common sense import though I desire that my words should be understood alwaies in the litteral sense or in any other sense that you shall give them as afore was said which being premised I would fain see how you prove the point which you have so blindly undertaken Marry say you I deal with M. Burton as the Puritans Oracle pag. 152. their superintendent Champion c. as in my Preface to that Book and my desâ—râ—ptiâ—n of him is that he followeth Illyricus in his Doctrines de providentia predestinatione gratia libero arbitrio c. pag. 182. Stay here a little M Baxter do you not tell us in the former part of your Letter that you had not seen that Book against M. Burton above 20. years and therefore condemned your temerity in mentioning me on the trust of your memory after so long time and can you now direct us not only unto single words Oracle Superintendent Champion c. and to the several pages where they are Can you direct us to a marginal Note pag. 182. relating to a Book called Necessaria Responsio and to the folios of that Book viz. pag. 82. with pag. 82 84. 85. or tell your Readâ—â— in what part or page of that Book he may find D Jackson acquitted from maintaining Arminianism and the Puritans condemned for wresting the Articles of the Church pag. 122 123. Can you do this and yet with confidence declare that it is 20. years since you saw that Book Assuredly your memory must be very good in remembring so many single words and particular passages with the very places where they are after the space of twenty years or very bad in not remembring that the description of a Puritan which you had charged on Peter Heylyn was to be found in M. Dow and perhaps not there Quid verba audiam cum facta videam You tell us that you have not seen that book this twenty years and here is evidence enough that you have it by you for I cannot think that you clogged your Note Book with such petit remembrances unless the term of twenty years may pass in your account for no more then yesterday 13. But be your memory good or bad I am sure your Logick is far worse none of old Baxter's this then your memory can be The Charge you are to prove is this That with the late Prelates a Puritan was either a Non-Conformist or a Conformist that in Doctrine was no Arminian of which sort Peter Heylyn gave us a description by their opinions By which we are to understand if you mean nothing else but what your words in the common sense import that the Puritans of whom the said sorry fellow called Peter Heylyn hath given us a description by their opinions is such a Conformist who in Doctrine is no Arminian This is the point you are to prove and for the proof of this you instance in M. Burton of Fryday-Street who though he was no Arminian in point of Doctrine yet was he so far from being a Conformist that since the hanging up of Penry at Saint Thomas of Waterings where he Preached before a very thin audience on the top of the Ladder as Johannes Stow informeth us Anno 1593. There never was a more profest outragious violent and seditious Non-Conformist in the Church of England Now if the Puritans be there described by M. Burton as you say they are or if the Reader understand me as describing Puritans only because I have so often given the person described that name as I am willing that he should and you say he must It must needs follow thereupon that the Puritans against whom I write cannot be such Conformists as are no Arminians but such notorious Non-Conformists as their Oracle and Champion M. Burton was There was an old distinction made by I know not whom betwixt the Knaves Puritan and the Knave Puritans the Knaves Puritan being one that made a conscience of his waies and followed not profane and licentious persons in their ungodly way of living But the Knave Puritans were those who under pretence of long Prayer devoured widdows houses and wilfully opposed the Rights and Ceremonies of the Church and clamorously cried down the Lordly Prelacy and jurisdiction of the Bishops that they might themselves Lord it over Gods people in their several Parishes and sit as so many petit Popes in their Classical Sessions These and no others are the Puritans against whom I write not against those who walk unblamably before God and man nor against those who following Calvin's judgment in the matter of predestination and the points concomitant conform themselves unto the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England here by Law established of which last sort were many Bishops Deanes Dignitaries in Cathedral Churches whose parts piety I admire as much as any whom it had been a madness to condemn for Puritans such Puritanism and their several dignities being inconsistent 14. So then the Puritan whom I aim at in the person of M Burton is a notorious Non-Conformist and whither I had described him or them we are next to see And my description of him as you tell us containâ—th first that hee follows Illyricus in his Doctrines dâ— providentia predestinatione gratia libero arbitrio c. If it conteins that first as you say it doth it must needs contain something in the second third and fourth places which you are willing not to speak of For if â—ou look into the place by you cited pag. 882. you will there find that M. Burton is not only said to be a follower of Illyricus in his Doctrines de providentia c. but to have also followed him in his fiery nature and seditious principles one of which was Principes potius metu seditionum terrendos quam vel minimum pacis causa indulgendum That Princes should be rather terrified with the feares of tumults then any thing should be yielded to for quietness sake All which being laid together as it stands in your Author falls so much short of being a description of such Puritans as being conformable to the Church in Rites and Ceremonies are notwithstanding no Arminians in point of Doctrine which you have charged on Peter Heylyn that it conteineth not such a principal part of that description as you have laid on D. Dow For besides that the Puritans hold the same opinions with those who follow Calvin's judgment in some controverted points before remembred they hold also some opinions of their own that is to say it is not lawful to use the Cross in Baptism or to bow at the blessed name of Jesus which M. Burton calls Cross-worship and Jesu-worship nor to be uncovered in the time of Divine Service to wear the Surplice kneel at the Communion to marry with the Ring and finally to stand up at the Gospels and the Gloria Patri In all which he and they were as much opposed by those of the Conformable Clergy who follow Calvin's
any little outward lustre they then cried on the other side O the pride of the Clergie But tell me M. Baxter if you can at the least in what the turgidness or the high swelling pride of the Prelates did appear most visibly was it in the bravery of their apparel or in the train of their attendance or in their lordly port or lofty looks or in all or none Admitting the worst and most you can of these particulars would you have men that shine in an higher Orb move in a lower Sphere then that in which God hath placed them oâ— being ranked in order and degree above you would you not have them keep that distance which belongs to their places or because you affect a Paritie in the Church and perhaps in the State would you have all men brought to the same level with your self without admitting sub and supra in the Scale of Government If they were your Fathers in God why did you not look upon them with such reverence as becometh children If your superiors in the Lord why did you not yield them that subjection which was due unto them If fixt in place and power above you by the Laws of the Land only and no more then so why did you not give obedience to those Laws under which you lived and by which you were to be directed Take heed I beseech you M. Baxter that more spiritual pride be not found in that heart of yours then ever you found worldly and external pride in any of my Lords the Bishops and that you do not trample on them with a greater insolence calco Platonis fastum sed majore fastu as you know who said in these unfortunate dayes of their calamity then ever they exprest towards any in the times of their Glory Were it my case as it is yours I would not for 10000 worlds depart this life before I had obtained their pardon and given satisfaction to the world for these horrible scandals 25. This leads me from your uses of reproofs or reprehension which for my better method I have laid together to that of Exhortation which comes next in order For having told me of my many reproaches against extemporary prayers the holy improvements of the Lords day c. with my uncharitable as well as unjust speeches against my brethren you adde how confident you are that they are matters which I have exceeding cause in tears and sorrow to bewail before the Lord and for which I am very much obliged to publish my penitential lamâ—ntations to the world and that if it were your case you would not for 10000 worlds dye before you had done it This is good counsel I confess if it were well grounded and as divine â—hysick as could be given if it were properly administred as it ought to be But let me tell you M. Baxter you goe not the right way to work in your Application you should first convince me of my errours before you presse me to a publick Recantation of them and make me sensible of my sins before you preach repentance to me or can require such a solemn and severe repentance as you have prescribed It was in the year 1635. that the History of the Sabbath was first published which if it doth contain such matters of Reproach against the holy improvements of the Lords day as you say it doth why hath it not been answered in all this time my errors falsities and mistakes layd open in the sight of the world It is true that in the Postscript of a Letter writ from Dr. Twisse to the late Lord Primate bearing date May 29. Anno 1640. I find it signified with great joy no question that M. Chambers of Clouford by Bath hath long agoe answered Dr. Heylins History of the Sabbath but knew not how to have it printed But this was nothing but a flourish a cup of hot water as it were to keep life â—nd soul together till the pang was over For M. Chambers might as well know how to get his Book printed had he been so pleased as M. Byfield of Surry could get a Book of his printed in answer to that of Dr. White then Lord Bishop of Ely which came out at the same time with that History Or if he could not get it printed before that time which the Doctor speaks of I am sure he might have done it since the Presse being open to all comers but to none more then unto such as write against the Government and established Orders of the Church of England And it is more then 20. years since I published that Book so much complained of against M. Burton in which I answered all his Objections against the preheminence of Bishops their function in the Church the exercise of their Jurisdiction and cleared them from the guilt of all innovations in Doctrine Discipline and Forms of Worship which M. Burton in a furious zeal had laid upon them Why hath not that been answered neither in which the differences between us are so briefly handled that it would have required no great study but that the truth is mighty and prevaileth above all things Giue me but a satisfactory answer to those two Books not nibling at them here and there like a Mouse at a hard piece of Cheese which he cannot Master and then you may take further time to look into the History of Episcopacy and that of Liturgies Give me I say a full and satisfactory answer to those two Books and you shall find I have a malleable soul that I shall be as ready to publish my penitential Lamentations to the world as Origen did his in the Primitive times and cast my self as Esebollus did before the dores of the Church and call upon the Congregation passing in and out to trample on me for an unsavoury piece of salt calcate me tanquam salem insipidum fit only to be thrown on the common dunghil Till you do this you have done nothing but must leave me in the same state in which you found me and when you doe it I hope you will give me leave to use your own words and say that if I have erred it hath been through weaknâ—sse not by partiality much lesse by any willful opposition to a manifest truth 26. This said you fall into rapture and cry out 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 you have discerned as far as effects can shâ—w the heart to others in abundance of those people that differ from you in some smaller things Here is a Panegyrick indeed fit only for Angelical spirits or such at least as live only on the food of Angels How well accommodated and applyed to the present subject we shall best perceive by consulting some of the particulars Some of your holy breathings we have seen before and shall see more in that which follows tell me then what you think of
it that after the Schism made by Pope PIVS V. little or nothing for many years together comparatively with those of the other party was writ against it that being newly translated into the Latine tongue about the year 1618. it gave great content to the more moderate sort of Papists amongst the French as Bishop Hall informeth us in his Quo Vadis and being translated into Spanish at such times as his late Majesty was in Spain it gave no less contentment to the learned and more sober sort amongst the Spaniards who marvelled much to see such a regular order and form of Divine Worship amongst the English of whom they had been frequently informed by our English Fugitives that there was neither form nor order to be found amongst us But on the other side the Genevians beginning to take up the cry called Puritans upon that account in the 6. or 8. year of Q. ELIZABETH animated by Billingham and Benson conntenanced by Cartwright and headed by the Earl of Leicester followed it with such a violent impetuosity that nothing could repress or allay that fury neither the patience and authority of Arch-Bishop Whitgift the great pains and learning of Bishop Bilson the modesty of M. Hooker nor the exactness of D. Coâ—ens all which did write against them in Q. ELIZABETHS time was able to stop their current till the severity of the Laws gave a check unto them Nor was King JAMES sooner received into this Kingdom but they again revived the quarrel as may appeare by their Petitions Admonitions and other Printed Books and Tractates to which the learned labours of Bishop Buckridge Bishop Morton and D. Burges who had been once of that party but regained by K. James unto the Church were not by them thought to give such ample satisfaction that they must be at it once again during the life of K. James in their Alâ—are Damuscenam in which the whole body of the English Liturgie the Hierarchy of Bishops the Discipline and Equâ—nomy of the Church of England was publickly viâ—â—ified and decried How egerly this game was followed by them after the first ten years of his late Majesty K. Charles till they had abolished the Liturgie destroyed the discipline and pluckt up Episcopacy both root and branch is a thing known so well unto you that it needs no telling And this I hope hath satisfied you in your first enquiry viz. why and in what respects it was said in the Preface to my Ecclesia Vindicata That the Papist was the more moderate adversary and for the other words which follow viz. That the Puritan faction hurried on with greater violence c. which you find in the 17. Sect. of it they relate only to the violent prosecution against the Episcopal Government in which how far they out went the Papists is made so manifest in that and the former Section that it is no small wonder to me that you should seek for any further satisfaction in it read but those Sections once again and tell me in your second and more serious thoughts if any thing could be spoken more plainly or proved more fully then that the Puritan â—action with greater violence and impetuosity were hurried on towards their design that is to say the destruction of Episcopal Government then the Papists were Secondly You seem much unsatisfied that I maintained against M. Burton That the Religion of the Papists is not rebellion nor their faith faction But this when I maintained against M. Burton I did it not in the way of laying down my own reasons why it neither was nor could be so but in the way of answering such silly Arguments as he here brought to prove it was but now that I may satisfie you and do right both to the Church and State you shall have one Argument for it now and another I shall give you when I shall come in order to answer yours The Argument which I shall give you now is briefly this shall be founded on a passage of the Speech made in the Star Chamber by the late Arch Bishop at the sentencing of D. Bastwick M. Burton c. in which he telleth us That if we make their Religion to be Rebellion then we make their Religion and Rebellion to be all one and that is against the ground both of State and the Law for when divers Romish Priests and Jesuites have deservedly suffered death for Treason is it not the constant and just profession of the State that they never put any man to death for Religion but for Rebellion and Treason only Doth not the State truly affirm that there was never any Law made against the life of a Papist quatenus a Papist only And is not all this stark false if their very Religion be Rebellion For if their Religion be Rebellion it is not only false but impossible that the same man in the same act should suffer for his Rebellion and not for his Religion And this â—aith he K. James of ever Blessed Memory understood passing well when in his Premonition to all Christian Monarchs he saith I do constantly maintain that no Papist either in my time or in the time of the late Queen ever dyed for his conscience therefore he did not think their very Religion was Rebellion thus he And if for all this you shall thus persist and say that the Popish Religion is Rebellion you first acquit Papists from suffering death banishment or imprisonment under the Raign of the three last Princes for their several Treasons and Rebellions and lay the guilt thereof upon the blood-thirstiness of the Laws and of the several Kings and Parliaments by which they were made And secondly you add hereby more Martyrs to the Roman Kalender then all the Protestants in the world ever did besides 36. But this you do not only say but you prove it too at the least you think so Your argument is this 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 that is to say the Popish Religion defineth the Deposition of Kings and absolveth their Subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. The Minor you say is evident but I am willing to believe that you mean the Major that this only is an escape of the pen because you do not go about to prove the Major but the Minor only To the whole Sylogisme I answer first that it is of a very strange complection both Propositions being false and therefore that it is impossible by the Rules of Logick that the conclusion should insue that the Proposition or the Major as they generally call it is altogether false may be proved by this that the thing which teacheth cannot be the thing which is taught no more then a Preacher can be said to be the word by him preached or the Dog which
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
Bishop it is distinctly called an Order all which he could not chuse but see in that very Chapter of the Book called Respondit Petrus in which he finds me questioning the Lord Primates Iudgement touching the universality of Redemption by the death of Christ The Books confirmed by Act of Parliament in the 5th and 6th of Edw. 6. Repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary continuing notwithstanding in use and practise for the first seven years of Queen Elizabeth and reconfirmed by Parliament the next year after upon occasion of a difference between Bonâ—er the late bloody Bishop of London and Horn then Bishop of Winchester His Grace had therefore very good Reason not to change his judgement and to press very hard on Bishop Hall not to wave that point for which he stands censured by our Adversary p. 24. and to insist upon it more then at other times when the Scotish Presbyterians had began to revive the question for which he stands condemned also p 25. 23. But see the Candor of the man and how like he seems to Aesops Dog when he lay in the Manger not giving the Arch-Bishop a good word himselfe nor suffering any other to do it without snarling at him I had signified in my first Letter that the arch-Arch-Bishops memory was too precious amongst all that loved the Church of England to suffer him to be so defamed and by such a person Your Adversary doth not deny because he cannot that in many things he had deserved well of the Vniversity but will not yield himself convinced that his memory should be so precious as my Letter intimates to all that love the Church of England And a squint eye he casts on some body for a Temporizer whose design it was to ingratiate himself with great ones and could complement a Prince so highly as to style himself his Creature and the workmanship of his hands But who it is whom he so decyphereth or whether he means any one man or not but onely casts abroad his censures as Boyes throw their stones without any proper aim or object but the love of the sport I am not able to find out in my best remembrance Passing by therefore such Aenigma's as I cannot unriddle I must needs take notice how he applyes the Character to him of which Isidore Pelusi gives unto one Eusebus a wretched fellow of those times and one who took upon himself the name and office of a Bishop The Character to be found in the 24. Epistle of his second Book and the Epistle recommended to my diligent Reading 23. He tells me that the Character contained therein doth two well suit with the Arch-Bishop but I find it otherwise Eusebius as the Author tells us would not know the difference between the Temple and the Church between the place of the Assembly and the Congregation sparing no cost to build repair and beautifie the one but vexing disquieting and expelling the righteous soul to many of which he had given great matter of offence or scandal dum multis offendiculis causam prebet probos viros expellere c. The same he florisheth over again in the following words concluding with this Observation That in the Primitive times when there were no Temples the Church was plentifully adorned with all heavenly Graces but that in his time the Temples were adorned beyond Moderation Ecclesia vero Canviciis Cavillis in cessitur but the poor Church reproached and reviled upon all occasions such is the Character which Isidore gives to this Eusebus But that this Character should suit too well with the late Arch-Bishop is a greater scandal then ever Eusebus gave to the weak brethren of the Church of Pelusium For will your Adversary confine the Church as some wild Affricans did of old intra partem Donati within the Conventicles and Clancular meetings of the Puritan Faction Or hath he confidence to averre that any Righteous and Religious person was expelled this Church understand me of the Church of England whom either Faction or Sedition in conformity or disobedience spiritual pride or fear of punishment did not hurry out of it Just so it was Railed out by Brother Burton in his Libel falsly called a Sermon where he affirms that the edge of Dscipiline was turned mainly against Gods people and ministers even for their virtue piety and worth and because they would not conform to their the Bishops impious Orders Just so it was once preached in a Latine Sermon at St. Maryes in Oxon by Bayley one of the old brood of Puritans in Magdalen Colledge that good and Godly men were purposely excluded from preferments there ob hoc ipsum quod pii quod boni onely because they were enclined to virtue and piety With spight and callumnie enough but not to be compared with his who so reproachfully hath handled this Renowned Prelate and the poor sequestred and ejected Clergy of the Church of England But Judas did the like before to his Lord and Master And thereupon St. Cyprian very well inferres nec nobis turpe esse pati quae passus est Christus nec illis gloriam facere quae fâ—cerat Judas 24. And here I would have ended with your puissant Adversary but that his Letter carries me to a new ingagement He tells me there that in the Historical part of his discourse he hath proved that till D. Laud sat in the Saddle our Divines of prime Note and Authority did in the five points deliver themselves consonantly to the determination of the Synod of Dort and that they were enjoyned Recantation who were known either to preach or print that which is now called Arminianism and thinks that no body can deny it for a truth infallible But first if we allow this for a good and sufficient Argument it will serve as strongly for the Papists against all those who laboured in the Reformation For what one point do we maintain against those of Rome in which the Divines of prime Note and Authority in the Church of Rome did not deliver themselves as consonantly to the preceding Doctrines of the Schoolmen there and to the subsequent determinations of the Council of Trent and for opposing which manner of Persons were constrained to a Recantation who either preacht or printed in defence of that which is now called Protestantism And 2dly if we behold the constitution of our University when D. Humphrys a moderate non-conformist but a non-conformist howsoever as M. Fuller is pleased to call him possest the Divinity Chaire for almost forty years and D. Reynolds a Rigid non-Conformist publiquely read a Divinity Lecture founded by Sir Francis Walsingham the principal Patron of the Sect as you will find in the beginning of his Lectures on the Books Apocriphal it is no marvail if we find that the Doctrine and Discipline of Calvin should be so generally received by the Students there or being so generally received that they should put all manner of disgraces upon all or any of those
that opined the contrary The like may be affirmed of Cambridge when D Whittakers sat in the Divinity Chair and M. Perkins great in the esteem of the Puritan Faction had published his Book Intituled The Golden Chain which Book containing in it the whole Doctrin of the Supra-Lapsarians was quarrelled first by Arminius in the Belgicks Churches and sharply censured afterwards by D. Robert Abbot in his Book against Tompson By these two first and after on the coming down of the Lambeth Articles of which more anon as hard a hand was kept upon all those who embrace not the Calvinian Rigors as was done at Oxon the Spirit of that Sect being uncapable of opposition in the least degree Under which two Generall Answers but the last especially we may reduce all Arguments which are drawn from the severe proceedings of those Professors and their adherents against all such as held any contrary opinion to them that is to say against Bishop Laud by Doctor Holland and D. Abbot by the last against D. Houson also and by D. Prideaux against Mr Bridges and in the other university by D. Whittakers against M. Barret by the whole faction there against Peter Barrow and finally by the two Professors then being against M. Simpson And yet those times were not without some Eminent men and men of prime Note and Authority as he calls their opposites which bear witnesse to the genuine Doctrines of the Church of England now miscalled Arminianism who never were subjected to the ignominy of a Recantation Amongst which I may Reckon D. Hursnet for one Master of Pembrook Hall in Cambridge afterwards successively Bishop of Chichester Norwich and Arch Bishop of York Whose Sermon aâ— St. Pauls Cross the 27 of Octob. 1584. sufficiently declares his judgment in those points of Controversie And I may Reckon D. Buckridge for another President of S. Johns Colledge c. and Tutor unto Bishop Laud at his first coming to Oxon who carring these opinions with him to the See of Rochester maintained them in a publick conference at York house against D. Morton Bishop of Lichfield and D. Preston Master of Emanuel Colledge in Cambridge Anno 1626. 25. I have already written a full discourse shewing upon what Principles and Positions the Church of England did proceed at her first Reformation But this being designed as an Ingredient to a larger work now almost finished I must not wrong that work so far as to make use of it at the present and therefore you must needs have patience till a further time In the mean season I shall endeavour an answer to all those Arguments which your Adversarie hath made use of to evince the point he chiefly aims at leaving the positivity of Sin to your abler hand Where by the way give me leave to tell you that one who seems to wish me well though known no further to me then by the first Letters of his name signified in his Letter to me of the 3d. of March that Mr. Hickman was not the Author but the Compiler of the Book which is now before us having all the Assistance as he was credibly informed which the University could afford him But in this I cannot be of his opinion far less assistance being needful to this petty performance then the united Councels of an university Though my Eyes be very bad and unuseful to me in this way yet I am able to trace the steps of this young Serpent in all the Cliffs and precipices of the Rock upon which he glideth not onely as to follow him in his Proofs and arguments but many of his Phraseâ— and florishes also I could direct you to the Authors from which he borroweth his faining and his failing in the Advertisement at the End of his Book his charging you with tumbling in your Tropes and rowling in your Rhetorick p. 4 his dealing with you as Alexander did with his Horse Bucephalus taking him by the Bridle and leading him gently into the Sun that other men may see how lustily you lay about you though your selfe do not p. 7. I could direct you also to the very pages in M. Prinns book of Anti-Arminianism and that called Canterburies Doom out of which without acknowledging his Benefactor he takes all his Arguments Except that of Gabriel Bridges in Oxon and M. Sâ—mpson in Cambridg perhaps these also But being they are made his own as some unhappy Boys makâ— knives when they do but steal them I will Answer them one by one in Order as they come before me 26. In the first Entrance to his proofs he begins with Wicklife concluding that because the Papists have charged it on him that he brought in fatal necessity and made God the Author of sinne therefore it may be made a pâ—obable Guâ—ss that there was no disagreement between him and Calvin The Course of which Argument stands thus that there being an agreement to these points betwixt Wickliffe and Calvin and the Reformers of our Church embracing the Doctrins of Wickliff therfore they must embrace the Doctrine of Calvin also But first it cannot be made good that our Reformers embrace the Doctrine of Wickliffe or had any Eye upon that Man who though he held many points against those of Rome yet had his field more tares then wheat his Books more Heterodoxies then sound Catholick Doctrines And secondly admitting this Argument to be of any force in that present case it will as warrantably serve for all the Sects and Heresies which now swarm amongst us as for that of Calvin Wickliffe affording them the Grounds of their several dotages though possibly they are not so well studied in their own concernments For they who have consulted the works of Thomas Waldeâ—sis or the Historia Wiclesiana writ by Harpfield will tell us that Wickliffe amongst many other Errors maintained these that follow 1. That the Sacrament of the Altar is nothing else but a piece of Bread 2. That Priests have no more Authority to Minister Sacraments then Lay men have 3. That all things ought to be common 4. That it is as lawful to Christena child in a Tub of water at home or in a ditch by the way as in a Fontstone in the Church 5. That it is as lawful aâ— all times to confess unto a Layman as to a Priest 6. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or Chappel to pray in or to do any divine service in 7. That buryings in Church Yards be unprofitable and vain 8. That Holidayes ordained and instituted by the Church taking the Lords day in for one are not to be observed and kept in Reverence in as much as all dayes are alike 9. That it is sufficient and enough to believe though a man do no good works at all 10. That no humane Laws or Constitutions do oblige a Christian and finally that God never gave Grace or knowledge to a great person or Rich man and that they in no wise follow the same What Anabaptist
as a secret to himself for some new discovery 35. For M. Nowel who sate Prolocutor in the Convocation Anno 1562. he takes a leap to the year 1587. in which he findes a Book published by D. John Bridges Dean of Salisbury and afterwards Lord Bishop of Oxon Entituled A Defence of the Government established in the Church of ENGLAND And that he might come to it the sooner he skips over the admission of Peter Barro a French man to the Lady Margarites Professor-ship in the University of Cambridge Anno 1574 who constantly held these points in a contrary way to that of the Calvinian plat-form and relinquished not that University till after the year 1595. of which more hereafter And he skips over also Doctor Harsâ—ets Sermon at Pauls Cross Octob. 27. 1584. in which he so declared himself against the Calvinistical Doctrines of Predestination that neither Mountague nor any that have writ since him did ever render them more odious unto vulgar cars But being come to him at the lâ—st what finds he there Marry That D. Bridges was of opinion That the Elect fall not finally and totally from Grace and so did D. Overal also of whom more anon who notwithstanding disallowed the Doctrine of Predestination as maintained by Calvin and puts not any such Comment on the 17. Article as your Antagonist contends for The like he findes in M. Hookers Discourse of Justification from whence he concluded no more but that M. Hooker was of a different opinion from you in the point of falling away from Grace Which point he might maintain as D. Overal D. Bridges and some others did and yet not be of the same judgment with the Calvinistical party either sub or supra touching that absolute and iresistable decree of Predestination the restriction of the benefit of Christs death and passion to particular persons and the invincible or rather irresistable operations of the grace of God in the conversion of a sinner which were so rigidly maintained in the Schools of Calvin I see then what is said by D. Bridges and what is said by M. Hooker but I see also what is said by the Church of England in the 16. Article in which we find That after we have received the holy Ghost we may depart from Grace given and fall into sin and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives No such determination as either totally or finally to be found in the Article nor suffered to be added to it when it was motioned and desired by D. Reynolds in the conference at Hampton Court that old saying Non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit being as authentical as true and as true as old Howsoever I am glad to hear from your adversarie that M. Hooker could not tell how to speak Judicially as he saith he could not and then I hope he may be brought in time to approve of all things which he hath written so judiciously in behalf of the Liturgie and all the Offices Ceremonies and Performances of it which whensoever he doth I make no question but but that he may come to like the Episcopal Government and by degrees desert the Presbiterians both in Doctrine and Discipline as much as he Certain I am that M. Hooker maintained no such determination of humane action by any absolute decree or prelimitation as the Calvinists do and declared his dislike thereof in Cartwright the great Goliah of that Sect who had restrained all and every action which men do in this life to the preceding will and determination of Almighty God Even to the takeing up of a straw a fine piece of Dotage 36 But he demands How the Church came to dispose of the places of greatest influence and trust to such as hated Arminianism as the shadow of death If she her self consented to those opinions which he calls Arminian amongst which reckoning the Arch Bishops till the time of Laud he first leaves out Arch Bishop Cranmer the principal instrument under God of this Reformation which plainly shews that Cranmer was no favourer of those Opinions which your Antagonist contends for and consequently that the Articles were not fitted in these points unto Calvin's fancie And secondly he brings in Parker and Grindal whom M. Prinne whose diligince few things have escaped which serve his turne hath left out of his Catalogue in which he hath digested all our English Writers whom he conceived to be Antiarminianly enclined in a kind of Cronologie Thirdly he brings in Bishop Bancroft as great an enemy to the Predestinarian and Puritan Faction as ever sate in the See of Canterbury he had not else impeacht the Doctrine of Predestination as it was then taught by the Calvinians for a desperate Doctrine You have the whole passage in the Conference at Hampton Court impartially related by D. Burlow though your Adversary hath some invisible vileness or other to affirm the contrary Whereon a motion made by D. Reynolds about falling from Grace The Bishop of London this very Bancroft whom we speak of took occasion to signifie to his Majesty how very many in these days neglecting holiness of life presumed too much of persisting Grace If I shall be saved I shall be saved which he tearmed a desparate Doctrine shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity and the true Doctrine of Predestination Wherein saith he we should reason rather ascendendo then descendendo thus I live in obedience to God in love with my neighbour I follow my vocation c. therefore I trust that God hath elected me and predestinated me to salvation Not thus which is the usual course of argument God hath predestinated and chosen me to life therefore though I sin never so grievously yet I shall not be damned for whom he once loveth he loveth to the end so little a friend was this great Pralate to the Calvinian Doctrine of Predestination and persisting Grace 37. But your Adversary not content with this hath found some proofs as he conceives That Bancroft hated that which he calls Arminianisme like the shadow of death he telleth us that in his time came out the Book called The Faith Religion Doctrine professed in the Realm of England and Dominions thereof In this as much mistaken as in that before that Book being published in the time of Arch-Bishop Whitgift Anno 1584 as he might have found in Mr. Fullers Church History lib. 9 fol. 172. being twenty years almost before Bancroft came to the See of Canterbury and 12. at least before he was made Bishop of London And being then published was as he saith disliked by some Protestants of a middle temper whom by this his Restrictive Comment were shut out from a concurrence with the Church of England whom the discreet â—uxity of the Text admitted thereunto And if disliked by Protestants of a middle temper as he saith it was there is no question to be made but that it was disliked much more by all true Protestants such as
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
mildness of his Majesties Government and the great Moderation shown by Bishop Laud in the use of his power in not compelling men to say or do any thing against their Conscience a moderation which we find not amongst those of the Sect of Calvin when any of the opposite party fell into their hands Sixthly whereas it might be thought that the Ancient Protestants as he merrily calls them had past many such severe censures upon those whom he stiles Arminians he instanceth in none but in Barret and Bridges which make too small a number for so great a bragg Quid dignum tanto and the rest And finally for answer to the Prelatical oppressions I shall referre you to my former Discourse with Mr. Baxter num 20 21 23 repeating only at the present that the Proceeding of the Bishops were mild and gentle compared with the unmerciful dealings of the Presbiterians by whom more Orthodox Learned and Religious Ministers were turned out of their Benefices within the space of three years then by all the Bishops in England since the Reformation 46. But the King must not think to carry it so the Puritan Faction being generally Calvinistical in Doctrine as well as in Discipline prevailed so in the House of Commons Jan. 28. 1628. that they agreed upon this Counterpoise or Anti-declaration following viz. We the Commons now assembled in Parliament do claim profess and avow for truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established in Parliament 13. Eliz. Which by the publick Acts of the Church of England and the general current Exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us and we reject the sense of the Jesuites and Arminians and all other wherein they differ from us Which counterpoise made in direct opposition to the Kings Declaration your adversary makes a product of the Civil Authority whereas the House of Commons was so far at that time from being looked on as the Civil Authority of the English Nation that it was of no Authority at all nor could make any Order to bind the Subject or declare any thing to be Law and much less Religion till it was first countenanced by the Lords and finally confirmed by the Royal assent But this he doth in correspondence to the said Protestation in which the Articles of Lambeth are called the publique Acts of the Church of England though made by none but the Arch Bishop of Canterbury two Bishops of which onely one had actually received Consecration one Dean and half a dozen Doctors and other Ministers or thereabouts neither impowered to any such thing by the rest of the Clergy nor authorized to it by the Queen And therefore their determinations can no more properly be called the Acts of the Church then if one Earl with the eldest Sons of two or three others meeting with half a dozen Gentlemen in Westminster Hall can be affirmed to be in a capacity of making Orders which must be looked on by the Subject as Acts of Parliament 47. Your Adversary begins now to draw toward the Lees and in the Dreggs of his discourse offers some Arguments to prove that those doctrines and opinions which he calls Arminianism were countenanced to no other end but to bring in Popery And for the proof hereof he brings in Mr. Prinn's Report to the House of Commons in the Case of Montague An. 1626. In which it is affirmed that the whole frame and scope of his book was to discourage the well affected in Religion and as much as in him lay to reconcile them unto Popery He gives us secondly a fragment of a scattered Paper pretended to be written to the Rector of the Jesuites Colledge in Bruxels In which the Writer lets him know that they had strongly fortified their Faction here in England by planting the Soveraign Drug Arminianism which he hoped would purge the Protestants from their Heresie Thirdly he backs this paper with a clause in the Remonstrance of the House of Commons Anno 1628 where it is said that the hearts of his Majesties Subjects were perplex'd in beholding the dayly growth and spreading of the faction of Arminianism that being as his Majesty well knew so they say at least but a cunning way to bring in Popery All which he flourishes over by a passage in the Lord Faucklands Speech before remembered in which it is affirmed of some of the Bishops that their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospel without bringing themselves in danger of being destroyed by the Law c. To all which being but the same words out of divers mouths I shall return one answer only which is briefly this Your adversary cannot be so ignorant as not to know that the same points which are now debated between the Calvinians and the Old Protestants in England between the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants in the Belgick Churches and finally between the Rigid and Moderate Lutherans in the upper Germany have been as fiercely agitated between the Franciscans and Dominicans in the Church of Rome the old English Protestants the Remonstrants and the moderate Lutherans agreeing in these points with the Franciscans as the English Calvinists the Contra-Remonstrants and the Rigid Lutherans do with the Dominicans So that there is a complyance on all sides with one of the said two parties in the Church of Rome And therefore why a general compliance in these points with the Friers of St. Dominick the principal Sticklers and Promoters of the Inquisition should not be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery as any such compliance with the Friers of St. Francis I would fain have your Adversary tell me when he puts out next 49. The greatest of the storm being over there remains only a few drops which will make no man shrink in the wetting that is to say the permission of some books to be frequenly printed containing the Calvinian Doctrine and the allowance of many questions to be maintained publiquely in the Act at Oxon contrary to the sence of those which he calls Arminians Amongst the Books so frequently printed he instanceth in the Practise of Piety Perkins his Principles Balls Catechism c. which being incogitantly licensed to the Press at their first coming out could not be afterwards Restrained from being Reprinted notwithstanding the many inconveniences which ensued upon it till the passing of the Decree in Star-Chamber July 1637. concerning Printing by which it was ordered to the great grief and trouble of that Puritan faction that no Book whatsoever should be reprinted except Books of the Law till they were brought under a review and had a new License for reprinting of them And though D. Crakanthorps Book against the Archbishop of Spalato was but once printed yet being called Defensâ—o Ecclesiae Anglicanae it serves your Adversaries turn as well as if it had been Printed an hundred times over How so because
betwixt him and King Hen. the 6. nor in any one of his many Children though Edmund his third Sonne was made Earl of Rutland which Title had been formerly conferred on Edward Duke of York in his Fathers life time And though I give no credit to Ralph Brook whom I have found to be as full of Errors as our Author himself yet the Authority of Augustine Vincent shall prevail for the present and so let it go But then our Author might have found in the Animadversions that admitting Richard Duke of Yorke to be Earl of Cambridge he must have been the seventh not the eighth Earl of it as he saith he was and then that Errors lies before our Authors Doors as before it did And then again whereas our Authors tells us p. 2. fol. 49. that it is questionable whether his Father that is to say Richard of Conningburg Earl of Cambridge were Duke of York I must needs look upon it as a thing unquestionable and so must all men else which are skilled in Heraldry that Richard being executed at Southampton by King Hâ—n the 5. before Edward Duke of York his elder Brother had been slain at the Battel of Agen-Court 25. But whereas our Author thinks it not onely difficult but impossible to defend a Title of the House of Lancaster to the Crown of England except I can challenge â—the priviledge of the Patriarch Jacob by crossing my hands to prefer the younger child in the succession before the Elder p. 2. fol. 43. admitting Richard the Second to resign the Crown or dying without children by course of nature For I behold Hen. of Bullingbrook Duke of Lancaster as Cousin German to that King and consequently his nearest Kinsman at that time wherein Edmund Mortimer Earl of March in whom remained the Rights of the House of Clarence was but Grandchild to the Lady Philip Daughter and sole Heir of Lionel Duke of Clarence and consequently more remote by two degrees from King Richard the Second then the other was By which proximity of blood as Edward the Third laid claim to the Crown of France and Philip the Second carried the Crown of Portugal and Robert Bruce the Crown of Scotland against the Balions so I am confident of some ability to prove that Henry of Bullingbrook Duke of Lancaster had a better Title to this Crown then the house of Mortimer For thoughby the common Law of England he may find it otherwise yet there are many things in the common Law which cannot extend to the succession of the Kings of England as in the case of Aliens which was that of King James or in the case of Parseners as in that of the two Daughters of King Hen. the 8. or in that of the half blood in the case of the sisters of King Edw. the 6. and finally in that of the tenure by curtesie in the case of King Philip the 2d of Spain admitting that Queen Mary had been Mother of a living Child And now I am fallen on these matters of Heraldy I will make bold to take in a Remembrance of the House of the Mountagues descended in the Principal branches of it from a Daughter of King Edw. the Third concerning which our Author tells us that I have made up such a heap of Errors as is not to be paralelled in any Author which pretends to the emendation of another p. 2. fol. 37. How so because forsooth I have made Sir Edward Mountague the Grand-child of the Lord chief Justice and the first Lord Mountague of Broughton not to have been the elder Brother of Henry Earl of Manchester and James Bishop of Winton but their Brothers Son But first this Error was corrected in a Postscript to the Examen Historicum before he could accuse me of it and consequently he doth but Actum agere and fit a Plaister for that sore which had before been cured by a better Chyrurgion Secondly This can be at the most but a single Error in case it had not been retracted and therefore no such heap of Errors as is not to he paralelled in any other And Thirdly It appears by another passage in this present Appeal p. 2. fol. 96. that he had seen the Postscript to the said Examen which rendereth him the more inexcusable by raising such an out-cry on no occasion In which passage he taxeth me with sallery in my third endeavour touching the late Barons of that House in making the said Sir Edward Mountague to be Lord Mountague of Broughton in Northamptonshire which acknowledged for one of his Mannors but not his Barronie For I knew well that Broughton and not Broughton gave the nomination to this branch of that Family having never heard before of any Estate they had in Broughton And therefore I must needs charge this Error which he so triumpheth at as one of the Errata's which were made at the Press though not observed when the sheets were read over to me and so not Printed with the rest Less candidly deals he with me in another place about the mistaking of a number that is to say 1555. for 1585. p. 1. fol. 41. The Errors being meerly pretal as is own phrase is And this he could not chuse but see though he can winck sometimes when it makes best for his meeting of that precedent once again on a more particular occasion then was given at the present where the time thereof is truly stated and where he spends some few lines in relation to it so that the motion was direct not Retrograde but that he had a mind to pull me a little back seeing how much I had got the start of him in the present race And as for the Error in the Errata I know not how it came but a friend of mine in reading over the first sheets as they came from the Press had put a Quere in the Margin whether Melkinus or Felkinus and that afterwards by the ignorance or incogitancy of my Amanuensis it might be put in amongst the rest of the Errata which is all that I am able to say as to that particular 26. Our Author had affirmed that St. Davids had been a Christian some hundred years whilst Canterbury was yet Pagan The contrary whereof being proved by the Animedvertor he flyes to Caerleon upon Vsk p. 2. fol. 29. by which instead of mending the matter he hath made it worse Mistaking wilfully the point in difference between us For if the Reader mark it well the question is not whether St. Davids or Canterbury were the Ancienter Archi-Espiscopal See or how many hundred years the one was elder then the other but for how long time Canterbury had continued Pagan when the other was Christian which he acknowledgeth to be no more then 140 years as was before observed by the Animadvertor And though Caerleon upon Vske had been an Archi-Episcopal See some hundreds of years before that honour was conferred on the City of Canterbury yet Canterbury might be be Christian as soon as
from the death of Bishop Andrews and Archbishop Harsâ—et then he had taken those of York on this last occasion But I hope onâ— Author was somewhat more then half asleep when this note fell from him for otherwise me thinks he could not be so much a stranger to the affairs of the Church as not to know that ever since the time of William the second for so long that ill custome hath continued nothing hath been more ordinary with the Kings of England then to enter on the temporalities of all vacant Bishoppricks whether it be by death promotion or what way soever and to receive the mean profits of them till the new Bishop after the doing of his homage hath taken out a writ for their restitution 47. Our Author now drawes toward an end and for a conclusion to his Book contrary in a manner to all former Precedents addresseth an Epistle To the Religious Learned and judicious Reader In which he feeds himself and his Reader also with the hopes of this that there are no more Errors to be found in his History then those which have been noted in the Animadversions This I will add saith he for thus he doth bespeak his Reader for my comfort and thy better confidence in reading my Book that according to the received rule in Law Exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis it followeth proportionably that Animadversio firmat Regulam in non Animadversis And if so by the Tacit consent of my Adversary himself all other passages in my Book are allowed sound and true save those few which fall under his reproof But if so as it is much otherwise the passages which fall under the Reproof of the Animadvertor are not so few as to give the Reader any confidence that all the rest are to be allowed for sound and true Non omnem molitor quae fluit unda videt as the Proverb hath it The Miller sees not all the water which goes under his Mill much of it passing by without observation and if the blind eat many a fly as the English Adage saith he doth he may swallow many an Error also without discovery when he first finds them in his dish And so it was with me in the Review of our Authors History the second perusal whereof presented many Errors to my consideration which had not been noted in the first And since the publishing of the Animadversions I have fallen accidentally upon divers others not observed before of which I shall advertise him in a private way whensoever he shall please to desire it of me 48. And here I thought I should have ended but the Appealant puts me to the answering of two Objections against the Bishops having place in Parliament as a third Estate Which two Objections may be Answered without being heard as being made against the clear letter of the Law the express words of several Statutes and Records of Parliament as also against the positive determination of Sir Edward Cook the most learned Lawyer of our times whose judgement in that point may seem to carry the authority of a Parliament with it because by Order of this Parliament his Books were appointed to be Printed But since the Appealant doth require it in the way of curtesie I will serve him in it as well as I can at the present without engaging my self in any further enquiry after those particulars And first as to the Bishop of Man the reason why he hath no vote in Parliament is not because he doth not hold his Lands per integram Baroâ—iam as is implyed in the Objections but because he doth not hold his Lands of the King at all The Bishop of Man is Homiger to the Earl of Darby as the chief Lord of the Island of his sole nomination and dependance and therefore there could be no reason which might induce the King of England to admit those Bishops to a place and vote in Parliament who held nothing of them and of whose dutie and affections they could promise little And so much I remember to have read in the learned Work of Francis Mason de Ministerio Anglicano building therein if my memory do not too much fail me upon the judgement and authority of the learned Andrews in his Elaborate Apologie against Cardinal Bellarmine To the second Objection That some Statutes have been made absente or Exclusâ— clero which notwithstanding are esteemed to be good and valid therefore that the Bishops sit not in the Parliament as a third Estate I shall for brevity sake refer the Appealant to my answer to the Book called The stumbling Block c. cap. 5. Sect. 7. 8. c. where he shall find the point discoursed more at large then these short Remembrances can admit of I shall onely now adde thus much that in the Protestation made by the twelve Bishops which was enrolled amongst the Records of that house they thereby entred their Protest against all such Laws Orders Votes Resolutions and determinations as in themselves null and of none effect which in their absence since the 27th of December 1641. as were already passed and likewise against such as should hereafter pass in that most honourable house during the time of their forced and violent absence from it c. Which certainly so many Grave Learned and Judicious men would never have done if they had not looked upon themselves in the capacity of a third Estate according to the Laws of the Realm exprest in several Acts and Records of Parliament And whereas he requests me when my hand is in to answer an Objection taken from a passage in the Parliament at Northampton under Hen. the second in which the Bishops claimed their place not as Bishops but Barons Non sedemus hiâ— Episcopi sed Barones c. it must be understood with reference to the case which was then before them in which they thought themselves better qualified to pass their judgements in the capacity of Barons then in that of Bishops For that the Bishops sat in Parliament in a double capacity will be no hard matter to evince considering that they sat as Bishops in all publick Councels before the entrance of the Normans and that when William the Conqueror changed their tenure from Frank Almoigne to Bâ—râ—nage he rather added some new capacity to them which before they had not then took any of their old Capacities from them which before they had But this dispute is out of doors as the case now stands which makes me willing to decline all such further trouble which the Appealant seems desirous to impose upon me 50. That which I have already done in Order to his satisfaction is more then he can challenge in the ordinary course of Disputation or hath deserved at my hands in the managing of it He tells us in the Third Chapter of his Apparatus that finding himselfe necessitated to return an answer to the Animadversions he was resolved first to abstain from all Rayling that being a
your Adversary calls Arminians who constantly adhered to the determinations of the Church of England according to the Literal and Grammatical sense and the concurrent Expositions of the first Reformers I grant indeed that the Book being afterwards re-printed was dedicated with a long Epistle to Arch-Bishop Bancroft But that intituleth him no more to any of the propositions or opinions which are there maintained then the like Dedication of a Book to an Eminent Prelate of our Nation in denyal of Original Sin intituled him to the maintenance of the same opinion which he as little could digest they are your Adversaries own words in the Epistle to the Lecturers of Brackley as the most rigidly Scotized Presbyterian Nor stays he here for rather then lose so great a Patron he will anticipate the time and make Dr. Bancroft Bishop of London almost 18 moneths before he was and in that Capacity agreeing to the Lambeth Articles An errour which he borrowed from the Church Historian who finding that Richard Lord Elect of London contributed his Assent unto them puts him down positively for Dr. Richard Bancroft without further search whereas he might have found upon further search that the meeting at Lambeth had been held on the 26th of November 1595. that D. Richard Flesher Bishop of Worcester was then the Lord Elect of London and that D. Bancroft was not made Bishop of that See till the 8th of May Anno 1697. 38. The next Considerable preferments for learning the Clergy he makes to be the two Chairs in the Universities both to be occupied by those who were profest Enemies to such Doctrines as he calls Arminianism Which if it were granted for a truth is rather to be looked on as an infelicity which befell the Church in the first choice of those Professors then to be used as an argument that she concurred with them in all points of Judgement That which was most aimed at in those times in the preferring men to the highest dignities of the Church and the chief places in the Vniversities was their zeal against Popery and such a sufficiency of learning as might enable them to defend those points on which our separation from Rome was to be maintained and the Queens interess most preserved The Popes supremacy the Mass with all the points and niceties which depended on it justification by faith the marriage of Priests Purgatory and the power of the civil Magistrate were the points most agitated And whosoever appeared right in those and did withal declare himself against the corruptions of that Church in point of manners was seldome or never looke into for his other opinions until the Church began to find the sad consequents of it in such a general tendency to innovation both in doctrine and discipline as could not easily be redressed From hence it was that we find a non-conformist though â— moderate one in the chaire at Oxon a Mother but a violent Patron of in-conformity in a Professorship in Cambridge so many hankering after Calvin in almost all the Headships of both Vniversities And it was hardly possible that it should be otherwise Such of the learned Protestants as had been trained up under the Reformation made by King Edw. 6. and had the confidence and courage to stand out to the last in the Reign of Queen Mary were either martyred in the flames or consumed in prisons or worn out with extremity of Grief and disconsolation And most of those which had retired themselves beyond the Seas returned with such a mixture of outlandish Doctrines that it was hard to find amongst them a sufficient number of men so qualified as to fill up the number of Bishops and to be dignified with the Deanrys of Cathedral Churches By means whereof there followed such an universal spreading of Calvinism over all parts of the Church that it can be no matter of wonder if the Professors of the Vniversity should be that way byassed And yet as much as the times were inclined that way I believe it will be hard if not impossible for your Antagonist to prove that those Professors did agree upon such a platform of Gods decrees as he and others of the same perswasions would fain obtrude upon us now In Cambridge D. Whitaker maintained the supra-Lapsarian way of Predestination which D. Robert Abbot of Oxon condemned in the person of Perkins And I have heard from persons of very good Esteem that Dr. Abbot himself was as much condemned at his first coming to the Chair for deviating from the moderation of his Predecessor D. Holland who seldome touched upon those points when he might avoid them For proof whereof it may be noted that five onely are remembred by Mr. Prynne in his Anti Arminianism to have maintained the Calvinian tenents in all the time of that Professor from the year 1596. to the year 1610. whereas there were no fewer then 20. who maintained them publickly in the Act as the others did in the first six years of D. Prideaux And as for D. Overal one D. Overal as your Adversary calls him in contempt afterwards Dean of S. Pauls Bishop of Lichfield and at last of Norwich that his opinion were not that for which you are said to stickle I am sure it was not that for which he contends that he did not Armintanize in all things I am sure he Calvinized in none 39. Proceed we next to the Consideration of that Argument which is derived from the censures inflicted in either Vniversity upon such as trod the Arminian path so soon as they began to discover themselves Exemplified in Cambridge by the proceedings there against Barret Barrow and Simpson in Oxon by the like against Laud Houson and Bridges Of Barret Simpson and Bridges I shall now say nothing referring you to the 23. Section of this discourse where you will find a general answer to all these particulars In the case of Dr. Laud and Dr. Houson there was somewhat else then that which was objected against the other Your Adversary tells us of D. Housons Suspention for â—â—urting onely against Calvin If so the greater the injustice and the more unjustifiable the suspension for what was Calvin unto us but that he might be flurtad at as well as another when he came cross unto the discipline or Doctrine of the Church of England But Mr. Fuller tells you more particularly that at a Sermon preached in St. Maries in Oxon he accused the Geneva Notes as guilty of mis-interpretation touching the divinity of Christ and his Mesiah-ship as if symbolizing with Arrians and Jewes against them both and that for this he was suspended by D. Robert Abbot propter Conciones publicas minus Orthodoxas offensione plenas Which though it proves this Reverend person to be rufly handled yet it makes nothing to the purpose of your mighty Adversary which was to show that some such Censures of Arminianism might be found in Oxon as had been met withal in Cambridge nor doth he speed