puts it not into our Creed as this is in theirs But first I hope you do not think that whatsoever is agreed in a General Councel is presently put into our Creed or becomes an Article of the Faith there being some things determined in the first General Councel held by the Apostles in Jerusalem which being long disused are not now binding at all and such as are now binding not being observed because they were decreed in that Councel but as they have their foundation in the Moral Law Secondly if you think the doctrine of Deposing Kings is put into the Papists Creed you must tell me in what Creed it is in none of their old Creeds I am sure of that nor in the new Creed made by Pope Pius the fourth nor in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of the Councel of Trent nor in any other Authentick Record or publick Monument of that Church for if this doctrine had been made a part of their Creed as well before as since the Laterane Councel so many learned men in the Church of Rome as Brian Marsepius Butavinus and divers others had not writ against it nor had so many secular Priests living or abiding here in England so freely written in behalf of the Oath of Allegiance in which this doctrine is disclaimed had it been entertained in that Church as a part of their Creed And on the other side why may we not conceive that this doctrine of Deposing Kings is made an Article of the Creed by the Sect of Calvin considering first how generally it is defended how frequently practised and endeavoured by them as before was said considering secondly that though many National and Provincial Synods have been held by them in their several and respective Churches yet did they never in any one of them disclaim this doctrine or seek to free their Churches from the scandal of it All which clearly shews that they did very well approve the doctrine together with all the consequents thereof in the way of practice And then quid interest utrum velim fieri an gaudeam factum as the Orator hath it what will the difference be I pray you between advising before hand such ungodly practises and approving of them on the post-fact as they seem to do For were it otherwise amongst them they never had a better oportunity to have cleared themselves from being enemies to Monarchical Government from justifying such seditious writings from having a hand in any of those commotions which had before disturbed the peace of Christendome then in the Synod of Dort Anno 1618. where the Commissioners or Delegates of all the Calvinian Churches both in the higher and the lower Germany those of Geneva and the Switzers being added to them were convened together Their doing nothing in it then declares sufficiently how well they liked the doctrine and allowed the practice 42. Having thus justified M. Burton in his first assertion you next proceed unto the maintenance of his second which is that the Papists Faith is Faction and how prove you that Marry thus You say if it be an article of the Popish Faith that none are Members of Christ and his Church but the subjects of the Pope then the Popish Faith is Faction But the Antecedent is true being defined by the Pope Leo the 10. in a General Councel This is the Argument by which you hope to justifie M. Burtons second proposition though afterwards you would be thought to be no approver of his wayes But let me tell you M. Baxter your Hypothetical Syllogism is as faulty and halts as much on both legs as your Categorical For taking it for granted that such an article of the Faith was made by Pope Leo the 10. in a General Councel yet can you not with any reason or justice either upbraid the whole Faith of the Papists with being a Faction because of the obliquity and partiality of one article of it Nor 2ly can the Papist Faith be termed Faction supposing that any such article had been made in that Councel for it would follow thereupon that if a Canon had been made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergie which make the representative body of the Church of England that whosoever should oppose the Rites and Ceremonies by Law established should not be capable either of the Sacraments or Sacramentals that Canon might be called Faction whereas the Faction lies not in the Canon but in them that do oppose the Ceremonies Or if any act or statute should be made in a free and lawful Parliament that every one who shall not pay the Subsidies and Taxes imposed on them by the same should be put out of the protection of the Laws of the Land that Statute could not be or be called Faction because the Faction lies not in the Act or Statute but in them who do refuse the payment My reason is because the main body of a Church or State or any of the Products or results thereof cannot in any propriety of speech be held for Faction whether considered in themselves or in relation to some few who dislike the same and violently pursue their dislikes thereof For Faction to speak properly is the withdrawing of a smaller or greater number from the main body either of a Church or State governing themselves by their own Councels and openly opposing the established Government as here in England they who communicate not with the Church in favour of the Pope of Rome are commonly called the Popish Faction as they are called the Puritan Faction who conform not to the Rites and Ceremonies by Law established But on the other side the whole body of the Church is by no means to be called a Faction in reference to either of the opposite parties And then again you should have told us whether you take the word Faith in your proposition for a justifying historical temporary Faith or a Faith of Miracles whither you take it for the Habit or Act of Faith by which they believe or for the Object of Faith or that is to say the thing believed If you can take the word Faith in none of these senses as I think you cannot it must be taken in a more general comprehension for the true knowledge and worship of God and then it signifies the same with the word Religion the Christian Faith and the Christian Religion denoting but one and the same thing under divers names so that upon the whole matter you are but where you were before the Papists Religion being no more properly to be called faction in this Proposition then it was Rebellion in the former Had you formed your Proposition thus viz. If it be an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope then the Papists faith or rather that one Article of the Papists faith tends to the making of a faction you had come neerer to the truth but standing in the same tearms in
no other issue could be expected then the curse of God in making a perpetual rent and destruction in the whole body of the state pag. 39. was not because they were so in and of themselves but for other Reasons which our great Masters in the Schools of policy called Reason of State That King had said as much as this comes too of the Puritans of Scotland whom in the second Book of his Basilicon Doron he calls the very pests of a Common-wealth whom no deserts can oblige neither Oaths nor Promises bind breathing nothing but sedition and calumny c. Advising his Son Prince Henry then Heir of the Kingdom not to suffer the Principles of them to brook his Land if he list to sit at rest except he would keep them for trying his patience as Socrates did an evil wise And yet I trow your adversary will not grant upon these expressions though he might more warrantably do it in this case then he doth in the other that Puritans are not to be suffered in a State or Nation especially in such a State which hath any mixture in it of Monarchical Government Now the Reason of State which moved King James to so much harshness against the Remonstrants or Arminians call them which you will was because they had put themselves under the Patronage of John Olden Barnevelt a man of principal authority in the Common-wealth whom the King looked upon as the profess'd Adversary of the Prince of Orange his dear Confederate and Ally who on the other side had made himself the Patron and Protector of the Rigid Calvinists In favour of which Prince that King did not only press the States to take heed of such infected persons as he stiles them which of necessiry would by little and little bring them to utter ruine if wisely and in time they did not provide against it but sent such of his Divines to the Synod of Dort as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation By which means having served his own turn secured that Prince and quieted his neighbouring provinces from the present distemper he became every day more willing then other to open his eyes unto the truths which were offered to him and to look more carefully into the dangers and ill consequence of the opposite Doctrines destructive in their own nature of Monarchial Government a matter not unknown to any who had acquaintance with the Court in the last times of the King Noâ— makes it any thing against you that his Majesties repeating the Articles of the Creed two or three days before his death should say with a kind of sprightfulness and vivacity that he believed them all in that sense which was given by the Church of England and that whatsoever he had written of this faith in his life he was now ready to seal with his death For first the Creed may be believed in every part and article of it according as it is expounded in the Church of England without reflecting on the Doctrine of Predestination and the points depending thereupon And secondly I hope your Adversary doth not think that all the bitter speeches and sharp invectives which that King made against Remonstrants were to be reckoned amongst those Articles of his faith which he had writ of in his life and was resolved to seal with his death no more then those reproachful speeches which he gives to those of the Puritan Faction in the conference at Hampton Court the Basilicon Doron for which consult my answer to Mr. Baxter neer 29. and elsewhere passim in his Writings 44. The greatest part of his Historical Arguments being thus passed over we will next see what he hath to say of his Late Majesties Declaration printed before the Articles An. 1628. and then proceed unto the rest He tells us of that Declaration how he had learned long since that it was never intended to be a two edged Sword nor procured out of any charitable design to setle the Peace of the Church but out of a Politique design to stop the mouths of the Orthodox who were sure to be censured if at any time they declared their minds whilst the new upstart Arminians were suffered to preach and print their Heterodox Notions without controul And for the proof hereof he voucheth the Authority of the Late Lord Faulkland as he finds it in a Speech of his delivered in the House of Commons Anno 1640. In which he tells us of these Doctrines that though they were not contrary to Law yet they were contrary to custome that for a long time were no ofter preached then recanted Next he observes that in the Recantation made by Mr. Thorne Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ford it is not charged upon them that they had preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church according to the ancient Form of the like Recantations enjoyned by the ancient Protestants as he calls them but onely for their going against the Kings Declaration which but only determined not having commanded silence in those points Thirdly that the Prelatical oppressions were so great in pressing this Declaration and the other about lawful Sports as were sufficient in themselves to make wise men mad 45. For answer to these Arguments if they may be called so I must first tell you that the man and his Oratour both have been much mistaken in saying that his Majesties Declaration was no two edged sword or that it tyed up the one side and let loose the other for if it wounded Mr. Thorn and his companions on the one side it smote as sharply on the other against Dr. Rainford whose Recantation he may find in the Book called Canterbury's Doome out of which he hath filched a great part of his store He is mistaken secondly in saying that this Declaration determined nothing for it determineth that no man shall put his own sence or Comment to be the meaning of the Article but should take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense which Rule if the Calvinians would be pleased to observe we should soon come to an agreement Thirdly if the supposition be true as I think it be that the Doctrines which they call Arminianism be not against the Law but contrary to custome only then is the Law on our side and nothing but custome on theirs and I think no man will affirm that Custome should be heard or kept when it is against Law But fourthly if the noble Oratour were mistaken in the supposition I am sure he is much more mistaken in the proposition these Doctrines being preach'd by Bishop Latimer and Bishop Hooper in King Edwards time by Dr. Harsnet and Peter Baroe in Queen Elizabeths time by Dr. Howson and Dr. Laud in King James his time none of which ever were subjected to the infamy of a Recantation Fiftly if the Recantation made by Mr. Thorn and his companions imported not a retracting of their opinions as he saith they did not it is a strong argument of the
judgement in the points aforesaid as by any of those Divines whome you call Arminians You grant that I behold not M. Burton as a Puritan only but as a Puritan and seditious and being such might pass the better in the train of Illyricus his followers without drawing after him all the rest which hold the same opinions in some doctrinal matters as Illyricus did Nor doth it help your cause at all that M. Burton is accused for wresting the Articles of the Church to make good his Doctrines in that point pag. 122. or said to have dealt fasly with D. Jackson in charging him to be a maintainer of Arminianism pag. 123. for M. Burton might do both as indeed he did and those who are of M. Burton's judgment in those Doctrinal matters whom you here call by the name of Anti-Arminians might and did wrest the Articles from their proper sense For did not many of them draw the Article aside refusing to submit to the full and plain meaning of it but puting their own sence or comment to be the meaning of the Article and consequently not taking it in the litteral and grammatical sense Contrary to the tenour and command of his Majesties Dâ—claration prefixed before the Book of Articles Anno 1628. All this may be or may not be and you be not a jot nearer to your Journieâ— end which was to let us know in what Book or Books the said Peter Heylyn by gathering together their opinions had made up the description of such Puritans who being Conformists you may add Non-Conformists also if you have a mind to it as were no Arminians for if you find not this upon your Melius inquirendum you have found just nothing but must return a non est inventus as at first you did Where by the way I would fain learn why those that are of different perswasion from you in the points aforesaid must be called Arminians or D. Jackson must be said to maintain Arminianism instancing to the established Doctrine of the Church of England Assuredly Arminius was too much a Puisue of too late standing in the world to be accounted the first Broacher of those Doctrinal points which have such warrant from the Scripture and were so generally held by the Ancient Fathers both Greek and Latine till S. Austin's time defended since that time by the Jesuites and Franciscans in the Church of Rome by all the Melancthonian Divines among the Lutherans by Castelio in Geneva it self by Bishop Latimer and Bishop Hooper in the time of K. Edward by some of our Confessors in Prison in Q Maries days by Bishop Hursnet in the Pulpit and Peter Barrow in the Divinity Scholes of Cambridge during the raign of Q. Elisabeth by Hardem Bergius the first reformer of the Church and City of Emden and finally by Anastatius Veluanus Anno 1554. and afterwards by Henrious Antonii Johannis Ibrandi Clemens Martini Cornelius Meinardi the Ministers generally of the Province of Vterick Manaus the Divinity Professor of Leyden Gellius Suecanus in the Province of Friezland before the name of JACOB VAN ' HARMINE hath been ever heard of in the World Lay all that hath been said together and the sum is this that I apply not the name of Puritan in any Book or Books of mine to such Conformists as in Doctrine are no Arminians not have given any such description of them by their opinions as your Preface speaks of and therefore once again I shall claim your promise of publishing an account of your misunderstanding me in that particular with your following satisfaction to the World to do me right 15. And here again you might have left me teling me that you have no more wherewith to trouble me on that subject which was indeed the only subject in which you had been troublesome to me and for which trouble I desire satisfaction from you But having said thus much to so little purpose you will proceed a little further to no purpose at all but that you cannot let me pass without a use of Exhortation and Reproof to conclude the business In order whereunto you tell me that had you not savoured in my writings a spirit so very distant from your disposition that you have small hopes that your words shall escape my displeasure you would on this occasion have dealt freely with me about many things in many of my Books which have long been matter of scandal and grief to men that have much Christian meekness and moderation What your own disposition is as I know not otherwise so I cannot gather it from your Writings having never seen any of them but this of the Grotian Religion which is now before us and what I find in that you shall see hereafter But if you be of such a disposition as inclines to peace and chearfully submissive to the higher Powers under which you live you shall not find such a spirit in me but that we may take sweet councel together and walk in the house of God as friends Certain I am you savour not in my Writings any such spirit as bends me to despise dominion and speak evil of dignity or tends to the embroilment of Kingdomes the subversion of Churches and the confusion of Estates If the Writings of many of your party and perswasions had savoured of no other spirit then mine there had not been such scandal given to the rest of Christendom by our Schisms and Heterodoxies by lifting up our hands against Gods anointed â—nd washing them in the blood of one another My Writings have all tended unto peace and unity and if they had been better followed we might have kept the spirit of unity in the bond of peace Nor need you fear that any thing which you can either say or write shall escape my displeasure as I think you do not I have been alwaies patientissimui veri I thank God for it and can give ear to friendly admonition and severe reproof without any disturbance and therefore you may deal as freely with me as you please your tongue is your owne and my ears are mine nor can you speak or write more of me then I can willingly hear without any displeasure Tu linguae ego aurium dominus sum as once he in Tacitus 16. Useing the freedom which I give you you say as in the way of reprehension and reproof that there are many things in many of my Books that have long been matter of scandal and grief to men that have much Christian meekness and moderation Matter of scandal there hath been there is no question of it but whether it be Scandalum pusillorum or Pharisaicum whether it be datum or acceptum as the Schools distinguish A scandal given by me to those whom you have honoured with the Attributes of much Christian meekness and moderation or causlâ—sly and perverslesly taken by them against the Rules of Christian meekness and moderation is the thing in question but you think it to be past all question
Brownist Ranters Quakers may not as well pretend that our first Reformers were of their Religion as the Calvinists can if Wicklifâ— doctrines be the Rule of our Reformation 27. It is alledged in the next place that the Calvinistical Doctrines in these points may be found in the writings of John Fryth William Tyndall and Dr. Barnes collected into one Volumne and to be seen the easier as he knows who saith because it was printed by John Bay 1563. Who as they suffered death for their Religion in the time of King Hen. 8. so Mr. Fox in his Preface to the said Book calls them the Ring-leaders of the Church of England But first I do not take Mr. Fox to be a fit Judge in matters of the Church of England the Articles of whose confession he refused to subscribe being thereto required by Arch-Bishop Parker and therefore Tyndal Fryth and Barnes not to be hearkened to the more for his commendation Secondly If this Argument be of any force for defence of the Calvinists the Anti-Sabbatarians may more justly make use of it in defence of themselves against the new Sabbath speculatioâ—s of Dr. Bound and his Adherents imbrac'd more passionately of late then any one Article of Religion here by Law established For which consult the History of the Sabbath lib. 2. c. 8. Let Fryth and Tyndal be admitted as sufficient Witnesses when they speak against the Sabbath Doctrines or not admitted when they speak in behalf of Calvin and then the Brethren I am sure will lose more on the one side then they gain on the other Thirdly taking it for granted that they maintain'd the same opinions in these points which afterwards were held forth by Calvin yet they maintained them not as any points of Protestant Doctrine in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome but as received opinions of the Dominican Friars in opposition to the Franciscans the doctrine of the Dominicans by reason of their diligent Preaching being more generally received in England then that of the other Fourthly it is to be considered that the name of Luther at that time was in high estimation as the first man which brake the Ice and made the way more easie for the rest that followed who concurring in judgment with the Dominicans as to these particulars drew after him the greatest part of such learned men as began to fall off from the Pope And so it stood till Melancthon not underservedly called the Phaenix of Germany by moderating the rigours of Luther and carrying on the Reformation with a gentlier hand became a pattern unto those who had the first managing of that great work in the Reign of King Edward Fiftly it is Recorded in the 8th of St. Mark that the blind man whom our Saviour at Bethsaida restored to sight at the first opening of his eyes saw men as trees walking v. 24. that is to say that he saw men walking as trees quasi dicat homines quos ambulantes video non homines sed arbores mihi videntur as we read in Maldonate By which words the blind man declared saith he so quidem videre aliquid cum ante nihil videret imperfecte tamen videre cum inter homines arbores distinguere non posset More briefly Estius on the place Nondum ita clare perfecte video ut discernere possim inter homines arbores I discern somewhat said the poor man but so imperfectly that I am not able to distinguish betwixt trees and men Such an imperfect sight as this the Lord gave many times to those whom he recover'd out of the Aegyptian Darkness who not being able to discern all divine truths at the first opening of the eyes of their understanding were not to be a Rule or precedent to those that followed and lived in clearer times and under a brighter beam of illumination then the others did 28. In the third place he referres himself to our Articles Homilies Liturgies and Catechisms for the proof of this that the Calvinistical opinions were the establish'd doctrines of the Church of England and if his proof holds good in this he hath gained the cause But first he directs us to no particular place in the Catechisms Homilies or Liturgies where any such matter may be found but keeps himself aloof and in generals only and we know who it was that said Dolosus versatur in generâ—libuâ— When he shall tell us more particularly what he would insist on I doubt not but I shall be able to give him a particular answer Secondly skipping over those passages of the Liturgie and Catâ—chisms which maintain the Universality of Redemption by the Death of Christ and taking no notice that the possibility of falling from grace is positively maintained in the 16th Article and the Cooperation of mans will with the Grace of God as clearly published in the tenth he sets up his rest on the 17th Article touching Predestination and Election as if the Article had been made in favour of Calvin's Doctrine But first the Papists have observed two Reformations in the Church of England the one under King Edward the 6th which they called the Lutheran and the other under Queen Elizabeth which they called the Calvinian And thereupon we may conclude that the 17th Article as well as any of the rest being framed approved and ratified under Edward 6. was modelled rather in relation to the Lutheran then Calvinian doctrines the Reformers of the Church of England and the Lutheran Doctors holding more closely to the Rules of Antiquity and the practise of the Primitive Church then the Zuinglians and Calvinists were observed to do Secondly The 17th Article doth visibly presuppose a curse or state of Damnation in which all Mankind was presented to the sight of God which overthrows the Doctrine of the Supra-lapsarians who make the Purpose and Decree of Predestination to precede the Fall and consequently also to precede the curse Thirdly It is to be observed that the Article extends Predestination to all those whom God hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind that is to say to all true Believers For so the phrase Ephes 1. 4. is generally interpreted by the ancient Fathers For thus St. Ambrose amongst others Sicut eligit nos in ipse as he hath chosen us in him Prescius enim Deuâ— omnes scit qui credituri essent in Christum for God saith he by his general Prescience did fore-know every man that would believe in Christ The like saith Chrysostom on that Text. And that our first Reformers did conceive so of it appears by that of Bishop Latimer in his Sermon on the third Sunday after the Epiphany When saith he we hear that some be choseâ— and some be damned let us have good hope that we be amongst the chosen and live after this hope that is uprightly and godly then shall we not be deceived Think that God hath chosen those that believe in Christ and Christ is the book of life If thou believest lievest
published by John Poynet Bishop of Winton which he sets forth with many circumstances to indear it to us as namely that it was publick in the next year after the passing of the Book of Articles in the Reign of K. Edw. 2dly That being by that King committed to the perusal of certain Bishops it was by those Bishops certified to be agreeable to the Scriptures and Statutes of the Realm and 3dly That upon this Certificate the King prefixt his Royal Epistle before it charging their moral Schoolmasters within his dominions that diligently and carefully they should teach the same Thus have we seen the Mountain now comes out the Mouse for having thus swelled our expectation we had reason to look for some great matter but finde none at all Instead of laying down some clear passages out of Poynets Catechism which might evince the point he aims at he asks the Question answer him any man that dares How do the Master and the Scholar plainly declare themselves to be no friends to any of the Tenents M. P contends for A Question which a very well studied man may not easily answer that Catechism being so hard to come by that scarce one Scholar in 500. hath ever heard of it and hardly one of a thousand hath ever seen it But your Antagonist hath good reason for what he doth there being somewhat in that Catechism which more confirms the points M. Pierce contends for then he is willing to make known witness this Passage of the Catechism in the Anti-Arminianism from which your Adversary makes the greatst parts of his proofs evidence p. 44. After the Lord God faith the Catechism had made the Heaven Earth he determined to have for himself a most beautiful Kingdom and holy commonwealth The Apostles and ancient Fathers that wrote in Greek called it Ecclesiâ— in English a Congregation or Assembly into the which he hath admitted an infinite number of men that should be subject to one King as their soveraign and onely head him we call Christ which is as much as to say anointed c. to the finishing of this Common-wealth belong all they as do truly fear honour and call upon God duly applying their minds to holy and Godly living and all those that putting all their hope and trust in him do assuredly look for bliss of everlasting life But as many as are in this faith stedfast were fore-chosen predestinate and appointed to everlasting life before the world was made For though he seems to make such onely to be the members of the Church as were predestinated unto life from all Eternity yet we must understand it of them chiefly as being the most Excellent Members of it not of them alone For afterwards he enlargeth the acception of the word Ecclesia according to the natural and proper construction of it telling us that the Church is the company of those who are called to eternal life by the Holy Ghost The company of all those which are called to Eternal life and therefore not of those onely which are chosen or elected out of the number For many are called but few are chosen saith our Lord and Saviour Secondly it is not said that such as are Members of this Church were chosen to this end and purpose that they might be stedfast in the Faith and being stedfast in the faith might in the end obtain everlasting life but that being stedfast in the faith that is to say considered and beheld as such in the eternal Prescience or fore-knowledge of Almighty God they were predestinate and appointed to eternal life before the beginning of the world And Thirdly if these words or any other which he finds in Poynet may be drawn to any other construction which may serve his turn he must be made to speak contrary to the three Godly Bishops and Martyrs before remembred who being men of greater age and more experience in the affairs of the Church the chief Architects in the Great work of Reformation withal being three for one are more to be relyed on for delivering the true sence of the Church then any one single witness who speaks otherwise of it 31. For whom speaks Poynet in this place for M. Peirce or Mr. Hickman If he had spoke for M. Hickman we shovld have heard of it more at large as in that which followeth out of Nowel and if he do not speak for him it must speak for you more plainly speak the Answers unto certain Questions to which M. Prinne directs him in the end of the Bible Printed by Robert Barker Anno 1607. But the worst is they signifie nothing to the purpose which they were produced for For I would fain know by what Authority those Questions and Answers were added to the end of that Bible If by Authority and that such Authority can be proved the Argument will be of force which is taken from them and then no question but the same Authority by which they were placed there at the first would have preserved them in that place for a longer time then during the sale of that Edition The not retaining them in such Editions as have followed since show plainly that they were of no authority in themselves nor intended by the Church as a Rule to others and being of no older standding then the year 1608. they must needs seem as destitute of Antiquity as they are of Authority So that upon the whole matter your Adversary hath limited me with a very strong argument that they were foysted in by the fraud and practise of some Emissaries of the Puritan Faction who hoped to have them pass in time for Canonical Scripture such piae Fraudes as these are we have too many were those once allowed of some prayers were also added at the end of the Bible in some Editions and others at the End of the publick Liturgie which being neglected at the first and afterwards beheld as the authorized prayer of the Church were by command left out of those Books and Bibles as being the Compositions of private men not the Acts of the Church and never since added as before 32. In the next place it is said That the Composers of the 39. Articles were the Disciples and Auditors of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr or at least such as held consent with them in Doctrine none of them their Disciples and but few of them their Auditors I am sure of that Our first Reformers were too old Bishops and Deans most of them to be put to School again unto either of them And as for their consent in points of Doctrine it must be granted in such things and in such things onely in which they joyned together against the Papists not in such points wheâ—â—in those learned men agreed not between themselvâ—â— Bucer being more enclined to the Lutheran Doctrines and Martyr as it afterwards appeared unto those of Calvin Besides it is to be observed that the first Liturgy of K. Edw. 6. which was the Key to
occasion and finally acknowledging that the principal part of what he intended was in a Book of M. Dow's But scarce had he absolved me from it when he indeavoured presently to make good the charge out of some scattered passages in a Book of mine against M. Burton published in the year 1637. so that it seems to be my fortune to be called unto as late a reckoning by M. Baxter for some passages in my Answer to Burtons most seditious Pamphlets and by D. Barnard and him both for some things taken up here and there out of my History of the Sabbath first published in the year 1635. And as if this had not been enough to quicken me to a new encounter he passeth from one point unto another charging me with profaneness in reproaching extemporary Prayer and being an enemy to the holy improvements of the Lord's day c. accusing me for many unjust as well as uncharitable speeches against my brethren for having some bloody desires and making such rigorous Laws to hang up all that are against me for speaking more favourably of the Papists then the Protestant partie with many other things intermixed here and there in some of which he disputes against me and in others he desires to be satisfied by me So that taking one thing with another he hath afforded me work enough in returning an answer which being to long to be contained in a Letter I have digested it Letter-wise into a set discourse upon all particulars which are offered to me Now M. Baxter's Letter was as followeth The Copy of M. Baxter's Answer to the first Letter of D. Heylyn's Reverend SIR I Received yours of September 13. containing your favourable judgment of my extorted discourse of Grotius his Religion with your exception of that only which concerns your â—elf And first you here wish I had spared your name unless I could have proved you to have been one of that Religion which yâ—u think I cannot or found some more particular charge against you c. To which I answer First I now wish I had spared your name my self for the reason that I shall render you anon But secondly I never gave the least intimation that I took you to be of Grotius Religion and therefore you need not call for proof of it it is another subject the sensing of the word Puri an that I am speaking of where I mention your name I hope you think not that I charge every man with the same opinion that is but named by me in the same Book Thirdly Yea I did not so much as charge you at all that is accuse you but tell the world who you took for a Puritan Concerning which words in Answer to the rest of your Letter I shall give you the just account I had read on one day above 20. years ago when it first came out your Book against M Burton and M. Dow's Book against him and I think one of M. Pocklinton's on another occasion I certainly remembred the foresaid character of a Puritan in one of them and I was perswaded that it was in yours and that something of it more or less was in both I now confess to you it was my temerity the concomitant of hast to mention you upon the trust of my memory after above 20. years time for I never had your Book since and now upon search I find the principal part of what I intended is in M. Dow's who charactereth them from their Doctrines of predestination perseverance or non-ability to fulfill the Law c. 4. But so much of it I find in yours as justifieth what I said of you if I can understand you you deal with M. Burton as the Puritans Oracle page 152. their superintendent Champion c. Preface And your description of him containeth first that he follows Illyricus in his Doctrines providentia predestinatione gratia libero Arbitrio c. pag. 182. And to satisfie us fully what you meant you refer us to the Arminians necessaria responsio pag. 83 where with pag. 82. 84 85. it is expresly manifest that it is the Doctrine of Pareus and the rest of the Contra-remonstrants that the Arminians there do charge upon Illiricus and consequently that you do charge on M. Burton the Oracle as you call him of the Puritans and so upon the Puritans with him If you say you charge not these on him quatenus a Puritan I Answer You carry it openly in all your Book as if you dealt with him only as a Puritan and seditious and so describe Puritans by him If you mix such Doctrinal charges and afterwards tell us that you meant them on some other account you satisfie your Reader that understandeth you as describing Puritans only when you so often give the person described that name and profess to oppose him as such and tel us of no other ground And what else you mean by their accustomed wresting of the Article in the point of predestination is past my understanding there being no accustomed Doctrine but the Anti-Arminian among the Puritans in the point of Predestination that you can call a wresting of the Article you add also to help us further to understand you that it is false that D. Jackson ' s Books are to maintain Arminianism pag. 122. 123. 5. Sir You are the expounder of your own words and may give us the Law in what sense we shall understand them because they are the signs of your own mind which is known only to your self And if you shall but tell me that you meant somewhat else then your words in the common sense import I shall take my self bound to understand you accordingly hereafter and if you require it I shall willingly publish an account of my mis-understanding of you with my following satisfaction to the world to do you right But till you shall give us another sense of your own you must needs allow us to take your words in the common sense 6. I shall not trouble you with any more on that subject But were it not that in your writings I â—avour a spirit so very distant from my disposition that I have small hopes that my words will escape your displeasure I should on this occasion have dealt freely with you about many things in many of your Books that have long been matter of scandal and grief to men that have much Christian meekness and moderation Many reproaches against extemporary Prayer the holy improvement of the Lords day c. with many unjust as well as uncharitable speeches of your Brethren whom you took for adversaries are matters that I am exceeding confident you have exceeding cause in tears and sorrow to bewaile before the Lord and for which you are very much obliged to publish your penitential lamentations to the World and were it my case I would not for ten thousand Worlds dye before I had done it and if I erre in this I think it not through partiality but through weakness Oh the
holy breathings after Christ the love to God! the heavenly mindedness the hatred of all known sin the humility self-denial meekness c. that I have discerned as far as effects can shew the heart to others in abundance of those people that differ from you in some smaller things which occasioned your frequent bitter reproaches if God love them not I have not yet met with the people whom I may say he loveth if he do love them he will scarcely take your dealing well especially when you rise to such bloody desires of hanging them as the better remedy then burning their Books as in your History of Sabbath pag. 254. Ecclesia vindicata Preface and passim you express 7. I am not an approver of the violence of any of them nor do I justifie M. Burtons way nor am I of the minde of the party you most oppose in all their discipline as a Book now in the Press will give the world an account but I am sure the Church must have unity and charity in the ancient simplicity of Doctrine Worship and Government or not at all And if you would have men live in peace as Brethren our union must not be Law or Ceremonies or indâ—fferent Forms nor must you make such rigorous Laws for all and hang them that are against you Scripture and reason and the primitive practise and great experience do lead us all to another course But of these words if I could procure your pardon I expect no more because of our difference 8. To pass by many others I am also much unsatisfied in three things you say concerning Popery 1. That the Papist was the more moderate adversary and the Puritan faction hurried on with greater violence c. Preface to Ecclesia vindicata 2. That you maintain against M. Burton that the Religion of the Papists is not rebellion nor their faith faction I prove both 1 That Religion which defineth the deposition of Princes and absolving their Subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is rebellion Doctrinal but such is the Popish Religion The Minor is evident That which is defined by a Pope and general Council is the Papistâ— Religion It is defide yea and essential because they will have all essentials and deny our distinguishing them from the rest But the aforesaid Doctrin is defined by a Pope and an approved general Council viz at the Laterane under INNOCENT III. That if any Protestant Writers should teach the same that puts it not into our Creed as this is in theirs 2. If it be an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope then the Papists faith is faction But the Antecedent is true being defined by Pope LEO X. in a general Council 3. I am a sorry Lawyer but truly I would fain understand whether it be true that written by M. Dow and you his page 185. and yours 210. of the History of the Sabbath That the Popes decretals the body of the Canon Law is to be accepted as not abrogated which being made for the direction and reiglement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christendom and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative Royal and the municipal Laws and Statuâ—es of this Realm of England these are your words and M. Dow gives some reason for them out from a Statute of HEN. 8. But little know I by what Authority the Popes decretals are Laws to the Church in general or to us and I will yet hope they are not in force But if ever I live to see another Parliament if I be mistaken I shall crave a freedom from that bondage I thought the Acts that impose the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy had disobliged us from all forreign power and nulled the Popes authority in England 9. I am very glad that you who are esteemed the Primipilus among the defenders of the late turgid and persecuting sort of Prelacy do so freely disclaim the Grotian Religion which I never charged you with I hope the more confidently that most of the Prelatical Divines will disown it but if ever you put your self to the trouble of writing to me again I should be glad to understand how you can take the Popes decretals and the body of the Canon Law as a Law for the government of the Church in general and here received to be still so far in force as you affirm and yet not hold that the Pope and his Council have the power of making Laws for the government of the Church in general and see that we and all other Christians are his Subjects Sir I crave your pardon of the displeasing plainness of these lines and remain Your unfaignedly well willing Brother and fellow Servant R. Baxter Octob. 20. 1658. To this Letter being thus received and seriously considered of I thought my self obliged to return an Answer and such an Answer as might satisfie him in all particulars which were in difference between us and it is here chearfully presented to the eye of the Reader The Answer of Peter Heylyn D. D. to M. Baxter's Letter of Octob. 20. SIR YOur Letter of Octo. 20 last I received on Saturday the 30. of the same Month at what time I was preparing for a Journey to London from whence I returned not till that day Month I had there so much other business to take up my thoughts that I could not give my self the leasure to read and consider the Contents of that your Letter much less of dispatching an Answer to it But being now at home in full peace of minde and health of body I thank God for it I have more thorowly considered of all particulars which may sâ—em necessary for me to take notice of in order to my owne defence and your satisfaction which shall go hand in hand together 10. But first I must needs tell you that I could not chuse but wonder at the extream but most unnecessary length thereof and the impertinencies of the greatest part of it in reference to that Letter of mine which it was to Answer and whereunto you had given so full an Answer in the first 25. lines which make but the fifth part of the whole that there was no need of any thing to be added to it The cause of my address unto you was to let you know how much I wished that you had spared my name in your Preface to your Book of the Grotian Religion unless you could have proved me to have been one of that Religion which I thought you could not or had had some more particular charge to have laid against me then I sound you had And secondly To desire you to let me know in what Book or Books of mine you had found a Puritan defined to be a Conformist who was no Arminian a description of whom one Peter Heylyn had
which I find it you are as far from it as ever you were 43. Howsoever taking that your Proposition to be undeniable you proceed and say But the Antecedent is true c. which is a very strange piece of news to me You confess your self to be but a sorry Lawyer and you have shewd your self in this to be but a sorry Lâ—gician neither For tell me what you mean by the Antecedent by which if you understand the terms of Logickâ—heâ—e â—heâ—e can be nothing understood but the first clause or member in your Proposition For in every Hypothetical Silogism the Major Pâ—oposition consisteth of two parts or branches whereof the one is called the Antecedent and the other the Consequent as in this of yourâ— these words viz. If it be an Article of the Papists Râ—ligion that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope make the Antecedent the following words viz. then the Papists faith is faction make the consequent of it Now both these parts or members being laid together the Proposition is entire and perfect and may be either true or false according to the subject matter of it as this of yours is by you affirmed to be true and by me proved to be false But the Antecedent in this of yours as in all other Hypothetical Propositions being conditional imperfect and of no full sense cannot be said to be either true or false as your own reason will inform you For what sense truth or falshood can be found in the first branch of your Proposition viz. If it be an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope until the following words be added Had you formed your Silogism thus If it be an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope then the Papists faith is faction But it is an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Church but the Subjects of the Pope Ergo the Papists faith is faction Had you contrived it thus I say your Silogism had been made in due form of Logick though either Proposition might haue been denied as it pleased the Respondent c. Had you cast your Argument into the form of an Enthimeme thus viz. It is an Article of the Papists faith that none are members of Christ and his Chuâ—ch but the Subjects of the Pope Ergo the Papists faith is Faction the Antecedent had been false and therefore of necessity the consequent of Illation could not passe for true And such a sorry Disputant was D. Burges who undertaking to answer in the Divinity Act at Oxon shewed himself so sufficiently ignorant in the terms of Logick that in stead of saying negatur major negatur minor he could say nothing else but negatur id Whereupon D. Prideaux said to him openly with a merry jear tu potes bene praedicare sed non potes bene disputare that he might possibly be a good preacher though he had shewed himself but a silly disputant 44. But taking your meaning along with me and supposing you to have said the Minor as you ought to have called it how do you prove it to be true because say you It was so defined by Pope Leo the 10. in a General Councel The Councel which you mean is called Consilium Lateranense as the other was and you have shewed your self as little skilled in this Laterane Councel as you were in the other So against that which you have said in this answer of yours I have these Exceptions First That all things which are not determined nor defined in a General Councel pass not for Articles of the Faith Secondly The Councel held at Rome by Pope Leo the 10. was no General Councel and Thirdly There was no such Article of the Faith defined in it as you say there was and these three points being proved I shall close the argument Haec tria cum docuero perorabo in the Oracles language And first all things which are determined and defined in General Councels become not Articles of the Faith though for the time they bind mens assent unto them until the point be further canvassed and the mistakes or errours of it manifested in some following Councel But hereof I have spoken already and shall adde but this viz. That if you please to look into the Tomes of the Councels you will find that they do more consist in Laws and Canons for Reformation of Manners then either in the Dâ—claration of points of Faith or the Determination of matters Doctrinal Secondly the Councel held at Rome by Pope Leo the 10. was no General Councel as being called on a particular occasion and consisting of such a slender number of Italian Bishops that it could hardly make good the Reputation of a National Synod which that you may the better see I must let you know the occasion of the calling of that Counsel too which was briefly this Lewis the 12. of France having lately recovered the Dukedome of Millain to which he did pretend some title in the right of his Mother was warred on by Pope Julio the 2. who liked not the neighbourhood of the French Ferdinando King of Spain and some of the Italian Princes confederating with him in that quarrel To curb the insolency of the Pope a Councel is called by the Cardinal S. Severine and Caravaiali at the instigation of the French King to be held at Pisa a Town belonging to the Seigâ—oury and Estate of Florence Anno 1512. To which some of the French Bishops and as many Italian Prelates as lived within the Dukedome of Millane or elsewhere under the command of the Fâ—ench received order to repair And on the other side the Pope to over ballance that Scismatical Councel caâ—sed another to be held in Rome consisting of so many of the Bishops of Italy as could conveniently be drawn together in a time of War But Pope Juliâ— dying not long after before any thing could be done in that Councel more then the condemning that of Pisa and declaring all the Acts thereof to be null and void the Cardinal John de Medices succeeded by the name of Pope Leo the 10. who being of a sweeter temper then his predecessor closed up that breach admitting the two Cardinals and the rest of the Assembly at Pisa to a redintegration with the whole body of the Church from which they were before divided Nothing determined in this Councel touching matters of Faith but that a Decree was made against some Philosophers or rather phylosophizing Schoolmen what or about that time had began to teach quod anima rationalis sit mortalis that is to say that the rational soul of man was subject to Mortality And therefore thirdly there was no such article of Faith defined in that Councel that none should be counted members of Christ and his Church but such as
were subject to the Pope Neither indeed was there any need at that time of this Councel that any such Definitions should be made no new Heresie or any new doctrine which by them might be called Heresie being then on foot for Luther did not rise in Germany till this Counsel was ended which might create any disturbance to the peace of that Church If any such priviledges were arrogated by Pope Leo the 10. that none should be accounted members of Christ and his Church but such as were subject to the Pope which you cannot find definitively in the Acts of that Councel you must rather have looked for it in the Bulls of that Pope after Luther had begun to dispute his power and question his usurped authority over all the Church In one of which Bulls you may finde somewhat to your purpose where you shall find him saying that the Church of Rome is Mother and Mistress of all Christians and that her doctrines ought to be received of whosoever would be in the Communion of the Church If this be that you mean much good do it you with though this be rather to be taken for a Declaration then a Definition 45. But if your meaning is as perhaps it may be that the Papists Faith may be called Faction because they appropriate to themselves the name of the Church and exclude all other Christians from being members of Christ and his Church which are not subject to the Pope as indeed they do take heed you lose not more in the Hundreds then you got by the County for then it may be proved by the very same Argument if there were no other that the Puritan Faith is Faction and so to be accounted by all that know it because they do appropriate unto themselves the name of the Church as the old Affrican Scismaticks confined it intra partem Donati For proof whereof if you please to consult Bâ—shop Bancrofts book of Dangerous Positions anâ— Proceedings c. part 3. chap. 15. you will find them writing in this manner viz I know the state of this Church make known to us the state of the Church with you Our Churches are in danger of such as having been of us do renounce all fellowship with us It is long since I have heard from you saith one Blake of the state of the Church of London Another By M. West and M. Brown you shall understand the state of the Churches wherein we are A third If my offence may not be passed by without a further confessiâ—n even before God and his Churâ—h in London will I lye down and lick the dust off your feet where you may see what it is which the heavenly-mindednesse the self-denial meeknesse and Humility which the brethren aim at and confesse it c. I have received saith the fourth a Letter from you in the name of the rest of the Brethren whereby I understand your joining together in choosing my self unto the service of the Church under the Earl of Leicester I am ready to run if the Church command me according to the holy Decrees and Orders of the Discipline Lay all which hath been said together and tell me he that can my wits not being quick enough for so great a nicety whether the Papists Faith or that of the Puritans most properly and meritoriously may be counted Faction 46. The third thing in which you seem unsatisfied in what I say concerning Popery is whether it be true or not that the Popes Decretals the body of the Canon Law is to be accepted as not being abrogated which being made for the direction and reiâ—lement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christendome and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative royal or the municipal laws and statutes of this Realm of England These words I must confesse for mine owning Hist Sab. pa. 2. ch 7. p. 202. and not 210. as your Letter cites it your parenthesis being only excepâ—ed and you name it this Kingdome in stead of the Realm of England though both expressions be to one and the same effect In which you might have satisfied your self by M. Dow who as you say gives some reason for it out of a Statute of Hen. 8. But seeing you remain still unsatisfied in that particular I shall adde something more for your satisfaction In order whereunto you may please to know that in the Stat. 29. Hen. 8. ch 19. commonly called the Statute of the submission of the Clergy it is said expresly First that the Clergie in their convocation promised the King in verbo Saâ—erdoris not to enact or execute any new Canons but by his Majesties royal assent and by his authority first obtained in that behalf and secondly that all such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial as were made before the said submission which were not contrary or repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royal were to be used and executed as in former times By which last clause the Decretal of preceding Popes having been admitted into this Land and by several Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England and the main body of the Canon-law having for a long time been accounted for a standing rule by which all proceedings in the Courts Ecclesiastical were to be regulated and directed remain still in force and practice as they had done formerly But then you are to know withall that they were no longer to remain in force and practice then till the said preceding Canons and Constitutions as appears by the said Act of Parliament should be viewed and accommodated to the use of this Church by 32. Commissioners selected out of the whole body of the Lords and Commons and to be nominated by the King But nothing being done therein during the rest of the Kings reign the like authority was granted to King Edw. 6. 3. 4. Edw 6. c. 11. And such a progresse was made in it that a Sub-committee was appointed to review all their said former Canons and Constitutions and to digest such of them into form and order as they thought most fit and necessary for the use of this Church Which Sub committee consisted of eight persons only that is to say Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Lord Bishop of Eli Dr. Richard Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr his Majesties professor for Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Doctors of the Law John Lucas and Richard Gooderick Esquires who having prepared and digested the whole work into form and order were to submit the same to the rest of the 32. and finally to be presented to the King for his Royal Assent and confirmation And though the said Sub-committee had performed their parts as appears by the Book entituled REFORMATIO LEGUM ECCLESIASTICARUM ex authoritate primum Regis HENRICI VIII inchâ—aâ—a Deinde
in him then art thou written in the book of life and shalt be saved 29. In the last place we are to note that there is a clause in the end of the Article viz. that we are to receive Gods promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture then which nothing can be more contrary to the Doctrine of the Supralapsarians which restrains Election unto life to few particulars without respect had to their Faith in Christ or Christs death for them and extendeth the Decree of Reprobation to the far greatest part of Manking without relation to their incredulity or unbelief And though your adversary tells us that he who reads the common Prayer Book with an unprejudiced mind cannot chuse but observe divers passages which make for a personall and eternal Election yet I find but little ground for the affirmation the Promises of God as they are generally set forth unto us in Holy Scripture being the ground of many Prayers and Passages in the Publique Liturgie for in the General Confession it is said expresly that the Promises of God in Christ Jesus our Lord are declared not to this or that man particularly but to all mankind declared to all because first made to all mankind in Adam in the promise of Redemption by the seed of the woman Gen. 3. 15. Secondly it is said in the Te de um that when our Saviour Christ had overcome the sharpness of Death he did open the Kingdom of Heaven to all Believers Thirdly we find a Prayer for the day of the Passion commonly called Good-Friday which is so far from pointing to any personal Election that it bringeth all Jâ—ws Turkâ— and Infidels within the possibility and compass of it Morciful God so the Church teacheth us to pray who host made all men and hatest nothing which thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a sinner but rather that he should be converted and live have mercy upon all Jews Turks Infidelâ— and Hereticks and take from them all ignorance hardness of heart and contempt of thy word and so fetch them home blessed Lord to thy flock that they may be saved amongst the remnant of the true Israelites and be made one fold under one Shepherd Jesus Christ our Lord who liveth and reigneth c. Can your Antagonist read this Prayer and observe those passages and think the Liturgy so contradictory to it self as to afford him any proof that such a personal Election from all Eternity as an unprejudiced mind may desire to meet with If not why doth he talk so confidently of divers passages which a careful Reader cannot chuse but observe in the Common Prayer Book which enclines that way yea let him direct us to those passages and reconcile the differences which he finds betwixt them 30. And though it was not my intent to produce any arguments at this time in Justification of the Doctrine of the Church of England as by you maintained yet since your Adversary stands so much on the 17th Article and thinks it makes so strongly for defence of the Calvinists I will here lay down the Judgment of two Godly Martyrs who had a chief hand in the Great Work of this Reformation and therefore must needs know the meaning of the Church therein more then any of us The first of these shall be Bishop Hooper who in the Preface to his Exposition on the ten Commandments hath expresly told us That Cain was no more excluded from the Promise of Christ till he excluded himself then Abel Saul then David Judas then Peter Esau then Jacob that God is said to have hated Esau not because he was dis-inherited of Eternal Life but in laying his Mountains and his Heritage waste for the Dragons of the Wilderness Mal. 1. 3. that the threatnings of God against Esau if he had not of his own wilful malice excluded himself from the Promise of Grace should no more have hindred his Salvation then Gods threatnings against Nineve c. That it is not a Christian mans part to say that God hath written Fatal Laws as the Stoick and with necessity of destiny violently pulleth the one by the hair into Heaven and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell that the cause of Rejection or Damnation is Sin in man which will not bear neither receive the Promises of the Gospel c. And secondly we shall find Bishop Latimer in his Sermon on the third Sunday after the Epiphany speaking in this manner viz. That if the most are damned the fault is not in God but in themselves For Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri God would that all men should be saved but they themselves procure their own Damnation and despise the passion of Christ by their own wicked and inordinate living He telleth us also in his fourth Sermon preached in Lincoln shire That Christ only and no man else merited Remission Justification and sound felicity for as many as will believe the same that Christ shed as much blood for Judas as for Peter that Peter believed and therefore was saved that Judas did not believe and therefore was condemned the fault being in him only and in no body else More to which purpose I have elsewhere noted as afore was said and give you this only for a tast to stay your stomack And though Archbishop Cranmer the principal Architect in the work spent his endeavours chiefly against the Papists yet that most holy Martyr tells us somewhat in his fifth Book against Gardiner fol. 372. which doth directly look this way Where speaking of the sacrifice which was made by Christ he lets us know That he took unto himself not only their sinnes that many years before were dead and put their trust in him but also all the sinnes of those that until his coming again should truly believe in his Gospel so that now we may look for no other Priest nor sacrifice to take away our sins but onely him and his sacrifice that as his dying once was offered for all so as much as pertained unto him he took all mens sinnes unto himself In all which passages and many others of like nature in the other two there is not any thing which makes for such a personal absolute and irreversible decree of Predestination as Calvin hath commended to us and therefore no such meaning in the 17th Article as his Disciples and adherents in defence of themselves and their opinions would obtrude upon it For if there were your Adversary must give me some better Reason then I think he can why Cranmer Ridly Hooper and the rest that laboured in this Reformation should command the Paraphrases of Erasmus to be translated into English studied by Priests and so kept in Parish Churches to be read by the People whose Doctrines are so contrary in all these particulars to that of Calvin and his followers 31. But I return again unto your Adversary who in the next place remembreth us of a Catechism
much better in his instance of D. Laud inveighed against most bitterly in a Sermon preach'd by the said D. Robert Abbot then Vice-Chancellor on Easter Sunday doth affirm it was For in that Sermon there is nothing charged upon him in the way of Arminianism which was the matter to be proved but that under Colour of preaching against the Puritans he showed himself so inclinable to some Popish opinions that he seemed to stand upon the brink and to be ready on all occasions to step over to them a Censure which hath little truth and less charity in it that Renowned Prelate giving a greater testimony of his aversness from the Romish Religion at the time of his death then any of his persecutors and accusers did in the best Act of their lives 40. More pertinent but not more memorable is the case of Peter Barâ—e Professor for the Lady Margaret in the University of Cambridge a forrainer by birth but one that better understood the Doctrine of the Church of England then many of the Natives his Contemporaries in the University Some differences falling out between him and Whitakers in the Predestinarian points the whole Calvinian Faction rose in Armes against him Tyndal Some Willet Perkins Chatterton and the rest of the tribe siding with Whitaker in the quarrel But not being able altogether to suppress him by Argument they resolve to work their Ends by power apply themselves to Archbishop Whitgift to whom they represent the danger of a growing Faction which was made against them to the disturbance of their peace and the disquiet which might happen by it to the Church in general By their continuall complaints and solicitations they procure that Reverend Prelate to advise with such other Bishops as were next at hand that is to say the two Elected Bishops of London and Banger with whose consent some Articles were drawn up and sent down to Cambridge for the appeasing of the controversies which were then on foot These Articles being nine in number contained the whole Calvinian Doctrine of Predestination with the concomitants thereof received at Cambridge for a time and again suppressed rejected by King James in the conference at Hampton-Court Anno 1603. inserted by D. Vsher afterwards Archbishop of Armah in the Articles of Ireland Anno 1615. and finally suppressed again by the Repeating of those Articles in a full Convocation Anno 1634. Concerning which your Adversary tells us many things which must be examined 41. For first he tells us that his Arminianism did not only lose him from his place but lost him the affections of the University But I must tell him that his Arminianism as he calls it caused not the losing of his place for I am sure he held his place till the expiring of the term allowed by the Lady Margarets Statute whose professor he was Which term expired he left it in a just disdain of seeing himself so over-powered and consequently exposed unto contempt and scorn by the Arts of his Enemies Secondly If he lost the affection of the university which is more then your Adversary can make proof of unless he mean it of that part of the university onely which conspired against him yet gained he as much love in London as he lost in Cambridge For dying there within few years after it was ordered by Bishop Bancroft that most of the Divines in the City should be present at his interment which may be a sufficient argument that not the Bishop onely but the most eminent Divines of London were either inclinable to his opinions or not so much averse from them as not to give a solemn attendance at the time of his Funeral In the next place he quarrels with Bishop Mountague of Chichester for saying that those Articles were afterwards forbid by Authority and brings in M. Fuller making himself angry with the Bishop for the when and the where thinking it strange that a Prohibition should be conspired so softly that none but he alone should hear it But first the Bishop living in Cambridge at that time might hear it amongst many others though none but he were pleased to give notice of it when it came in question And Secondly the noise thereof did spread so far that it was heard into the Low Countries the making of these Articles the Queens displeasure when she heard it her strict command to have them speedily supprest and the actual suppression of them being all laid down distinctly in a Book published by the Remonstrants of Holland Entituled Necessaria Responsio and Printed at Leyden 1618. almost seven years before the comming out of Mountague's Book 42. And now I am fallen upon this Bishop I cannot but take notice of your adversarys most unequal dealing against him and you in his discrediting that part of your Argument which contains K. James's Judgment of him the incouragement he gave him to proceeed in his appeal and his command to have it Dedicated unto him to which you might have added for further proof of the Kings concurring in opinion with him that he had given him his discharge or quietus est from all those calumnies of his being a Papist or Arminian which by the two Informers had been charged upon him And secondly that the appeal being recommended by that King to D. Fr. White then Dean of Carlisle exceedingly cried up at that time for his zeal against Popery was by him licensed to the Press as containing nothing in the same but what was agreeable to the publique Faith Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England And whereas your adversary doth not think that the King should command any Book written by a private Subject to be Dedicated to himself which to my knowledge is a matter not without examples he doth not so much clash with you as put a lye into the mouth of the Reverend Prelate from whose hand you took it That Bishop certainly must be a man of an unheard of and unparalleld impudence in putting such an untruth on the King deceased to gain no greater favour from the King then Raigning then what of ordinary course might have been presumed on 43. For other points which are in difference between you upon this account I leave them wholly to your self advertising you only of these two things First that when King James published his Declaration against Vristius in which there are so many bitter Expressions against Arminius Bertius and the rest of that party he was much governed by the Counsels of Dr. James Montague who having formerly been a great stickler against Barnet and Baroe in the stirrs at Cambridge was afterwards made Dean of the Chappel Bishop of Bath and Wells and at last of Winton an excellent Master in the art of insinuations and the Kings Ecclesiastical Favourite till the time of his death which happened on the 19th of July 1618. Secondly that the Reason why King James so branded the Remonstrants in the Declaration That if they were not with speed rooted out
ever made this Recantation or that this Recantation was the same in all particulars with that which he was required to publish depends upon the credit of a scattered Paper those which have most insisted on it appealing rather to private Authors for the proof thereof then to the authentick Records of that Vniversity So that when it is said so positively by M. Prinne that this Recantation was made by M Barret on the 10th of May 1595. in the University Church of S. Marys in Cambridge out of him repeated by Mr. Hickman with as great a confidence they do both wrong the dead and abuse the living For it appeareth by a Letter sent from the heads of Cambridge to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh then being Chancellor of that University that Barret had not made that Recantation on the 8 of March which was full ten months after the said 10 of May in which the publishing of this Recantation is affirmed of him About a year past say they amongst divers others who here attempted publickly to teach new and strange opinions in Religion one M. Barret more boldly then the rest did preach divers Popish Errors in St. Marys to the just offence of many which he was joyned to retract but hath refused so to do in such sort as hath been prescribed him Out of which Letter bearing date the 8th of March 1595. exemplified by M. Prynn in the Anti-Arminianism 254 and therefore seen by M. Hickman in the course of that Book I conclude three things 1. That M. Prinne and M. Hickman have â—aid a Defamation upon Barret which they cannot justifie as being contrary to their own knowledge in that particular 2. That besides Barret there were diuers others who preacht the sad new and strange opinions in Religion as the Letter calls them though not so confidently and boldly as Barret did and 3. That it is not said in the Letter that Barrets Doctrines gave offence to all or the greatest part but that they gave offence to many and if they gave offence but to many onely there must be many others and possibly the greatest part in that University to whom they gave no offence at all I find also in the Title to this Recantation as it stands in the Anti-Arminianism p. 56. that M. Harsenet of Pembrook-Hall is there affirmed to have maintained the supposed Errors for which Barret was condemned to a Recantation And 't is strange that Harsnet should stand charged in the Tiltle of another mans sentence for holding and maintaining any such points as had been raked out of the Dunghil of Popery and Pelagianism as was there affirmed for which he either was to have been questioned in his own person or not to have been condemned in the title to the Sentences passed on another man Which circumstance as it discredits the Title so the title doth as much discredit the reality of the recantation Adeo mendaciorum natura est ut coherere non possint said Lactantius truly Besides it is to be observed that Harsnet did not only maintain the said Opinions in the Vniversity but preacht them also at S. Paul's Cross Anno 1584. not sparing any of those dious aggravations with which the Calvinian Doctrines in those points hath been charged by others and yet we cannot find that any offence was taken at it or any recantation enjoyned upon it either by the High Commission or the Bishop of London or any other having Authority in the Church of England as certainly there would have been if the matter of that Sermon had been contrary to the rules of the Church and the appointments of the same And thereupon we may conclude were there no proof else that where Doctor Baroe had for 14. or 15. years as is said in that Letter maintained those Opinions in the Schooles which M. Hickman noveliseth by the name of Arminians and such an able man as Harsnet had preached them without any control and the greatest Audience of the Kingdome did stand to him in it There must be many more Barrets who concurred in the same opinions with them in that Vniversity though their names through the envy of those times are not come unto us And this appears more fully by that which followed on the death of D. Whitacres who died within few days after his return from Lambeth which the nine Articles so much talkt of Two Candidates appeared for the Professorship after his decease Wotton of Kings Colledge a professed Calvinian and one of those who wrote against Mountague's Appeal Anno 1626. Competitor with Overal of Trinity Colledg as far from the Calvinian Doctrine in the main plat-form of Predestination as Baroe Harsnet or Barret are conceived to be But when it came unto the vote of the Vniversity the place was carried for Overal by the major part which plainly shows that though the Doctrines of Calvin were so hotly stickled for by most of the heads yet the most part of the members of that learned body entertained them not And thereby we may guess at another passage which I finde in yoâ— Adversary where he declares that Peter Baroe's Arminianism câ—â— him the loss of his place and which was worse lest him the affect ons of the University Where first it may seem very strange thâ— Baroe should loose his place for Arminianism An. 1595. when as tâ—â— name of Arminianism was not known in England til the year 16â—â— Secondly that he should loose the affection of the University â—â— maintaining those Doctrines in which there was such a good compliance betwixt him and Overal And therefore thirdly it is verâ— improbable that Baroe should be put out of his place by those whâ— haâ— brought Overal in after no less then twenty years experience â—â— his pains and studies In which respect it is more likely that he relinquished the place of his own accord in which he found his Doctine crossed by the Lambeth Articles his peace disturbed by severâ— Informations preferred against him by some of the Calvinians anâ— thereupon a Letter of complaint presented to the L. Treasurer Burleigh of whose affections towards him he seemed more diffident then there was good cause for so that the most that can be said is no more then this that he was willing to depart from that place in peace in which â—e saw he could not live without disturbance and therefore that he rather left the place then the place left him though possibly he might see that he could not keep it without loosing himself I began this Post-script with Bishop Ridley and shall end it with a note relating to Bishop Laud Reproached by your Antagonist for justifying the picturing of God the Father in the form of an old man out of that place of Daniel where he is called the Ancient of Days and this saith he I have from a Gentleman of good repute though that Gentleman must not be named for fear of being taken notice of for his best Benefactor the story you may find
who on the rooting out of the Hereticks should possess the same to the end that he might keep it in the holy Faith But this was with a salvojure a preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Lords in chief if they gave no hindrance to the work And with this clause that it should after be extended to those also which had no Lord Paramount superiour to them According unto which decree the Albigenses and their Patrons were warred on by the Kings of France till both sides were wearied with the War and compounded it at last upon these conditions viz. That Alphonso younger brother to King Lewis the 9. of France should marry Joan daughter and heir to the last Raimond and have with her the full possession of the Country after his decease provided also that if the said parties died without issue the whole estate should be escheated to the Crown as in fine it did An. 1270. 39. This the occasion of the Canon and this the meaning and the consequent of it but what makes this to the Deposing of Kings and such supreme Princes as have no Lord Paramount above them For if you mean such inferiour Princes as had Lords in chief your argument was not home to the point it aimed at If you alledge that Emperours and Kings as well as such inferiour Princes are hooked in the last clause of viz eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui dominos non habent principales I answer with the learned Bishop of Rochester in his book De Potestate Papae â— 1. c. 8. clausulam istam à Parasito al quo Pontificiae tyrannidis ministro assutam esse that it was patched unto the end of the decree by some Parasite or other Minister of the See of Rome And this he proves by several reasons as namely that Christian Kings and Emperours are nâ—â— of such low esteem as to be comprehended in those general words qui dominos non habent principales without being specially designed and distinguished by their soveraign Titles Secondly that if any such thing had been intended it is not likely that the Embassadors of such Kings and Emperors who were then present in that Councel would ever have consented to it but rather have protested against it and caused their Protestation to be registred in the Acts thereof in due form of Law Thirdly In one of their Rescripts of the said Pope Innocent by whom this Councel was confirmed in which â—e doth plainly declare That when inferiour persons are named or pointed at in any of his Commissions majores digniores sub generali clausula non intelligantur includi that is to say that persons of more eminent rank are not to be understood as comprehended in such general clauses Adde hereunto that in the manner of the proceeding prescribed by this Canon such temporal Lords as shall neglect to purge their Countries of the filth of Heresies were to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province per Metropolitanum ceteros com provinciales Episcopos as the Canon hath it before the Pope could take any cognizance of the cause And I conceive that no man of reason can imagine that the Metropolitane and Provincial Bishops could or durst exercise any such jurisdiction upon those Christian Kings and Emperours under whom they lived I grant indeed that some of the more turbulent Popes did actually excommunicate and as much as in them lay depose some Christian Kings and Emperors sometimes by arming their own Subjects against them and sometimes giving their Estates and Kingdomes to the next Invador But this makes nothing to your purpose most of those turbulencies being acted before the sitting of this Councel none of them by authority from any Councel at all but carried on by them ex plenitudine potestatis under pretence of that unlimited power which they had arrogated to themselves over all the world and exercised too frequently in these Western parts 40. Such is the Argument by which you justifie M. Burton in his first position viz. That the Popish Religion is Rebellion and may it not be proved by the very same argument that the Calvinian Religion is Rebellion also Calvin himself hath told us in the closes of his Institutions that the 3 Estates in every Kingdome Pareus in his Comment on Rom 13. that the inferiour Magistrates and Buchannan in his book Dejure Regni that the people have a power to curb and controll their Kings and in some cases as in that of Male-administration to depose him also which is much as any of the Popes Parasites have ascribed unto him If you object that these are only private persons and speak their own opinions not the sense of the Churches I hope you will not say that Calvin is a private person who sate as Pope over the Churches of his platform whose writings have been made the Rule and Canon by which all men were to frame their judgments and whose authority in this very point hath been made use of for the justifying of Rebellious actions For when the Scots Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their proceedings against their Queen whom not long before they had deposed from the Regal Throne they justified themselves by the authority of Calvin whereby they endeavoured to prove as my Author hath it That the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to moderate and keep in order the excesse and unrulinesse of Kings and that it was lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison and also to deprive them of their kingdoms Such instances as this we may find too many enough to prove that none of the three above mentioned though the two last were private persons delivered their own opinions only but the sense of the party The Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain the manâ—old embroilments made by the Hugonots in France the withholding of the Town Embden from its natural Lord the Count of Friesland the commotions in Brandenburg the falling off of the Bohemians from the house of Austria the translating of the Crown of Sweden from Sigismond K. of Poland to Charles Duke of Suderman the father of the great Gustavus the Armies thrice raised by the Scots against King Charls and the most unnatural warrs in England with the sad consequents thereof by whom were they contrived and acted but by those of the Calvinian Faction and the predominancy which they have or at the least aspired unto in their several Countries The Genevians having lead the dance in expelling their Bishop whom they acknowledged also for their temporal Prince the daughter Churches thought themselves obliged to follow their dear Mother Church in that particular and many other points of Doctrine sic instituere majores posteri imitantur as we read in Tacitus 41. But against this blow you have a Buckler and tell me that if any Protestant Writer should teach the same that