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
reprobates any man who was not worthy to be reprobated All that their opinion obligeth them to is but this Not to make sin the cause of preterition or non-election comparatively considered And against such preterition there is nothing in the Prayers of our Church nothing in Latimer nothing in Hooper nothing in Cranmer nothing in the whole Tenth Chapter of the Doctor 's second Part. And it is a wonder that so ancient a Divine should trouble himself in so many pages to do execution upon a mâ—er Chimaera and yet this employment was so pleasing and acceptable to him that he falls to it again in his â—leventh Chapter In which page 64 he makes the main Controversie in the Point of man's Conversion to move upon this hinge Whether the influences of God's grace be so strong and powerful that withall they are absolutely irresistible so that it is not possible for the will of man not to consent unto the same But they that have either read the determinations of the Synod of Dort or Calvin's own Institutions know that the Controversie moves upon no such hinge but this is the Question Whether when converting Grace hath produced the whole effect God designed it unto man still remains unconverted and indifferent either to turn himself or not turn himself unto God If converting Grace do leave a man thus indifferent they say that Conversion is rather to be ascribed to man than God and that Paul made himself to differ from other Persecutors and not God But they never say that God forceth or offereth violence unto the natural faculty of the will or destroyeth any liberty that is essential to it If any violence be offered it is only unto corrupt lusts and sinful inclinations in which I hope I may have fair liberty to say that the freedom of mans will doth not consist Let but any one fairly and impartially state this Question by drawing Propositions concerning it out of the Writings before mentioned and he will find nothing in Hooper or Latimer contradictory The tenth Article of King Edward's he will find perfectly to express the mind of the Calvinists And so I might dismiss this matter had not the Doctor thought meet page 67 as also in another Writing to smite at us with a Dilemma or something like a Dilemma grounded upon the omitting of this Article in Queen Elizabeth's time Either this Article did favour Calvinism or it did not If it did not why do the Calvinists alledge it If it did why is it in our latter Editions of the Articles left out We have learnt from Logick that such Dilemma's are not to be used which may be inverted or retorted upon those that make them and such is the present Dilemma apparently notoriously such For thus I argue Either this Article is Anti-calvinistical or it is not If it be not why doth the Doctor produce it as such If it be why did our Reformers in Queen Elizabeth 's time who were as he would fain perswade us Anticalvinistical leave it out He must either answer for himself or not expect that we should answer for our selves which yet we could easily do did any Law of Disputation require it of us for this might be the reason of the omission because there was nothing in King Edward's tenth Article but what doth naturally and lineally descend from our present seventeenth Article I will follow the Doctor whither he leads me when I have first admonisht my Reader not â—o prejudice himself by what so frequently occurs among our Protestant Writers that Works done before the grace of Christ do not make men meet to receive grace For it will be found agreeable unto Scripture that Works done before Conversion may leave in the Soul a material disposition or a passive preparedness to receive grace no preparation can be wrought by them that deserves grace none from which grace necessarily flows but yet such may be wrought as from which a man may be denominated more meet and more likely to receive the undeserved love of God than if he wanted it Just as we say in Natural Philosophy that though the rational soul do not emerge out of the organization of the matter but is immediately inspired by God yet an organical matter is a more prepared subject to receive such a soul than a matter not organized I promised after I had laid down this caution to follow the Doctor and so I will to his Twelfth Chapter But in it I shall not need to stay long with him for it is wholly spent in laying down the Doctrine of Free-will as it was agreed upon in the Popish Convocation Anno 1543. Wherefore though there be nothing in the Article of Free-will there delivered but what a Calvinist allowing him but a favourable interpretation may subscribe to yet the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England must not be measured by the decisions of that Popish Convocation In the Thirteenth Chapter entituled Concerning the certainty or uncertainty of Perseverance passing over the Council of Trent which will be of no use to us to find out the Doctrine of the Church of England Pag. 81 the Calvinists are charged to presume not only to know all things that belong to their present justification as assuredly as they know that Christ is in Heaven but also to be as sure of their eternal election and of their future glorification as they are of this Article of their Creed that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary If any Calvinist â—ver said so he erred greatly not knowing the Scriptures or the deceitfulness of his own heart But if never any Calvinist said so what shall then be done to him that so presumptuously bears false witness against them Certainly the Calvinists do not hold that the Doctrine of Perseverance is so fundamental or so clearly delivered in Scripture as the Doctrine of Christ's Nativity so far are they from holding that they themselves or any of them do as certainly know the goodness of their present state or their eternal election as they firmly believe the Article of their Saviour's being born of the Virgin Mary They are all wont to distinguish of a certitude of the object and a certitude of the subject they say 't is certain from the Word that he who is a sound Believer shall continue to be a Believer until he attain the end of his Faith But they say a man may be a Believer and yet not be certain that he does believe and if once he had a certain perswasion of his faith he may lose that perswasion and many of them I am sure say that he must lose it as oft as he falls into any conscience-wasting sin This is the Doctrine that agrees with our Articles and with the judgment of our first Reformers If any man deliver the Doctrine of Perseverance at a higher rate the Calvinists are not concerned to defend him The sixteenth Article of our Church is brought by the Dr. against Perseverance The words
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
me how it appears that Mr. Harsnet and his Sermon was so censured and condemned I answer It appears from the plain testimony of Mr. William Prin page 304 of his Perpetuity printed at such a time when Prudence as well as Conscience would have restrained him from uttering an untruth against so great a man as Harsnet was then become Can it be imagined that if this had been a slander so great a Prelate of our Nation would not have demanded reparation and satisfaction As for the Doctor 's Argument that seeing the Sermon was preached at the Cross the University could take no cognizance of it it is such as I suppose upon second thoughts he will wish he had never made use of And he hath as much reason to wish that he had never troubled his Book with any thing of Bishop King's Lectures upon Ionah in which nothing is to be found against absolute Predestination nor yet any thing from which any probable collection can be made that the Bishop had conceived in his own mind any opinion about it contrary to Mr. Calvin's nor could the Doctor himself collect any thing from them till he had first supposed which no one will grant him that there is the same reason of God's eternal Election and his Promises as of his eternal Reprobation and his threatnings This done the Historian fills his nineteenth Chapter with lamentations and weeping bewailing the sad condition of the Church that was feign in her Reformation under Queen Elizabeth to make use of any Learned man that had zeal against Popery to discharge the places of greatest trust and Authority in the Church how Calvinistical soever they were for Doctrine But when was that it the Church was put to this strait was it not in the first years of Queen Elizabeth and particularly in the year 1562 when the first Convocation was held If so what a piece of boldness was it to say that that Convocation drew up Articles with any purpose to give check to Doctrinal Calvinism and what uncharitableness is it to affirm that our learned Divines did change their minds when for a few years they were forced to change the air in the Reign of Queen Mary What men of note had they to converse with beyond the Seas whose Opinions and Arguments they had not read and considered while in England They must needs be clouds without water if the breath of Calvin and Martyr could so easily toss them to and fro But we know those that went over Conformists came home Conformists and those that went over Non-conformists came back Non-conformists though somewhat strengthened in their Non-conformity by the communion they had with the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas I shall hereafter shew that not only Non-conforming Divines but also the most zealous Conformists did set themselves with all their might to declare against and crush the Arminian Doctrine as soon as in any place it began to be be delivered And the Doctor may do well to remember that Mr. Hooper and Mr. Bradford whom he hath before made so much use of though to little purpose were both of them Non-conformists in King Edward's days and Mr. Latimer whom he also challengeth for his own was litle better than a Non-conformist letting fly sufficiently at the Dignities of the Reformed Prelates So that if these three men had been as much for him as he pretends a man might say English Arminianism did spring out of the root of Non-conformity but it will appear that it did spring from opposition to those wholsom Doctrines in which all our Reformers how much soever differing about Ceremonies agreed Mr. Iohn Fox his Martyrology though dedicated to the Queen and by her accepted graciously though highly honoured by a Canon of the whole Convocation 1571 the Historian expresly saith he looketh on as the first great Battery which was made on the Bulwarks of this Church in point of Doctrine by any Member of her own page 58. A piece of confidence suitable to that which carried him to say King Edward was an ill principled Prince and that his removal by death was no infelicity of our Church And it is the more inexcusable because in all his Histoâ—iâ—s about our Reformation he lighteth his Candle so oft at the Martyrologist's It seems he loveth darkness rather than light if it come from Geneva Bishop Hall to whom Episcopacy oweth far more than to Doctor Heylin calleth Fox a Saint-like Historian and for such he will be accounted as long as any one drop of good Protestant bloud runneth in our English veins But did the Convocation appoint no balm for that wound made by the Martyrology Yes that it did he thinks What was it Another Canon page 60 that men should teach no other Doctrine in their publick Sermons to be believed of the People but what was agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament and had from thence been gathered by the Catholick Fathers and ancient Bishops I say If this Canon had been observed Mr. Harsnet had never preached his Sermon He thinks Calvinism had never been preached because maintained by none of the Catholick Fathers and ancient Bishops but Saint Augustine only who was but one Bishop but one Father All Calvinists will now easily forgive him his reproaches against Calvin seeing he spares not St. Augustine But I hope he will not forgive himself that passion which produced so great an untruth Had he said none before St. Augustine maintained Calvin's Doctrines the mistake had been excusable so is it not to say that no Catholick Father or ancient Bishop maintained it besides St. Augustine Doubtless Prosper and Hilary were both Catholick Fathers and ancient Bishops yet they as much maintained Calvin's Opinions as St. Augustine doth Who are the Bishops and Catholick Fathers that the Doctor follows in these Points of Predestination and grace In his second Part page 36 he quotes three ancient Writers The first Ambrose on the Epistles yet every one knows that those Commentaries on the Epistles are not his but the work as some think of a Pelagian as others of one Hilary no Bishop though a Catholick He also quotes the Commentary upon Saint Paul's Epistles ascribed to St. Hierom but he is not ignorant or if he be ignorant few other Scholars be that those Commentaries however formerly fathered on Hierom do call Pelagius himself Father and he I trow was no Cathotholick Father or ancient Bishop but a most vile Heretick He also refers us to St. Chrysostom in Ep. 14. By which I know not what he means but am sure it is little credit to a Doctor in Divinity living so near the University to bring Chrysostom in Latine whose Greek is so easie as that School-boys are able to understand it so that if this had been any piece of a Sermon I might certainly hâ—â—e concluded that the Doctor had violated the Canon and would fain know of him how our ordinary Countrey Preachers should be in any capacity to