Authority of Tindal something also was ascribed at least by Arch-Bishop Cranmer one of our Reformers to the Authority of Iohn Frith for he seems to have received his Faith in the Doctrine of the Sacrament from him and with his Heifer did he plow in his Answer to Stephen Winchester Rationes argumenta atque e Doctoribus petita testimonia Johannis Frithi singula commemorare ut immensi esset negotii ita nec valde necessarii praesertim cum Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis in suo adversus Wintoniensem Apologetico idem abunde praestitisse videatur hinc contracta maxima praesidiorum materia quibus adversus cum nititur nec scio an ulli magis Authori hujusce doctrinae fidem acceptam debuit Archiepiscopuâ— quam huic adolescenti Iohn Fox in his Commentary in Latine pag. 130. Dr. H. page 18. Here the Doctor supposeth a Question to be asked On whom or on whose judgements the first Reformers relied in the weighty business And answers it first negatively They had no respect of Calvin whose offered assistance they refused when they went about it of which he sensibly complains unto some of his Friends in one of his Epistles Answ. Here are three things affirmed 1. That our first Reformers had no respect to Calvin 2. That the Reformers refused his profered assistance 3. That Calvin sensibly complaineth of this in one of his Epistles But the Historian is wiser than to tell us in what Epistle for number Calvin makes this complaint or what was the name of that Friend to whom this Epistle was directed Such a reference might have spoiled his whole design and discredited his future proceedings for it would have let his Reader understand that he could confidently aver things that were neither vera nor verisimilia Is any man so facil as to believe that our first Reformers had no respect to Calvin when as among the different opinions concerning the Sacrament they followed his and sent for Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius men that they might be sure he had influenced and would influence to assist them in carrying on their work and to defend them by their learning against all opposition I will once more look into Calvin's Epistles and Answers that I may see what thoughts our first Reformers had of that now so much decried man One and but one Epistle I find written by Cranmer to Calvin intimating his desire that learned and godly men who excell others in learning and judgement might meet in some safe place where they might handle all the heads of Ecclesiastical Doctrine and agree not only as to the things themselves but also as to words and forms of speaking This his desire being signified he intreateth Calvin that he and Melancthon and Bullinger would deliberate among themselves how such a Synod might most commodiously be congregated The Letter bears date March 20. 1542. Calvin from Geneva answers this Letter approves the Arch-Bishops design of calling an Assembly of Divines adds that if there might be any use of him he would not refuse to pass over ten Seas to further it but hoped that his tenuity would effect that he might be spared he would think he had done his part if he should accompany others with his Prayers This certainly is not profering his service and complaining that his servâ—ce when profered was refused Calvin also did write to the Protector the Duke of Somerset that Letter was so kindly accepted that he of his own accord offered to present another Letter which Calvin sent to King Edward himself But it may be this Letter to the King was not accepted I answer It was not only accepted by the King but also pleased his whole Council And Cranmer admonished Calvin that he could not do any thing more profitable than to write often to the King as I find in a Letter to Farel from Calvin dated Iune 15. 1557. Bucer at Cambridge undestood that Calvin's Letters prevailed much with Somerset and therefore intreats him when he did write to him to admonish him not to suffer the Churches to be left void of Preachers and so to be betrayed Bishop Hooper so much valued Calvin that he did write to him even when he was imprisoned saluting him with the Compellation of Vir praestantissime earnestlyâ—begging his Churches prayers and at last subscribing himself Tuae pietatis studiosissimus Jo. Hooperus These things put together make it impossible that our first Reformers had no respect to Calvin Let the Doctor now have leave to tell us to whom or to what our Reformers had respect Dr. H. pag. 18. In the first place saith he to the most pure and sincere Christian Religion in the Scriptures and in the next place to the usages of the Primitive Church Answ. This I grant but must also add that they had a respect unto the condition of the English People much at that time wedded to Superstition and therefore they were feign to recommend to Authority for establishment not every thing which they accounted best but what they thought the weak People would be able to bear Dr. H. Ibid. Being satisfied in both which waies they had thirdly a more particular respect to the Lutheran platforms the English Confession or Book of Articles being takâ—n in many places word for word out of that of Ausberg Answ. If this be true that our Reformers had such an eye to the Augustan Confession I infer that seeing Calvin could and did subscribe to the Augustan Confession there is nothing in our Articles but what he might have subscribed to But the present Lutherans will hardly be perswaded that the Composers of our Articles had so tender a respect to the Conâ—ession of Ausberg at least as now by them understood for Ubiquity in the Article concerning the Lord's Supper is plainly condemned whiles it is defined that the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places Dr. H. Ibid. Fourthly in reference to the Points disputed they ascribed much to the Authority of Melancthon not undeservedly called the Phoenix of Germany whose assistance they earnestly desired whose coming over they expected who was as graciously invited hither by King Edward his coming laid aside on the fall of the Duke of Somerset therefore since they could not have his company they made use of his Writings for their direction Answ. Of this passage I am not able to give such an account as I desire Well I remember I have read that Melancthon in an Epistle to Camerarius mentions his being invited into England by King Henry the Eighth about the year 1534 and the cause of his refusal to accept the invitation some intelligence he had received that the King had no great care of the affairs of the Church That he was ever invited by King Edward I can neither affirm nor deny having not Melancthon's Epistles at hand But when was it that this great Scholar's assistance was so earnestly desired The fall of the Duke of Somerset
Elizabeth no favourer of Foreign Doctrine She accepted the Dedication suffered the Book and the Annotations to pass among her People without any censure here So much entertainment and applause did it meet with that some who have been curious to search into the number of its Editions say that by the Queens own Printers it was printed above thirty times I am not ignorant that King Iames highly censured this Trans-slation and the marginal Annotations in the Hampton Conference the Translation he calls the worst that ever he saw some of the Notes he calls very partial untrue seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits instancing in the Note on Exod. 1.19 and 2 Chron. 15.16 which censure a Jesuit takes as if spoken of the Translation used at Geneva it self But the Annotations on both these places are satisfied for by Bishop Morton page 104 of a Book written by him to shew the Romanists Doctrine of Rebellion and Aequivocation As for Arianism charged on these Annotations by Dr H. they are acquitted by the learned Letter of Sir Thomas Bodley I have all this while said nothing of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer out of whose Writings the Doctor hath transcribed so much And truly the things transcribed out of them are so impertinent that it would be no hazard to my Reader if I should wholly pass them over in silence Yet I will not but first shall say something of the men secondly of their writings Latimer was once a very hot Papist as himself acknowledgeth against himself Being converted from Popery he was as zealous for the Reformed Religion boldly reproving the sins of all whether Rulers or Ruled In his Sermons he used a style which perhaps was then accounted elegant but would now be judged ridiculous at least unbeseeming the Pulpit Hooper I look upon as one that feared the Lord from his youth for he chose from his youth to leave Oxford that he might not ensnare his conscience Beyond the Seas he fell into acquiantance with the learned Henry Bullinger and returned not into England till the Reign of King Edward when he gained more love from the Laicks than Clergy being a stiff Non-conformist Hand in drawing up the Articles of Religion he had none one of them being diametrically opposite to his declared judgment yet because he was very great both for piety and learning as his writings evidently shew therefore his judgment is not to be sleighted And if Dr. Heylin have proved or any one else can prove that he and Latimer held the opinions afterwards called Arminian I will grant that those opinions were not by the Protestant Church in King Edward's time adjudged intolerable Whether they held them or no must be considered First I yield that they both asserted Universal Redemption This being granted the Doctor dare say that Dr. H. Part 2. page 50. He Mr. Hickman he means will not be confident in affirming there can be any room for such an absolute Decree of Reprobation antecedaneous and precedent to the death of Christ as his great Masters in the School of Calvin have been pleased to teach him Ans. Mr. Hickman's mind is best known to himself so are his great Masters in the School of Calvin if he ever had any such but this I am confident of that Calvin's Decree of Reprobation may be maintained and yet Universal Redemption not denied Monsieur Amyrald as great a Scholar as this last age hath afforded hath in a whole Book defended Calvin's absolute Decree against Mr. Hoard yet the same Amyrald most strenuously defends Universal Redemption Two Dissertations also of Bishop Davenant are published by careful and faithful hands in the first he sets himself to assert Universal Redemption by Christ in the second to assert Personal both Election and Reprobation Let us see now what the Doctor can find in Latimer and Hooper Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 37. Latimer in his Sermon on Septuages rebukes those vain Fellows who abuse Election and Reprobation to carnal Liberty or Presumption Answ. Why so doth Calvin so doth Ursin so do our Divines at the Synod of Dort Dr. H. page 38. Hooper in his Preface to the ten Commandments saith We must not extenuate Original Sin nor make God the Author of Evil nor yet say that God hath written fatal Laws with the Stoicks and in the necessity of destiny violently pulleth one by the hair into Heaven and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell Answ. All this is just according to Calvin's method No Calvinists say that God's Decree offereth violence to Man's Will or pulleth a man into Heaven Only they say that Electing love makes men willing and that Holiness is an effect of Election As for Sin that they say is not an effect of Reprobation but only a Consequent I but Dr. H. page 39. Bishop Latimer teacheth us that we are to enquire no further after our Election than as it is to be found in our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Answ. Why so teach the Calvinists too that our Election is not to be known but by our knowledge of our interest in Christ. But the Anticalvinist will not say with Latimer If thou findest thy self in Christ then art thou sure of eternal life He saith A man may be in Christ and be a Reprobate a man may be in Christ to day and in Hell to morrow Perhaps the Doctor will find more against Calvinistical Reprobation or if he do not he must be concluded to have beaten the Air. First we must hear what he makes Calvinistical Reprobation to be 'T is that he saith Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 47. By which the far greater part of mankind are pre-ordained and consequently pre-condemned to the the pit of torments without any respect had unto their sins and incredulities This is generally he saith maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin Ans. If it be so then I am sure I never was in any School of Calvin for I never heard or read of any such Reprobation nay I never read of any person whatsoever that asserted such a Reprobation Sundry famous Schoolmen quoted by Dr. Rivet in his fifth Disputation de Reprobatione were of opinion that if God had decreed even innocent creatures to eternal damnation he had decreed nothing unworthy of himself and they seem to have but too much countenance for this bold and audacious Tenent from a passage of St. Austin's in his 16. cap. de Praedestinatione Gratia But the Calvinists as many as I have met with say that as God never actually damned any man but for sin so he never decreed to damn any but for sin All that they say is but this that Whereas Iudas and Peter were both alike corrupted by the fall and both alike apt by nature to abuse and reject grace the reason why God determined effectually to cure the corruption of Peter and not of Iudas was the meer good pleasure of his will The Calvinists are not engaged to say that God
meritoriousness which the Papists ascribed to the observation of Fasts and Feasts it is true and tends to the commendation of Zuinglius but that he decryed every established Fast or appointed Festival is a most notorious slander So is it also that his Reformation began in the abolishing of set Forms of Worship unless the meaning be that he procured the abolition of some forms of worship set by the Papists as Papists And if an Historian after he hath told us that a man abolished set forms of Worship may be allowed to interpret himself of Popish Idolatrous forms of Worship then may we think he hath no mind to be understood and without any blame at all neglect him It follows the Zuinglian Reformation began in the denying of the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence This charge must be intended of Zuinglius his denying the Real Presenâ—e of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and if it be so intended it is as false as what is most false Zuinglius had been at Zurick five years and reformed many things before he let any one know his mind about the Sacrament and perhaps before he knew his own mind as to the manner of Christs presence in or with the Sacramental Elements When he after long study discovered his mind about this matter he never denyed a Real Presence unless by Real Presence be understood a Corporal Presence He expounded Hoc est Corpus meum by a Trope so did our Reformers in England He thought the Bread was the â—ody of Christ Representatively And as our King may be and is said to be really present where there is any one who by his own Authority is appointed to represent him so the Body of Christ may be said to be really present where there is an Element appointed by himself to represent his Body And if Dr. Heylin did opine that the Body which our Lord Iesus united to his Divine Nature and with which he ascended into Heaven is any other way present in the Eucharist he both erred and dissented from that Church in which he was bred up For a conclusion the Historian tells us that the Zuinglian Reformation began in denying all Exteâ—nal Reverence in the participation of the Blessed Sacrament Words more strange than any that we had before For what is meant by the Blessed Sacrament Sure the Dr. was so much a Christian as to acknowledge at least two Blessed Sacraments If so which of these two would he have us to understand by the Blessed Sacrament Baptism or the Lords Supper I know not why the later should rather be called the Blessed Sacrament than the former nor why more External Reverence is necessary in the participation of this than of that supposing the Recipient to be adult If a converted Jew should come to be Baptised why is he not as well bound to kneel when he is sprinkled with water as when he takes the Bread and Wine As for Zuinglius he never denied External Reverence in the Participation of the Blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper The mode and form in the which he first administred it is recited in Melchior Adam and in the Historia Sacramentaria de Coena Domini and in it all needful Reverence was used But perhaps not to make the Communicants receive the Sacred Elements on their knees is to deny all External Reverence in the participation of the Eucharist If so Christ and all his Churches for some Centuries must also be affirmed to have denied all External Reverence By this it appears what false witness the Dr. hath born against Zuinglius Doth he bear a truer witness concerning Luther Of him these words are used which Luther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present Words that either are senseless or very untrue If they have any sense it must be this that Luther seriously endeavoured to preserve the things before mentioned in the same estate in which he found them in the Papacy This sense the words do scarse afford But if we suppose that this sense was intended I then say Nothing more false could have been written Luther did not seriously endeavour to preserve any one thing before-mentioned in the condition in which he found it 1. For Images He was indeed angry that they were taken down not because he desired or endeavored to have them kept up but because he would have had the honor of pulling them down and could not endure that Carolastadius should adventure to make any alteration in his absence Yet Carolastadius created Luther Doctor and made not the alteration on his own head but with the consent and advice of Melancthon and others 2. As to Fasts and Festivals set and constant Luther had as little fondness for them as Zuinglius could have Might he have ruled the rost no Holy days had been kept but the Lords day To be sure he endeavoured not after he thought of Reformation to keep either Fasts or Festivals in the same state in which he found them He looked not on them as parts of Worship 3. He defended a not only Real but also a Corporal Presence of Christ in thâ— Eucharist but not the Antient Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence nor yet the new Roman Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence Finding in an eminent Schoolman that were it not for the Authority of the Church he should more encline to Consubstantiation than Transubstantiation Luther bethought himself that he had abandoned the Authority of that Church which kept Cameracensis in awe and so boldly maintained Consubstantiation though not to his dying day as some think Happy had it been for his Followers if so absurd an opinion had never been published by him for they counting themselves concerned to maintain whatsoever he in his fierce oppositions to Zuinglius delivered are fallen into the most monstrous tenent of Ubiquity which whoever believeth with all the necessary consequences cannot believe one quarter of the Apostles Creed But what is the External Reverence in the use of the Lords Supper affirmed by Lutherans and denied by Zuinglianists Adoration is by the Lutherans condemned as well as by the Zuinglianists So is Asservation and Circumgestation Luther himself somewhere if Wendelin abuse him not advised Christians to Receive in one Kind or Element where they could not Receive in both but the Lutherans stifly contend for the necessity of Receiving sub utraque Specie The differences not already taken notice of are 1. The Lutherans think more favourably of Stone Altars than do the Zuinglianists 2. The Lutherans at least many of them better approve of lighting Candles in the Administration than do the Zuinglianists We in England in many places set Candles and Candlesticks on the Tables but do not light the Candles 3. The Lutherans use for one Element a placenta orbicularis of which it may be questioned whether it can properly be called bread So do not the Zuinglianists 4. The Lutherans use no breaking of
is placed by Mr. Fox at the 22. of Ian. 1552 the sixth year of the King's Raign but a few moneths before the King 's own death He had indeed two years before lost his Protectorship and so as to that may be said to be fallen Before either his fall as Duke of Somerset or as Protector Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer had been in England Now both these Worthies I shall prove to be Calvinistical in the Points under debate And certainly the sending for two Calvinists is a better and stronger Argument that our first Reformers had a respect to Calvin in drawing up the Articles of Faith than the sending for one Melancthon is that they had an Anticalvinistical project especially if it be considered that Hierom Zanchy a Calvinist if not more than a Calvinist was also sent for over into England and had come over to assist in carrying on the Reformation if when he was just upon his journey a call to another Church had not diverted him Let me also ask What Writings of Melancthon be they that our Reformers had for their Directory The first Edition of Melancthon's Common places approved by Luther was written as Calvinistically as to the matter of Predestination as Calvin himself could desire Calvin's own Book against Pighius was approved by Melancthon and indeed dedicated to him If in any other writings he seems to contradict Calvin he doth but seem in these matters it is to be imputed not to any contrariety in his own judgement but to a contrariety in those mens tempers that he had to deal with and there is even betwixt St. Iames and St. Paul writing against contrary errors such a seeming contrariety as every man is not able to reconcile Something there is in what Lampadius writes in the continuation of Pâ—zelius his History page 409 Philippus rigidissime olim si quisquam alius de praedestinatione scripsit in Loc. communibus Anno 1523. Postea cum videret infirmos duris Lutheri phrasibus offendi perduelles eas passim cippo affixas ad inflammandum Evangelium traducere calumniari mitigavit sententiam suam ut qui satis esse putaret auditores deduci ad Christum vitae librum tanto magis fructus fidei deposceret urgeret viz. concordiam charitatem neque tamen ob hanc sobrietatem ab Orthodoxis unquam est repudiatus aut condemnatus neque ipse propterea a severioribus syntheticis alienior fuit sed ad Bezam se per omnia cum Genevensibus Orthodoxis â—acere scribit No Church can be more Melancthonian than the Church of Breme it answering by Pezelius to the Besâ—huldigung van Calvinischer the accusation of Calvinism hath these words translated We and our Predecessors have alway so declared our selves and by this do again declare our selves that as by the Magistrate of this City we are called to the Function Ecclesiastical to teach according to the Prophetical and Apostolical Writings the Catholick Symbols of Christian the Augustan Confession the Apology the Franckford Recess and the whole Body of the Doctrine of Philip Melancthon so we have by the grace of God hitherto taught congruously thereunto and by none have been convinced by solid reasons to teach any thing different therefrom in which kind of teaching by the help of God we have moreover decreed to persevere Yet the three Divines of this Church did not refuse to subscribe the Canons of the Synod of Dort so that in the opinion of these men who seem to have studied the five Points as much as any Melancthonism and Calvinism are not irreconcileable And if our first Reformers were regulated by Mâ—lancthon they and the Calvinists may shake hands as good Friends But how comes the Dr. in this History to speak more favourably of Luther than of Calvin It was but Iuâ—e 6th 1654 that he did write a Preface to his Fides Veterum In that thus he expresseth himself Though I had a good respect both to the memory of Luther and the name of Calvin as those whose Writings had awakened all these parts of Europe out of the ignorance and superstition under which they suffered yet I alwaies took them to be men Men as obnoxious unto error as subject unto humane frailty and as indulgent too to their own opinions as any others whatsoever The little knowledge I had gained in the course of story had preacquainted me with the fiery spirit of the one and the busie humour of the other thought thereupon unfit by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and others the chief agents in the Reformation of this Church to be employed as instruments in that weighty business Nor was I ignorant how much they differed from us in their Doctrinals and forms of Government And I was apt enough to think that they were no fit Guides to direct my judgement in order to the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church of Eâ—gland to the establishment whereof they were held unuseful and who by their practises and posiâ—ions had declared themselves Friends to neither Here 's plain downright dealing indeed sentence given impartially Luther and Calvin both 〈◊〉 by thâ—ir practises and positions declared themselves to be Friends neither to our Doctrine nor Discipline both much differed from us in their Doctrinals and Forms of Government both were thought unâ—it by Arch-Bishop Cranmer c. to be employed as instruments in the Reformation of this Church Luther was of a fiery spirit Calvin of a busie humour and yet the Doctor presently adds he was never Master of so little manners as to speak reproachfully of either Luther or Calvin All other men whatever I suppose think he hath spoken reproachfully of both those Reformers in sundry of his Books and in the passage before us he speaks not over respectfully concerning either of them and I believe vilely wrongs both and Cranmer too For where doth it appear that the Arch-Bishop thought either Luther because of his fiery spirit or Calvin because of his busie humour unfit to be employed in the Reformation of this Church Our Church was not reformed to any great purpose till Luther was in his grave for he died the 8 th of Feb. 1546 not a month after King Henry the eighth whose decease is placed by Iohn Speed 28 Ian. 1546. How far Reformation was advanced by that King may be collected from his Will signed Decemb. 30. 1546 in which Masses multitudes of Masses are appointed to be said for his Soul Indeed Mr. I. Fox acquaints us from A. Cranmer that the King the August before he died declared his purpose to abolish all Masses and in stead of them to set up the Communion Had he lived and performed that resolution and had Luther lived to hear of the Performance of it yet might not Cranmer perhaps have accounted it adviseable to keep any correspondence with him because he had written against his Soveraign more bitterly than was meet and had repented of that repentance which he sometime expressed for his bitterness
of those that vigorously fought against it We need not say that Campneys deserved all the ill names that Veron and Crowley bestowed on him perhaps their zeal might be in some particulars too bitter yet we cannot think that men of so great repute and learning would charge Pelagianism and Popery upon one that had honestly declared himself against both Popery and Pelagianism The Doctor tells us that Campneys hath sufficiently purged himself of both these crimes And indeed by reading his Book I find that he hath declared himself against Merit but so hath many a professed Papist done He doth also muster up the errors of Pelagius publickly recanted by him in the Synod of Palestine declaring them or at least one of them to be vile and abominable This notwithstanding it is possible he might be a very Pelagian Austin himself doth not speak more sharply against Pelagius than do the Ring-leaders of the Semipelagians and yet they erre as bad an errour as the Pelagians do But of all these matters let indifferent Readers judge by comparing Campneys Book with the Answers made to it More I need not say about the sixteenth Chapter had it not pleased the Historian to defame Calvin Beza and Knox. Calvin and Bâ—za he charges with unworthy practices used against Sebastian Castalio a man he says of no less learning but of far more modesty and moderation than either of them yet they never left persecuting and reviling him till they had first cast him out of Geneva and afterwards brought him to his grave meerly because he differed from them about Predestination Calvin and Beza's learning modesty and moderation are sufficiently vindicated by others Castalio discovered little either of modesty or moderation in his bitter censures of the Book of Canticles or in the help and assistance he afforded unto the cursed Socinians Beza and Calvin are not the only persons that have condemned him nor did they condemn him meerly or principally for differing from them in the point of Predestination as the Doctor might have known if he had rather consulted the impartial Historians of that time than Castalio's own writings For Mr. Knox styled pag. 5 The great Incendiary of the Nation and Kirk of Scotland I will not undertake an Apology His own Country-men who were better acquainted with his principles and practices may better do it Yet because I find him to have taken great pains in promoting our Reformation here in England I shall adventure to mind the Doctor that Spotswood purposely employed by our King to write the History of the Kirk of Scotland and having also by the King liberty given him to write truâ—h impartially doth make very honourable mention of Mr. Knox. And our own Bishop Ridley joyns him with Latimer Leaver Bradford and commends them all for their sharp reproof of all sins and sinners in King Edward's days Dr. H. Part 3. pag. 18. No sooner had that gracious Lady Queen Elizabeth attained the Crown than she took order for the reviewing of the publick Liturgy appoiâ—ting for the review Dr. Parker Drâ— Gâ—indaâ— Dr. Pilkington Dr. Cox Dr. May Dr. Bill Mr. Whitehead Sir Thomas Smith Answ. 'T is true such a revision was appointed and performed by the men here mentioned I intend not a character of them they have their characters already given them by abler Pens but so principled they were that if any thing had been left in the Liturgy favouring conditional Eâ—lection or the Apostasie of Saints it had not failed to be blotted out The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth are mentioned by the Doctor pag. 19 in which he observes that Erasmus his Paraphrases were appointed to be provided for every Church Injunct 6. and Injunct 16 that every Parson Vicar Curate Stipendiary Priest he omits under the degree of a Master of Arts should provide and have of his own the New Testament in Latine and English with the Paraphrases the Injunction saith only with Paraphrases The conclusion he hence infers hath been before considered I must take notice that the 51. Injunction straitly chargeth and commandeth that no manner of person shall Print any manner of Book or Paper of what sort nature or in what Language soever it be except the same be first licenced by her Majesty by express words in writing or by six of her Privy Conncel or be perused and licenced by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York the Bishop of London the Chancellors of both Universities the Bishop being Ordinary and the Archdeacon also of the place where any such shall be Printed or by two of them whereof the Ordinary of the place shall always be one and that the names of such as shall allow the same be added to the end of every such work for a testimony of the allowance thereof From this Injunction I infer that Campneys had no respect at all unto the Queens Order or else he would not have published his Papers without Authority I also infer secondly that neither Queen nor Councel nor Archbishops nor Bishops were of Campneys mind because else he would have prevailed with some of them to authorize his Book that it might have been more passable And now if the Doctor have got any thing by these Injunctions much good may it do him Dr. H. Pag. 20. Here he gives us a very merry conceit that the Zuinglâ—ans being increased exceedingly both in power and numbers and notice being taken thereof by those that were of most Authority in the government of the Church it was thought necessary that the Articles of Religion published 1552 should be reviewed accommodated to the use of the Church and made to be the standing Rule by which all persons were to regulate and confirm their Doctrines Answ. He would have extreamly obliged us had he but vouchsafed to name any one person intrusted in the government of the Church at that time who was in the least offended with the Zuinglian Doctrine We have Records from which it may appear who were Anno 1562 Archbishops and Bishops amongst them all it will be hard to find any one that was not a cordial Friend unto the Doctrine of Zuinglius and Calvin some of them are blamed for agreeing too well with them in matter of Discipline and Ceremony also the names of almost all may be found in Mr. Fuller Book 9. p. 69. But the Historian would have done no less than wonders if he had informed us how the passing of the Articles in Queen Elizabeth's first Convocation could be a probable means to suppress the growth of the Zuinglian Doctrine Certain I am that if they were designed for any such use they had no prosperous success but were in the days of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames made use of to suppress the Antizuinglian Doctrine Indeed the seventeenth Article plainly lays down such a Predestination as the Anticalvinistical ear cannot hear and the Homilies so much commended in the Articles have a little too much Calvinism in them for they place Faith in such a
Carleton 1618. Theo. Field 1619. Lincoln William Barlow 1608. Richard Neile 1613. George Mountayn 1617. Iohn Williams 1621. London Richard Vaughan 1604. Thomas Ravis 1607. George Abbot 1609. Iohn King 1611. George Mountaine 1621. Norwich Iohn Overal 1618. Samuel Harsnet 1619. Oxford Iohn Bridges 1603. Iohn Houson 1619. Roch. Willam Barlow 1605. Rechard Neile 1608. Io. Buckridge 1611. Salisbury Robert Abbot 1615. Martin Fotherby 1618. Robert Tomson 1620. Iohn Davenant 1621. Winchester Ia. Mountague 1617. Lancelot Andrews 1618. Worcester Henry Parry 1610. Iohn Thornborough 1617. York Toby Mathew 1606. Carlisle Robert Snowdon 1616. Richard Milbourne 1620. Richard Senhouse 1624. Chester George Lloyd 1604. Thomas Morton 1616. Iohn Bridgeman 1618. Durham William Iames 1606. Richard Neile 1617. How few are they among these which the Doctor layes claim to And how little or no proof doth he give us that those whom he claims had publickly owned any of his Anti-calvinian Opinions Bancroft is never affirmed to have said or written any thing concerning Predestination but what occurs in the Relation of the Hampton Court Conference and that can at most amount but to a rebuke of some carnal Protestants who did abuse the Doctrine of Predestination to their destruction Overal's Opinion in these points if it somewhat differ from Calvin's much more differs from Dr. Heylin's Yet on the account of Overal's and some others Episcopal preserments the Historian groweth so confident as to averr that his Conditional-decree-men found King James a gracious Patron and by means of his gracious Patronage in the end surmounted all difficulties and came at last to be altogether as considerable both for power and number as the Calvinists were He that will affirm this and affirm it in Print and whilst so many are living that knew the Transactions of King Iames his Court must needs lose the credit of an impartial Historian Yet the Doctor as if he had not sufficiently disparaged himself in affirming so great an increase of Anti-calvinists in England goes on to give a reason of it just as some in Natural Philosophy undertake to give us a cause of the Swans singing before her death before they have given us any good Authority that she doth so sing But what is his reason Why Dr. H. Pag. 103. The differences betwixt the Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants in Holland and their publishing of their Books one against another by which the students in the Universities were quickned to study the points Answ. That the breaking out of the Remonstrants could not did not contribute to the increase of Arminianism in England we shall see by and by In the mean time it is no great credit to the Doctors cause that so few durst publickly appear for it till it had the incouragement of the civil Magistrate If the Primitive Christians had not published the truth before Kings became nursing Fathers to it the world had been to this day under Paganish darkness Let me offer a Dilemma Either there were some in England who thought Calvins Doctrines made God the Author of sin destroyed liberty of will opened a gap to all profaneness or there were not If there were none every one sees what will follow If any how came they to have so little zeal against so damnable blasphemies as not to adventure the loss of all preferments yea of life it self in opposing of them Dr. H. Pag. 104. But so it hapned that while matters went thus fairly forwards Conradus Vorstius suspected for a Samosetenian or Socinian Heretick c was chosen by the Curators of Leiden 1611 to succeed Arminius Answ. While things went thus fairly forward How fairly forward You told us before of the preferments of certain Bishops that had espoused your opinions several of whose preferments were bestowed on them after this election of Vorstius into the place of Arminius You also little credit your History by saying that Vorstius was but suspected of Socinianism and your friends the Remonstrants did less credit themselves in appearing so streâ—uously for a man suspected of such prodigious blasphemies if he had been only suspected But what ever secret good liking you had either for the Remonstrants or Vorstius by whom they would feign have been headed your Loyalty and Allegeance should have kept you from saying that King James used many harsh and bitter expressions against Arminius and his followers as if guilty of the same impieties with Vorstius For why might not King Iames charge the Remonstrants with Vorstius his blasphemies when as they so apertly declared that they had nothing against Vorstius nor had found any thing in his Writing which was contrary to truth or piety and that it would be most profitable to Church and Commonwealth if his calling should proceed Vid. praef ad acta Synodi But how inexcuseable a piece of is it to say as you do Chapt. 6th Numb 7 that King James was carried so to express himself against the Arminians not so much by the clear light of his own understanding as by reason of State and that it was a part of Kings craft to contribute to the suppression of the weaker party For doth not King Iames in his Declaration tell you the clean contrary Doth he not also call Arminius an enemy to God his followers Atheistical sectaries Doth he not call Bertius his Book of the Apostasie of Saints a blasphemous Book worthy of the Fire for its very Title Doth he not say that Bertius lâ—ed grosly in averring his heresie contained in his said Book was agreeable with the profession and Religion of our Church of England And will you after all this make the world believe that setting aside political considerations and a design to serve the Prince of Orange King Iames had no zeal against Arminianism What if one should say that this Book you have written is not the clear result of your Judgment but wrested from you by the importunity of your Friends who would not suffer you to be quiet till you had reproached the Calvinists and wrested the History of Church affairs to serve their ends You would think your self wronged And have not you then much more wronged King Iames under whose Government you lived in telling the world so long after his death that he put all the harsh expressions against Arminius into his Declaration to serve other mens turns rather than to advance his own as you speak Chap. 22. Numb 10. But you think you have reason to charge this hypocrisie on him for say you pag. 106 That King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves though he had taken some displeasure against their persons appears not only by rejecting the Lambeth-Articles and his dislike to the Calvinian Doctrine of predestination in the Conference at Hampton-Court but also by instructing his Divines commissionated for the Synod of Dort not to oppose the Article of Universal Redemption which they accordingly performed You told us before Chap. 6. Numb 7th that King James sent such Divines to the assembly
at Dort as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their i. e. the Remonstrants condemnation and have you now so soon forgot your self as to say that he instructed his Divines thither commissionated not to oppose the Article of Universal redemption which accordingly they performed and make this an argument that King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves Was that Universal redemption which you say King James instructed his Divines not to oppose and which they did not oppose an Arâ—inian Doctrine or was it not If it was nor how is King Iames his directing his Divines not to oppose it any evidence that he condemned not the Arminians opinions in themselves If it were and that our Divines did not condemn it why is the King charged with sending Divines that would be sufficiently active in condemning the Arminian opinions Again you say expresly pag. 107 that he gave command to his Divines sent to the Synod of Dort not to recâ—de from the Doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Universal Redemption by the death of Christ a point so inconsistent with that of the absolute decree of reprobation and generally of the whole Machina of predestination and the points depending thereupon as they are commonly maintained in the Schools of Calvin that fire and water cannot be at greater difference Sir I beseech you consider whether you do not contradict your self whilst you think you only contradict Calvin Universal redemption by the death of Christ overthrows the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination and the points thereon depending Thus I argue from this They that were sent with Order to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ were sent with order to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination Our Divines by King James were sent with Orders to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore Our Divines were sent with Orders to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination Again They that asserted Universal reâ—emption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of â—he Calvinian predestination Our Divines at the Synod of Dort asserted Universal Redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore Our Divines at the Synod of Dort destroyed the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination The premises in both Syllogisms are your own Yet I suppose you disown the conclusion naturally and necessarily flowing from them Or if you do not why did you say that our King thought it a piece of King-Craft to contribute to the suppression of the weaker i. e. Remonstrant party and sent Divines that would be active in their condemnation Finally you tell us that this point of Universal Redemption was together with the rest condemned in the Synod of Dort Now nothing was in that Synod condemned but what our Divines consented to they have subscribed to all the determinations of the Synod relating to the death of Christ Therefore either the Synod did not condemn Universal redemption of our Divines did not aâ—cording to their Orders The Reader by this time sees what terrible executions the Doctor hath done on himself and more need not be said about the Synod of Dort as it relateth to our English affairs Some things done in England and misrelated by the Doctor must be rectified Pag. 105 he essays to make a Salve for the Recantation imposed on Mr. Sympson for some passages in a Sermon before the King at Royston 1616 and he would fain have us think that the King took no offence at his saying that the committing any great Sin did for the present extinguish grace and Gods Spirit for in that he went no further than Overal had done This is very untrue for Overal never said so nor could say so according to his principles But what then did the King take exception at At nothing but the Preachers expounding the seventh to the Romans as Arminius had done or rather his Fathering the exposition on Arminius But either the Preacher did bring this exposition of Arminius to credit an Arminian notion or he did not If he did then it was the Arminianism of the exposition that gave distast If not would it not sound like tyranny in the King to injoyn a Learned man a Recantation meerly because he used such an exposition of a place of Scripture as Arminius had used Take the place of a Regenerate man Arminius his Doctrine cannot stand as the wise King well saw and therefore he sent to the two Professors of Cambridge to have their judgment in the case who sent their judgment in favour of St. Austins exposition But the Doctor observes that the Professors did not do this of their own Authority but as set on by the King pag. 106. I wonder how they could give their judgments to the King at Royston of a Sermon Preached before him until they were by his Majesty required so to do I But the Professors were not so forward as to move in it of themselves as may appear by their not answering of Tompsons Book de intercisione gratiae justificationis though the Author of it were a member of that University but leaving it to be coâ—futed by Dr. Abbot their Brother in the Chair at Oxford so great an alteration had been made in Cambridge since the first striking up of their heats against Baro and Barret O what superfoetations of Doctrines are here upon nothing or what is less than nothing First Dr. Abbot when he confuted Tompson was not Doctor of the Chair but Bishop of Salisbury and so no Brother to the Professors at Cambridge 1616. Secondly The Professors at Cambridge then were Dr. Richardson originally of Emanuel a Colledge that in those days afforded few Arminians and Dr. Iohn Davenant a very able and zealous opposer of Arminianism as all know Thirdly The Cambridge Professors might not count themselves concerned to confute Tompson because his Book was not Printed in their University nor indeed in England and because Tompson's life had confuted his Book at Cambridge He was a man of a most debauched conversation and confirmed himself in his debauchedness by his Arminianism for when men reproved him for his prophaness he would say My will is free I am a Child of the Devil to day to morrow I will make my self a Child of God this more than any Answer to the Book would confirm the Cantabridgians that he was not an enemy to perseverance as a Doctrine leading to impiety Well but Did not King James by his Directions to the University Jan. 18. 1619. require that young students in Divinity be appointed to study such Books as be most agreeable in Doctrine and discipline to the Church of England and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers and Councels School-men Histories and Controversies and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and Abbreviations making them the ground of their study in Divinity Really he did so and I heartily wish the direction had been observed for then had Arminianism been crushed
be accounted the most obedient Sons of the Church is a question in which I would most gladly be satisfied Until such satisfaction be gained it will be at least a pardonable error to suppose that that is not the Doctrine of the Church of England which for above threescore Years after her first establishment was not averred in any one Licenced Book but confuted in many FINIS Postscript I Am given to understand that I seem to some not sufficiently to have taken notice of what the Doctor brings to invalidate the Argument drawn from Barret's Recantation I drew the Argument from the Heads of Houses in Cambridge enjoyning Mr. Barret to Recant what he had delivered against absolute reprobation and against perseverance and some other Calvinian Doctrines not only as false but also as contrary to the Articles of Religion here in England established The Doctor doth not cannot deny but that such Recantation was enjoyned him Now if the Heads of Houses in the University who are authorized to judge of the Sermons preached among them and to censure what they find in such Sermons disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church did judge Barret's Doctrine denying absolute reprobation and perseverance of Believers to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and manifestly contrary to it and passed this judgment upon mature deliberation I leave it to any ones consideration whether this be not a very vehement presumption that Calvin's Doctrine concerning absolute election and perseverance is agreeable to the Articles of our Church and Barret's Doctrine contrary to them If this be granted what need I contend about by-passages relating to the Recantation being in a place where I can have no recourse to the Records of Cambridge Yet to make it appear that I did write nothing in this business rashly and that the Doctor hath me at no such advantage as he pretends I will now review all he saith not already taken notice of It signifies little that he saith 1. That this process was made or procured by the Calvinian Heads inflamed by Mr. Perkins pag. 70 Part 3. Seeing there were then no Heads but what were Calvinistical and no man can think that they should all be guided and acted by Mr. Perkins a poor Preacher in the Town 2. It is to be doubted saith he pag. 71 whether any such Recantation consisting of so many Articles and every Article having its abjuration or recantation subjoyned unto it was ever enjoyned to be made But what reason have we to doubt of this when as the Form of Recantation is exemplified in Mr. Fuller from whom I had it and also in Mr. Prynne's Antiarminianism and was fairly printed in Qu. Elizabeth's daies some printed Copies of it being still extant and seeing Mr. Prynne declares that the Form of Recantation by him inserted into his Book was a Transcript taken out of an Original Copy under Mr. Barret's own hand Why he doubts because though Mr. Prynne say that the Recantation in the same manner and form as we there find it was exemplified and sent unto him under the Register's hand yet he also confesseth that no such matter could be found when the Heads of houses were required by an Order from the House of Commons to make certificate unto them of all such Recantations as were recorded in their University Register and of this Recantation in particular But first Mr. Prynne only tells us that he had been certified and informed that this Order for Recantation could not be found among the University Records 2. Mr. Prynne doth not pretend to have had in his hands the Form of Recantation exemplified under the Register's hand but only the Order for Recantation The Form of Recantation he tells us he had another way and perhaps the Form of Recantation was never put into the University Archives or Register But if the Order for the Recantation should not be found there neither I should much wonder and yet less wonder because Thomas Smith who was Register at this time is branded for one that was very careless in Registring matters that concerned the University as may be found in Mr. Fuller's Hist. of Camb. p. 49. But that which the Historian most contends for is that the Recantation was never made by Barret Pag. 72. It is to be denied as a thing most false that he never published the Recantation whatsoever it was It is to be thought that the Printer hath mistaken his Copy and put never instead of ever for if it be most false that he never published his Recantation then it is to be affirmed as a thing most true that he sometime published it which is that which we believe Let us sâ—an the reasons of the Doctor to prove that he never read the Recantation ibid. For 1. It is acknowledged in Mr. Prynnes own Transcript of the Acts that though Barret did confess the Propositions wherewith he was charged to be contained in his Sermon yet he would never grant them to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England and therefore was not likely to retract the same The Argument framed stands thus He that would never acknowledge his Propositions to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England was not likely to retract the same Mr. Barret would not acknowledge his Propositions to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England therefore he was not likely to retract the same The Major certainly is most absurdly false but the Minor cannot be proved For Mr. Prynne's Copy doth not say that he would never acknowledge but only that at first reading of his Charge he denyed his Propositions to be contrary to the Religion of the Church of England Many a man at first denies what he afterwards granteth Secondly saith the Doctor ibid. It is plain from Mr. Barret's Letters the one to Dr. Goad Master of Kings the other to Mr. Chadderton Master of Emanuel that neither slattery nor tâ—â—â—atâ—ings nor the fear of losing his subsistence in the University should ever work him to the publishing of the Recantation required of him The Doctor had in his Certamen Epistolare before told us of two Letters of Barret's written one to Dr. Goad the other to Mr. Chadderton and now he tells us that from them it is manifest that neither flattery c. Yet he gives us only a Copy of the Letter to Dr. Goad and never tells us whence he had that nor doth the Letter to Dr. Goad in the least intimate that any flattery had been used to draw him to make the Recantation but rather it manifests that he used flattery to perswade Dr. Goad to be his Friend and obtain for him that he might stay in the University on solemn promise to keep his Opinion to himself A very sneaking Letter it is and shews that he was a poor low spirited man valuing his Place more than his Conscience and yet his Credit more than his Place Nor doth he if we may judge of him by the