he means some Trearises Hooper composed against Transubstantia­tion, which are exemplified in Fox his Latine Com­mentary. Certain it is, that Ridley could not approve all Doctrines in Hooper's works, unless he disappro­ved one Article of our Religion: For Hooper in his Commentary on the Creed, doth most expresly declare against the local descent of Christ into Hell; which is asserted as a truth grounded on Scripture in the Arti­cles of Religion. And as certain is it, that Ridley could not joyn with him, if he condemned the absolute de­cree of Election, (I shall shew hereafter that he did not,) or determining grace in conversion. The Article of Election, I have already both transcribed and argued from; let us now see what may be collected from the Articles of Free-will and Grace, which I will present as they were Printed by Iohn Day, with the King's Authority, 1553. [Page 169] The words of the former are these, We have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ, preventing us that we may have a good will, and working in us when we have that will. Of the latter these, The Grace of Christ, or the holy Ghost by him given, doth take away the stony heart, and giveth a [...] heart of flesh: And although those that have no will to good things, he maketh them to will; and those that would evil things, he maketh them not to will the same; yet never­theless he enforceth not the will: And therefore no man when he sinneth can excuse himself, as not worthy to be blamed or condemned, by alledging that he sinneth unwil­lingly, or by compulsion. If this be not Calvinism and Anti-arminianism, I know not what is. All power to good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without grace preventing and co-operating, is denied to us. Grace also is said to take away the stony heart, and give an heart of flesh; to make us to will (not only able to will) good things. And when it comes to be explained, what it doth not, it is only said, it enforceth not: and sinners are only said, not to act by compulsion, which may well consist with some necessity. This is the summ of what the Cal­vinists alledge, when charged to destroy Free-will. But now the Arminians say, there is no liberty, where no in­difference; and that the grace of God leaves a man indif­ferent, to turn or not to turn. I shall conclude what re­lates to Bishop Ridley, with those words of his farewel, pag. 506, Acts and Monum. The Church had holy and wholesom Homilies, &c. It had in matters of controversie Articles so pen­ned and framed after the holy Scripture, and grounded upon the true understanding of God's word, that in short time, if they had been universally received, they should have been able to have set in Christ's Church much concord and unity in Christ's true Religion, and to have expelled many false Errors and Here­sies, wherewith this Church, alas, was almost overgone. He here approves all the Articles, and therefore the three before-mentioned, as agreeable to God's Word.

As to Cranmer, we have him not only owning all the Do­ctrine and Religion set out by King Edward, but also offer­ing (if Peter Martyr might be joyned to him, with four or five more) to maintain that it was more pure, and accord­ing [Page 170] to God's Word, than any that had been used in Eng­land for an hundred years. This had been a most foolish challenge indeed, if he had not known full well, that Pe­ter Martyr and he, jumped in their judgements about all the Articles, and particularly that of Predestination: With Heterodoxy in which, he might well expect to be char­ged; for Iames Lambert had been apposed in that point in King Henry the Eighths Reign; and our Martyrs in Queen Mary's time, were frequently twitted with fatality, ma­king God the Author of Sin, destroying Free-will, and what not?

The next Martyr I shall instance in, is Mr. Philpot, to whom Mr. Bradford refers his Friend for satisfaction in the matter of Election. What he did write about Election, I do not find; but I find enough to make me confident, that if he had written any thing about it, he would have shewed himself sufficiently Calvinistical. For in his fifth Examination, he took occasion to ask his Popish Adversa­ries, Which of them all was able to Answer Calvin's Institu­tions, which is Minister of Geneva? To which Dr. Saverson replies, with lye and all, A godly Minister indeed of receipt of Cut-purses, and Runnagate Traytors. And of late, I can tell you, there is such contention fallen between him and his own Sects, that he was feign to flee the Town, about Predestination. I tell you truth, [...]or I came by Geneva hither At which ca­lumny Philpot [...]s zeal was stirred, as appears by his words; I am sure you blaspheme that godly man, and that godly Church where he is Minister. As it is your Churches condition, when you cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them with blasphe­mies and false reports; for in the matter of Predestination, he is in none other opinion than all the Doctors of the Church be, agreeing to the Scriptures. If this be not full and home, what is? The profound Disputant, and blessed Martyr, answer­ing for his life, avows Mr. Calvin's Doctrine of Predesti­nation, to be agreeable to the ancient Doctors, and Scri­ptures: And how could a Doctrine be more amply com­mended?

His Friend Mr. Bradford will say as much for the Do­ctrine it self, though not taking notice of Mr. Calvin as delivering it in his Institutions. There is a Letter of his concerning Election to two of his Friends, N. S. R. C. [Page 171] recorded Acts and Monuments 352. Who the persons were, notified by these four letters, N. S. R. C. I have no certain­ty; but suppose that N. S. was one Skelthrop, who held conditional Election, and Free-will, but by the pains Mr. Bradford and others took with him, was reclaimed. After this Epistle of Mr. Bradford's, Mr. Fox adds some Notes appertaining to the matter of Election; which Notes do not in the least contradict any one tittle in Mr. Bradford, but more largely explain what he touched but briefly. But Dr. Heylin saith,

Dr. H. page 42.

Fox his Notes corrupt the Text, and that Bradford's Notion of Predestination, is plainly cross to that of the Calvinistical Party. Let us see whether there be any such crossness or no. Bradford (saith he) believeth that Faith is the work and gift of God, given to none other than the Children of God: Who are they? Those whom God the Father, before the beginning of the World, hath Predestinated in Christ unto Eternal life.

Answ. Is this Election cross to that of the Calvinists? Do not they say, against the Arminians, that Faith flows from Election as a fruit of it, and that it is commensurate with Election; so as none believe, but those who are elected? It not this the very offensive Notion of Election, against which the Remonstrants make such outcries? ‘The Letter further adds; that though the Election be first in God, yet to us it is last opened.’ But the Doctors Electi­on is last in God, as well as last opened to us. Let the Mar­tyr proceed in his Letter: ‘By the light of the Spirit, a man may see this Faith not given to all men, but to such as are born of God, predestinate before the World was made, af­ter the purpose and good will of God: which will, we may not call into disputation, but in trembling and fear submit our selves to it, as to that which can will none otherwise, than that which is holy, right and good; how far so­ever otherwise it may seem to the judgement of reason, which must needs be beaten down to be more careful for God's glory than man's salvation, which dependeth only thereon, as all God's Children full well see.’ Lo here, he [Page 172] speaks of a Predestination in which there is an unsearchable depth, of an Election about which, if reason not assisted by revelation should pass judgement, there would seem to be in it something of injustice. Whereas the Arminian Electi­on, making God to predestinate men to life, upon the foresight that they would believe, and to pass by others, upon a foresight they would not believe, hath nothing of a depth in it, but is as easily accounted for, as any other act of God's providence whatsoever. I said before, that I conceived one of those, unto whom this Letter is di­rected, was by it rectified in his judgement touching Election, and the use of Free-will which he had made a condition of that Election: at least I am sure, one Skelthrop was made to see the light in this particular. Mr. Bradford takes notice of the change wrought in him, and praises God for it, in a Letter to Careless, page 336. ‘Not doubting but that he would be so heedy in his conver­sation, that his old Acquaintance may ever thereby think themselves astray.’ In the same Letter he salutes in Christ, True and his Followers, hoping that God had his time for them also. Now this True was a man differing from Careless in the point of Election, as doth most manifestly appear by the Examination of Careless, related by the Doctor, page 15, 16, Part 3. He thought as the Popish Clergie did, that we be elect in respect of our good works. But Mr. Bradford hoped he would come off from that opi­nion. But I think he did not, but still continued to sa­crifice to Free-will. And the Protestant cause was not credited by him; for he plaid such a prank, as any inge­nuous Heathen would have been ashamed of; his Keeper shewing him more favour than he deserved, he ran away from him, and brought him into great danger. ‘Thus you may see (sayes Careless) the fruits of our Free-will-men, that make so much boast of their own strength; but that house which is not builded surely upon the un­moveable rock, will not long stand against the boiste­rous winds and storms, that blow so strongly in these dayes of Trouble.’ This is the only Sufferer I know of, that held conditional Election; and surely his carriage was not so commendable, that we should envy him unto our Adversaries. But whereas the Doctor thinks, that [Page 173] the strong confidence which Careless had of his own salvation, and of the final perseverance of all those who are the chosen Members of Christ's Church, was a thought of his own, unto which the Doctrine of the Church gave no countenance: It will appear, that this was no singular opinion of his, but a kindly derivation from the Article of Religion, concerning Predestination unto Life: and it seems to be that which he had learned from holy Bradford, who in a Letter to Mistress M. H. under great heaviness and sorrow, teacheth her, ‘That we should use all God's benefits to confirm our faith of this, that God is our God and Father, and to assure us, that he loveth us as our Father in Christ, and that God requireth this faith, and fatherly perswasion of his fatherly goodness, as his chiefest service. Adding, that no suggestion of Satan, grounded upon our imper­fection, frailty, and many evils, should make us doubt of God's savour in Christ; and that obedience giveth us not to be God's children, but to be God's children gi­veth obedience. And finally, that as certain as God is Almighty, as certain as God is merciful, as certain as God is true, as certain as Jesus Christ was crucified, is risen, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, as certain as this is God's Commandment, I am the Lord thy God; so certain she ought to be, that God was her Father, pag. 327, 328.’ To another Gentlewoman, page 330, thus he writes, ‘If he had not chosen you (as most certainly he hath,) he would not have so called you; he would never have justified you; he would ne­ver have so exercised your faith with temptations as he hath done, and doth: if (I say,) he had not chosen you. If he have chosen you (as doubtless, Dear heart, he hath in Christ;) for in you I have seen his earnest, and before me and to me they could not deny it, I know both where and when; if, I say, he hath chosen you, then neither can you, nor ever shall perish.’ And in the same Letter, page 331, he sayes, ‘Your thankfulness and worthiness are fruits and effects of your Election, they are no causes. If once you had a hope in the Lord (as you doubtless had it,) though now you feel it not, yet shall you feel it again; for the anger of the Lord lasteth but a moment, his mercy endureth for [Page 174] ever.’ ‘In another Letter, page 349, the same blessed Mar­tyr sayes, that One man which is regenerate, well may be called alwayes just, and alwayes sinful: just in respect of God's seed, and his regeneration; sinful in respect of Satan's seed, and his first birth. Betwixt these two men there is continual conflict, and war most deadly: the flesh and old man, by reason of his birth that is perfect, doth often, for a time, prevail against the new man, being but a child in comparison; and that in such sort, as not only other, but even the Children of God themselves, think they be nothing else but old, and that the spirit and seed of God is lost and gone away: where yet notwithstanding, the truth is otherwise, the spirit and seed of God appearing again, and dispelling away the clouds which cover the Sun of God's seed from shi­ning, as the clouds in the air do the corporal Sun.’ Many things to like purpose follow in that Letter, by all which, and by several Treatises in the printed Works of Mr. Brad­ford, it sufficiently appears, that he favoured the Doctrine of absolute Predestination. And let any man judge, whether he thought the term of a man's life to be moveable or no, by some passages in his Examination, page 286. ‘As for my death (my Lord) there are twelve hours in the day (as I know,) so with the Lord my time is appointed, and when it shall be his good time, then shall I depart hence; but in the mean season I am safe enough, though all the People had sworn my death.’ Page 291, he desires them ‘to proceed on in God's name, he looked for that which God appointed them to do.’ Upon which the Chancellor lets fall these words; ‘This Fellow is in an­other Heresie of Fate and necessity, as though all things were so tied together, that of meer necessity all must come to pass.’ What replies Bradford? ‘Things are not by fortune to God at any time, though to man they seem so sometimes. I speak but as the Apostle said, Lord, See how Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Pre­lates, are gathered together against thy Christ, to do that which thy hand and counsel hath before ordained for them to do.’

Consider we next the judgement of Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, who, though Foreigners, had a great hand [Page 175] in the English Reformation. As to Peter Martyr, methinks there should be no question made of his judgment. In his Commentary on the Romans, and in his Common places, he hath gone as high in the matter of God's decree, as ever Calvin did. But the Doctor tells us, that

Dr. H. Part 2. page 110.

Its more than probable that Peter Martyr, was not Peter Martyr, whilst he lived in England.

Answ. If he would prove it but probable, he must prove that it hath seemed so to all, or to the most, or to the wisest, or to the most famous among those that are wise; which I despair of ever seeing him prove, so far am I from think­ing, that he will prove more than this. The London Edi­tion of his Common places is not now in many mens hands; yet it is to be found in England and elsewhere: and never did any one that was a possessor of it, so much as adventure to affirm, that in that Edition, any thing was delivered concerning Predestination, that was in the least contra­ry or seemingly contrary, to what we find in the Edi­tions more commonly used. This answer the Doctor him­self was somewhat diffident of, and therefore did not give it until he had before made way by disparaging Peter Martyr as one

Dr. H. pag. 109.

Of whom there was little use made in advising, and much less in directing any thing which concerned the Articles; and who having no authority in Church or State, could not be considered as a Master-builder.

Ans. Is the Doctor of the Chair of no authority in Church or State? I had thought that in matters Divine, both Ec­clesiastical and Political Persons had been wont to give much to his authority. Arch-Bishop Cranmer it is most certain made much use of him; keeping him at his own house, at his first coming over into England, that he might have the more frequent and free converse with him. And if Bi­shor Ridley was first converted to be a Protestant by read­ing of Bertram; yet it will not be denied, that he owed [Page 176] his confirmation to discourse with Peter Martyr. As for the Convocation 1552, he might be, for ought I know, a member of it: Doubtless he was one of the eight ap­pointed by the King to make reformation of the Laws Ecclesiastical, and yet was there no use made of him in directing?

Concerning Bucer, the Doctor would bear us in hand, that we have no reason to reckon him ours in the Points under debate, because

Dr. H. pag. 109.

He well approved our first Liturgie.

Ans. Of which reason it will be then time enough to con­sider, when it shall be shewed, that that Liturgy had any thing in it that favoured conditional Election, and super­able converting Grace, and total and final Apostasie. But,

Dr. H. page 110.

It is also affirmed, that he, among some other Protestants, assented in the point of falling from Grace to the opinion of the Church of Rome, in the Diet at Ratisbone.

Ans. 'Tis indeed so affirmed by Mr. Mountague (and, that I know of, by none else,) that Bucer did at the Diet of Ra­tisbon, consent with some other Protestants, to the possi­bility of the Saints falling from Grace: but Zanchy tells us quite another tale, that Bucer hath in the Relation of the Conference at Ratisbon, laid down that which makes strongly for the certain perseverance of the Saints. If Mr. Mountague had expected belief, he should have answered those alle­gations, and brought others that might evince the possibility of the true Saints apostasie. This may be sufficient to prove, that he was not against us: that he was for us, Zanchy's quotations out of him will scarce suffer any one to doubt; but we will see whether we can find out any other evidence. First, whilst he was a Papist, he had his conversation among the Dominicans, from whom it is likely he got nothing a­greeable to the Jesuits notion of respective Decrees, and frustrable grace. The Star that brought him out of Po­pery, was Luther's Book de servo Arbitrio; by which Star [Page 177] it is not like that he was lead to Pelagianism, or Semipe­lagianism, or any other Doctrine that so advanceth the liberty of man's will, as sacrilegiously to rob the grace of God of its due force and power in converting of a Sinner. What Doctrine he preached or delivered in the Schools, whilst in England, may be collected from the barbarous malice of his Romish Adversaries appointing his dead bones to be taken out of the grave and committed to the fire; for Dr. Watson in his Sermon in St. Mary's, chargeth Bucer to have defended ‘that perillous Doctrine concern­ing the fatal and absolute necessity of Predestination, and that he had set it out in such wise, as to leave no choice at all in such things: as who should say, It skil­led not what a man purposed of any matter, since he had not the power to determine otherwise than the matter should come to pass: the which was the peculiar opinion of them that made God the Author of Evil; bringing men through this perswasion into such a careless security of their everlasting eternity, that in the mean season it made no matter, either towards salvation, or towards damnation, what a man did in this life.’ And because it may be replied, that he speaks this to disgrace and disparage Protestants in general, let us therefore hear what Dr. Perne in his Sermon sayes concerning Bucer. In it we are told, ‘that he held opinion, that God was the Author and well-spring, not only of good, but also of evil; and that whatsoever was of that sort flowed from him, as from the head-spring and maker thereof: ad­ding, that Bucer upheld this Doctrine to be sincere; howbeit, for offending divers mens consciences, he durst not put it into mens heads.’ And in his sentence of con­demnation, this is laid to his charge, as a Doctrine de­fended by him, Omnia fato & absoluta necessitate fieri. Vid. Mr. Fox, page 770, 772. I know the good man's soul ab­horred the things in these particulars charged upon him; nor did Dr. Perne stick to acknowledge, that he wronged him against his own conscience: yet seeing these Popish Agents can scarce be supposed so mad and furious, as to charge things upon him without any colour, we may and must suppose that Bucer did, if not in his publick de­terminations yet in his private discourses, let the University [Page 178] know, that his judgment did not differ from Calvin's, in the matter of God's decrees and concurrence unto the sinful actions of men. But if so,

Dr. H. pag. 109.

Why then does Calvin himself blame Bucer, for being Author and approver of such moderate courses, as the fiery temper of the Calvinists could by no means like?

Answ. I answer, that Bucer, by his very best Friends, had been charged at Zurick, Anno 1533, for speaking too doubtfully in the Doctrine of the Sacrament, through a desire to appease Luther: He, then, and there, made such an Apology for himself as was accepted. If at his coming over into England, he fell into the same fault, Mr. Calvin did but the part of a Christian, to admonish him. ‘But certainly Calvin had high and honourable thoughts of him while he lived, and after his death tells Viret, that he found his heart torn in pieces as oft as he remembred, how manifold a loss the Church of God sustained by his departure.’ And so we leave Bucer and Martyr, with the Elogium deservedly bestowed upon them by Dr. Iackson, The two judicious Commentators, &c.

It is also worth while to enquire after the many worthy Divines, who to save their lives, and yet keep that faith and conscience which they had professed in the dayes of King Edward, did fly beyond Sea. We find some differ­ences among them, relating to Discipline and Ceremonies; an account whereof is given us in the troubles of Frank­ford. Had they not all been of one mind in matters of Doctrine relating to the Decrees, Grace, and Perseverance, their difference had not been concealed. It had been easie for the party that sided with Calvin in these points, to have crushed the Anticalvinistical party, if any such there had been; but there is not the least ground to think there was any such. Those English Divines who sojourned at Geneva made a Translation of the Bible, and marginal Annotations upon it sufficiently Calvinistical. This was published Anno 1560, and the Authors of it were so little conscious to themselves of having delivered any Doctrine con [...]rary to that which was received and allowed in King [Page 179] Edward's time, that they adventured to dedicate their Work to the incomparable Princess Queen Elizabeth, no favourer of Foreign Doctrine. She accepted the Dedication, suffered the Book and the Annotations to pass among her People, without any censure here. So much entertainment and ap­plause did it meet with, that some who have been curious to search into the number of its Editions, say, that by the Queens own Printers, it was printed above thirty times. I am not ignorant that King Iames highly censured this Trans­slation and the marginal Annotations, in the Hampton Con­ference: the Translation he calls the worst that ever he saw; some of the Notes he calls very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous con­ceits: instancing in the Note on Exod. 1.19, and 2 Chron. 15.16. (which censure a Jesuit takes as if spoken of the Translation used at Geneva it self.) But the Annotations on both these places are satisfied for by Bishop Morton, page 104, of a Book written by him, to shew the Romanists Doctrine of Rebel­lion and Aequivocation. As for Arianism charged on these Annotations by Dr H. they are acquitted by the learned Letter of Sir Thomas Bodley.

I have all this while said nothing of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer, out of whose Writings the Doctor hath transcribed so much. And truly the things transcribed out of them are so impertinent▪ that it would be no ha­zard to my Reader if I should wholly pass them over in si­lence. Yet I will not; but first shall say something of the men, secondly of their writings. Latimer was once a very hot Papist, as himself acknowledgeth against himself. Being converted from Popery, he was as zealous for the Reformed Religion; boldly reproving the sins of all, whether Rulers or Ruled. In his Sermons he used a style, which perhaps was then accounted elegant; but would now be judged ridiculous, at least unbeseeming the Pulpit. Hooper I look upon as one that feared the Lord from his youth; for he chose from his youth to leave Oxford, that he might not ensnare his conscience. Beyond the Seas he fell into acquiantance with the learned Henry Bullinger; and returned not into England till the Reign of King Edward: when he gained more love from the Laicks, than Clergy, being a stiff Non-conformist. Hand in [Page 180] drawing up the Articles of Religion he had none, one of them being diametrically opposite to his declared judg­ment; yet because he was very great, both for piety and learning, as his writings evidently shew, therefore his judgment is not to be sleighted. And if Dr. Heylin have proved, or any one else can prove, that he and Latimer held the opinions afterwards called Arminian; I will grant that those opinions were not by the Protestant Church in King Edward's time adjudged intolerable. Whether they held them or no? must be considered. First, I yield that they both asserted Universal Redemption. This being granted, the Doctor dare say, that

Dr. H. Part 2. page 50.

He, (Mr. Hickman he means,) will not be confident in af­firming, there can be any room for such an absolute Decree of Re­probation, antecedaneous and precedent to the death of Christ, as his great Masters in the School of Calvin have been pleased to teach him.

Ans. Mr. Hickman's mind is best known to himself, so are his great Masters in the School of Calvin, if he ever had any such; but this I am confident of, that Calvin's Decree of Reprobation may be maintained, and yet Universal Re­demption not denied. Monsieur Amyrald, as great a Scholar as this last age hath afforded, hath in a whole Book de­fended Calvin's absolute Decree against Mr. Hoard; yet the same Amyrald most strenuously defends Universal Re­demption. Two Dissertations also of Bishop Davenant are published by careful and faithful hands: in the first, he sets himself to assert Universal Redemption by Christ; in the second, to assert Personal, both Election and Repro­bation.

Let us see now what the Doctor can find in Latimer and Hooper.

Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 37.

Latimer in his Sermon on Septuages. rebukes those vain Fellows who abuse Election and Reprobation to carnal Liberty, or Presumption.

[Page 181] Answ. Why so doth Calvin, so doth Ursin, so do our Divines at the Synod of Dort.

Dr. H. page 38.

Hooper in his Preface to the ten Commandments, saith, ‘We must not extenuate Original Sin, nor make God the Au­thor of Evil; nor yet say, that God hath written fatal Laws, with the Stoicks, and in the necessity of destiny violently pul­leth one by the hair into Heaven, and thrusteth the other head­long into Hell.’

Answ. All this is just according to Calvin's method. No Calvinists say, that God's Decree offereth violence to Man's Will, or pulleth a man into Heaven. Only they say, that Electing love makes men willing, and that Holi­ness is an effect of Election. As for Sin, that, they say, is not an effect of Reprobation, but only a Consequent. I, but

Dr. H. page 39.

Bishop Latimer teacheth us, that we are to enquire no fur­ther after our Election, than as it is to be found in our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ.

Answ. Why so teach the Calvinists too, that our Ele­ction is not to be known, but by our knowledge of our interest in Christ. But the Anticalvinist will not say with Latimer, If thou findest thy self in Christ, then art thou sure of eternal life: He saith, A man may be in Christ, and be a Reprobate; a man may be in Christ to day, and in Hell to morrow.

Perhaps the Doctor will find more against Calvinistical Reprobation; or if he do not, he must be concluded to have beaten the Air. First we must hear what he makes Calvinistical Reprobation to be. 'Tis that, he saith,

Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 47.

By which the far greater part of mankind are pre-ordained, and consequently pre-condemned to the the pit of torments, without any [Page 182] respect had unto their sins and incredulities. This is generally, he saith, maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin.

Ans. If it be so, then I am sure I never was in any School of Calvin; for I never heard or read of any such Reproba­tion: nay, I never read of any person whatsoever, that asserted such a Reprobation. Sundry famous Schoolmen, quoted by Dr. Rivet in his fifth Disputation de Reprobatione, were of opinion, that if God had decreed even innocent creatures to eternal damnation, he had decreed nothing unworthy of himself ▪ and they seem to have but too much countenance for this bold and audacious Tenent from a passage of St. Austin's, in his 16. cap. de Praedestinatione & Gratia: But the Calvi­nists (as many as I have met with) say, that as God ne­ver actually damned any man but for sin, so he never de­creed to damn any but for sin. All that they say is but this, that Whereas Iudas and Peter were both alike cor­rupted by the fall, and both alike apt by nature to abuse and reject grace, the reason why God determined effe­ctually to cure the corruption of Peter and not of Iudas, was the meer good pleasure of his will. The Calvinists are not engaged to say, that God reprobates any man who was not worthy to be reprobated. All that their opinion obligeth them to, is but this, Not to make sin the cause of preterition or non-election, comparatively considered▪ And against such preterition there is nothing in the Prayers of our Church, nothing in Latimer, nothing in Hooper, no­thing in Cranmer, nothing in the whole Tenth Chapter of the Doctor's second Part. And it is a wonder, that so an­cient a Divine should trouble himself in so many pages to do execution upon a m [...]er Chimaera: and yet this em­ployment was so pleasing and acceptable to him, that he falls to it again in his [...]leventh Chapter; In which, page 64, he makes the main Controversie in the Point of man's Conversion to move upon this hinge, Whether the influ­ences of God's grace be so strong and powerful, that withall they are absolutely irresistible, so that it is not possible for the will of man not to consent unto the same? But they that have either read the determinations of the Synod of Dort, or Calvin's own Institutions, know, that the Controversie moves upon no such hinge: but this is the Question, Whether when converting Grace hath produced the whole effect [Page 183] God designed it unto, man still remains unconverted, and in­different either to turn himself or not turn himself unto God? If converting Grace do leave a man thus indifferent, they say, that Conversion is rather to be ascribed to man than God; and that Paul made himself to differ from other Persecutors, and not God. But they never say, that God forceth or offereth violence unto the natural faculty of the will, or destroyeth any liberty that is essential to it. If any violence be offered, it is only unto corrupt lusts, and sinful inclinations; in which, I hope, I may have fair liberty to say, that the freedom of mans will doth not con­sist. Let but any one fairly and impartially state this Question, by drawing Propositions concerning it out of the Writings before mentioned, and he will find nothing in Hooper or Latimer contradictory. The tenth Article of King Edward's he will find perfectly to express the mind of the Calvinists. And so I might dismiss this matter, had not the Doctor thought meet page 67, as also in another Writing, to smite at us with a Dilemma, or something like a Dilemma, grounded upon the omitting of this Article in Queen Elizabeth's time. Either this Article did favour Calvinism, or it did not: If it did not, why do the Calvinists alledge it? If it did, why is it in our latter Editions of the Articles left out? We have learnt from Logick, that such Dilemma's are not to be used, which may be inverted or retorted upon those that make them; and such is the present Dilemma, apparently, notoriously such. For thus I argue, Either this Article is Anti-calvinistical, or it is not: If it be not, why doth the Doctor produce it as such? If it be, why did our Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's time (who were, as he would fain perswade us, Anticalvinistical) leave it out? He must either answer for himself, or not expect that we should answer for our selves: which yet we could easily do, did any Law of Disputation require it of us; for this might be the reason of the omission, because there was nothing in King Edward's tenth Article, but what doth naturally and lineally descend from our present seven­teenth Article.

I will follow the Doctor whither he leads me, when I have first admonisht my Reader, not [...]o prejudice himself by what so frequently occurs among our Protestant Writers, that [Page 184] Works done before the grace of Christ do not make men meet to receive grace. For it will be found agreeable unto Scripture, that Works done before Conversion, may leave in the Soul a material disposition, or a passive prepared­ness to receive grace: no preparation can be wrought by them that deserves grace, none from which grace necessa­rily flows; but yet such may be wrought, as from which a man may be denominated more meet, and more likely, to receive the undeserved love of God, than if he wanted it. Just as we say in Natural Philosophy, that though the rational soul do not emerge out of the organization of the matter, but is immediately inspired by God; yet an or­ganical matter, is a more prepared subject to receive such a soul, than a matter not organized.

I promised, after I had laid down this caution, to fol­low the Doctor, and so I will, to his Twelfth Chapter. But in it I shall not need to stay long with him; for it is whol­ly spent in laying down the Doctrine of Free-will, as it was agreed upon in the Popish Convocation, Anno 1543. Wherefore though there be nothing in the Article of Free-will there delivered, but what a Calvinist (allowing him but a favourable interpretation) may subscribe to; yet the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England, must not be measured by the decisions of that Popish Convocation.

In the Thirteenth Chapter, entituled, Concerning the cer­tainty or uncertainty of Perseverance, (passing over the Council of Trent, which will be of no use to us to find out the Doctrine of the Church of England) Pag. 81, the Cal­vinists are charged to presume, not only to know all things that belong to their present justification, as assuredly as they know that Christ is in Heaven; but also to be as sure of their eternal election, and of their future glorification, as they are of this Article of their Creed, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. If any Calvinist [...]ver said so, he erred greatly, not knowing the Scriptures, or the deceitfulness of his own heart. But if never any Calvinist said so, what shall then be done to him that so presumptuously bears false witness against them? Certainly the Calvinists do not hold, that the Do­ctrine of Perseverance is so fundamental, or so clearly de­livered in Scripture, as the Doctrine of Christ's Nativity; so far are they from holding that they themselves, or any of [Page 185] them, do as certainly know the goodness of their present state, or their eternal election, as they firmly believe the Article of their Saviour's being born of the Virgin Mary. They are all wont to distinguish of a certitude of the object, and a certitude of the subject; they say, 'tis certain from the Word, that he who is a sound Believer, shall continue to be a Believer, until he attain the end of his Faith: But they say, a man may be a Believer, and yet not be cer­tain that he does believe; and if once he had a certain perswasion of his faith, he may lose that perswasion: and many of them (I am sure) say, that he must lose it as oft as he falls into any conscience-wasting sin. This is the Doctrine that agrees with our Articles, and with the judg­ment of our first Reformers. If any man deliver the Do­ctrine of Perseverance at a higher rate, the Calvinists are not concerned to defend him.

The sixteenth Article of our Church is brought by the Dr. against Perseverance: The words of it are these, Not every deadly sin committed after Baptism, is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable; wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as do fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin; and by the grace of God we may rise again, and amend our lives: and therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here; or deny place of forgiveness to such as truly repent. From which Article they may, in the judgment of our Church, be concluded to be in an error, who hold that every sin committed after Baptism, is the sin against the Holy Ghost: but so do not the Calvinists hold. They also are by this Article condemned, who say, they can no more sin as long as they live here: but what Calvinists say so? They finally are condemned, who deny place of forgive­ness to such as truly repent: in which number the Calvi­nists cannot be placed, but some of the Remonstrants may; and it were to be wished, that some of our Arminianizing English Writers might not also be placed among them. The Article having made a [therefore] its strange that any one should draw any other conclusion from it, than what it self hath drawn: as strange that any one should write, that our Church intended by this Article to determine, [Page 186] that the faith by which the just man lives, may be totally lost. Let an Argument be made, The Church says, after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from the grace given, and fall into sin; therefore it saith, we may fall into such a sin as quite extinguisheth grace; or therefore it saith, that grace may be quite and for ever lost, Any one that un­derstands himself, will deny both these Consequents; and deny them he may without danger or fear. But let us view the Doctor's thoughts about this Article. Pag. 84, he bolts out a Maxime in the Civil Law, Non esse distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit; that no distinction must be made in the explicating and expounding any Law, which is not to be found in the Law it self. I acknowledge, that such a saying is commonly quoted from the Civilians; and as they understand it, it is very rational: But how do the Calvinists willingly oppose themselves against this ma­xime? Their Tenent is, Regeniti nunquam totaliter exci­dunt a gratia; and some of them perhaps say, Regeniti non possunt excidere a gratia totaliter. If any man will disprove them from the Article, he must out of the Ar­ticle draw some conclusion that contradicts their Tenent: which if any one go about to do, he will find himself at a loss, and will be never able to put them to the cost of a distinction. Foreseeing that this maxime might not serve his turn, he tells us that, for the clear understand­ing of the Churches meaning, we must have recourse in this, as in other Articles, to the plain words of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer. But why must we have recourse to these mens Writings, above and beyond all other mens of that age, Bishop Latimer never resuming his Bishop­rick, cannot be thought to be in any capacity to sit so much as a Member of the Convocation 1552. Bishop Hooper indeed had a right to a place in the Upper House, and 'tis like took his place; but his Exposition on the Commandments, was printed four years before that Convocation sa [...]e. My Edition, which I use, was printed 1548, when he was a popular Preacher, and, I think, an unlicenced Preacher: Bishop he was not till 1550▪ But if this Book had been made after the conclusion of the Convocation, it could be no Rule to interpret the Articles, which were drawn up, at least in one point, [Page 187] quite contrary to his declared judgment. If every thing in that Book pass for the Doctrine of the Church, down fall all our Gentlemens Pigeon-houses, down falls, &c. But what need all this? Bishop Hooper hath not any thing in his Pre­face to his Exposition on the ten Commandments for total A­postasie, or against Perseverance. He only saith, the cause of some mens damnation is this, that after they have received the promise of the Gospel, by accustomed doing of ill, they fall unto a contempt of the Gospel. Many a man receives the promise of the Gospel, who doth not receive it into a good honest heart, and therefore was never sanctified or justified. Was not then the Doctor hard put to it, when he could find no pas­sage in Hooper to oppose to the Doctrine of Perseverance, but only this? If Hooper speak no more plainly in his Para­phrase on the thirteenth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ro­mans, than in his Preface to his Exposition of the Command­ments, he speaks just nothing at all to the Doctor's purpose. As neither doth Mr. Tindal in his Prologue to his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans; whose words are brought in for sundry lines, pag. 85, but tend only to prove, that if a man break the Law, he must sue for a new pardon, and have a new light against sin, hell, and desperation, ere he can come to a quiet faith again, and feel that sin is forgiven; and that the promise of mercy and forgiveness is made on this condition, that we sin no more. Some Followers of Islebius Agricola, may perad­venture enter their dissent from Mr. Tindal in this matter; so may also the English Antinomians: but so need not any one who embraceth the Determinations of the Synod of Dort; for in those Determinations, if they were searched with a candle, it will never be found, that men are not bound to renew their repentance, as they renew their sin; or that they can have a quiet conscience, or sense of par­don, till they have converted themselves out of every snare of the Devil.

It had been, it seems, objected by Mr. Hickman, that Mr. Mountague himself, both in his Gagg and his Appeal, had confessed▪ that the Church had left it undecided, Whe­ther a Saint may fall totally and finally? What hath the Doctor against this?

Dr. H. Part 2. Pag. 45.

That he doth so in the Gag, I easily grant; where he relateth only to the words of the Article, which speaks only of a possi­bility of falling, without relation to the measure or continuance of it; (Here, by the way, it is fairly confessed, that the Ar­ticle speaks not of the possibility of falling totally, or fi­nally; therefore, not against the Calvinists.) But he must needs be carried with a very strange confidence, which can report so of him in his Appeal, in which he both expresly saith, and pro­veth the contrary.

Answ. Doth he indeed say so? Where may such a man as I am find him saying so? Page, not 28, but 26, he saith, That there is not from the Church any tie put on him, to resolve in this much disputed Question, as these Novellers would have it; for it there be any, it is for a possibility of total falling, as we shall hear anon. Is this to say expresly, that the Church hath so determined? then farewel the study of Logick. I am sure however, that if he said it, he hath not proved it. Pag. 29, he quotes the words of the Article, After that we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart away from grace, and fall into sin; and by the grace of God we may rise again, and amend our lives. After quoting of them, as if his heart had misgiven him, he addeth, Haply you will quarrel at the sense of the Articles: but then you must remember, that the plain words sound to the meaning for which I have produced them; and that until the Church it self expound otherwise, it is as free for me to take it according to the letter, as for you to de­vise a figure. Which done, he goes on most untruly to tell the World, that this Article was challenged for unsound by the Ministers at the Hampton-Court Conference. Of which untruth, and sundry others relating to Dr. Overal, and the Bishop of London, he hath been told by so many, that it is a wonder any man should not be ashamed to plough with his Heifer. The Arguments out of the Liturgy, whether in the form of Baptism, or in the publick Catechism, or Ru­brick before Confirmation, are quite besides the Contro­versie; which is by many Calvinists restrained to the grace bestowed on Adult persons, and by none understood of that Sacramental grace given to the Seed of Believers in [Page 189] Baptism. His Reasons from the Homilies, if they were of any force when managed by another, do lose their whole strength when they come from him; who hath told us, ‘That he willingly admits the Homilies, as containing cer­tain godly and wholsome Exhortations, but not as the publick dogmatical Resolutions confirmed by the Church of England: They may seem to speak somewhat too hard­ly, and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England. But let it suffice, that he hath trampled upon our Homilies with a foot of pride. I dare not so do, honouring the memory, and reverencing the judgment of those who made them; and much more the Authority that hath enjoyed them to be read in Churches. Let Mr. Mountague and Dr. Heylin argue from the Homilies, as if they had never traduced them. Mr. Mountague argues from the title of one of the Homilies, which is, Falling away from God: as if the very title were a sufficient warrant for his opinion. Whereas no one of our Homilies is entituled, Of fal­ling away from God, but only Of falling from God. Ridiculous it would be adds D. Heylin p. 88. to write a Sermon de non ente; to terrifie the people with the danger of that misfortune, which they were well assured they should never suffer. By which addition he makes himself more than ridiculous; for people are not by the Calvinists well assured, that they shall never suffer the misfortune of falling from God: but are told, that they fall from God, as oft as they turn away from God's Law; and that by every such turning away from God's Law, if wilful, they lose some degree of grace, and expose them­selves to the wrath of God, and lose all sense of his favour: and this is sufficient to terrifie any man that is in his right wits and senses. Nor doth the Homily it self more favour them, than the title of it; Out of which neither collects more than a conditional, If they be unthankful, If they do not order their lives, &c. Now the very Rule of the Logicians is, Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse. Will Doctor Heylin quarrel against this Rule? Yes; for Mr. Yates having brought such a kind of Answer, he saith of it, that it is a sorrier shift than any before; for if such conditional Propositions conclude nothing positively, what will become of all those Propositions in the Scri­ptures, by which we are assured, If we repent, we shall find mercy of the Lord? Do they conclude nothing positively neither? [Page 190] Most miserable were the state of man, if these conditional Proposi­tions should conclude nothing to the comfort of a troubled con­science, pag. 96. O dreadful ignorance! Can a conditional Proposition conclude nothing positively and determinate­ly, unless it conclude, that its antecedent shall actually come to pass, or may come to pass? When Paul saith, If an An­gel from Heaven preach another Gospel, let him be accursed; this conditional will conclude, that whoever preacheth another Gospel, is accursed: it will not conclude, that ever any Angel can, or shall preach another Gospel. What pity it is, that men should adventure to write Books, after they have forgot the common Elements of Logick? and what shame is it, that men should dare to bring in passages out of our Homilies, and omit a material Pa­renthesis that occurs in all Copies of them? as any one may see, that both Mr. Mountague and Dr. Heylin have done. I only desire, seeing the Homilies are commonly to be had, that my Readers would be pleased to compare them with the quotations of Dr. Heylin, p. 89, and remember that the thing he is to prove out of the Homilies, is, that re­al Saints may fall totally and finally from sanctifying grace re­ceived, and then let him be deceived if he can: provided that he will also consider, what passages Mr. Yates and Mr. Prin have collected out of the Homilies, to confirm Per­severance.

One more Authority Dr. Heylin produceth, and it filleth up, pag. 90, 91. It is the Authority of Lanceiot Ridley Arch­deacon of Canterbury, out of whose Comment on the Colos­sians, he collects something relating to all, or most of the controverted Points; but the Collections, if all truly made, have not in them so much as a seeming contrariety to any of Mr. Calvin's Tenents. But in this very Arch-dea­con's Comment on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Mr. Prin finds personal Election; and if Election, then Perseverance also. The Doctors not medling with that Commentary, his not mentioning Bartholomew Traheron Dean of Chichester and Library Keeper to King Edward, nor Thomas Bea­con, nor Anthony Gilby, nor Stephen Garret, all famous in King Edward's Reign, and whose Books might easily have been procured by one that lived so near Oxford as Lacy Court, is an undeniable evidence, that he himself [Page 191] did not think, King Edward's Divinity and his own to be the same.

In all the third Part, our Historian is put to horrible shifts, and plays a very low game indeed. And no won­der; for he finds the opinions he contends against, deliver­ed out of the Chairs in the University, countenanced by all Authority, Civil and Ecclesiastical: his own opinions he finds censured, recanted, never printed, but in hugger mugger, and by stealth; and yet I do not find him much changing countenance, but rather, with confidence enough, asserting himself a Son of the Church, and his Doctrine a Doctrine of the Church. His first attempt is to disgrace the Calvinists, by calling them Gospellers; For thus he phrasifieth,

Dr. H. Part 3. Pag. 2.

There were some men, who in the beginning of King Ed­ward's Reign, busily stickled in the maintenance of Cal­vin's Doctrines; and thinking themselves to be more E­vangelical than the rest of their Brethren, they either took unto themselves, or had given by others, the name of Go­spellers. Of this they were informed by the Reverend Pre­late and right godly Martyr Bishop Hooper, in the Pre­face to his Exposition of the ten Commandments. ‘Our Gospellers (saith he) he better learned than the Ho­ly Ghost; for they wickedly attribute the cause of punish­ments and adversities to God's providence; which is the cause of no ill, as he himself can do no evil: and over every mischief that is done, they say, it is God's will.’ In which we have the men and their Doctrine; how the name of Gospellers, and the reason why that name was ascribed to them. It is observed by the judicious Author of Europae Spe­culum, that Calvin was the first of these latter times, who searched into the Counsels (the eternal Counsels) of God Al­mighty: And, as it seems, he found there some other Gospel than that which had been written by the four Evangelists, from whence his Followers had the name of Gospellers; for by that name I find them called frequently by Campneys also, in an Epistolary discourse, &c. And finding it given them also by Bishop Hooper, (a temperate modest man) [Page 192] I must needs look on it as the name of the Sect, by which they were distinguished from other men.

Answ. All this I have at large transcribed, because I have sundry observations to make thereupon. First, I ob­serve, that in all probability the Doctor never read Hooper, but trusted to other mens eyes; for he quoteth that as from the Preface of Mr. Hooper, which is not to be found in the Preface, but rather in his Postscript, or Appendix to his Declaration of the ten holy Commandments, or his Answer to certain Objections, that keep men from the obedience of God's Law, the fourth of which is Curiosity: Nor is this the first time that he hath suffered himself and his Reader to be abused. Secondly, I observe, that he attributes [...]hese words to the Reverend Prelate, and right godly Martyr, Bishop Hooper; whereas Hooper, when he did write these words, was no Prelate, but only a licenced, if licenced, Pre­dicant. But I am glad however to find Dr. Heylin speak of honourably of the Ring-leader of the Non-conformists. It seems, when he is pleased, he can allow one that scrupled the Habit, and expresly condemned the Civil Offices of Bishops, to be reverend, and right godly, and temperate, and modest. Thirdly, I observe, that he chargeth Mr. Cal­vin, from the Author of Europae Speculum, to be the first in these latter times that searched into the Counsels, the eter­nal Counsels, of Almighty God. That the Author of Eu­ropae Speculum hath any such observation, I am not sure: If he have, it no way contributed to procure him that esteem with which the World reads his Book; for, as all eternal Counsels are the Counsels of Almighty God, so all the Counsels of God Almighty are eternal: And to say, that Calvin was the first, who in this latter age searched into the Counsels of Almighty God, is in effect to say, that none of this latter age before Calvin, regarded God's glory or mans salvation. I suppose instead of eternal Counsels, the Doctor intended to say, hidden, unrevealed Counsels. But the assertion of absolute Election and Reprobation, is no searching into the secrets of God Almighty: or if it be, Mr. Calvin cannot, by any one that hath the least skill in History, be thought to be the first that searched into God's secret Counsels; seeing both Luther and Zuinglius had done it before him. Fourthly, I observe, the unrighteous [Page 193] censure or calumny of the Doctor, that Calvin, by searching into God's Decrees, had found out another Gospel than that which had been written by the four Evangelists, from whence his Followers in these Points had the name of Gospellers. Neither Calvin, nor Calvinists, ever found out any other Gospel than this, He that believeth, shall be sa­ved; he that believeth not, shall be damned. Nor was the name of Gospellers given to Mr. Calvin's Followers, on the account of their bringing in a new Gospel, or on any other account: but it was the general name by which all that joyned in opposing Popery called themselves. Let any one but consult the word, Gospellers, in the Index of Mr. Fox's Mar­tyrology, and compare the places there referred unto, he shall find Papists and Gospellers still opposed; & Gospellers used, not as a name of ignoming but as a name of honour. Let him also read Bishop Ridley's Letter to his Chaplain, he shall find the same word used, and contradistinguished to Papists. Like­wise in Latine no more usual distinction than Pontificii and Evangelici: So that the Historian, in making the Calvinists the only Gospellers, makes them indeed the only Protestants. Finally, I observe, that the words quoted from Bishop Hooper are inexcusable, if they be not qualified with some distinction. The Scripture doth not oftner ascribe unto God the Creation of the World, than it doth ascribe unto his Providence all the Punishments and Adversities that befal either good or bad men: yet it must be grant­ed, that God does not willingly afflict the sons of men; and therefore never punishes them, but when he finds something in them which deserves the punishment; so that they may thank themselves for all the evil they suffer from God.

The Doctor's next design is to vindicate one Campneys, a Fel­low that was made to bear a Faggot at Paul's Cross in King Edward's time, the learned and pious Miles Coverdale preaching a Sermon when that punishment was inflicted on him. This man, it seems, having either complied in Queen Mary's time, or saved himself alive by flight, when Q Eli­zabeth had restored the true Religion began to play his old pranks, i. e. to cause disturbance, by nibbling at such who were deservedly honoured and preferred in the Church; publishing a Pamphlet, but unto which he had not courage [Page 194] enough to affix his name, against Predestination. This Pamphlet was encountred by Mr. Iohn Veron, a Chaplain to the Queen, and Reader of the Divinity Lecture in S. Paul's Church, as also by Mr. Robert Crowley, sometime Fellow of Magdalen Colledge in Oxon, at that time a famous Preacher in the City of London; Both these put out Answers unto Campneys, and their Answers were both licenced and ap­proved, and Veron's Dedicated to the Queen her self; whereas Campney's virulent Pamphlet came forth sur­reptitiously, neither Author nor Printer daring to put their names to it. All this notwithstanding, the Doctor would have us believe, that Campneys defended the Doctrine of the Church, Veron and Crowley opposed it; as if the Church had so soon lost all her zeal for her Religion, and would give no countenance at all to those that contended for it, yet would vouchsafe to authorize the writings of those that vigorously fought against it. We need not say, that Campneys deserved all the ill names that Veron and Crowley bestowed on him, perhaps their zeal might be in some particulars too bitter; yet we cannot think that men of so great repute and learning would charge Pelagianism and Popery, upon one that had honestly declared himself against both Popery and Pelagianism. — The Doctor tells us that Campneys hath sufficiently purged himself of both these crimes; And indeed, by reading his Book, I find that he hath declared himself against Merit; but so hath many a professed Papist done. He doth also muster up the errors of Pelagius, publickly recanted by him in the Synod of Pa­lestine, declaring them (or at least one of them) to be vile and abominable: This notwithstanding, it is possible he might be a very Pelagian. Austin himself doth not speak more sharply against Pelagius than do the Ring-leaders of the Semipelagians, and yet they erre as bad an errour as the Pelagians do. But of all these matters let indifferent Readers judge, by comparing Campneys Book with the An­swers made to it.

More I need not say about the sixteenth Chapter, had it not pleased the Historian to defame Calvin, Beza and Knox. Calvin and B [...]za he charges with unworthy practices used against Sebastian Castalio a man, he says, of no less learn­ing, but of far more modesty and moderation than either of [Page 195] them; yet they never left persecuting and reviling him, till they had first cast him out of Geneva, and afterwards brought him to his grave, meerly because he differed from them about Predesti­nation. Calvin and Beza's learning, modesty, and modera­tion, are sufficiently vindicated by others. Castalio discover­ed little either of modesty or moderation, in his bitter censures of the Book of Canticles, or in the help and assist­ance he afforded unto the cursed Socinians. Beza and Calvin are not the only persons that have condemned him; nor did they condemn him meerly, or principally, for differ­ing from them in the point of Predestination, as the Do­ctor might have known, if he had rather consulted the impartial Historians of that time, than Castalio's own writings.

For Mr. Knox, styled pag. 5, The great Incendiary of the Na­tion and Kirk of Scotland, I will not undertake an Apology. His own Country-men, who were better acquainted with his principles and practices, may better do it. Yet because I find him to have taken great pains in promoting our Re­formation here in England, I shall adventure to mind the Doctor, that Spotswood, purposely employed by our King to write the History of the Kirk of Scotland, and having also by the King liberty given him to write tru [...]h impartially, doth make very honourable mention of Mr. Knox. And our own Bishop Ridley joyns him with Latimer, Leaver, Bradford, and commends them all for their sharp reproof of all sins and sinners in King Edward's days.

Dr. H. Part 3. pag. 18.

No sooner had that gracious Lady, Queen Elizabeth, attain­ed the Crown, than she took order for the reviewing of the pub­lick Liturgy, appoi [...]ting for the review Dr. Parker, Dr [...] G [...]inda [...], Dr. Pilkington, Dr. Cox, Dr. May, Dr. Bill, Mr. Whitehead, Sir Thomas Smith.

Answ. 'Tis true, such a revision was appointed, and performed by the men here mentioned. I intend not a cha­racter of them; they have their characters already given them by abler Pens but so principled they were, that if any thing had been left in the Liturgy favouring conditional E [...]lection, or the Apostasie of Saints, it had not failed to be blotted out.

[Page 196] ‘The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth are mentioned by the Doctor pag. 19, in which he observes, that Eras­mus his Paraphrases were appointed to be provided for every Church, Injunct. 6. and Injunct. 16, that every Parson, Vicar, Curate, Stipendiary Priest, (he omits, under the degree of a Master of Arts,) should provide and have of his own, the New Testament in Latine and English, with the Paraphrases, (the Injunction saith only, with Paraphrases.)’ The conclusion he hence infers, hath been before considered. ‘I must take notice, that the 51. In­junction straitly chargeth and commandeth, that no man­ner of person shall Print any manner of Book or Paper, of what sort, nature, or in what Language soever it be, except the same be first licenced by her Majesty by ex­press words in writing, or by six of her Privy Conncel, or be perused and licenced by the Archbishops of Canter­bury and York, the Bishop of London, the Chancellors of both Universities, the Bishop being Ordinary, and the Archdeacon also of the place where any such shall be Printed or by two of them, whereof the Ordinary of the place shall always be one; and that the names of such as shall allow the same, be added to the end of every such work, for a testimony of the allowance thereof.’ From this Injunction I infer, that Campneys had no respect at all unto the Queens Order, or else he would not have pub­lished his Papers without Authority. I also infer secondly, that neither Queen, nor Councel, nor Archbishops, nor Bi­shops, were of Campneys mind, because else he would have prevailed with some of them to authorize his Book, that it might have been more passable. And now, if the Doctor have got any thing by these Injunctions, much good may it do him.

Dr. H. Pag. 20.

Here he gives us a very merry conceit, that the Zuingl [...]ans being increased exceedingly both in power and numbers, and no­tice being taken thereof by those that were of most Authority in the government of the Church, it was thought necessary that the Articles of Religion published 1552, should be reviewed, accommo­dated to the use of the Church, and made to be the standing Rule [Page 197] by which all persons were to regulate and confirm their Do­ctrines.

Answ. He would have extreamly obliged us, had he but vouchsafed to name any one person intrusted in the go­vernment of the Church at that time, who was in the least offended with the Zuinglian Doctrine. We have Records, from which it may appear who were Anno 1562, Archbi­shops and Bishops: amongst them all it will be hard to find any one that was not a cordial Friend unto the Doctrine of Zuinglius and Calvin; some of them are blamed for a­greeing too well with them in matter of Discipline and Ce­remony also: the names of almost all may be found in Mr. Fuller, Book 9. p. 69. But the Historian would have done no less than wonders, if he had informed us, how the passing of the Articles in Queen Elizabeth's first Convocation, could be a probable means to suppress the growth of the Zuinglian Doctrine. Certain I am, that if they were designed for any such use, they had no prosperous success; but were in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and King Iames made use of to suppress the Antizuinglian Doctrine. Indeed the seventeenth Article plainly lays down such a Predestination, as the Anti­calvinistical ear cannot hear: and the Homilies, so much com­mended in the Articles, have a little too much Calvinism in them; for they place Faith in such a kind of assurance, as Mr. Calvin indeed thought essential to Faith, but is found by experience to be separable from it. I would transcribe the passages in the Homilies that relate unto the five Points; but Mr. Prin hath already done it, and done it so through­ly, that nothing considerable seems to have escaped his di­ligence. I beg of my Reader, that he would vouchsafe to put together Dr. Heylin's and Mr. Prin's Allegations out of the Homilies, and then pass judgment.

There was a probable Argument drawn from the Prolo­cutor of this Convocation, Mr. Alexander Nowel. He must needs be supposed fully to know the mind and sense of those that confirm'd the Articles; nor can it be supposed, that he had not a great hand in the drawing of them up: yet this reverend and learned Person, in his Catechism, publish­ed by him after this Convocation, doth declare himself for absolute Election. Places clearly proving this were al­ledged out of an English Translation of that Catechism [Page 198] by Mr. Norton, dedicated to the two Arch-Bishops, the Bishop of London by name, and to all the Bishops in the several Diocesses in England: this was printed by Iohn Day, with the Queens Majesties priviledge for ten years, An. 1575. In answering this Objection the Doctor spends many words, even so many as make up pag. 24, 25, 26, 27. Of some of these words I know not how to make any sense. Of others of them I think I know the meaning, but can­not perceive their design; for admitting there hath been a greater Catechism of Mr. Nowels, admitting that which is au­thorized to be taught in Schools is the less and not the bigger, what is either gained or lost, unless the Author had de­clared his judgment with some diversity in the two Ca­techisms? which is not, cannot be pretended. What though I do not find any one single Question concerning Prede­stination or the Points thereupon, may not the Author in Answer to other Questions sufficiently declare his mind? I will set down the passages quoted by Mr. Hickman at large. ‘To the Church do all they properly belong, as many as do truly fear and honour and call upon God, altogether applying their minds to live holily and godly, and, putting all their trust in God, do most assuredly look for the blessedness of eternal life. They that be stedfast, stable, constant in this Faith, were chosen and appointed, and (as we term it) Predestinated to this so great Felicity.’ Again, ‘The Church is the Body of the Christian Common-wealth, i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the Faithful, whom God through Christ hath before all beginning of time appointed to everlasting life.’

This the Doctor saith is not to be found in the Latine Edi­tion. But I say, and am sure of it, it is to be found in the Latine Edition of 1570. set forth by the Author, and print­ed by Reginald Wolf, the Queens Latine Printer.

He saith secondly, It is taken almost word for word out of Bishop Poinet's Catechism; and therefore must be understood in no other sense than before it was, when it was perused and ap­proved by the Bishops, and other Learned men of King Edward's time. If so, then up goes Calvinism; for we have before proved Arch-Deacon Philpot, one of those Learned men, expresly to own Calvin's Predestination; nor is it possible [Page 199] to interpret Poinet's words so, as that Faith shall be an antecedent and not consequent of Predestination. He that saith, only those who are predestinated to Eternal life believe, doth say, that no Believer can finally fall from Faith, if he understand the necessary consequences of his saying, as in justice we are bound to think so great a Scholar as Bi­shop Poinet did. But of Poinet no more. Mr. Nowel's own words are plain and clear for ‘an election unto Faith and Salvation, before the foundations of the World were laid;’ and that ‘they who are thus elected, have in their own minds the spirit of Christ, the Author of this confi­dence, and in like manner a most certain pledge of it:’ The Scholar finally is taught to say, that‘by the instinct of the Divine Spirit, he most certainly perswades himself, that he also by God's good gift through Christ, is freely made one of this blessed City.’ And it is further worth observation, that there is scarce any one place of Scrip­ture made use of by the Calvinists to prove Personal ele­ction, which Mr. Nowel hath not put into the Margin of his Catechism; Matth. 16.18. Rom. 8.29, 30. Ephes. 1.4, 5. Col. 3.12. Tit. 1.1. Rom. 8.9, 15, 16. 2 Cor. 1.22. and 5.5. Ephes. 1.13, 14. and 5.30. All this notwithstanding the Doctor pleaseth himself, as if Mr. Nowel were his own. And that he might not seem to lay claim to him without some gound, he produceth two places out of his lesser Ca­techism, promised by the Author in the Epistle Dedicatory of the larger, and now, as more apt for youth, com­monly taught in Grammar Schools, page 33. In tender compassion unto him and my Reader, I will not relate them; but they are both such, as any Calvinist will em­brace with both arms, as savouring of that special Faith that some ancient Calvinists, too securely following their Master, contend for. In it the Doctor finds, that we are elected by or through faith in Christ; therefore, saith he, the Decree of Election is not absolute and irrespective. Nor do the Calvinists say, it is, without a limitation or distinction of the words irrespective and absolute. The second passage is such, as no Remonstrant can mention without abhor­rence; for Remonstrants do utterly deny, that God made any Covenant with Adam, that if he stood all his Poste­rity should stand if he sell all his Posterity should fall, [Page 200] and be corrupted with Original Sin: but the Calvinist is ea­ger for this Covenant; and no less eagerly doth he contend, that God promised to send Christ, the Seed of the Woman, to break the Serpent's head, that is, the Devil, and so to de­liver him and his Posterity that believed the same; for this, if it proves any thing, proves particular Redemption: which the most famous Calvinists now a days do not contend for; some of them have written whole Books against it. I shall only insert one passage more out of Mr. Nowel's Catechism, relating to the peremptoriness and irreversibility of God's will of purpose; it is in his Exposition of the third Petition of the Lord's Prayer: Non tantum precantur ut quod illi decretum fuerit eveniat; quod, quum divina voluntas efficiendi necessi­tatem secum semper adferat, evenire necesse est, &c. quoting in the Margin Psal. 115.3, and 135.6, 7, Rom. 9.19. And so my Pen takes its leave of this holy and learned Person a constant hearer of Peter Martyr; both wonderfully preserved from the fury of the Bishops, and both, no doubt, of one mind in these matters.

In the next place I am to wait on the Doctor to the Queen Elizabeth Homilies; for he hath adventured to look into them: and a great adventure it had been to look in­to them, if so be he had looked into them with an inten­tion as well to answer what had been alledged against him by Mr. Prin, as to consider what made for him. I have al­ready entreated my Reader to give himself the trouble of comparing passages of all sorts, and then there will remain no further trouble for me. I am sure no man can think, that any thing in the 29, 30, 31, pages of the Doctor's third Part, collected out of the Homilies, is contradictory to the Cal­vinists assertions rightly understood. The Homily of the Nativity saith, Christ must be not only full and perfect man, but also full and perfect God; to the intent he might more fully and perfectly make satisfaction for mankind. This, saith the Doctor, is as plain as words can make it. And plain in­deed it is, against any that deny either the Deity or Hu­manity of Christ (those that do so, usually deny God's Decrees too;) but there is here neither plain, nor obscure words, or word against Calvinists. Every one will laugh at the passage brought for Universal Grace, out of the first part of the Sermon against the peril of Idolatry; which a­mounts [Page 102] to no more than this, that Idolatry is against the light of Nature as well as Scripture: Yet in this passage did he so much please himself, that he proceeds to tell us, that in the third Part of that Sermon, there are some passages, that do as plainly speak of falling from God, the final alienation of the soul of a man once righteous from his love and favour. Such pas­sages as these would be worth Gold, the fine Gold of Ophir. He names but one, which is this, How much better were it, that the Arts of Painting and we had never been found, than one of them whose souls are so precious in the sight of God, should by occasion of Image or Picture, perish and be lost. This passage looks as if it were designed to perswade Christian Magistrates to break down all Images of God, Christ, the Saints, especially in Churches, (on which score these Ser­mons against Idolatry have been decried by sundry of the Doctor's Friends;) but what hath it in it, that by all the help of the whole Art of Logick can militate against Perse­verance? Better it were that Painting had never been found out, than that by occasion of a Picture, a precious Soul should perish and be lost; therefore the Souls of the Elect, of justified and righteous Persons, may be totally and finally alienated from the grace and favour of God. I will form his other Argument against Perseverance out of the Homily of the Resurrection. The Homilist very affectionately disswades those that are risen with Christ from returning to sin; therefore he took it for granted, that some truly sanctified Souls might totally and finally fall from grace. These two are pretty, but the prettiest passage of all is still behind; The co-operation of mans will with the grace of God (he must mean, or else he trifleth, in the very first moment of con­version,) is presumed, or else our Church had not writ any Ho­milies at all. Just so he might argue, that if Calvin had not held co-operation, he would never have preached Sermons. And indeed out of Calvin, Beza, Zuinglius, may easily be gather­ed five hundred places that have a more seeming and co­lourable face of contrariety against Calvinism, than any that the Doctor hath made a shift to gather out of our Eng­lish Homilies.

Yet least he might be thought faint-hearted, he goes on from the Homilies to Bishop Iewel, the Copier out of Peter Martyr's Sermons and Lectures, his intima [...]e [Page 202] Friend at Oxford, his Guest at Strasborough and Zurich, and his Assistant in compiling his Comment on Iudges. In his Defence of his Apology, he saith, that Christ by saying, it is finished, plainly signified, persolutum jam esse prectum pro peccato humani generis: By which the good Bishop sufficient­ly declared himself to be no friend to Popish Satisfactions. But what can hence be inferred, either for or against Calvinism? Did ever any Calvinist say, that Christ did not pay the whole price? or that God did expect any part of the price from the hands of any other? I, but it was paid for the sin of mankind. True; but not for the sin of every particular person of mankind: though if it had been so said by Iewel, many Calvinists would have liked Iewel the better for such a speech.

At length the Doctor hits upon one just of his mind, viz. Mr. Samuel Harsnet, who preached at Paul's Cross Octob. 27, 1584, and preached Anticalviristically in all the five Points under Controversie. This must be granted him, if the Ser­mon were delivered as it was some few years since printed. Hence he argues.

A Sermon preached at St. Paul's, at which no offence was taken, upon which no Recantation was enjoyned, nor any complaint made; had no matter in it contrary to the Rules of the Church, and the appointment of the same.

Mr. Harsnet's Sermon was such a Sermon, preached at St. Paul's, &c. Ergo, it had no matter in it contrary to the Rules of the Church, &c.

Either the Doctor thinks the major of this Syllogism true, or he does not. If he does not, then can he have no con­fidence in his own Syllogism. If he do, then will it evi­dently follow that, in Calvinism there is nothing contrary to the Rules of the Church, because so many Calvinistical Sermons have been preached at Paul's, which were never complained of to Authority, nor any Recantation enjoyn­ed upon them, yea, for which the Preachers have had thanks and preferments. Besides, if Mr. Harsnet had been complained of and Recantation enjoyned him, the Doctor would not have accounted him the less Orthodox on that account; for he knows and will afterwards confess, that Recantation hath been enjoyned for such kind of Sermons as Mr. Harsnet's was. So that I can scarce tell, whether it [Page 203] be worth while to descend to the minor of the former Syl­logism; for what will it advantage us to prove, that the Sermon was Censured and Recanted, when as those we have to deal with are resolved to think, that lawful Authority hath enjoyned Recantations of Sermons agreeable to the Articles of Religion? Yet because we are in genere Historico, I deny the minor; and say, It doth appear that offence was taken at the forementioned Sermon, that complaint was made of it, and that the Preacher did at least declare his sorrow for it: perhaps not heartily, for he seems to have lived and died an Arminian; yet he did declare his sorrow for the preaching of that his Sermon. Had he not so done, the Uni­versity no doubt had spewed him out; especially living in a Colledge where Dr. Fulke was Master, a man, that in his Answer to the Rhemists, hath thought himself as much con­cerned to vindicate the Doctrine of Election and Reproba­tion, and the Points thereupon depending, as any other Doctrine of our Reformation whatever. Doth any one ask me, how it appears that Mr. Harsnet and his Sermon was so censured and condemned? I answer, It appears from the plain testimony of Mr. William Prin, page 304, of his Per­petuity, printed at such a time, when Prudence as well as Conscience would have restrained him from uttering an un­truth against so great a man as Harsnet was then become? Can it be imagined, that if this had been a slander, so great a Prelate of our Nation would not have demanded repara­tion and satisfaction? As for the Doctor's Argument, that seeing the Sermon was preached at the Cross, the University could take no cognizance of it; it is such, as I suppose upon second thoughts, he will wish he had never made use of.

And he hath as much reason to wish, that he had ne­ver troubled his Book with any thing of Bishop King's Lectures upon Ionah: in which nothing is to be found against absolute Predestination; nor yet any thing from which any probable collection can be made, that the Bi­shop had conceived in his own mind any opinion about it contrary to Mr. Calvin's; nor could the Doctor himself collect any thing from them, till he had first supposed, which no one will grant him, that there is the same reason of God's eternal Election and his Promises, as of his eternal Re­probation and his threatnings.

[Page 204]This done; the Historian fills his nineteenth Chapter with lamentations and weeping, bewailing the sad condition of the Church, that was feign, in her Reformation under Queen Elizabeth, to make use of any Learned man that had zeal against Popery, to discharge the places of greatest trust and Authority in the Church, how Calvinistical soever they were for Doctrine. But when was that it the Church was put to this strait? was it not in the first years of Queen Elizabeth? and particularly in the year 1562, when the first Convocation was held? If so, what a piece of boldness was it to say, that that Convocation drew up Articles with any purpose to give check to Doctrinal Calvinism? and what uncharitableness is it to affirm, that our learned Divines did change their minds, when for a few years they were forced to change the air in the Reign of Queen Mary? What men of note had they to converse with beyond the Seas, whose Opinions and Arguments they had not read and consider­ed while in England? They must needs be clouds without water, if the breath of Calvin and Martyr could so easily toss them to and fro. But we know, those that went over Conformists, came home Conformists; and those that went over Non-conformists, came back Non-conformists, though somewhat strengthened in their Non-conformity, by the communion they had with the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas. I shall hereafter shew, that not only Non-con­forming Divines, but also the most zealous Conformists, did set themselves with all their might to declare against and crush the Arminian Doctrine, as soon as in any place it began to be be delivered. And the Doctor may do well to remember, that Mr. Hooper and Mr. Bradford, whom he hath before made so much use of, though to little purpose, were both of them Non-conformists in King Edward's days: and Mr. Latimer, whom he also challengeth for his own, was litle better than a Non-conformist, letting fly sufficiently at the Dignities of the Reformed Prelates. So that, if these three men had been as much for him as he pretends, a man might say, English Arminianism did spring out of the root of Non-conformity: but it will appear, that it did spring from opposition to those wholsom Doctrines, in which all our Reformers, how much soever differing about Cere­monies, agreed.

[Page 205]Mr. Iohn Fox his Martyrology, though dedicated to the Queen and by her accepted graciously, though highly ho­noured by a Canon of the whole Convocation, 1571, the Historian expresly saith, he looketh on as the first great Bat­tery which was made on the Bulwarks of this Church, in point of Doctrine, by any Member of her own, page 58. A piece of confidence suitable to that which carried him to say, King Edward was an ill principled Prince, and that his removal by death was no infelicity of our Church. And it is the more in­excusable, because in all his Histo [...]i [...]s about our Reforma­tion, he lighteth his Candle so oft at the Martyrologist's. It seems he loveth darkness rather than light, if it come from Geneva. Bishop Hall, to whom Episcopacy oweth far more than to Doctor Heylin, calleth Fox a Saint-like Historian; and for such he will be accounted, as long as any one drop of good Protestant bloud runneth in our English veins. But did the Convocation appoint no balm for that wound made by the Martyrology? Yes, that it did, he thinks. What was it? ‘Another Canon, page 60, that men should teach no other Doctrine in their publick Sermons to be be­lieved of the People, but what was agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and had from thence been gathered by the Catholick Fathers, and ancient Bishops.’ I say, If this Canon had been observed, Mr. Harsnet had never preached his Sermon: He thinks, Calvinism had never been preached, because maintained by none of the Ca­tholick Fathers, and ancient Bishops, but Saint Augustine only, who was but one Bishop, but one Father. All Calvinists will now easily forgive him his reproaches against Calvin, seeing he spares not St. Augustine. But I hope he will not forgive himself that passion, which produced so great an untruth. Had he said, none before St. Augustine maintained Calvin's Doctrines, the mistake had been excusable: so is it not, to say, that no Catholick Father or ancient Bishop, maintained it besides St. Augustine. Doubtless Prosper and Hilary were both Catholick Fathers, and ancient Bishops; yet they as much maintained Calvin's Opinions as St. Au­gustine doth. Who are the Bishops and Catholick Fathers, that the Doctor follows in these Points of Predestination and grace? In his second Part, page 36, he quotes three ancient Writers. The first, Ambrose on the Epistles: yet [Page 206] every one knows, that those Commentaries on the Epistles are not his, but the work, as some think, of a Pelagian; as others, of one Hilary, no Bishop, though a Catho­lick. He also quotes the Commentary upon Saint Paul's Epistles ascribed to St. Hierom: but he is not ignorant (or if he be ignorant, few other Scholars be.) that those Com­mentaries, however formerly fathered on Hierom, do call Pelagius himself Father; and he, I trow, was no Catho­tholick Father, or ancient Bishop, but a most vile Heretick. He also refers us to St. Chrysostom in Ep. 14. By which I know not what he means; but am sure it is little credit to a Doctor in Divinity living so near the University, to bring Chrysostom in Latine, whose Greek is so easie as that School-boys are able to understand it: so that if this had been any piece of a Sermon, I might certainly h [...]e con­cluded, that the Doctor had violated the Canon; and would fain know of him, how our ordinary Countrey Preachers should be in any capacity to observe this Canon, whose Libraries scarcely afford a Father of any Edition to be trusted to? The best advice I can give them is, to buy such Books as contain a Confession of Faith confirmed all along with Scriptures and Fathers; in which I cannot but commend the Orthodoxus Consensus, dedicated by Gasper Laurentius to the Prince Elector Pa­latine, bound up with the Corpus & Syntagma confessio­num Fidei printed at Geneva, 1654. There is also pub­lished by Cyril, late Patriarch of Constantinople, a Con­fession of Faith as Calvinistical as if it had been extract­ed out of Calvin's own Institutions, which is now extant; confirmed all along by Scripture and Fathers, Catholick and ancient, in a little Piece put out by the learned Hot­tinger: where also there is enough said of Cyril's life, troubles, and death to free him from the aspersions cast on him by the Iesuits and by Grotius.

We have brought off Mr. Fox, and must now see, whether the Historian do charge Mr. Perkins with more success, of whom it is affirmed, page 62, ‘That he did open wider the great breach, that had been made by Mr. Fox.’ Sure it may easily be pardoned him, that he made that breach wider which was made by the Church it self, by putting so much honour upon the Acts and Monuments [Page 207] as did, if we may believe this Doctor, manifestly tend to the subversion of that Doctrine that she had a­bout ten years before so solemnly ratified. But as it may well be presumed, that the Church would not consent to the picking out of her own eyes; so we have great reason to think, that Mr. Perkins did design all his Treatises, only to commend that milk unto others which he had, with so much delight and nourishment, sucked from the Breasts of his Mother, the Reformed Church of England. The Treatise of his quarrelled at, is called Armilla Aurea, composed by the Author in Latine, tran­slated into English by Dr. Robert Hill, at the request of Perkins himself, (saith our Historian;) but tells us not whence he had that information: nor indeed is it pro­bable, that Mr. Perkins would request another to do a work that might easily be done, and yet could be done so well by no hand as his own. ‘The Translator tells us plainly, in his Epistle Dedicatory unto the Judge of the Admiralty Court, that he made the Translation at the request of some well disposed, that his own Countrey-men might by it reap some profit:’ and perhaps also he had a design to reap some profit by his Countrey-men, presaging that it would be of very quick sale; as indeed it hapned, being printed fifteen times in the space of twenty years. Many of the greatest learning and judgment, thought this left-handed Ehud did by this his Book, wound the Pelagian Cause to the very heart. Our Historian thinks not so, and tells us page 64, that it found not like welcome in all places, nor from all hands. Parsons the Iesuite is brought in thus sleighting him, By the deep humour of fancy, he hath published and writ many Books with strange Titles, which neither He, nor his Reader do understand; as namely, about the Concatenation, or laying together of the causes of mans Predestination and Reprobation. And then Iacob van Harmin, he acquaints us, wrote a full discourse against it. I know not what he means by, it: Arminius his Examen, as we all know, being not designed against Perkins his Armilla Aurea; but against another Piece called a Treatise of Predestination, and of the largeness of God's grace. And that Examen of Arminius hath been so con­futed by the learned Dr. Twiss, that no Remonstrant hath as yet had confidence enough to rejoyn. All the wind hitherto [Page 208] sent from the Doctor, hath shaken no corn: We can con­temn Parsons, and not value Arminius. He therefore fur­ther acquaints us, page 65, of a very sharp censure passed upon Mr. Perkins, by the Doctor of the Chair in Oxford. What is this censure? ‘No more, but that Mr. Perkins, otherwise a learned and pious Person, (therefore surely able to un­derstand the Title of his own Books,) did err no light er­ror, in making the subject of Divine Predestination, to be man considered before the fall: adding also further, that "some by undertaking to defend Mr. Perkins in this opinion, had given unnecessary trouble to the Church.’ This censure is very gentle, in comparison of what the same Reverend and Learned Professor, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, thought meet to pass upon Arminius, Bertius, and all their Followers; whom he accuseth of most detestable Sacriledge. ‘The same Doctor had before undertaken a Defence of Mr. Perkins his Reformed Catholick, calling him a man of very commendable quality, and well deserving, for his great travel and pains for the furtherance of true Re­ligion, and edifying of the Church:’ which Reformed Ca­tholick also is learnedly defended by Mr. Wotton. For a parting blow, the Doctor tells us that Mr. Perkins scarce lived out half his days: and that in the pangs of death, he spake nothing so articulately, as Mercy, mercy; which he hopes God did graciously grant him in that woful agony. And I for my part, do not at all doubt that God shewed him mercy, and had shewed him the very riches of his mercy many years before; for God is not unrighteous, that he should forget that labour of love with which Mr. Perkins had laboured in Cambridge. As little do I doubt, that there are hundreds in Heaven blessing that Providence, that placed a light so shining and burning in that Univer­sity. His dying so soon is not to be imputed to his bloud­thirstiness, or deceitfulness; but to his hard studies and unwearied diligence, which must needs wast his natural spirits, and bring him sooner to his grave than he would have come, if he could have satisfied himself (as some do) to enter into the Pulpit no oftner, than the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies. He always desired that he might die praying for the pardon of sin, and he had his desire. If in his Sermon he pronounced the word damned [Page 209] with a more than ordinary Emphasis, it was only to forwarn his Hearers to flee from the wrath to come. If he so pressed the Law, as to make the hair of the young Scholars stand up­right, it was only, that being awakened o [...]t of their secu­rity, they might seriously ask the question, How they should do to be saved? The Law was designed to be a School-master to bring us to Christ, and would not have that effect, if it should not be preached with some of that terror with which it was at first delivered. But he made the infinitely greatest part of all mankind uncapable of God's grace and mercy, by an absolute and irrespective decree of Reprobation. So it is said page 66. but no such thing can be proved out of Mr. P's Writings. Had he framed any such decree as made any one man or woman uncapable of grace and mercy, he must needs have affrighted away his Disciples and Hearers: which he was so far from doing, that the Historian himself confesseth, that by means of him and Dr. Whitaker, the University had been quite over-run with Calvinism, had not Dr. Baro, a French-man born, set himself to pluck up what the other two had planted and watered.

Of this Dr. Baro we shall hear the Historian tell us a fine tale: Scilicet liberanda veritas expectabat liberatorem Petrum Baro, the English Kingdom of Heaven had fallen, had it not been for this Atlas that bare it up with his shoulders. Let us see what the man was, and what he held, that we may know how much we owe unto him; which yet we cannot well do, till we have taken in our way the story of one Bar­ret. This Barret in a Sermon ad Clerum, April 29. 1595, had vented sundry Anticalvinistical Points, for which he was convented May 5. before the Heads of Houses, and charged to have preached Doctrines erroneous and false, and con­trary to the Religion received and established by publick Authority in the Realm of England. He confessed the Doctrines charged upon him, but denied them to be any way repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Whereupon the Vice-Chancellor and forenamed Heads, en­tring into mature deliberation, and diligently weighing and examining these Positions; because it did manifestly ap­pear, that the said Positions were false, erroneous, and likewise repugnant to the Religion received and established [Page 210] in the Church of England, adjudged and declared, that the said Barret had incurred the penalty of the 45th Statute of the University, de Concionibus: and, by virtue and tenour of that Statute, they decreed and adjudged the said Barret, to make a publick Recantation, in such words and form, as by the Vice-Chancellor and the said Heads, or any three or two of them, should be prescribed unto him; or else upon his refusal to recant, to be perpetually expelled both from his Colledge and the University. What the form of Recantation was, may be seen in Mr. Prin; such it was, as gave sufficient honour unto Calvin, Peter Martyr, and the Doctrines Preached and Printed by them. Lo here we have those that were alwaies entrusted with power to judge of, and to condemn false Doctrine, condemning the Anti-Calvinistical opinions as false and contrary to the Ar­ticles of Religion established in England. And when such an Authority has laid a Recantation upon Mr Barret, how will Dr. H. get it off? Why First, He doubts whether any Recantation were enjoyned in so many words as are extant in Mr. Prin. This is an irrational doubt; seeing Mr. Prin had the transcript under the University Register's own hand. Secondly, He denies it as a thing most false, that ever Barret published any Recantation, whatsoever it was. And yet Mr. Prin, tells him that he had a transcript taken out of an Original copy under Mr. Barrets own hand; and tells us, as also does Mr. Fuller, what words he used after he had read the Recantation: and words they are from which it might be infer'd, that he was not heartily sorry for the errors delivered by him, nor really changed in his judgment. But doth it not appear by a Letter of the Heads of Houses dated March 8, that Mr. Barret had never made any such Recantation? I answer, It doth not appear; for the Heads of Houses say not, that he had never read the Re­cantation, but that he had refused to do it in such sort as was prescribed: which might make those who were in Authority in the University, both to mind him of his duty, and also to complain of him unto their Chancellour for not doing his duty. Yet if it will do the Doctor a kindness, let him enjoy his fancy, that Mr. Barret Recanted not; for to be sure he did not credit his Recantation, returning to Arminianism and also to Popery, unto which the Heads [Page 211] of Houses say Arminianism had been by sundry made a Bridge. However here is the judgment of the Heads of Houses in Cambridge solemnly declared, that he who strikes at Mr. Calvin in these points, strikes at the Church of England also. Yea, sayes the Dr, but it will not hence follow that Barrets Doctrines were repugnant to the Church of England, because these Heads judged them so: for if so, we may con­clude by the same Argument, that the Church of Rome was in Light, in the Darkest times of ignorance and superstition; because all that publickly opposed her Doctrine were enjoyned Recantation. Which evasion is so lamentable, that he had much better have used none; for we do not from the in­joyning of the Recantation inferr the falsity of the Do­ctrines to be recanted, but only their dissonance unto the Religion established: and certainly the Church of Rome when it was at the worst, did never injoyn Recantation of any Doctrine, which was not contrary unto her present sentiments. And so I leave Mr. Barret and his opinions under the blot justly dropped upon them by the Univer­sity, only taking notice that Barrets peremptoriness might occasion Baro to deliver his mind more plainly and pub­lickly, than before he had done; which occasioned the University to send up Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Tindal unto Arch-Bishop Whitgift, hoping that he who had been so zealous against Cartwright in a point of Discipline, would be found to have some zeal against Baro in matter of Doctrine: nor did their hopes fail them; for he forth­with called to him sundry right worthy and Reverend Divines, and drew up those Articles commonly called the Lambeth-Articles, agreed upon November the 10th. 1595. nine they are in number, and were approved by the Arch-Bishop of York, as well as by his Grace of Canter­bury. So that here are the two Metropolitans, men no doubt considerable for Learning as well as for Authority; for both of them had been Lady Margaret's and King's Pro­fessors in the University. Now I ask, Did these know the Doctrine of the Church, or did they not? If they did not, how durst they call men to subscribe what they knew not? If they did, then either Calvinism in this matter, is the Doctrine of the Church; or else the two Primates com­mended to the University, a Doctrine against their own Light [Page 212] and conscience. And it is worth observation that the Bishop of York in his Letter to his Brother of Canterbury, does give him to understand, that his opinion he sent him concerning Election and Reprobation, was but that in which they had both agreed while they professed and taught Divinity in the Schools. Nor can it be said that Whitgift received his opinion from beyond the Seas, where he never was; having such favour shewed him by Doctor Perne, that he never needed to leave the Kingdom. More probable it is that he suckt in these opinions from his Tutor Mr. Bradford, and from Bishop Ridley Master of Pembroke Hall, whilst he was a fresh-man. By whom also he was so principled against the tyranny and Detestable enor­mities of the Pope, that at the time of his commencing Dr. in Divinity, he gave this Thesis to be disputed on, Papa est Antichristus. Wherefore let not the Historian spend time to prove, that those Articles do not bind the Church as those did that solemnly passed in the Convocations; for I ascribe no such Authority to them, only urge them as De­clarations of the Articles of our Religion; just as I would urge the judgment of the two Lord Chief Iustices, calling in to their assistance others learned in the Law, for the ex­pounding of a Statute: 'tis not impossible they should be mistaken in their exposition; but it would be strongly presumed by all modest men, that they were not mistaken. And so I could let go these Articles, had it not pleased the Historian to tell us, of a mighty offence taken at them by the Lord Burleigh, and a resolution of having all that acted in them attainted of a praemunire; from the danger of which the Arch-Bishop could not get release, until he had promised speedily to recall and suppress those Articles. All which we have laid down, page 81, 82, as things affirmed by Mr. Mountague, from the Remonstrants, in an Answer of theirs published, 1618. But where did these Remonstrants hear this story? Why, possibly they might have it from the mouth of Baro, or some other Cambridge men. Will any man believe so great things upon so slender proofs as the possibility of the Remon­strants hearing them from the mouth of some Cantabridgi­an? when they do not so much as pretend to have heard any such thing from any member of our Church, nor doth any one ever since offer to tell us when and where the [Page 213] Arch-Bishop was forced to make any such submission? The Heads of Houses in their Letter to the Lord Burleigh, own the sending up of Dr. Tindal, and Dr. Whitaker, to con­ferr with the Lord of Canterbury: and write of the great and comfortable quiet, that by the coming down of the Articles, was brought unto the University; until that Baro in January following, contrary to restraint and commandment, gave some new disturbance. In the same Letter also, subscribed with their names, and bearing date March 8. 1595, they reso­lutely tell the same Lord; that Baro had determined, preached, printed diverse points of Doctrine, not only contrary to himself, but also contrary to that which had been taught and received ever since her Majesty's reign, and agreeable to the errours of Popery. Wherefore they pray his Lordship to vouchsafe his good ayd and advise to the comfort of themselves and all others of the Universi­ty truly affected, and to the suppression, in time, of those errours, and even of gross Popery like by such means to creep in among them. And upon this Letter, or something else, Baro left his place in the University: because he could not keep it, say Dr. Ward, Mr. Fuller, and all other Cantabridgians that ever I read; but this Oxford Historian, who can easily affirm any thing that he much desires, tells us he left his place, neither because he was deprived, nor because he had any fear of being deprived, but meerly because he had no mind to keep it any longer. Nay he sticks not to affirm that in case it had pleased him to continue any longer Lecturer, it is pro­bable he might have carried the Lecture from any other Can­didate, or Competitour of what rate soever. But by what mediums did he bring himself to this probable perswasion, or whence did he collect that Baro had so great a number of adherents? Only from Dr. Overals being chosen to suc­ceed Dr. Whitaker. But if they were the Anti-calvinists that carried it for Overal, why did they not rather carry it for Baro himself, seeing they had such fair presidents of preferring those who are Lady Margarets Professors to be King's Professors? Hutton had been so preferred, so had Whitgift, so had Chaderton. Or if Baro's interest were so great, how came he to use so little care and Conscience as not to provide a Successor of his own mind? Did he think his opinions were not worth the knowing: If he did not, why did he trouble the world with them? If he did, [Page 214] why would he so tamely yield to the chusing of Doctor Playfer, than whom there was not a man in all the Uni­versity more opposite to him? The truth is Doctor Overal had not then declared himself to differ from Calvin, and therefore was by the University employed to convince Barret: and afterwards when he delivered such things as some Calvinists condemned him for, yet he never deliver'd his mind so, as to deny personal election or the certain perseverance of all the elect. Something more of his mind we shall hear hereafter, in the Hampton-Court Conference.

In the mean time I must mind the Doctor of a certain Catechism, consisting of Questions and Answers touching the Doctrine of Predestination, bound up with our Eng­lish Bibles, printed by Robert Barker, Anno 1607. but not then first bound up with our Bibles, as the Doctor seems willing to think, pag. 101, 102. The Questions and Answers are to be found in the Church Bibles, com­monly called the Bishops Bibles: printed by Christopher Barker. I my self have seen Bibles printed twenty years before the coming in of King Iames, in which they were; and for ought I know they were as old as any Translation of the Bible used in Queen Elizabetbs time. He asks, by what authority those Questions and Answers were put in betwixt the Old and New Testament? and so I remember he somewhere asks, by what Authority the Metrical Translation of the Psalmes was allowed to be Sung in Churches? I am not able to give him a satisfactory answer either to the one or the other question; no more than he is able to answer me, who made our second Book of Homilies? Yet he thinks I suppose, that those who made that Book were Authorized to make it: and so I think, that those who first bound up those Questions and Answers and Singing Psalmes with our Bibles, had Order and Au­thority so to do.

All this while Cambridge hath took us up. We must now look into the other University, in which we are told that all things were calm and quiet, no publick opposition shewing it s [...]lf in the Schools or Pulpits. The reason of this quiet is guessed at, because the Students of that University did more incline to the canvasing of such Points as were in difference [Page 215] betwixt us, and the Romanists. For witness he calls in many Papists, and on the other side Bishop Iewel, Bishop Bilson, Dr. Humphry, Mr. Nowel, Dr. Reynolds, and many others which stood firm to the Church of England. This last clause sure slipped from him unawares. Upon se­cond thoughts I fear he will scarce affirm, that all these stood firm to the Church of England. If they did, no lot or portion hath he or any of his in the Church of England: most of them having declared their minds point blank against conditional election, &c. Iewel hath told us his mind about Election in his Comment on the Thessalonians; so hath Mr. Nowel in his Catechism; Dr. Humphries in the Life of Iewel, &c. This nevertheless I grant that in Queen Elizabeths time, there were no disputings ex animi sententia against Calvinism in Oxford Schools. No Oxford man, during her Reign, declared himself for conditional decrees, or any thing else oppo­site to Mr. Calvin in these poin [...]s: but many did, as they had occasion, declare themselves strenuously for Calvin in Queen Elizabeths daies. We find the whole Convocation appointing Calvin's Institutions to be read by Tutors unto their Pupils, and other Books also as Calvinistical as the Institutions can be, by which means our Divines there became prepared against the adversary as soon as he should dare to shew himself. Anno 1597, Robert Abbot proceeded Doctor, and being alarummed from Cambridge gave these two Theses, ‘Aeterna Dei predestinatione con­tinetur aliorum electio ad vitam aeternam, aliorum ad mor­tem reprobatio. Electorum certa est salus, ut perire non possint.’ Dr. Field (qualis & quantus vir!) gave these Theses, ‘Doctrina Praedestinationis olim tradita ab Augusti­no, & nostris temporibus a Calvino, eadem est, nec quicquam continet Catholicae veritati aut Fidei regulae contrarium. Prae­scientia Dei aeterno decreto omnia ordinantis, non pu [...]navit cum arbitrii libertate primis parentibus con [...]ess [...]. Orthodoxi Patres qui liberum arbitrium esse dix [...]runt, & q [...] bodi [...] s [...]rvum esse docent, idem sentiunt.’ Five such Thesis as these, laid down by two such Scholars, were enough to let the new Pelagianizers see, there was no quarter for them in Oxford. Nor can I find, that they sought any; Calvin being there all Qu. Elizabeths days, in as much honour as at Geneva. [Page 216] And of this the Historian seems sensible, confessing that even Barnabas was carried away into Calvinism: only he labours to prove, that it was but in one point, that of the not total or final falling away of Gods Elect. And that is in­deed the only point, for which Mr. Hooker was quoted; but that is such a point as with which the other are neces­sarily twisted, and so defended by him as that he appears Calvinistical to the utmost. For whereas there be that maintain the certain perseverance of only the Elect, judging it not impossible that some might be believers who were not Elect, Hooker plainly makes all true believers Elect to eternal life, and therefore sure to persevere in the Faith; and he is so confident in this point as in none more, prefacing his assertion thus, In this I am sure I am not deceived, nor can I deceive you. At last the Doctor is faign to fly to this [...], that his Discourse of Iustifica­tion might be altered by the Publisher of it, or it might be written by him as as an Essay of his younger years, pag. 90. Had he not better have said, It is true that Hooker also was a Doctrinal Calvinist, but I could heartily wish he had not been such? And then I should have better liked him.

What then will the Doctor let go the whole University of Oxford? No. Ibid. Some there were who spared not to declare their dislike of the Calvinian tenents, and secretly trained up their Scholars in other principles. An answer that may indifferently serve for any Novellists, by whatsoever names dignified or distinguished. The absurd Quakers may say, that there have been in the University many, that never bowed their Knees to Baal, and thereupon charge flesh to be silent, and not object singularity to them: and they may further add, that sundry great Scho­lars will be as free to joyn with them, as Buckeridge and Houson were to joyn with Mountague, if [...]ver there come a time in which it shall be no more [...]rdous to own their friends than it was in 1626, to [...]wn Mountague. There is only one thing in which the Doctor can hope to out-shoot them, and that is this, that Bishop Bancroft, when Baro died at London three or four years after his leaving Cambridge, took Order to have most of the Divines in and about London to attend his Funeral. This plainly shews, [Page 217] thinks he, that there were many of both Universities that openly favoured Baro's Doctrines, pag. 90. But do we in­deed favour, and plainly declare that we favour, the opinions of those whose Funerals we attend? If so, then must we never go to the Funeral of a Roman Catholick; then did Queen Elizabeth and her Bishop Grindal plainly discover themselves friends to Popery, when they so mag­nificently celebrated the Funerals of the Emperour. Be­sides, the Historian would do well to consider, that when the Prophet Elijah thought himself to be alone, Israel was manifestly apostatized from the God of her Fathers, and had committed Whoredom with Idols; and so in Atha­nasius his time the world was become A [...]an. If the Doctor also will grant, that in Queen Elizabeths time, the Church was become Calvinistical, he grants the very thing we are contending for. As for the truth of the Calvinistical opi­nions, that we are ready to try with him by Scripture when he pleaseth. In this History we search not what ought to be held, but what hath been held: not of what mind our Reformers should have been, but of what they were. If Calvinism be truth, it will be truth, though it had never found entertainment in the Church of England. If it be error, it will be error, though all the Church of England be for it; for the Church cannot make truth or falsehood, but only declare what is truth and falsehood. Whether the Church have declared Calvinism or Anti-calvinism to be truth, that is the only [...]. Seeing we have found Anti-calvinism discountenanced by the Church, in Queen Elizabeths Reign; let us now follow the Histo­rian to her Successors dayes, that we may see whether it were more countenanced then.

The first thing we are led to Pag. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, is the Hampton Court Conference: in which he shall find no­thing for him, but much against him. Dr. Reynolds calls the Lambeth Articles Orthodoxal: no one intimated that they were Heterodoxal. Dr. Overal declares against the total and final Apostasy of the Saints: no one declared for it. His Majesty determined, that Predestination and Election depend not upon any Qualities, actions, or works of Men, which be mutable; but upon Gods Eternal and immutable decree and purpose: no one said or whispered any thing [Page 218] against this determination 'Tis only said that the Bishop of London told his Majestie how very many in these daies, neg­lecting Holiness of life, presumed too much of persisting in grace, (Calvinists would say, such fellows never had grace to per­sist in) laying all their Religion on Predestination, If I shall be saved, I shall be saved, which he termed a desperate Doctrine, (and so the Calvinists term it also an hundred times over;) shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity, and the true Do­ctrine of Predestination, wherein we should rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo, thus; I live in obedience to God, in love to my Neighbour, I follow my occasion, &c. there­fore I trust God hath elected me and predestinated me to eternal Salvation: not th [...], which is the usual course of argument, God hath predestinated and chosen me to life, therefore though I sin never so grievously, yet I shall not be damned; for whom he once loveth, he loveth to the End. In which words there is some thing Hypercalvinistical; for the Bishop saith, we must rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo: but the Calvinist saith, that we must altogether reason Ascendendo, in such a way as he after delineates. If the Bishop were not a Calvinist, I would fain know how a man could, according to his principles, argue Ascendendo, I live in obedience to God, therefore I trust God hath elected me and predestinated me to Salvation. The Calvinist saith, he that lives in obedience to God is predestinated to Salvation: but so doth not the Anti-calvinist, nor hath he any foun­dation to build his trust of Predestination to Salvation upon; for, according to him, a man who lives in all good obedience to God may be damned, because he may cease to live in obedience to God, and hath no promise that he shall not cease.

But if Dr. Bancroft had not by his speech declared him­self Calvinistical; yet, as hath been said, his Chaplain's publishing his Exposition or Analysis of our Articles, ac­cording to the Calvinistical frame, and that with his good liking and approbation, is a sufficient argument that he was such. To invalidate this argument it is only said, that That Analysis had been published 1585, which was eighteen years before Bancroft was Arch-Bishop. Which answer adds strength to the argument; for by it it appears, that he took one to be his Chaplain, who had eighteen years before pub­lished [Page 219] a Calvinistical Exposition of the Articles, and suf­fered him after his own Consecration to republish it, and to dedicate it to his own Grace: which it may be pre­sumed, he would not have done, if it had contained any thing contrary to his own judgement and sense.

Obj. But why would any one affirm, that Bancroft agreed to the Lambeth-Articles, whilst Bishop of London?

Answ. It was Mr. Fullers mistake, in his Church History, so to affirm. Mr. Hickman, whom the Doctor hath chosen for his adversary, never so affirmed. Yet he affirmed, that he agreed to them: and so it is like he did, in the ca­pacity of a Divine called in to consult. On which score I also reckon that Mr. Nowel Dean of St. Pauls might agree to them; because he was Dr. Whitakers Unkle and resided at London.

Object. 2. Did not King James reject the Lambeth Articles, when propounded as fit to be inserted into the Articles?

Answ. He did not reject them, nor could he in honour reject them; having never seen them before, nor having them read to him at that time. He was only told, that the Articles were by the Arch-Bishop, taking to him some Divines of special note, drawn up and sent to the Univer­sity for the appeasing of quarrels. Whereupon his Maje­sty resolved, that when such questions do arise among Scho­lars, the quietest proceeding were, to determine them in the University, and not to stuff the Book with Conclusions Theological. Here is not one word of leaving them to be canvased and disputed in the Schools: though if they had been so left, they might not forthwith be held in the Af­firmative or Negative, as best pleased the Respondent; for the Respondent in our Universities can hold nothing without the allowance and approbation of the Doctor of the Chair, or Vice-Chancelor, or University. Yea King Iames did, some years after, allow the putting of these Lambeth-Articles into the Confession of the Church of Ireland, Anno 1615. To this the Doctor shapes an answer, pag. 101, consisting of sundry particulars.

First, That the Irish Articles were drawn up by Dr. Usher a professed Calvinian, who not only thrust in the Lambeth-Ar­ticles, but also made others of his own.

[Page 220] Answ. The Articles are the better to be liked because drawn up by a hand so learned and peaceable.

Secondly, That the King might give consent to the confirming of these Articles, though he liked them not. How so? First, Because the Irish Nation, at that time, were most tenaciously addicted to the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and therefore must be bended to the other extreme, before they could be streight. Secondly, It was an usual practise with the King in the whole course of his government, to ballance one extreme by another; countenancing the Papists against the Pu­ritans, and the Puritans sometimes against the Papists.

Answ. I have heard much talk of the craft of King Iames; but did never before hear, nor do I now believe, that this was any part of it: for what Policy is it, to bring People out of one extreme into another? or what Piety is it, to agree to Articles of Religion, the which all the Clergy must approve, meerly to keep the civil interest even? But I see what the Doctors fetch is in this; what ever King Iames did in the affairs of Religion that his palat relisheth not, must be thought to be done to gratifie the Puritans: may not the Puritans also say, that what ever was done pleasing to the Doctor, was done in com­pliance with the Papists? and with whom then will the name of King Iames be precious or honourable?

One piece of veracity I must needs commend the Doctor for, viz. his acknowledging that Dr. Reynolds owned the meaning of the sixteenth Article to be [...]ound, pag. 98. This I com­mend, because Mr. Mountague found a forehead, in his Appeal, to aver that it was by him and the other Ministers challenged for unsound. I wish I had the like occasion to commend him for veracity to the end of his Book? But I have not; for pag. 103, he tells us, that the opposites to the Calvinians were by the grace and favour of King James in­vested in the chief preferments of the Church of England, con­ferred as openly and freely upon them as those who had been bred up in the contrary perswasion. This if it be understood of men that had openly declared their opinions against the Calvinian Doctrine, will be found to be an untruth. If any trust be to be given to our printed Catalogues of Bishops, there were in that Kings Reign these Translations, or Consecrations. Canterbury, Richard Bancroft, 1604. G. [Page 221] Abbot, 1610. Asaph, Richard Parry, 1604. Iohn Hanmer, 1622. Bangor, Lewis Balie, 1616. Bath and Wells, Iames Mountague, 1608. Ar. Lake, 1616. Bristoll, Iohn Thorn­borough, 1603. Nicholas Felton, 1617. Iohn Scatchfield, 1619. Robert Wright, 1622. Chicester, Lancelot Andrews, 1605. Samuel Harsnet, 1609. George Carleton, 1619. Coventry, George Abbot, 1609. Richard Neile, 1610. Iohn Overal, 1614. Thomas Morton, 1618. St. Davids, Richard Milborne, 1615. William Laud, 1621. Ely, Lancelot Andrews, 1609. Nicholas Felton, 1618. Exeter, Valentine Cary, 1621. Glocester, Thomas Ravis, 1604. Henry Parry, 1607. Giles Thomson, 1611. Miles Smith, 1612. Hereford, Francis Godwin, 1617. Landaff, George Carleton, 1618. Theo. Field, 1619. Lincoln William Barlow, 1608. Richard Neile, 1613. George Moun­tayn, 1617. Iohn Williams, 1621. London, Richard Vaughan, 1604. Thomas Ravis, 1607. George Abbot, 1609. Iohn King, 1611. George Mountaine, 1621. Norwich, Iohn Overal, 1618. Samuel Harsnet, 1619. Oxford, Iohn Bridges, 1603. Iohn Houson, 1619. Roch. Willam Barlow, 1605. Rechard Neile, 1608. Io. Buckridge, 1611. Salisbury, Robert Abbot, 1615. Martin Fotherby, 1618. Robert Tomson, 1620. Iohn Davenant, 1621. Winchester, Ia. Mountague, 1617. Lancelot Andrews, 1618. Worcester, Henry Parry, 1610. Iohn Thornborough, 1617. York, Toby Mathew, 1606. Carlisle, Robert Snowdon, 1616. Richard Milbourne, 1620. Richard Senhouse, 1624. Chester, George Lloyd, 1604. Thomas Morton, 1616. Iohn Bridge­man, 1618. Durham, William Iames, 1606. Richard Neile, 1617. How few are they among these which the Doctor layes claim to? And how little or no proof doth he give us that those whom he claims had publickly owned any of his Anti-calvinian Opinions? Bancroft is never affirmed to have said or written any thing con­cerning Predestination, but what occurs in the Relation of the Hampton Court Conference; and that can at most amount but to a rebuke of some carnal Protestants, who did abuse the Doctrine of Predestination to their destruction. Overal's Opinion in these points, if it somewhat differ from Cal­vin's, much more differs from Dr. Heylin's. Yet on the account of Overal's, and some others Episcopal pre­serments, the Historian groweth so confident, as to averr [Page 222] that his Conditional-decree-men found King James a gra­cious Patron, and by means of his gracious Patronage, in the end surmounted all difficulties, and came at last to be al­together as considerable, both for power and number, as the Cal­vinists were.

He that will affirm this, and affirm it in Print, and whilst so many are living that knew the Transactions of King Iames his Court, must needs lose the credit of an impar­tial Historian. Yet the Doctor, as if he had not sufficiently disparaged himself in affirming so great an increase of Anti-calvinists in England, goes on to give a reason of it: just as some in Natural Philosophy undertake to give us a cause of the Swans singing before her death, before they have given us any good Authority that she doth so sing. But what is his reason? Why,

Dr. H. Pag. 103.

The differences betwixt the Remonstrants and Contrare­monstrants, in Holland, and their publishing of their Books one against another, by which the students in the Universities were quickned to study the points.

Answ. That the breaking out of the Remonstrants could not, did not contribute to the increase of Arminianism in England, we shall see by and by. In the mean time, it is no great credit to the Doctors cause, that so few durst publick­ly appear for it, till it had the incouragement of the civil Magistrate. If the Primitive Christians had not published the truth, before Kings became nursing Fathers to it, the world had been to this day under Paganish darkness. Let me offer a Dilemma. Either there were some in England who thought Calvins Doctrines made God the Author of sin, destroyed liberty of will, opened a gap to all profaneness; or there were not. If there were none, eve­ry one sees what will follow. If any, how came they to have so little zeal against so damnable blasphemies, as not to adventure the loss of all preferments, yea, of life it self, in opposing of them?

Dr. H. Pag. 104.

But so it hapned, that while matters went thus fairly for­wards, Conradus Vorstius, suspected for a Samosetenian or Socinian Heretick, &c was chosen by the Curators of Leiden, 1611, to succeed Arminius.

Answ. While things went thus fairly forward: How fairly forward? You told us before of the preferments of cer­tain Bishops that had espoused your opinions: several of whose preferments were bestowed on them after this ele­ction of Vorstius, into the place of Arminius. You also little credit your History, by saying that Vorstius was but suspect­ed of Socinianism: and your friends the Remonstrants did less credit themselves in appearing so stre [...]uously for a man suspected of such prodigious blasphemies, if he had been only suspected. But what ever secret good liking you had, either for the Remonstrants, or Vorstius by whom they would feign have been headed, your Loyalty and Allegeance should have kept you from saying, that King James used many harsh and bitter expressions against Arminius and his followers, as if guilty of the same impieties with Vor­stius. ‘For why might not King Iames charge the Remonstrants with Vorstius his blasphemies, when as they so apertly de­clared, that they had nothing against Vorstius, nor had found any thing in his Writing which was contrary to truth or piety: and that it would be most profitable to Church and Commonwealth, if his calling should proceed?’ Vid. praef. ad acta Synodi.

But how inexcuseable a piece of — is it to say as you do, Chapt. 6th, Numb. 7, that King James was carried so to express himself against the Arminians, not so much by the clear light of his own understanding, as by reason of State; and that it was a part of Kings craft, to contri­bute to the suppression of the weaker party? For doth not King Iames in his Declaration tell you the clean con­trary? Doth he not also call Arminius an enemy to God, his followers Atheistical sectaries? ‘Doth he not call Bertius his Book of the Apostasie of Saints, a blasphemous Book, worthy of the Fire for its very Title? Doth he not say, that Bertius l [...]ed grosly in averring his heresie, contained [Page 224] in his said Book, was agreeable with the profession and Religion of our Church of England? And will you after all this make the world believe, that setting aside political considerations, and a design to serve the Prince of Orange, King Iames had no zeal against Arminianism. What if one should say, that this Book you have written is not the clear result of your Judgment, but wrested from you by the im­portunity of your Friends, who would not suffer you to be quiet till you had reproached the Calvinists, and wrested the History of Church affairs to serve their ends? You would think your self wronged. And have not you then much more wronged King Iames under whose Government you lived, in telling the world so long after his death, that he put all the harsh expressions against Arminius into his De­claration, to serve other mens turns rather than to advance his own, as you speak, Chap. 22. Numb. 10. But you think you have reason to charge this hypocrisie on him; for say you, pag. 106, That King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves though he had taken some displeasure against their persons, appears, not only by rejecting the Lam­beth-Articles, and his dislike to the Calvinian Doctrine of predestination in the Conference at Hampton-Court, but also by instructing his Divines commissionated for the Synod of Dort not to oppose the Article of Universal Redempti­on, which they accordingly performed. You told us before Chap. 6. Numb 7th, that King James sent such Divines to the assembly at Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their (i. e. the Remonstrants) condemnation: and have you now so soon forgot your self as to say, that he instruct­ed his Divines thither commissionated, not to oppose the Ar­ticle of Universal redemption, which accordingly they per­formed; and make this an argument that King James, condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves? Was that Universal redemption which you say King James in­structed his Divines not to oppose, and which they did not op­pose, an Ar [...]inian Doctrine▪ or was it not? If it was nor, how is King Iames his directing his Divines not to oppose it, any evidence that he condemned not the Arminians opinions in themselves? If it were, and that our Divines did not condemn it, why is the King charged with sending Divines, that would be sufficiently active in condemning the Arminian opinions?

[Page 225]Again you say expresly, pag. 107, that he gave com­mand to his Divines, sent to the Synod of Dort, not to rec [...]de from the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the point of Universal Redemption by the death of Christ: a point so incon­sistent with that of the absolute decree of reprobation, and gene­rally of the whole Machina of predestination and the points de­pending thereupon as they are commonly maintained in the Schools of Calvin, that fire and water cannot be at greater difference.

Sir, I beseech you consider whether you do not contradict your self, whilst you think you only contradict Calvin. Universal redemption by the death of Christ overthrows the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination and the points thereon depending. Thus I argue from this, They that were sent with Order to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ, were sent with order to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian pre­destination. Our Divines by King James were sent with Or­ders to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore, Our Divines were sent with Orders to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination. Again, They that asserted Universal re [...]emption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of [...]he Calvinian predestination. Our Divines at the Synod of Dort, asserted Universal Redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore, Our Divines at the Synod of Dort, destroy­ed the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination. The premises in both Syllogisms are your own. Yet I suppose you disown the conclusion, naturally and necessarily flow­ing from them: Or if you do not, why did you say, that our King thought it a piece of King-Craft to contri­bute to the suppression of the weaker, i. e. Remonstrant party, and sent Divines that would be active in their condem­nation?

Finally, you tell us that this point of Universal Redem­ption, was, together with the rest, condemned in the Synod of Dort.

Now nothing was in that Synod condemned, but what our Divines consented to: they have subscribed to all the determinations of the Synod, relating to the death of Christ: Therefore either the Synod did not condemn Uni­versal redemption, of our Divines did not a [...]cording to their Orders.

[Page 226]The Reader, by this time sees what terrible executions the Doctor hath done on himself: and more need not be said about the Synod of Dort, as it relateth to our English affairs.

Some things done in England, and misrelated by the Do­ctor, must be rectified. Pag. 105, he essays to make a Salve for the Recantation imposed on Mr. Sympson, for some pas­sages in a Sermon before the King, at Royston, 1616, and he would fain have us think, that the King took no offence at his saying, that the committing any great Sin did for the present ex­tinguish grace, and Gods Spirit; for in that he went no further than Overal had done.

This is very untrue; for Overal never said so, nor could say so, according to his principles. But what then did the King take exception at?

At nothing but the Preachers expounding the seventh to the Ro­mans as Arminius had done, or rather, his Fathering the expo­sition on Arminius.

But either the Preacher did bring this exposition of Ar­minius to credit an Arminian notion, or he did not. If he did, then it was the Arminianism of the exposition that gave distast. If not, would it not sound like tyranny in the King, to injoyn a Learned man a Recantation, meerly be­cause he used such an exposition of a place of Scripture as Arminius had used?

Take the place of a Regenerate man, Arminius his Do­ctrine cannot stand, as the wise King well saw; and therefore he sent to the two Professors of Cambridge to have their judgment in the case, who sent their judgment in fa­vour of St. Austins exposition.

But the Doctor observes, that the Professors did not do this of their own Authority, but as set on by the King, pag. 106.

I wonder how they could give their judgments to the King at Royston, of a Sermon Preached before him, until they were by his Majesty required so to do.

I, But the Professors were not so forward as to move in it of themselves; as may appear by their not answering of Tompsons Book, de intercisione gratiae & justificationis, though the Au­thor of it were a member of that University, but leaving it to be co [...]futed by Dr. Abbot, their Brother in the Chair at Oxford: so [Page 227] great an alteration had been made in Cambridge, since the first striking up of their heats against Baro, and Barret.

O what superfoetations of Doctrines are here upon no­thing, or what is less than nothing? First, Dr. Abbot when he confuted Tompson, was not Doctor of the Chair but Bishop of Salisbury and so no Brother to the Professors at Cam­bridge, 1616. Secondly, The Professors at Cambridge then, were Dr. Richardson originally of Emanuel, a Colledge that in those days afforded few Arminians; and Dr. Iohn Dave­nant, a very able and zealous opposer of Arminianism, as all know. Thirdly, The Cambridge Professors might not count themselves concerned to confute Tompson, because his Book was not Printed in their University, nor indeed in England, and because Tompson's life had confuted his Book at Cambridge. He was a man of a most debauched conversa­tion, and confirmed himself in his debauchedness, by his Arminianism; for when men reproved him for his propha­ness, he would say My will is free, I am a Child of the Devil to day, to morrow I will make my self a Child of God: this more than any Answer to the Book, would confirm the Cantabridgians, that he was not an enemy to perseverance as a Doctrine leading to impiety.

‘Well, but Did not King James, by his Directions to the Uni­versity, Jan. 18. 1619. require that young students in Di­vinity be appointed to study such Books, as be most agree­able in Doctrine and discipline to the Church of England, and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers, and Councels, School-men, Histories, and Controversies: and not to insist too long upon Compendiums, and Ab­breviations, making them the ground of their study in Divinity?’

Really he did so, and I heartily wish the direction had been observed: for then had Arminianism been crushed in the shell. I think next to the study of the Holy Scriptures, the reading of the Fathers is the best preservative against Arminianism; which came into the Low-countrys with the contempt of the Fathers. As for Calvinism, it cannot be condemned, if sentence be pas­sed upon it out of the Fathers; those I mean, who professed to set themselves, to handle the Controversies [Page 228] concerning grace and predestination. Sure I am the Roy­al directions notwithstanding, the University continued as highly, or more highly Calvinistical than ever: a manifest argument that the University looked upon the Kings di­rections, as no way tending to root out Calvinistical Do­ctrine, but rather as a means to confirm it, and so indeed they were.

The Doctor will not yet give over, but, pag. 108, tells us of certain Orders sent out, Anno 1622, August the fourth, designed to put a bridle into the Calvinists mo [...]ths.

These Orders it is notoriously known were put out at such a time when the Spanish match was driving on, and common people began to have thoughts of heart whither the releasing of Recusants, and the Articles of Marriage might tend. ‘In those Orders care was taken, among o­ther things, that no undecent expressions should be used against Puritanes; but it was also provided that no Preacher of what title soever under the degree of a Bishop or Dean at least, should thenceforth presume to teach in any popular auditory, the deep points of predestination, &c. but rather leave those points to be handled by learned men, and that modestly and moderately, by Use and application rather than by positive Doctrine.’ And this was a right good Or­der for Calvinists, who never suffer so much from any thing, as the declamatory attempts of men in popular Sermons. In the Schools, where Syllogisms must be u­sed, their Doctrine is not in much danger; because he who disputes must keep himself close to the State of the Question, through not representing of which, Armini­ans get all their Advantage. Mr. Hoard did make choice of that piece of Calvinism which is most liable to ex­ception, the absolute decree of reprobation. And I con­fess, when I was a young proud Graduate, I had read his Book, and did think it perfectly unanswerable: but when I had the good hap to meet with Bishop Dav [...]nants answer to it, I was marvelously altered in my opinion and estimation concerning the strength of the Book, (keeping still an high opinion of the [Page 229] Author of it;) for I found that the absolute decree of reprobation was quite another thing than it was repre­sented.

There was in Oxford, after the coming out of the aforesaid Orders of the King, a Sermon Preached in the University Church by Mr. Gabriel Bridges, a­gainst the absolute decree: this, saith the Doctor, was a violating of the Kings Order, (you must pity him, he had nothing else to say,) and this laid him open to the per­secution of Dr. Prideaux, and to the censure of the Vice-chancelor.

But all who have searched the Register do know, that violation of the Kings Order was never so much as once laid to Mr. Bridges his charge. He was accused for Preaching contrary to the Articles of Religion established among us: and was Ordered to maintain in the Schools, the Contrary to what he had Preached in the Pulpit: and he did so, and never altered his mind afterwards. In­deed it had been most ridiculous once to imagine, that a Sermon Preached in the University Church, could violate the Kings Order manifestly restrained to popular Auditories, in which number the University Auditories were never placed.

The Doctor hath one Card more left to play, which if it hit not, he will have a perfect Slam. What is that? It is his dear friend Mr. Mountague, whom he imagineth in his Gagger to have disclaimed all the Calvinian tenents, and to have asserted the Church to her primitive and genuine Do­ctrines.

(Creditis? an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt?)

Well, what of this Gagger? Why, information was prepa­red against him by two worthy men, Mr. Yates, and Mr. Ward. (A sign he was looked on as designing innovation.) What doth Mr. Mountague? After he had got a copy of this informa­tion, be flees for shelter to King James, (Poor man! did he flee for shelter, against the information of two Lecturers? What shelter did he there find? Why,) King Iames (ha­ving now acted a Part at the Synod of Dort, condemned [Page 230] the Arminians that he might save the Prince of Orange, and Archbishop Abbot coming not at him, and Dr. Iames Mounta­gue being dead,) was Master of himself, (it seems before he had been a servant to others,) and Governed by the Light of his own most clear and excellent judgement, took both Moun­tague and his Doctrines into his Protection, and gave him a quietus est from all those Calumnies of Popery and Arminian­ism that were by the Informers laid on him, commanded Dr. Francis White to see his Appeal he was in hand with Licenced for the Press, and finally gave Order to Moun­tague to dedicate the Book, when Licenced, to his Royal self.

These things are very unlikely; that a King should give command to have a Book Licenced before he had seen it or knew what would be in it, and that he should give Or­der to have it Dedicated to himself: and because they are unlikely, I could be glad to see them confirmed by some irrefragable Authority; but find no Authority al­ledged. Wherefore I am a very unbeliever in all these matters: so are most I meet with. But these things I am certain of, First, That in Mr. Mountagues Appeal there be down-right untruths in matter of fact; in which I do not find the Doctor going about to justifie or excuse him. Secondly, That never Book gave more discontent than his did; for it was answered by no fewer than five or six, all considerable in the Nation, all agreeing that he had de­parted from the Doctrine of the Church. The Book was also censured in Parliament, as contrary to our Articles. Archbishop Abbot indeavoured the stopping of it before it came to light. Dr. White who had approved it, did pub­lickly complain what a trick the Bishops had served him, promising to joyn with him in the approbation of the Book, but yet cowardly slipping their necks out of the Collar and leaving him to bear the whole envy of the Midwifery of so distastful a Book. Finally, King Charles himself, was feign both to pardon Mountague for all his Writings, and at last to call in his Book, as the great occa­sion of many unneces [...]ary troubles. So I let pass Mr. Moun­tague, of whom Dr. Prideaux publickly said that he was more a Grammarian, than a Divine.

[Page 231]As for King Iames, we are sure, from the Pen of Dr. Featly, (never used to wrong his Sovereign,) that, not many weeks before his death, he called the Arminians Hereticks: and so we conclude, that, for all his and Queen Elizabeths days, they were accounted Hereticks and their Doctrine Heresie. And seeing they were then so accounted, why now the broachers of that Doctrine, should be ac­counted the most obedient Sons of the Church, is a questi­on in which I would most gladly be satisfied. Until such satisfaction be gained, it will be at least a pardonable error to suppose, that that is not the Doctrine of the Church of England, which, for above threescore Years after her first esta­blishment, was not averred in any one Licenced Book, but confuted in many.



I Am given to understand, that I seem to some, not sufficiently to have taken notice of what the Doctor brings, to invalidate the Argument drawn from Barret's Recantation. I drew the Argument from the Heads of Houses in Cambridge enjoyning Mr. Barret to Recant what he had delivered against absolute reproba­tion and against perseverance, and some other Calvinian Doctrines, not only as false but also as contrary to the Articles of Religion here in England established. The Doctor doth not, cannot deny, but that such Recantation was enjoyned him. Now if the Heads of Houses in the Univer­sity, who are authorized to judge of the Sermons preach­ed among them, and to censure what they find in such Sermons disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church, did judge Barret's Doctrine, denying absolute reprobation and perseverance of Believers, to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and manifestly contrary to it, and passed this judgment upon mature deliberation, I leave it to any ones consideration, whether this be not a very vehement presumption, that Calvin's Doctrine concerning absolute election and perseverance is agreeable to the Articles of our Church, and Barret's Doctrine contrary to them. If this be granted, what need I contend about by-passages relating to the Recantation, being in a place where I can have no recourse to the Records of Cambridge? Yet to make it appear that I did write nothing in this business rashly, and that the Doctor hath me at no such advantage as he pretends, I will now review all he saith, not al­ready taken notice of. It signifies little that he saith, 1. That this process was made or procured by the Calvinian Heads, inflamed by Mr. Perkins, pag. 70, Part 3. Seeing there were [Page 233] then no Heads but what were Calvinistical, and no man can think that they should all be guided and acted by Mr. Perkins a poor Preacher in the Town. 2. It is to be doubted, saith he, pag. 71, whether any such Recantation con­sisting of so many Articles, and every Article having its abju­ration or recantation subjoyned unto it, was ever enjoyned to be made? But what reason have we to doubt of this? when as the Form of Recantation is exemplified in Mr. Fuller (from whom I had it,) and also in Mr. Prynne's Antiarminianism, and was fairly printed in Qu. Elizabeth's daies, some printed Copies of it being still extant, and seeing Mr. Prynne declares that the Form of Recantation by him inserted into his Book, was a Transcript taken out of an Original Copy under Mr. Barret's own hand? Why he doubts, because though Mr. Prynne say, that the Re­cantation, in the same manner and form as we there find it, was exemplified and sent unto him under the Register's hand, yet he also confesseth, that no such matter could be found when the Heads of houses were required by an Order from the House of Commons to make certificate unto them of all such Recanta­tions as were recorded in their University Register, and of this Recantation in particular. But first, Mr. Prynne only tells us, that he had been certified and informed, that this Order for Recantation could not be found among the University Re­cords. 2. Mr. Prynne doth not pretend to have had in his hands the Form of Recantation exemplified under the Register's hand, but only the Order for Recantation. The Form of Recantation he tells us, he had another way; and perhaps the Form of Recantation was never put into the University Archives, or Register. But if the Order for the Recantation should not be found there neither, I should much wonder, and yet less wonder, because Thomas Smith, who was Register at this time, is branded for one that was very careless in Registring matters that concerned the University; as may be found in Mr. Fuller's Hist. of Camb. p. 49.

But that which the Historian most contends for, is, that the Recantation was never made by Barret. Pag. 72. It is to be denied as a thing most false, that he never published the Recantation, whatsoever it was. It is to be thought that the Printer hath mistaken his Copy, and put never, instead [Page 234] of ever; for if it be most false that he never published his Recantation, then it is to be affirmed as a thing most true, that he sometime published it: which is that which we believe Let us s [...]an the reasons of the Doctor to prove that he never read the Recantation, ibid. For 1. It is ac­knowledged in Mr. Prynnes own Transcript of the Acts, that though Barret did confess the Propositions wherewith he was charged, to be contained in his Sermon, yet he would never grant them to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and therefore was not likely to retract the same.

The Argument framed stands thus,

‘He that would never acknowledge his Propositions to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England was not likely to retract the same. Mr. Barret would not acknowledge his Propositions to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England: therefore, he was not likely to retract the same.’ The Major certainly is most absurdly false; but the Minor cannot be proved. For Mr. Prynne's Copy doth not say, that he would never ac­knowledge; but only that at first reading of his Charge he denyed his Propositions to be contrary to the Religion of the Church of England. Many a man at first denies what he afterwards granteth. Secondly, saith the Doctor, ibid. It is plain from Mr. Barret's Letters, the one to Dr. Goad Master of Kings, the other to Mr. Chadderton Master of Emanuel, that neither slattery, nor t [...]at [...]ings, nor the fear of losing his subsistence in the University, should ever work him to the publishing of the Recantation required of him.

The Doctor had in his Certamen Epistolare before told us of two Letters of Barret's, written one to Dr. Goad, the other to Mr. Chadderton; and now he tells us that from them it is manifest that neither flattery, &c. Yet he gives us only a Copy of the Letter to Dr. Goad, and never tells us whence he had that; nor doth the Letter to Dr. Goad in the least intimate that any flattery had been used to draw him to make the Recantation; but rather it manifests that he used flattery to perswade Dr. Goad to be his Friend, and obtain for him, that he might stay in the University, on solemn promise to keep his Opinion to himself. A very sneaking Letter it is, and shews that he was a poor low spirited man, valuing his Place more than his Conscience, [Page 235] and yet his Credit more than his Place. Nor doth he (if we may judge of him by the Letter pretended to be his,) appear to be a toberable Scholar. For let any one read the beginning of it, and he will scarce be able to find sense in it. My duty remembred to your Worship, &c. Sir, according to your appointment I have conferred with Mr. Overald, and Mr. Chadderton. Mr. Overald after once Con­ference, refused to talk any more off these points, saying it needed not. For Mr. Chadderton he is a learned man, and one whom I do much reverence, yet he hath not satisfied me in this point: for I required proof but of these two things at his hands: that una fides did specie differre ab alia; and that it was aliud donum ab alio. But for the first, whereas he should have proved it did was differre specie, he proved it did differre numero, and that but out of the Master of the Sentences; whose authority notwithstanding I do not impugne. And for the other, that it should be aliud donum, he proveth out of St. Augustin that fides daemonum is not alia a fide Christiano­rum, which no man ever denyed; for fides daemonum is not donum at all; so that it cometh not in question. So that I being unsatisfied of one party (meaning Mr. Chadderton) and rather confirmed of the other party, I do hold my Positions as before.

He, (if he) saith, he required proof but of two things, viz. that una fides did differre specie ab alia, and that it was aliud donum ab alio. That it was; that what was? Una fides. Can any one make sense of this, Una fides est aliud donum ab alio? I must confess I cannot. But what success had he in his desire to Mr. Chadderton? Why, whereas he should have proved that una fides did differre specie ab alia, he proved it did differre numero; and that but out of the Master of the Sentences, whose authority nevertheless, he saith, he did not impugne. Really I think he did not disgrace himself in granting upon the authority of the Master of the Sentences, that una fides doth differre numero ab alia: but Mr. Chad­derton did vilely disgrace himself, if he did bring the Ma­ster of the Sentences authority, to prove that una fides nu­mero di [...]fert ab alia. He might even as well have brought the authority of the Master of the Sentences, to prove that Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Barret did differre numero. But why was Mr. Barret so simple, as to desire to have it [Page 236] proved, that Una fides doth specie differre ab alia? Could he once imagine that divine and humane faith do not specie differre? or did he not know that the faith of Mi­racles did specifically differ from that by which we are justified? If any man would be satisfied that even the faith which is commonly called temporary, doth specifi­cally differ from that to which salvation is promised, he may soon be satisfied by reading the writings that passed betwixt Dr. B. and Mr. B. concerning this point. Did Mr. Chadderton satisfie any better his second desire? (which I for my part cannot understand.) Of that thus he writeth. And for the other that it should be aliud donum, he proveth out of St. Austin that fides daemonum is not alia a fide Christianorum: which no man ever denied, for fides daemonum is not donum at all, so that it cometh not in que­stion. This is the strangest stuff I ever met with. Did Mr. Ch. prove out of St. Austin that fides daemonum is not alia a fide Christianorum, and did no man ever deny this, and is this a good reason to prove that no man denied it, because fides daemonum is not donum? Either this is non­sense or I have lost my reason and senses. In the Form of Recantation I find it enjoyned Mr. Barret to recant this saying In fide nulla est distinctio sed in credentibus. Which undoubtedly was unworthy of a Scholar; for what di­stinction could he mean, specifical or numerical? If spe­cifical, then his meaning must be, Una fides non distinguitur specie ab alia, sed unus fidelis specifice distinguitur ab alio: If numerical, then his meaning must be, Una fides non differt numerice ab alia, se [...] unus fidelis differt numerice ab alio: which was rare stuff to put into a Sermon ad Clerum. If there be no difference in Faiths, there can be no difference in Believers as such, that's certain. I believe this muddy Letter made Dr. Heylin himself somewhat muddy: for pag. 75, he lets us know that it cannot be made apparent that either Dr. Du­port the Vicechancellor, which was most concerned, or Dr. Baro the Lady Margarets Professor for Divinity there, had any hand in sentencing the Recantation. Not Dr. Baro because by concurring to this Sentence, he was to have condemned himself: (he might also have added because being no Head of an House, he could not sit among the Heads of Houses.) But, Why not Dr. Duport? For I find his Place to be supplied by [Page 237] Dr. Some, which shews him to be absent at that time from the University, according to the stile whereof the title of Pro­cancellarius is given to Dr. Some in the Acts of the Court; as appears by the extracts of them in the Antiarminianism, p. 64, compared with p. 63. Did I ghess amiss in saying the Doctor was muddy when he writ this? Could Dr. Du­port be most concerned to sentence the Recantation, if he were absent from the University when the Sentence was given? Doth the managing of the business by Doctor Some shew, that Dr. Duport was absent from the University at the management of it? Might he not be in the Univer­sity and be sick, or or otherwise hindred from coming to the University Consistory. Finally, it seems by Mr. Prynne's Transcript that though Dr. Some did as Deputy manage some part of the Transaction, yet Dr. Duport himself ma­naged at least the latter part of it. I had almost forgot to take notice of one thing the Doctor brings to dis­credit the Recantation page 73. It is the Title of it, given by Mr. Prynne page 50, Antiarm. And really, had that Title been given to it by the University, it had been suf­ficient to disparage the whole Recantation. But Mr. Prynne doth not affirm that Title to be made by any but himself; who being a long-winded wordy man, and as fierce against the Arminians as the Doctor can be for them could not mention Mr. Barret's errors without shewing his detestation, of them and Mr. Harsnet who held them as well as Mr. Barret. To conclude, I hope, for Mr. Barret's sake, that he never did write so silly a Letter to Dr. Goad: If he did, I cannot collect from it that he never read the Recantation enjoyned him. And I wish for Dr. Heylin's sake that he had not depre­dicated the invincible constancy of Mr. Barret, as he doth page 87: and that he had used his art, rather any other way, than to put a fair face on foul Opinions. And for my self, I desire thee Good Reader to believe, that as I took but little pleasure in writing against Dr. Heylin whilst he lived; so I take less to find any thing of mine printed against him since he is dead. If by what thou readest, thou be any way edified, give God the glory, and me thy prayers.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.