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
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 Mâ—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 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 haâ—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 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 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
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 free-will 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 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 â—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 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 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
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 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 â—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 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 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