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 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 moâ—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 Davâ—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 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 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 unnecesâ—ary troubles So I let pass Mr. Mountague of whom Dr. Prideaux publickly said that he was more a Grammarian than a Divine 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
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 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 Animadversioâ— on the Doctor 's History supposing it needless to wipe ofâ— 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 aâ— 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 â—y Christ. Which Doctrine should have been gathered from our Articles or from some Homilies purposâ—ly written of those subjects but the Doctor gathers iâ— fâ—om the Homily of Chrâ—st's Nativity Many of his dear Frâ—ends wâ—ll conâ—â—â—im no thanks for so doing But I am conteâ—t â—o â—et aâ—l that he hath collected pag. 4 5 6 pass 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 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 bâ— 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 some Officer of the Church and therefore because in
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 it s 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 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 't is like took his place but his Exposition on the Commandments was printed four years before that Convocation saâ—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 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
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 Bâ—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 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 truâ—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 appoiâ—ting for the review Dr. Parker Drâ— Gâ—indaâ— Dr. Pilkington Dr. Cox Dr. May Dr. Bill Mr. Whitehead Sir Thomas Smith Answ. 'T is 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 Eâ—lection or the Apostasie of Saints it had not failed to be blotted out 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 Zuinglâ—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 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
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 't is 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 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 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 sâ—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 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
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 Arâ—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 Again you say expresly pag. 107 that he gave command to his Divines sent to the Synod of Dort not to recâ—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 reâ—emption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of â—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 aâ—cording to their Orders 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 coâ—futed by Dr. Abbot their Brother in the Chair at Oxford so 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
very fair interpretation of it and subscribe unto it This I had thought to have shown but I am prevented by the incomparable Zanchy who descanting upon the agreement made betwixt the Divines and Professors of the Church and School of Argentine Anno 1563 concerning the Divine Prescience and Predestination doth also teach us how to interpret the Book of Concord Which yet all things considered might better have been called the Book of Discord so much variance did it create among those whose Wisdom and Piety it would have been to unite against the common Enemies of Reformation Here it may not be amiss to take notice that when Marbachius about the years 1561 1562 did accuse Zanchy's Doctrine of Predestination as heretical the judgement of Churches and Universities and private learned Men was desired and the University and Church of Marpurg the School and Church of Heidelberg the Church of Scaphusinm the Tigurine Church and School the Church and University of Basil besides many private Persons did justifie him as may be seen in his second Book of Miscellanies page 79 80 c. Object But do not many of the Lutherans decry Calvins Doctrine of Predestination as injurious to God and destructive of the power and practice of godliness Ans. I must needs acknowledge they do and that at such a rate and height that they have in virulence exceeded most of the Papists Like deaf adders they seem to have stopped their ears against the voice of all those who would have charm'd them into any moderation and to have that alway written upon their hearts which once dropped from Luther's Pen in a fit of passion Blessed is the man who hath not gone in the counsel of the Sacramentarians 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 Calâ—inists about Predestination happened in the year 1586 and was managed principally by the learned Theodore Beza and Iacobus Andreas a man of mean birth but advanced at last to be Chancellor of Tubing the place Mompelgard the occasion such as that no good success could be expected from it Frederick the Prince was from his youth trained up and instructed in the Ubiquitarian Doctrine but by going to Berne and Geneva and frequent hearing the Lectures and Sermons of Beza began to have some more favourable thoughts of the Calvinists and therefore gave entertainment to some French exiles at Mompelgard But as soon as it was buzzed into his ear that the Duke of Wittenberg had no Heir male that the Austrians would never endure him to be Successor if he favored the Hugonots and that he was already suspected so to do both because he had been at Geneva and also because he had received and given entertainment to the French Protestants upon these reasons he yielded to the Conference not to find out truth but to purge himself from any suspition of being Calvinistically affected I would not have charged so great a Prince with so carnal a design but that Scultetus in the History of his own life pag. 28 assures me that Toâ—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 hâ—c est ut per Christum salvarentur 3. Salvandorum apud Deum certus est numerus These things he layeth down as matters that come noâ— under any Dispute Beza contradicts not any of these nor had he any reason to contradict them But Andreas saith This is the question Whether God have so predestinated his own Elect to eternal Life as that he hath also destinated some and the greater part of mankind before they were born to eternal Condemnation and that by his absolute and hidden decree so as that he would not have them repent be converted and saved This he denieth and so would any Calvinist that is in his wits till the terms be distinguished I do challenge all the Jesuits and Arminians now living to name and shew me that man who hath in Print ventured to affirm That God did Decree to Damn any one single Person but for Sin When it is charged on us that we say God would noâ— have men Repent what is the meaning Is this it that there are some whose Impenitence God resolves not to cure unto whom he decreed not to give the Grace of Repentance Why who can question this If the meaning be that there are some whom God never put under an obligation to Repent unto whom he never made Repentance a duty I must needs say I am yet to learn the name of that Divine who hath affirmed any such thing Alas that Scholars should not distinguish betwixt Gods will of purpose determining of events and his legislative will determining of the creatures duty or once imagine that there is a contrariety betwixt these two wills The Conference ended Beza desired that notwithstanding any difference they might still look upon one another as Brethren which Andreas would not yield to offering Beza dextram humanitatis but not dextram fraternitatis The summ of all that I would have observed concerning the Lutherans is That the more ancient of them do not differ from the Calvinists in the Articles of Predestination or Perseverance the latter do differ from them somewhat though not so much as the Arminians in both yet the latter and worser sort of Lutherans do so lay down the Doctrine of Free-will that they may easily be driven to grant both absolute Election and absolute eternal Non-election or Preterition For as Hornbeck well Summa Contro p. 726 727 This being once granted that it is not by our own strength or concourse that we are converted but only and meerly by the grace and operation of the Spirit it follows that men cannot be converted but by this his grace and that they are then only converted when this grace is given Now all are not converted
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 Publick Acts and Monuments of the several Churches and must we now be put off with a 't is 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 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 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 â—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
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 Archiepiscopuâ— 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 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 servâ—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 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 earnestlyâ—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 takâ—n in many places word for word out of that of Ausberg 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 Conâ—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
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 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. 'T is 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 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 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 conâ—rary to that which was received and allowed in King 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 Trans-slation 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 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 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 'T is 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 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
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 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 streâ—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 lâ—ed grosly in averring his heresie contained 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