Historia quinq-articularis exarticulata, or, Animadversions on Doctor Heylin's quintquarticular history by Henry Hickman.

Dr. H. Pag. 78.

By which mens actions are so ordered & predetermined by the will of God, even to the taking up of a straw, ut nec plus boni nec minus mali, that it is neither in their power to do more good, or commit less evil than they do; and then according to that Doctrine, all treasons, murders, and seditions are to be excused, as unavoidable in them that commit the same, &c.

Ans. There is, I remember, a very noted story out of Hol∣land, concerning an Anonymous Libeller, who would needs father it upon the reverend and learned Dr. Carolus de Maets, that God hath decreed and determined, that all things should be done in that time, manner, place, and order, that in time they are done; and that according to this decree and divine determinati∣on, a man cannot do more good or evil than he doth or omitteth: quite leaving out the explication that was used by the ju∣dicious Professor, viz. that in a divided sense, a man may do more good, and avoid more evil than he doth. Just so doth our Historian proceed, making the Calvinists to affirm that ab∣solutely, which they affirm not but with a distinction. In sensu composito, a man cannot do more good than he doth, nor ab∣stain from more evil than he abstaineth from; but in a divi∣ded sense he may. Which made our Divines of Great Britain, in the Synod of Dort, among the Heterodox assertions which they rejected, place this; Hominem non posse plus boni facere quam facit, nec plus mali omittere quam omittit: falsum hoc est & absonum, sive de homine irregenito & ani∣mali intelligatur, sive etiam de renato & gratia sanctificante

suffulto. The learned Camero was charged by his angry Ad∣versary Tilenus, to hold, that man could not do more good than he doth, nor omit more evil than he omit∣teth. To this, what answereth he? Ego vero libens agnosco multa esse, &c. (pag. mihi 704,) I willingly acknowledge, that there are many things, which uttered simply, do, and that de∣servedly, breed offence; which very things, if they be ex∣pressed conditionally, appear such, as that no man dare con∣tradict them; e. c. If any one shall say, that Pharaoh could not let Israel go, he would offend the ears of all, if he add not, unless God soften the heart of the wicked man: but God hath not decreed to do that, therefore it shall not be, it cannot be, that Pharaoh let Israel go. Now his speech will offend no man, no not Tilenus himself; who doth not deny, but that on hard∣ened persons there doth lie, and that by the decree of God, a ne∣cessity of sinning. Nor can the Arminians (those of them who assert Divine praescience) tell how to extricate them∣selves out of the labyrinth, but by the help of this distin∣ction, in sensu composito & diviso: which is made use of by Curcellaeus, in his Epistle to Limburgius from Amsterdam, Decemb. 13. 1653.

To be short, there is no Doctrine that can more encline the heart to quietness, patience, contentedness, (all which are perfectly contrary to sedition and rebellion) than doth the Augustinian, or (if that must be the name) Calvinian Doctrine. For this being once firmly imprinted on our hearts, that all things come to pass according to the deter∣minate counsel of God's will; that the worst of Persecu∣tors are but the staff of his indignation, do fulfill the will of his purpose when they most cross and go against his legislative will, what place is there left for murmuring? what place for envie or revenge against second causes or instruments? It was not an Arminian, but a Calvinistical apprehension of God's providence about sin, which Ioseph had, when unto his Brethren, fearing lest after their Father's death their old unkindness should be remem∣bred, he answered, Gen. 50.19, 20, Fear not, for am I in the p••ace of God? but as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive. Nor would he be understood of the otiosa permissio (that Mr. Calvin writes against)

when he saith, Gen. 45.8, It was not you that sent me hi∣ther, but God.

This notwithstanding, Dr. Heylin will quote some testi∣monies and authorities tending to prove, that Calvinism or doctrinal Puritanism, is destructive to all Civil Policy and Government. Some scraps he produceth from the old Lord Burley, from the Bishop of Oxford, Rochester, St. Davids, from Dr. Brooks, once Master of Trinity Colledge: But he is, I believe, afraid to come either to the pole or to the scale; either to weigh, or to number authorities with us. We'll undertake among English Protestant Di∣vines and Statesmen, to produce forty who deny Calvi∣nism to have any tendency to Sedition, for one who hath laid any such thing to its charge. And 'tis a shrewd sign that the Doctor was hard put to it to find out Abettors for his Cause; else he would not have set Cerbe∣rus to bark against his Adversaries, which yet, to his no small shame, he doth, page 79, 80. This Campneys was in Edward the Sixths time a Papist, a railing furious Papist; and as such did suffer, though not unto death. At the be∣ginning of Queen Elizabeths, he began to make disturbance in the Church, nibling at the Doctrine that was generally received and entertained, by men every way his betters; in so m••ch that he was generally voiced to be Popish and Pelagian. His Pamphlet, (if it might be called his) unto which he was ashamed to put his name, was quickly con••uted by Mr. Crowly and V••ron, men famous in their generation; of more judgement and insight in the ancient Fathers, than to ascribe the Questiones Vet. & Novi Testamenti to St. Austin, which every Puny knows to be the fruit of some Pelagian brain.

I had thought to have followed our Historian, and to have given some account of his second and third Part, in which he goes about to perswade us, that the Doctrine now called Arminianism, was and is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England: But this work is already done to sa∣tisfaction by Theophilus Churchman, in his Revi••w. If any say, this is but a shift; I do here desire either Dr. Heylin, or any Friend of his, to direct me to the best Argument in either of those two Books, and if I do not presently make it appear that that Argument is either so weak as not to

need an Answer, or else already answered, I shall then yield the Cause. Till this be done, I shall not think, that that can be the Doctrine of the Church, which was contradicted by all or the major part of our learned Divines and Professors; or that the whole Church, or any lawful Authority in the Church, would impose it on her own Members, to recant her own Doctrine. See∣ing the Church is wont to enjoyn Recantation to those who contradict her Articles; why she should enjoyn the Recantation of Arminianism, if that be agreeable to her Articles, he had need have the wisdom of all the seven wise men that can shew a reason. I conclude, humbly beseeching all those who are entrusted with Ec∣clesiastical Authority, that they would not be so intent on Discipline, as to neglect Doctrine; that they would not let Pelagianism enter in, under pretence of opposing Puri∣tanism; that Calvin's Institutions, and the 39 Articles, which a Convocation in Oxford joyned together, may not now be put asunder.

Here I had thought to put an end to my Animadversio•• on the Doctor's History; supposing it needless to wipe of•• the aspersion of Arminianism from the English Church, which scarce any one of our own for fourscore years had the con∣fidence to cast on her. Yet having since considered, that men easily believe that which they greatly desire, and finding ma∣ny, very many mens wits at work, to gather up any thing that may evince so much as the least probability, that a meerly conditional election, was never reprobated by the Martyrs, Composers of our Homilies and Articles; I have taken up a resolution to give my self the unpleasing trouble of running through the second and third Part of the Do∣ctor's History, that so the Reader may not have so much as a straw left to stumble a••.

The first thing done in the second Part, is to lay down the Doctrine of our Church, concerning the fall of man, and his recovery ••y Christ. Which Doctrine should have been gathered from our Articles, or from some Homilies pur∣pos••ly written of those subjects; but the Doctor gathers i•• f••om the Homily of Chr••st's Nativity. Many of his dear Fr••ends w••ll con••••••im no thanks for so doing; But I am conte••t ••o ••et a••l that he hath collected, pag. 4, 5, 6, pass,

as the unquestionable Doctrine of our Church: Yea, I re∣joyce to find it acknowledged, that Adam by his Fall be∣came the Image of the Devil, the Bondslave of Hell, and nothing else but a Lump of Sin; and that this so great and miserable a Plague, fell not only on him, but also on his Posterity and Children for ever. Hence I infer, that they are no Sons of our Church, who either quite deny Original Sin, or make it to be no Sin properly so called. I infer also secondly, that the story of which the Doctor is so proud, page 7, doth not represent the case in which God found fallen man. For the King of Lombard found in Lamistus both a power to lay hold on his Hunting-spear, and a willingness to save himself by it: but if man be the Image of the Devil, and nothing but a lump of Sin, he hath no power till it be gi∣ven him, so much as to accept of Grace offered; nay, his carnal mind is enmity against all the Laws by which God would bring him to happiness. As for the Principle laid down, page 6, towards the end, that as were the Acts of God in their right production, so were they primitively in his intention, it is very unfitly expressed, and either the mean∣ing of it is only this, that as God did put forth his Acts in time so he purposed eternally to put them forth, or else it is most absurd and contrary to all Principles of Philo∣sophy and Theology.

The next attempt is fouly to bespatter Wickliff, Frith, Barnes, Tindal. As concerning Wickliff, it is said,