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

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 Refor∣mers refused his profered assistance. 3. That Calvin sen∣sibly complaineth of this in one of his Epistles. But the Historian is wiser than to tell us in what Epistle for num∣ber, Calvin makes this complaint, or what was the name of that Friend to whom this Epistle was directed. Such a refe∣rence 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 Sa∣crament, 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 in∣to Calvin's Epistles and Answers, that I may see what thoughts our first Reformers had of that now so much de∣cried 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 judge∣ment, 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 cer∣tainly is not profering his service, and complaining that his serv••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 pre∣vailed 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 be∣trayed. 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, earnestly••begging his Churches prayers, and at last subscribing himself Tuae pietatis studiosissimus Jo. Hooperus. These things put to∣gether, 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.