HISTORIA Quinq-Articularis Exarticulata OR ANIMADVERSIONS ON Doctor Heylin's QUINQUARTICULAR HISTORY IN WHICH 1. The Aspersions cast on Foreign Reformers are wiped off 2. The Doctor 's manifold Contradictions are manifested 3. The Doctrine of the Arminians in the five points is proved to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England By HENRY HICKMAN B. D. The Second Edition Corrected and Enlarged Si moriens mordeat mordeatur mortuus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cato Censor London Printed for Robert Boulter at the Turks-head in Cornhil over against the Royal Exchange 1674. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER READER I Am told the following Papers are mine And really I think they be for I well remember that sundry years ago I did hastily either write or dictate to others to be written a Confutation of Dr. Heylin's Historia Qâ—inquarticularis that so I might remove a stone of offence which some told me I principally had occasioned to be laid in the way of yong students Had I thought â—o unstudied a scrible meet to be exposed to publick â—iew I could then have sent it abroad when either I â—â—uld have procured a Licence to imprint it or should â—ot have been esteemed an offender though I had imprinted it without a Licence Some Friends have now adventured to put it forth without my privity I doubt a little unseasonably but I am confident with a good intention Therefore I must not be angry with them For my self I must desire thee once for all to take notice 1. That I only relate some mens opinions Historically and defend them from unjust aggravations but am not concerned to maintain them to be true or accurately expressed 2. That I acknowledg there be some depths in the Controversies relating to Predestination and Grace which I am not able to fathom Nor are these the only points in Divinity in which I believe some things against which I have objections that I cannot answer any otherwise than by saying that every Divine Revelation must needs be true though seemingly contrary to something which my imperfect and corrupt reason apprehends to be true It is commonly laid to the charge of the Socinians that they make reason the Judg in Controversies of Faith and so I verily think it is in some sense but that it should be Judex normalis the Norma or Rule according to which we are to judge so as we are to believe nothing but what we could have demonstrated to be true or possible by meer reason is an opinion so wicked that I hope it is but falsly fathered on the Socinians I believe the Hypostatical Vnion a Trinity of persons in the Vnity of Essence if a reason of this my Faith be asked I will quote the Scriptures which clearly assert those two Articles having so done I have resolved Faith into its first Principle and I will continue stedfast and immoveable in my Faith though I cannot comprehend either how three Persons subsist in one numerical nature or how two natures can be united so as make but one person In like manner I will believe the Doctrine of Original Sin as it is explained in our Articles of Religion because I find that explication of it agreeable to Scripture though I cannot so clearly make it out to my own or another mans reason how Original sin is propagated I will also believe that God hath mercy on whom he will and hardneth whom he will bestoweth his determining Grace on whom he will and denieth it to whom he will because this is a Scripture Doctrine though the reconciling of Gods eternal Decrees and the efficacy of Grace with the liberty of mans will surpass my knowledge And I am the more confident that I am not mistaken in thinking this to be a Scripture Doctrine because as I have shewen in the following Papers it hath been so adjudged by the Ancient Fathers of the Church Nor is it a small confirmation to me that the greatest opposers of Calvinism as they are resolved to call it have after the highest straining of their wits and diligence been able to say nothing against it but what the Pelagians and Semipelagians had before objected against S. Austin and his Disciples I know there be many who think quite otherwise These will say Qâ—id tandem Arminio cum Pelagio aut quid Calvino cum Augustino Arminius learned not his opinions from Pelagius nor did Calvin owe his notions to S. Austin Such men I earnestly desire impartially to consider what I have hereafter produced and if they can answer my allegations I will thank them for undeceiving me But this I will tell them that he who hopes to make me his proselyte must be 1. No Railer nor Reviler I have read that some in old times through I know not what foolish and wicked superstition thought Garden-Basil that I suppose answers to Plinie's Ocimum would grow the sooner and better if it were sown cum convitiis maledictis with reproaches and evil speaking So many of late seem to have been of opinion that the Doctrine which they plant will prosper the better if they water it with torrents of contumely against those that differ from them Perhaps the more rank their stile is the more it may please some Readers but he was wise who said As dead flies cause the Oyntment of the Apothecary to send forth a stinking savour so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor Eccl. 10.1 A very little of any thing that is but a kin to scurrility will make an ingenuous person disgust and nauseat the most learned book Dr. Crakanthorp hath very sâ—lidly confuted Spalaâ—â—â—sis but the uncivil language be every where useth against the Archbishop hath sometimes turned my stomach and made me leave off reading Dr. Abbot hath most judiciâ—usly defended the Reformed Catholick against Wâ—â—â—â—â—m Bishop but when I find him calling Wright foul-mouthed dog when c. I cannot but wonder where a man that had all his days been bred up among Scholars learn'd such language As for Bishop Mountague he boasts that never any had handled the Papists as he had done and I verily believe him His Gag is a piece for which he may well be denominated a Matchless Scoffer Fool Goose Cockscomb Ass Horse Bâ—ind Buzard Poor Woodcock Catholick Cockscomb c. these are flowers that grow in Mr. Mountagues Garden are they not very lovely sweet will not Popery fall to the ground after one of its Patrons hath been so bespattered with so many unseemly names or will not the Papists rather be confirmed in Popery when they shall observe a dignified Minister in the Protestant Church to use such unsavoury language without check or controul from his Superiors 2. I expect if any one answer me that he faithfully relate Historical matters For let him not imagine that I will think the worse of any party because I 〈…〉 slandered Rather I shall judge men good because their Adversaries durst not speak evil
he might have mercy upon all What can hence be collected Why The two All 's are of equal extent How many Unbelievers there be on so many God hath a Will of shewing Mercy and if every Man be under Mercy then there is no precise Will of shutting out any from possibility of Mercy Well 1. Let it be remembred that here it is granted that God hath shut up all under unbelief Which is as high an expression concerning God's providence about and concurrence unto evil as any used by Mr. Calvin 2. When it is said that God hath a Will of shewing Mercy on all Unbelievers If by Mercy be understood a general Mercy we can grant it All Men are not only under a possibility of this Mercy but also have some actual participations of it But 3. It is plain that the Mercy intended in the Text is not a general Mercy common to all Mankind but such a Mercy as was never vouchsafed to some whole Nations much less to every individual Member of those Nations V. 30 For as ye i. e. the Gentiles in times past have not believed God yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief even so have these also now not believed that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy Doubtless the mercy that the Gentiles obtained by the unbelief and hardness of the Jews was the hearing of the word and that which comes by hearing even Faith The mercy also that the Jews obtained through the mercy of the Gentiles was the being provoked to jealousie the seeing of him whom they had crucified and being in bitterness the turning of them away from iniquity and the turning of iniquity from them Now doth Dr. Heylin indeed think that God did shut up every Jew and Gentile in unbelief with a design and purpose to have the Gospel preached to the singula generum If so he must unavoidably grant that the Almighty is marvelously frustrated in his design and purpose for he is too good a Geographer and Historian to think that the Gospel was ever preached or entertained by all men that have lived or do now live in the World 3. Iohn 3.16 God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life From hence it undeniably follows that God will not damn any man meerly for not coming up to the terms of the old Covenant of Works and that none shall perish whose heart is brought to believe in Christ. Nor have the Contra-remonstrants denied this and more than this cannot hence be inferred For whereas Mr. Hoard argueth God loveth the whole lump of mankind and loved it fallen into a gulf of sin and misery He did not therefore hate the most of them lying in the fall for love and hatred are contrary acts in God and cannot be exercised about the same objects He sure could not but think that we would reply that God doth not love the whole lump of mankind with the same degree measure and kind of love and that a less degree of love is sometimes in Scriptures called by the name of hatred God had not such a love for the whole lump of mankind as to decree to bestow upon every particular person that special grace which shall infallibly bring him to eternal life and glory Any love less than this many consist with absolute eternal Non-election or Preterition Nay God did never so love the World as to purpose to bestow on all the parts of it the very means of knowledge How many notwithstanding the love this Text speaks of are everlastingly punished who never heard of the way to Salvation 4. 1 Tim. 2.4 Who would have all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth In these words the Apostle delivers two things 1. That it is God's will that all men should obtain an happy end 2. That it is his will also that they should use and enjoy the means which is the knowledge of his truth that they might attain the end There is no let in God but that all men may believe and be saved and therefore there is no absolute will that many thousands of men shall never believe nor be saved The thing that should be proved is That there is a will in God to save all men and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth and we have here a Scripture brought to prove that God would have all men to be saved as if there were no difference betwixt these two Propositions Deus vult omnes salvos fieri Deus vult omnes salvos facere If a man should lay down this assertion that Dr. Heylin hath a mind or purpose to bestow an hundred pounds per annum on Abingdon and when he is called to make good that assertion should only prove that Dr. Heylin could be well pleased that an 100 per annum were given to the Town and that there is no let in him why it hath not been given would he not become ridiculous Never did sober Sublapsarian say that there is any let in God but that all men may believe and be saved but they do not think that a man must presently believe and be saved if God do not hinder his faith and salvation 'T is required that God should remove all the leâ—s and hindrances of faith cure us of our unbelief and put his fear into our inward parts else we shall never believe or be saved Let any Arminian prove that God hath willed and purposed to do all this for every one 5. 2 Pet. 3.9 Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance This is a negative Proposition and must be taken distributively and therefore it flatly contradicteth absolute Reprobation Here is Logick that may well make younger men than Dr. Heylin and I to smile 1. The Scripture produced is not one Proposition but two and if the first be negative the second is affirmative 2. What if it be taken distributively Is there no distribution but only into the singula generum I thought that there might be a distribution into genera singulorum 3. I could notwithstanding any thing brought by Mr. Hoard to the contrary hold that the words are to be restrained to the Elect. 4. But because I can be not only honest but also liberal I will grant that God is not willing that any one should perish that he is willing that every one should repent But then I deny that either of these two Propositions do contradict Gods decree of Reprobation which as hath been often said is his decree to permit that many shall perish in their impenitence Mens being under this decree doth not hinder but that God may voluntate complacentiae will their conversion and patiently expect it and afford them such means as will leave them without excuse though such as he foreknew they would frustrate and receive in vain The conditional Texts of Scripture that follow are so
else bring more apposite and concluding testimonies and authorities than any that the Doctor hath here brought Nor is the Doctor more advantaged by any thing that he alledgeth out of the Institution of a Christian Man for if the Reformation in Henry the Eighths time were looked on as a standard which it is not by any Protestant yet is there not a tittle in all the five particulars gathered by him Par. 2. p. 21 22 that hath so much as a face of opposition to any opinion of Mr. Calvin's concerning Predestination Had the Authors of that part of the Institution put the Pen after they had made it into Calvin's own hand he would not have dashed out any one period or expression in it Many and just exceptions might be taken against sundry passages relating to the Composers and composition of the first and second Book of Liturgy and the Book of Homilies of King Edward pag. 23 24. But being aprosdionysous to our main Controversie let them pass Nor will I wrestle with the Historian concerning any thing he saith about the Composers of the Articles or the Articles themselves or the authority they carry in respect of the making or how they are to be understood in respect of the meaning from pag. 25. to pag. 33. Though if I should wrestle I were sure to lay him on his back I will also submit to every Rule by him laid down for the interpreting of the Article concerning Predestination pag. 34. Let this be agreed on 1. That that only is the Doctrine of our Church which is laid down expresly in our Articles or by good consequence may be thence deduced 2. That if any phrase occur about which there is any doubt that be taken for the meaning that shall be found agreeable to the mind of those who first composed or were authorized to review the Articles or were familiarly acquainted with such and may be presumed to know their meaning or to have received their notions from them 3. Let this also be taken for granted that none are to believe or think themselves elect but those who find in themselves a faith working by love or that none can take unto themselves the comfort of being given to the Son by the Father's decree but only those who are come unto him and that no ones reprobation can be known by himself or another in any ordinary way unless by discerning some such sin as is alway accompanied with final unbelief and impenitence such is only the sin against the holy Ghost But the thing to be enquired is Whether God's purpose to save out of fallen man all that believe and persevere in believing be his whole decree of Predestination and his purpose to condemn all who continue in unbelief the whole of his Reprobation So say the Remonstrants If our Church acknowledge no other decree of Election or Reprobation but this Dr. Heylin then hath got the day But if the Church besides this general purpose do acknowledge a decree to give to a certain number of persons grace and glory and a decree to leave others in that sin and misery that they brought on themselves by the fall then he loseth the day But do the Remonstrants acknowledge no other Election and Reprobation besides these Answ. Sometimes they do not and then all their Election notwithstanding no one man may be saved but sometimes they are in a better mood and give us notice of another Election according to which some shall certainly be saved This their decree is terminated to singular persons but it is nothing else but God's purpose to save S. Iames or S. Clement for example whom he eternally foresaw persevering in faith unfeigned to the end of their lives This latter decree they speak of but rarely what our thoughts are of it will be seen by and by Nor doth it honour Divine election at all for when they are closely examined they say the designation of S. Iames to salvation was founded on the foresight of a faith not which he attained unto by virtue of any grace prepared for him by Divine election but which he attained unto by the good use of his own Free-will Never do I find them or any that follow them acknowledge an Election of the Son of Zebedee or any other person unto Faith or unto any other part of Holiness Other Questions there be betwixt the Calvinist and Anticalvinist besides the Question of Election but such as are reduceable to it or at least such about which they would easily agree could they but agree in this I for my part would only ask that angry man who calls me Manichee Blasphemer c. Why did Iames believe why did he persevere why was he ordained to eternal life If in answering these he fly to a special discriminating love and mercy then will I never look on him as an Adversary But if he shall say the cause of all is to be referred to Iames his own using of such sufficient means as were vouchsafed to Iudas as well as to him then must I needs think that he taketh from God to give to man I must also needs think that he shapeth his Notion of the Divine decree and grace neither according to Scripture nor according to the Doctrine of the Fathers who wrote against Pelagius nor according to the English Church As to our English Church thus runs her Article according to the Doctor Dr. H. Pag. 27. Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God whereby before the foundations of the world were laid he hath constantly ordered by his Council secret unto us to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour Furthermore we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture and in our doing the will of God that is to be followed which we have expresly declared to us in the Word of God One would think that the many words used in this Article were sufficient to determine what kind of Predestination the Church meaneth For 1. If she had meant nothing but God's purpose to save all Believers it had been but bringing some one Scripture in which eternal life is promised to Believers and all had been done Nay what needed any Article at all concerning Predestination and Election when we had one before concerning Justification which according to this Notion very little differs from Election God's Justification considered as an internal immanent act in himself was nothing but his purpose to justifie fallen man believing in Christ. How much Mr. Playfer is gravelled with this Argument may be seen App. Evan. pag. 360. 2. If Election be nothing but God's purpose to save Believers why is it said that as many as are endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season they through