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

Dr. H. Pag. 20.

Here he gives us a very merry conceit, that the Zuingl••ans being increased exceedingly both in power and numbers, and no∣tice 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, accommo∣dated to the use of the Church, and made to be the standing Rule

by which all persons were to regulate and confirm their Do∣ctrines.

Answ. He would have extreamly obliged us, had he but vouchsafed to name any one person intrusted in the go∣vernment 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, Archbi∣shops 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 a∣greeing too well with them in matter of Discipline and Ce∣remony 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 Anti∣calvinistical ear cannot hear: and the Homilies, so much com∣mended in the Articles, have a little too much Calvinism in them; for they place Faith in such a kind of assurance, as Mr. Calvin indeed thought essential to Faith, but is found by experience to be separable from it. I would transcribe the passages in the Homilies that relate unto the five Points; but Mr. Prin hath already done it, and done it so through∣ly, that nothing considerable seems to have escaped his di∣ligence. I beg of my Reader, that he would vouchsafe to put together Dr. Heylin's and Mr. Prin's Allegations out of the Homilies, and then pass judgment.

There was a probable Argument drawn from the Prolo∣cutor of this Convocation, Mr. Alexander Nowel. He must needs be supposed fully to know the mind and sense of those that confirm'd the Articles; nor can it be supposed, that he had not a great hand in the drawing of them up: yet this reverend and learned Person, in his Catechism, publish∣ed by him after this Convocation, doth declare himself for absolute Election. Places clearly proving this were al∣ledged out of an English Translation of that Catechism

by Mr. Norton, dedicated to the two Arch-Bishops, the Bishop of London by name, and to all the Bishops in the several Diocesses in England: this was printed by Iohn Day, with the Queens Majesties priviledge for ten years, An. 1575. In answering this Objection the Doctor spends many words, even so many as make up pag. 24, 25, 26, 27. Of some of these words I know not how to make any sense. Of others of them I think I know the meaning, but can∣not perceive their design; for admitting there hath been a greater Catechism of Mr. Nowels, admitting that which is au∣thorized to be taught in Schools is the less and not the bigger, what is either gained or lost, unless the Author had de∣clared his judgment with some diversity in the two Ca∣techisms? which is not, cannot be pretended. What though I do not find any one single Question concerning Prede∣stination or the Points thereupon, may not the Author in Answer to other Questions sufficiently declare his mind? I will set down the passages quoted by Mr. Hickman at large.

To the Church do all they properly belong, as many as do truly fear and honour and call upon God, altogether applying their minds to live holily and godly, and, putting all their trust in God, do most assuredly look for the blessedness of eternal life. They that be stedfast, stable, constant in this Faith, were chosen and appointed, and (as we term it) Predestinated to this so great Felicity.

Again,

The Church is the Body of the Christian Common-wealth, i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the Faithful, whom God through Christ hath before all beginning of time appointed to everlasting life.

This the Doctor saith is not to be found in the Latine Edi∣tion. But I say, and am sure of it, it is to be found in the Latine Edition of 1570. set forth by the Author, and print∣ed by Reginald Wolf, the Queens Latine Printer.

He saith secondly, It is taken almost word for word out of Bishop Poinet's Catechism; and therefore must be understood in no other sense than before it was, when it was perused and ap∣proved by the Bishops, and other Learned men of King Edward's time. If so, then up goes Calvinism; for we have before proved Arch-Deacon Philpot, one of those Learned men, expresly to own Calvin's Predestination; nor is it possible

to interpret Poinet's words so, as that Faith shall be an antecedent and not consequent of Predestination. He that saith, only those who are predestinated to Eternal life believe, doth say, that no Believer can finally fall from Faith, if he understand the necessary consequences of his saying, as in justice we are bound to think so great a Scholar as Bi∣shop Poinet did. But of Poinet no more. Mr. Nowel's own words are plain and clear for

an election unto Faith and Salvation, before the foundations of the World were laid;

and that

they who are thus elected, have in their own minds the spirit of Christ, the Author of this confi∣dence, and in like manner a most certain pledge of it:

The Scholar finally is taught to say, that

by the instinct of the Divine Spirit, he most certainly perswades himself, that he also by God's good gift through Christ, is freely made one of this blessed City.

And it is further worth observation, that there is scarce any one place of Scrip∣ture made use of by the Calvinists to prove Personal ele∣ction, which Mr. Nowel hath not put into the Margin of his Catechism; Matth. 16.18. Rom. 8.29, 30. Ephes. 1.4, 5. Col. 3.12. Tit. 1.1. Rom. 8.9, 15, 16. 2 Cor. 1.22. and 5.5. Ephes. 1.13, 14. and 5.30. All this notwithstanding the Doctor pleaseth himself, as if Mr. Nowel were his own. And that he might not seem to lay claim to him without some gound, he produceth two places out of his lesser Ca∣techism, promised by the Author in the Epistle Dedicatory of the larger, and now, as more apt for youth, com∣monly taught in Grammar Schools, page 33. In tender compassion unto him and my Reader, I will not relate them; but they are both such, as any Calvinist will em∣brace with both arms, as savouring of that special Faith that some ancient Calvinists, too securely following their Master, contend for. In it the Doctor finds, that we are elected by or through faith in Christ; therefore, saith he, the Decree of Election is not absolute and irrespective. Nor do the Calvinists say, it is, without a limitation or distinction of the words irrespective and absolute. The second passage is such, as no Remonstrant can mention without abhor∣rence; for Remonstrants do utterly deny, that God made any Covenant with Adam, that if he stood all his Poste∣rity should stand if he sell all his Posterity should fall,

and be corrupted with Original Sin: but the Calvinist is ea∣ger for this Covenant; and no less eagerly doth he contend, that God promised to send Christ, the Seed of the Woman, to break the Serpent's head, that is, the Devil, and so to de∣liver him and his Posterity that believed the same; for this, if it proves any thing, proves particular Redemption: which the most famous Calvinists now a days do not contend for; some of them have written whole Books against it. I shall only insert one passage more out of Mr. Nowel's Catechism, relating to the peremptoriness and irreversibility of God's will of purpose; it is in his Exposition of the third Petition of the Lord's Prayer: Non tantum precantur ut quod illi decretum fuerit eveniat; quod, quum divina voluntas efficiendi necessi∣tatem secum semper adferat, evenire necesse est, &c. quoting in the Margin Psal. 115.3, and 135.6, 7, Rom. 9.19. And so my Pen takes its leave of this holy and learned Person a constant hearer of Peter Martyr; both wonderfully preserved from the fury of the Bishops, and both, no doubt, of one mind in these matters.

In the next place I am to wait on the Doctor to the Queen Elizabeth Homilies; for he hath adventured to look into them: and a great adventure it had been to look in∣to them, if so be he had looked into them with an inten∣tion as well to answer what had been alledged against him by Mr. Prin, as to consider what made for him. I have al∣ready entreated my Reader to give himself the trouble of comparing passages of all sorts, and then there will remain no further trouble for me. I am sure no man can think, that any thing in the 29, 30, 31, pages of the Doctor's third Part, collected out of the Homilies, is contradictory to the Cal∣vinists assertions rightly understood. The Homily of the Nativity saith, Christ must be not only full and perfect man, but also full and perfect God; to the intent he might more fully and perfectly make satisfaction for mankind. This, saith the Doctor, is as plain as words can make it. And plain in∣deed it is, against any that deny either the Deity or Hu∣manity of Christ (those that do so, usually deny God's Decrees too;) but there is here neither plain, nor obscure words, or word against Calvinists. Every one will laugh at the passage brought for Universal Grace, out of the first part of the Sermon against the peril of Idolatry; which a∣mounts

to no more than this, that Idolatry is against the light of Nature as well as Scripture: Yet in this passage did he so much please himself, that he proceeds to tell us, that in the third Part of that Sermon, there are some passages, that do as plainly speak of falling from God, the final alienation of the soul of a man once righteous from his love and favour. Such pas∣sages as these would be worth Gold, the fine Gold of Ophir. He names but one, which is this, How much better were it, that the Arts of Painting and we had never been found, than one of them whose souls are so precious in the sight of God, should by occasion of Image or Picture, perish and be lost. This passage looks as if it were designed to perswade Christian Magistrates to break down all Images of God, Christ, the Saints, especially in Churches, (on which score these Ser∣mons against Idolatry have been decried by sundry of the Doctor's Friends;) but what hath it in it, that by all the help of the whole Art of Logick can militate against Perse∣verance? Better it were that Painting had never been found out, than that by occasion of a Picture, a precious Soul should perish and be lost; therefore the Souls of the Elect, of justified and righteous Persons, may be totally and finally alienated from the grace and favour of God. I will form his other Argument against Perseverance out of the Homily of the Resurrection. The Homilist very affectionately disswades those that are risen with Christ from returning to sin; therefore he took it for granted, that some truly sanctified Souls might totally and finally fall from grace. These two are pretty, but the prettiest passage of all is still behind; The co-operation of mans will with the grace of God (he must mean, or else he trifleth, in the very first moment of con∣version,) is presumed, or else our Church had not writ any Ho∣milies at all. Just so he might argue, that if Calvin had not held co-operation, he would never have preached Sermons. And indeed out of Calvin, Beza, Zuinglius, may easily be gather∣ed five hundred places that have a more seeming and co∣lourable face of contrariety against Calvinism, than any that the Doctor hath made a shift to gather out of our Eng∣lish Homilies.

Yet least he might be thought faint-hearted, he goes on from the Homilies to Bishop Iewel, the Copier out of Peter Martyr's Sermons and Lectures, his intima••e

Friend at Oxford, his Guest at Strasborough and Zurich, and his Assistant in compiling his Comment on Iudges. In his Defence of his Apology, he saith, that Christ by saying, it is finished, plainly signified, persolutum jam esse prectum pro peccato humani generis: By which the good Bishop sufficient∣ly declared himself to be no friend to Popish Satisfactions. But what can hence be inferred, either for or against Calvinism? Did ever any Calvinist say, that Christ did not pay the whole price? or that God did expect any part of the price from the hands of any other? I, but it was paid for the sin of mankind. True; but not for the sin of every particular person of mankind: though if it had been so said by Iewel, many Calvinists would have liked Iewel the better for such a speech.

At length the Doctor hits upon one just of his mind, viz. Mr. Samuel Harsnet, who preached at Paul's Cross Octob. 27, 1584, and preached Anticalviristically in all the five Points under Controversie. This must be granted him, if the Ser∣mon were delivered as it was some few years since printed. Hence he argues.

A Sermon preached at St. Paul's, at which no offence was taken, upon which no Recantation was enjoyned, nor any complaint made; had no matter in it contrary to the Rules of the Church, and the appointment of the same.

Mr. Harsnet's Sermon was such a Sermon, preached at St. Paul's, &c. Ergo, it had no matter in it contrary to the Rules of the Church, &c.

Either the Doctor thinks the major of this Syllogism true, or he does not. If he does not, then can he have no con∣fidence in his own Syllogism. If he do, then will it evi∣dently follow that, in Calvinism there is nothing contrary to the Rules of the Church, because so many Calvinistical Sermons have been preached at Paul's, which were never complained of to Authority, nor any Recantation enjoyn∣ed upon them, yea, for which the Preachers have had thanks and preferments. Besides, if Mr. Harsnet had been complained of and Recantation enjoyned him, the Doctor would not have accounted him the less Orthodox on that account; for he knows and will afterwards confess, that Recantation hath been enjoyned for such kind of Sermons as Mr. Harsnet's was. So that I can scarce tell, whether it

be worth while to descend to the minor of the former Syl∣logism; for what will it advantage us to prove, that the Sermon was Censured and Recanted, when as those we have to deal with are resolved to think, that lawful Authority hath enjoyned Recantations of Sermons agreeable to the Articles of Religion? Yet because we are in genere Historico, I deny the minor; and say, It doth appear that offence was taken at the forementioned Sermon, that complaint was made of it, and that the Preacher did at least declare his sorrow for it: perhaps not heartily, for he seems to have lived and died an Arminian; yet he did declare his sorrow for the preaching of that his Sermon. Had he not so done, the Uni∣versity no doubt had spewed him out; especially living in a Colledge where Dr. Fulke was Master, a man, that in his Answer to the Rhemists, hath thought himself as much con∣cerned to vindicate the Doctrine of Election and Reproba∣tion, and the Points thereupon depending, as any other Doctrine of our Reformation whatever. Doth any one ask me, how it appears that Mr. Harsnet and his Sermon was so censured and condemned? I answer, It appears from the plain testimony of Mr. William Prin, page 304, of his Per∣petuity, printed at such a time, when Prudence as well as Conscience would have restrained him from uttering an un∣truth against so great a man as Harsnet was then become? Can it be imagined, that if this had been a slander, so great a Prelate of our Nation would not have demanded repara∣tion and satisfaction? As for the Doctor's Argument, that seeing the Sermon was preached at the Cross, the University could take no cognizance of it; it is such, as I suppose upon second thoughts, he will wish he had never made use of.

And he hath as much reason to wish, that he had ne∣ver troubled his Book with any thing of Bishop King's Lectures upon Ionah: in which nothing is to be found against absolute Predestination; nor yet any thing from which any probable collection can be made, that the Bi∣shop had conceived in his own mind any opinion about it contrary to Mr. Calvin's; nor could the Doctor himself collect any thing from them, till he had first supposed, which no one will grant him, that there is the same reason of God's eternal Election and his Promises, as of his eternal Re∣probation and his threatnings.

This done; the Historian fills his nineteenth Chapter with lamentations and weeping, bewailing the sad condition of the Church, that was feign, in her Reformation under Queen Elizabeth, to make use of any Learned man that had zeal against Popery, to discharge the places of greatest trust and Authority in the Church, how Calvinistical soever they were for Doctrine. But when was that it the Church was put to this strait? was it not in the first years of Queen Elizabeth? and particularly in the year 1562, when the first Convocation was held? If so, what a piece of boldness was it to say, that that Convocation drew up Articles with any purpose to give check to Doctrinal Calvinism? and what uncharitableness is it to affirm, that our learned Divines did change their minds, when for a few years they were forced to change the air in the Reign of Queen Mary? What men of note had they to converse with beyond the Seas, whose Opinions and Arguments they had not read and consider∣ed while in England? They must needs be clouds without water, if the breath of Calvin and Martyr could so easily toss them to and fro. But we know, those that went over Conformists, came home Conformists; and those that went over Non-conformists, came back Non-conformists, though somewhat strengthened in their Non-conformity, by the communion they had with the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas. I shall hereafter shew, that not only Non-con∣forming Divines, but also the most zealous Conformists, did set themselves with all their might to declare against and crush the Arminian Doctrine, as soon as in any place it began to be be delivered. And the Doctor may do well to remember, that Mr. Hooper and Mr. Bradford, whom he hath before made so much use of, though to little purpose, were both of them Non-conformists in King Edward's days: and Mr. Latimer, whom he also challengeth for his own, was litle better than a Non-conformist, letting fly sufficiently at the Dignities of the Reformed Prelates. So that, if these three men had been as much for him as he pretends, a man might say, English Arminianism did spring out of the root of Non-conformity: but it will appear, that it did spring from opposition to those wholsom Doctrines, in which all our Reformers, how much soever differing about Cere∣monies, agreed.

Mr. Iohn Fox his Martyrology, though dedicated to the Queen and by her accepted graciously, though highly ho∣noured by a Canon of the whole Convocation, 1571, the Historian expresly saith, he looketh on as the first great Bat∣tery which was made on the Bulwarks of this Church, in point of Doctrine, by any Member of her own, page 58. A piece of confidence suitable to that which carried him to say, King Edward was an ill principled Prince, and that his removal by death was no infelicity of our Church. And it is the more in∣excusable, because in all his Histo••i••s about our Reforma∣tion, he lighteth his Candle so oft at the Martyrologist's. It seems he loveth darkness rather than light, if it come from Geneva. Bishop Hall, to whom Episcopacy oweth far more than to Doctor Heylin, calleth Fox a Saint-like Historian; and for such he will be accounted, as long as any one drop of good Protestant bloud runneth in our English veins. But did the Convocation appoint no balm for that wound made by the Martyrology? Yes, that it did, he thinks. What was it?

Another Canon, page 60, that men should teach no other Doctrine in their publick Sermons to be be∣lieved of the People, but what was agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and had from thence been gathered by the Catholick Fathers, and ancient Bishops.

I say, If this Canon had been observed, Mr. Harsnet had never preached his Sermon: He thinks, Calvinism had never been preached, because maintained by none of the Ca∣tholick Fathers, and ancient Bishops, but Saint Augustine only, who was but one Bishop, but one Father. All Calvinists will now easily forgive him his reproaches against Calvin, seeing he spares not St. Augustine. But I hope he will not forgive himself that passion, which produced so great an untruth. Had he said, none before St. Augustine maintained Calvin's Doctrines, the mistake had been excusable: so is it not, to say, that no Catholick Father or ancient Bishop, maintained it besides St. Augustine. Doubtless Prosper and Hilary were both Catholick Fathers, and ancient Bishops; yet they as much maintained Calvin's Opinions as St. Au∣gustine doth. Who are the Bishops and Catholick Fathers, that the Doctor follows in these Points of Predestination and grace? In his second Part, page 36, he quotes three ancient Writers. The first, Ambrose on the Epistles: yet

every one knows, that those Commentaries on the Epistles are not his, but the work, as some think, of a Pelagian; as others, of one Hilary, no Bishop, though a Catho∣lick. He also quotes the Commentary upon Saint Paul's Epistles ascribed to St. Hierom: but he is not ignorant (or if he be ignorant, few other Scholars be.) that those Com∣mentaries, however formerly fathered on Hierom, do call Pelagius himself Father; and he, I trow, was no Catho∣tholick Father, or ancient Bishop, but a most vile Heretick. He also refers us to St. Chrysostom in Ep. 14. By which I know not what he means; but am sure it is little credit to a Doctor in Divinity living so near the University, to bring Chrysostom in Latine, whose Greek is so easie as that School-boys are able to understand it: so that if this had been any piece of a Sermon, I might certainly h••••e con∣cluded, that the Doctor had violated the Canon; and would fain know of him, how our ordinary Countrey Preachers should be in any capacity to observe this Canon, whose Libraries scarcely afford a Father of any Edition to be trusted to? The best advice I can give them is, to buy such Books as contain a Confession of Faith confirmed all along with Scriptures and Fathers; in which I cannot but commend the Orthodoxus Consensus, dedicated by Gasper Laurentius to the Prince Elector Pa∣latine, bound up with the Corpus & Syntagma confessio∣num Fidei printed at Geneva, 1654. There is also pub∣lished by Cyril, late Patriarch of Constantinople, a Con∣fession of Faith as Calvinistical as if it had been extract∣ed out of Calvin's own Institutions, which is now extant; confirmed all along by Scripture and Fathers, Catholick and ancient, in a little Piece put out by the learned Hot∣tinger: where also there is enough said of Cyril's life, troubles, and death to free him from the aspersions cast on him by the Iesuits and by Grotius.

We have brought off Mr. Fox, and must now see, whether the Historian do charge Mr. Perkins with more success, of whom it is affirmed, page 62,

That he did open wider the great breach, that had been made by Mr. Fox.

Sure it may easily be pardoned him, that he made that breach wider which was made by the Church it self, by putting so much honour upon the Acts and Monuments

as did, if we may believe this Doctor, manifestly tend to the subversion of that Doctrine that she had a∣bout ten years before so solemnly ratified. But as it may well be presumed, that the Church would not consent to the picking out of her own eyes; so we have great reason to think, that Mr. Perkins did design all his Treatises, only to commend that milk unto others which he had, with so much delight and nourishment, sucked from the Breasts of his Mother, the Reformed Church of England. The Treatise of his quarrelled at, is called Armilla Aurea, composed by the Author in Latine, tran∣slated into English by Dr. Robert Hill, at the request of Perkins himself, (saith our Historian;) but tells us not whence he had that information: nor indeed is it pro∣bable, that Mr. Perkins would request another to do a work that might easily be done, and yet could be done so well by no hand as his own.

The Translator tells us plainly, in his Epistle Dedicatory unto the Judge of the Admiralty Court, that he made the Translation at the request of some well disposed, that his own Countrey-men might by it reap some profit:

and perhaps also he had a design to reap some profit by his Countrey-men, presaging that it would be of very quick sale; as indeed it hapned, being printed fifteen times in the space of twenty years. Many of the greatest learning and judgment, thought this left-handed Ehud did by this his Book, wound the Pelagian Cause to the very heart. Our Historian thinks not so, and tells us page 64, that it found not like welcome in all places, nor from all hands. Parsons the Iesuite is brought in thus sleighting him, By the deep humour of fancy, he hath published and writ many Books with strange Titles, which neither He, nor his Reader do understand; as namely, about the Concatenation, or laying together of the causes of mans Predestination and Reprobation. And then Iacob van Harmin, he acquaints us, wrote a full discourse against it. I know not what he means by, it: Arminius his Examen, as we all know, being not designed against Perkins his Armilla Aurea; but against another Piece called a Treatise of Predestination, and of the largeness of God's grace. And that Examen of Arminius hath been so con∣futed by the learned Dr. Twiss, that no Remonstrant hath as yet had confidence enough to rejoyn. All the wind hitherto

sent from the Doctor, hath shaken no corn: We can con∣temn Parsons, and not value Arminius. He therefore fur∣ther acquaints us, page 65, of a very sharp censure passed upon Mr. Perkins, by the Doctor of the Chair in Oxford. What is this censure?

No more, but that Mr. Perkins, otherwise a learned and pious Person, (therefore surely able to un∣derstand the Title of his own Books,) did err no light er∣ror, in making the subject of Divine Predestination, to be man considered before the fall: adding also further, that "some by undertaking to defend Mr. Perkins in this opinion, had given unnecessary trouble to the Church.

This censure is very gentle, in comparison of what the same Reverend and Learned Professor, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, thought meet to pass upon Arminius, Bertius, and all their Followers; whom he accuseth of most detestable Sacriledge.

The same Doctor had before undertaken a Defence of Mr. Perkins his Reformed Catholick, calling him a man of very commendable quality, and well deserving, for his great travel and pains for the furtherance of true Re∣ligion, and edifying of the Church:

which Reformed Ca∣tholick also is learnedly defended by Mr. Wotton. For a parting blow, the Doctor tells us that Mr. Perkins scarce lived out half his days: and that in the pangs of death, he spake nothing so articulately, as Mercy, mercy; which he hopes God did graciously grant him in that woful agony. And I for my part, do not at all doubt that God shewed him mercy, and had shewed him the very riches of his mercy many years before; for God is not unrighteous, that he should forget that labour of love with which Mr. Perkins had laboured in Cambridge. As little do I doubt, that there are hundreds in Heaven blessing that Providence, that placed a light so shining and burning in that Univer∣sity. His dying so soon is not to be imputed to his bloud∣thirstiness, or deceitfulness; but to his hard studies and unwearied diligence, which must needs wast his natural spirits, and bring him sooner to his grave than he would have come, if he could have satisfied himself (as some do) to enter into the Pulpit no oftner, than the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies. He always desired that he might die praying for the pardon of sin, and he had his desire. If in his Sermon he pronounced the word damned

with a more than ordinary Emphasis, it was only to forwarn his Hearers to flee from the wrath to come. If he so pressed the Law, as to make the hair of the young Scholars stand up∣right, it was only, that being awakened o••t of their secu∣rity, they might seriously ask the question, How they should do to be saved? The Law was designed to be a School-master to bring us to Christ, and would not have that effect, if it should not be preached with some of that terror with which it was at first delivered. But he made the infinitely greatest part of all mankind uncapable of God's grace and mercy, by an absolute and irrespective decree of Reprobation. So it is said page 66. but no such thing can be proved out of Mr. P's Writings. Had he framed any such decree as made any one man or woman uncapable of grace and mercy, he must needs have affrighted away his Disciples and Hearers: which he was so far from doing, that the Historian himself confesseth, that by means of him and Dr. Whitaker, the University had been quite over-run with Calvinism, had not Dr. Baro, a French-man born, set himself to pluck up what the other two had planted and watered.

Of this Dr. Baro we shall hear the Historian tell us a fine tale: Scilicet liberanda veritas expectabat liberatorem Petrum Baro, the English Kingdom of Heaven had fallen, had it not been for this Atlas that bare it up with his shoulders. Let us see what the man was, and what he held, that we may know how much we owe unto him; which yet we cannot well do, till we have taken in our way the story of one Bar∣ret. This Barret in a Sermon ad Clerum, April 29. 1595, had vented sundry Anticalvinistical Points, for which he was convented May 5. before the Heads of Houses, and charged to have preached Doctrines erroneous and false, and con∣trary to the Religion received and established by publick Authority in the Realm of England. He confessed the Doctrines charged upon him, but denied them to be any way repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Whereupon the Vice-Chancellor and forenamed Heads, en∣tring into mature deliberation, and diligently weighing and examining these Positions; because it did manifestly ap∣pear, that the said Positions were false, erroneous, and likewise repugnant to the Religion received and established

in the Church of England, adjudged and declared, that the said Barret had incurred the penalty of the 45th Statute of the University, de Concionibus: and, by virtue and tenour of that Statute, they decreed and adjudged the said Barret, to make a publick Recantation, in such words and form, as by the Vice-Chancellor and the said Heads, or any three or two of them, should be prescribed unto him; or else upon his refusal to recant, to be perpetually expelled both from his Colledge and the University. What the form of Recantation was, may be seen in Mr. Prin; such it was, as gave sufficient honour unto Calvin, Peter Martyr, and the Doctrines Preached and Printed by them. Lo here we have those that were alwaies entrusted with power to judge of, and to condemn false Doctrine, condemning the Anti-Calvinistical opinions as false and contrary to the Ar∣ticles of Religion established in England. And when such an Authority has laid a Recantation upon Mr Barret, how will Dr. H. get it off? Why First, He doubts whether any Recantation were enjoyned in so many words as are extant in Mr. Prin. This is an irrational doubt; seeing Mr. Prin had the transcript under the University Register's own hand. Secondly, He denies it as a thing most false, that ever Barret published any Recantation, whatsoever it was. And yet Mr. Prin, tells him that he had a transcript taken out of an Original copy under Mr. Barrets own hand; and tells us, as also does Mr. Fuller, what words he used after he had read the Recantation: and words they are from which it might be infer'd, that he was not heartily sorry for the errors delivered by him, nor really changed in his judgment. But doth it not appear by a Letter of the Heads of Houses dated March 8, that Mr. Barret had never made any such Recantation? I answer, It doth not appear; for the Heads of Houses say not, that he had never read the Re∣cantation, but that he had refused to do it in such sort as was prescribed: which might make those who were in Authority in the University, both to mind him of his duty, and also to complain of him unto their Chancellour for not doing his duty. Yet if it will do the Doctor a kindness, let him enjoy his fancy, that Mr. Barret Recanted not; for to be sure he did not credit his Recantation, returning to Arminianism and also to Popery, unto which the Heads

of Houses say Arminianism had been by sundry made a Bridge. However here is the judgment of the Heads of Houses in Cambridge solemnly declared, that he who strikes at Mr. Calvin in these points, strikes at the Church of England also. Yea, sayes the Dr, but it will not hence follow that Barrets Doctrines were repugnant to the Church of England, because these Heads judged them so: for if so, we may con∣clude by the same Argument, that the Church of Rome was in Light, in the Darkest times of ignorance and superstition; because all that publickly opposed her Doctrine were enjoyned Recantation. Which evasion is so lamentable, that he had much better have used none; for we do not from the in∣joyning of the Recantation inferr the falsity of the Do∣ctrines to be recanted, but only their dissonance unto the Religion established: and certainly the Church of Rome when it was at the worst, did never injoyn Recantation of any Doctrine, which was not contrary unto her present sentiments. And so I leave Mr. Barret and his opinions under the blot justly dropped upon them by the Univer∣sity, only taking notice that Barrets peremptoriness might occasion Baro to deliver his mind more plainly and pub∣lickly, than before he had done; which occasioned the University to send up Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Tindal unto Arch-Bishop Whitgift, hoping that he who had been so zealous against Cartwright in a point of Discipline, would be found to have some zeal against Baro in matter of Doctrine: nor did their hopes fail them; for he forth∣with called to him sundry right worthy and Reverend Divines, and drew up those Articles commonly called the Lambeth-Articles, agreed upon November the 10th. 1595. nine they are in number, and were approved by the Arch-Bishop of York, as well as by his Grace of Canter∣bury. So that here are the two Metropolitans, men no doubt considerable for Learning as well as for Authority; for both of them had been Lady Margaret's and King's Pro∣fessors in the University. Now I ask, Did these know the Doctrine of the Church, or did they not? If they did not, how durst they call men to subscribe what they knew not? If they did, then either Calvinism in this matter, is the Doctrine of the Church; or else the two Primates com∣mended to the University, a Doctrine against their own Light

and conscience. And it is worth observation that the Bishop of York in his Letter to his Brother of Canterbury, does give him to understand, that his opinion he sent him concerning Election and Reprobation, was but that in which they had both agreed while they professed and taught Divinity in the Schools. Nor can it be said that Whitgift received his opinion from beyond the Seas, where he never was; having such favour shewed him by Doctor Perne, that he never needed to leave the Kingdom. More probable it is that he suckt in these opinions from his Tutor Mr. Bradford, and from Bishop Ridley Master of Pembroke Hall, whilst he was a fresh-man. By whom also he was so principled against the tyranny and Detestable enor∣mities of the Pope, that at the time of his commencing Dr. in Divinity, he gave this Thesis to be disputed on, Papa est Antichristus. Wherefore let not the Historian spend time to prove, that those Articles do not bind the Church as those did that solemnly passed in the Convocations; for I ascribe no such Authority to them, only urge them as De∣clarations of the Articles of our Religion; just as I would urge the judgment of the two Lord Chief Iustices, calling in to their assistance others learned in the Law, for the ex∣pounding of a Statute: 'tis not impossible they should be mistaken in their exposition; but it would be strongly presumed by all modest men, that they were not mistaken. And so I could let go these Articles, had it not pleased the Historian to tell us, of a mighty offence taken at them by the Lord Burleigh, and a resolution of having all that acted in them attainted of a praemunire; from the danger of which the Arch-Bishop could not get release, until he had promised speedily to recall and suppress those Articles. All which we have laid down, page 81, 82, as things affirmed by Mr. Mountague, from the Remonstrants, in an Answer of theirs published, 1618. But where did these Remonstrants hear this story? Why, possibly they might have it from the mouth of Baro, or some other Cambridge men. Will any man believe so great things upon so slender proofs as the possibility of the Remon∣strants hearing them from the mouth of some Cantabridgi∣an? when they do not so much as pretend to have heard any such thing from any member of our Church, nor doth any one ever since offer to tell us when and where the

Arch-Bishop was forced to make any such submission? The Heads of Houses in their Letter to the Lord Burleigh, own the sending up of Dr. Tindal, and Dr. Whitaker, to con∣ferr with the Lord of Canterbury: and write of the great and comfortable quiet, that by the coming down of the Articles, was brought unto the University; until that Baro in January following, contrary to restraint and commandment, gave some new disturbance. In the same Letter also, subscribed with their names, and bearing date March 8. 1595, they reso∣lutely tell the same Lord; that Baro had determined, preached, printed diverse points of Doctrine, not only contrary to himself, but also contrary to that which had been taught and received ever since her Majesty's reign, and agreeable to the errours of Popery. Wherefore they pray his Lordship to vouchsafe his good ayd and advise to the comfort of themselves and all others of the Universi∣ty truly affected, and to the suppression, in time, of those errours, and even of gross Popery like by such means to creep in among them. And upon this Letter, or something else, Baro left his place in the University: because he could not keep it, say Dr. Ward, Mr. Fuller, and all other Cantabridgians that ever I read; but this Oxford Historian, who can easily affirm any thing that he much desires, tells us he left his place, neither because he was deprived, nor because he had any fear of being deprived, but meerly because he had no mind to keep it any longer. Nay he sticks not to affirm that in case it had pleased him to continue any longer Lecturer, it is pro∣bable he might have carried the Lecture from any other Can∣didate, or Competitour of what rate soever. But by what mediums did he bring himself to this probable perswasion, or whence did he collect that Baro had so great a number of adherents? Only from Dr. Overals being chosen to suc∣ceed Dr. Whitaker. But if they were the Anti-calvinists that carried it for Overal, why did they not rather carry it for Baro himself, seeing they had such fair presidents of preferring those who are Lady Margarets Professors to be King's Professors? Hutton had been so preferred, so had Whitgift, so had Chaderton. Or if Baro's interest were so great, how came he to use so little care and Conscience as not to provide a Successor of his own mind? Did he think his opinions were not worth the knowing: If he did not, why did he trouble the world with them? If he did,

why would he so tamely yield to the chusing of Doctor Playfer, than whom there was not a man in all the Uni∣versity more opposite to him? The truth is Doctor Overal had not then declared himself to differ from Calvin, and therefore was by the University employed to convince Barret: and afterwards when he delivered such things as some Calvinists condemned him for, yet he never deliver'd his mind so, as to deny personal election or the certain perseverance of all the elect. Something more of his mind we shall hear hereafter, in the Hampton-Court Conference.

In the mean time I must mind the Doctor of a certain Catechism, consisting of Questions and Answers touching the Doctrine of Predestination, bound up with our Eng∣lish Bibles, printed by Robert Barker, Anno 1607. but not then first bound up with our Bibles, as the Doctor seems willing to think, pag. 101, 102. The Questions and Answers are to be found in the Church Bibles, com∣monly called the Bishops Bibles: printed by Christopher Barker. I my self have seen Bibles printed twenty years before the coming in of King Iames, in which they were; and for ought I know they were as old as any Translation of the Bible used in Queen Elizabetbs time. He asks, by what authority those Questions and Answers were put in betwixt the Old and New Testament? and so I remember he somewhere asks, by what Authority the Metrical Translation of the Psalmes was allowed to be Sung in Churches? I am not able to give him a satisfactory answer either to the one or the other question; no more than he is able to answer me, who made our second Book of Homilies? Yet he thinks I suppose, that those who made that Book were Authorized to make it: and so I think, that those who first bound up those Questions and Answers and Singing Psalmes with our Bibles, had Order and Au∣thority so to do.

All this while Cambridge hath took us up. We must now look into the other University, in which we are told that all things were calm and quiet, no publick opposition shewing it s••lf in the Schools or Pulpits. The reason of this quiet is guessed at, because the Students of that University did more incline to the canvasing of such Points as were in difference

betwixt us, and the Romanists. For witness he calls in many Papists, and on the other side Bishop Iewel, Bishop Bilson, Dr. Humphry, Mr. Nowel, Dr. Reynolds, and many others which stood firm to the Church of England. This last clause sure slipped from him unawares. Upon se∣cond thoughts I fear he will scarce affirm, that all these stood firm to the Church of England. If they did, no lot or portion hath he or any of his in the Church of England: most of them having declared their minds point blank against conditional election, &c. Iewel hath told us his mind about Election in his Comment on the Thessalonians; so hath Mr. Nowel in his Catechism; Dr. Humphries in the Life of Iewel, &c. This nevertheless I grant that in Queen Elizabeths time, there were no disputings ex animi sententia against Calvinism in Oxford Schools. No Oxford man, during her Reign, declared himself for conditional decrees, or any thing else oppo∣site to Mr. Calvin in these poin••s: but many did, as they had occasion, declare themselves strenuously for Calvin in Queen Elizabeths daies. We find the whole Convocation appointing Calvin's Institutions to be read by Tutors unto their Pupils, and other Books also as Calvinistical as the Institutions can be, by which means our Divines there became prepared against the adversary as soon as he should dare to shew himself. Anno 1597, Robert Abbot proceeded Doctor, and being alarummed from Cambridge gave these two Theses,

Aeterna Dei predestinatione con∣tinetur aliorum electio ad vitam aeternam, aliorum ad mor∣tem reprobatio. Electorum certa est salus, ut perire non possint.

Dr. Field (qualis & quantus vir!) gave these Theses,

Doctrina Praedestinationis olim tradita ab Augusti∣no, & nostris temporibus a Calvino, eadem est, nec quicquam continet Catholicae veritati aut Fidei regulae contrarium. Prae∣scientia Dei aeterno decreto omnia ordinantis, non pu••navit cum arbitrii libertate primis parentibus con••ess••. Orthodoxi Patres qui liberum arbitrium esse dix••runt, & q•••• bodi•• s••rvum esse docent, idem sentiunt.

Five such Thesis as these, laid down by two such Scholars, were enough to let the new Pelagianizers see, there was no quarter for them in Oxford. Nor can I find, that they sought any; Calvin being there all Qu. Elizabeths days, in as much honour as at Geneva.

And of this the Historian seems sensible, confessing that even Barnabas was carried away into Calvinism: only he labours to prove, that it was but in one point, that of the not total or final falling away of Gods Elect. And that is in∣deed the only point, for which Mr. Hooker was quoted; but that is such a point as with which the other are neces∣sarily twisted, and so defended by him as that he appears Calvinistical to the utmost. For whereas there be that maintain the certain perseverance of only the Elect, judging it not impossible that some might be believers who were not Elect, Hooker plainly makes all true believers Elect to eternal life, and therefore sure to persevere in the Faith; and he is so confident in this point as in none more, prefacing his assertion thus, In this I am sure I am not deceived, nor can I deceive you. At last the Doctor is faign to fly to this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that his Discourse of Iustifica∣tion might be altered by the Publisher of it, or it might be written by him as as an Essay of his younger years, pag. 90. Had he not better have said, It is true that Hooker also was a Doctrinal Calvinist, but I could heartily wish he had not been such? And then I should have better liked him.

What then will the Doctor let go the whole University of Oxford? No. Ibid. Some there were who spared not to declare their dislike of the Calvinian tenents, and secretly trained up their Scholars in other principles. An answer that may indifferently serve for any Novellists, by whatsoever names dignified or distinguished. The absurd Quakers may say, that there have been in the University many, that never bowed their Knees to Baal, and thereupon charge flesh to be silent, and not object singularity to them: and they may further add, that sundry great Scho∣lars will be as free to joyn with them, as Buckeridge and Houson were to joyn with Mountague, if ••ver there come a time in which it shall be no more ••••••••rdous to own their friends than it was in 1626, to ••wn Mountague. There is only one thing in which the Doctor can hope to out-shoot them, and that is this, that Bishop Bancroft, when Baro died at London three or four years after his leaving Cambridge, took Order to have most of the Divines in and about London to attend his Funeral. This plainly shews,

thinks he, that there were many of both Universities that openly favoured Baro's Doctrines, pag. 90. But do we in∣deed favour, and plainly declare that we favour, the opinions of those whose Funerals we attend? If so, then must we never go to the Funeral of a Roman Catholick; then did Queen Elizabeth and her Bishop Grindal plainly discover themselves friends to Popery, when they so mag∣nificently celebrated the Funerals of the Emperour. Be∣sides, the Historian would do well to consider, that when the Prophet Elijah thought himself to be alone, Israel was manifestly apostatized from the God of her Fathers, and had committed Whoredom with Idols; and so in Atha∣nasius his time the world was become A••••an. If the Doctor also will grant, that in Queen Elizabeths time, the Church was become Calvinistical, he grants the very thing we are contending for. As for the truth of the Calvinistical opi∣nions, that we are ready to try with him by Scripture when he pleaseth. In this History we search not what ought to be held, but what hath been held: not of what mind our Reformers should have been, but of what they were. If Calvinism be truth, it will be truth, though it had never found entertainment in the Church of England. If it be error, it will be error, though all the Church of England be for it; for the Church cannot make truth or falsehood, but only declare what is truth and falsehood. Whether the Church have declared Calvinism or Anti-calvinism to be truth, that is the only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Seeing we have found Anti-calvinism discountenanced by the Church, in Queen Elizabeths Reign; let us now follow the Histo∣rian to her Successors dayes, that we may see whether it were more countenanced then.

The first thing we are led to Pag. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, is the Hampton Court Conference: in which he shall find no∣thing for him, but much against him. Dr. Reynolds calls the Lambeth Articles Orthodoxal: no one intimated that they were Heterodoxal. Dr. Overal declares against the total and final Apostasy of the Saints: no one declared for it. His Majesty determined, that Predestination and Election depend not upon any Qualities, actions, or works of Men, which be mutable; but upon Gods Eternal and immutable decree and purpose: no one said or whispered any thing

against this determination 'Tis only said that the Bishop of London told his Majestie how very many in these daies, neg∣lecting Holiness of life, presumed too much of persisting in grace, (Calvinists would say, such fellows never had grace to per∣sist in) laying all their Religion on Predestination, If I shall be saved, I shall be saved, which he termed a desperate Doctrine, (and so the Calvinists term it also an hundred times over;) shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity, and the true Do∣ctrine of Predestination, wherein we should rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo, thus; I live in obedience to God, in love to my Neighbour, I follow my occasion, &c. there∣fore I trust God hath elected me and predestinated me to eternal Salvation: not th••••, 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. In which words there is some thing Hypercalvinistical; for the Bishop saith, we must rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo: but the Calvinist saith, that we must altogether reason Ascendendo, in such a way as he after delineates. If the Bishop were not a Calvinist, I would fain know how a man could, according to his principles, argue Ascendendo, I live in obedience to God, therefore I trust God hath elected me and predestinated me to Salvation. The Calvinist saith, he that lives in obedience to God is predestinated to Salvation: but so doth not the Anti-calvinist, nor hath he any foun∣dation to build his trust of Predestination to Salvation upon; for, according to him, a man who lives in all good obedience to God may be damned, because he may cease to live in obedience to God, and hath no promise that he shall not cease.

But if Dr. Bancroft had not by his speech declared him∣self Calvinistical; yet, as hath been said, his Chaplain's publishing his Exposition or Analysis of our Articles, ac∣cording to the Calvinistical frame, and that with his good liking and approbation, is a sufficient argument that he was such. To invalidate this argument it is only said, that That Analysis had been published 1585, which was eighteen years before Bancroft was Arch-Bishop. Which answer adds strength to the argument; for by it it appears, that he took one to be his Chaplain, who had eighteen years before pub∣lished

a Calvinistical Exposition of the Articles, and suf∣fered him after his own Consecration to republish it, and to dedicate it to his own Grace: which it may be pre∣sumed, he would not have done, if it had contained any thing contrary to his own judgement and sense.

Obj. But why would any one affirm, that Bancroft agreed to the Lambeth-Articles, whilst Bishop of London?

Answ. It was Mr. Fullers mistake, in his Church History, so to affirm. Mr. Hickman, whom the Doctor hath chosen for his adversary, never so affirmed. Yet he affirmed, that he agreed to them: and so it is like he did, in the ca∣pacity of a Divine called in to consult. On which score I also reckon that Mr. Nowel Dean of St. Pauls might agree to them; because he was Dr. Whitakers Unkle and resided at London.

Object. 2. Did not King James reject the Lambeth Articles, when propounded as fit to be inserted into the Articles?

Answ. He did not reject them, nor could he in honour reject them; having never seen them before, nor having them read to him at that time. He was only told, that the Articles were by the Arch-Bishop, taking to him some Divines of special note, drawn up and sent to the Univer∣sity for the appeasing of quarrels. Whereupon his Maje∣sty resolved, that when such questions do arise among Scho∣lars, the quietest proceeding were, to determine them in the University, and not to stuff the Book with Conclusions Theological. Here is not one word of leaving them to be canvased and disputed in the Schools: though if they had been so left, they might not forthwith be held in the Af∣firmative or Negative, as best pleased the Respondent; for the Respondent in our Universities can hold nothing without the allowance and approbation of the Doctor of the Chair, or Vice-Chancelor, or University. Yea King Iames did, some years after, allow the putting of these Lambeth-Articles into the Confession of the Church of Ireland, Anno 1615. To this the Doctor shapes an answer, pag. 101, consisting of sundry particulars.

First, That the Irish Articles were drawn up by Dr. Usher a professed Calvinian, who not only thrust in the Lambeth-Ar∣ticles, but also made others of his own.

Answ. The Articles are the better to be liked because drawn up by a hand so learned and peaceable.

Secondly, That the King might give consent to the confirming of these Articles, though he liked them not. How so? First, Because the Irish Nation, at that time, were most tenaciously addicted to the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and therefore must be bended to the other extreme, before they could be streight. Secondly, It was an usual practise with the King in the whole course of his government, to ballance one extreme by another; countenancing the Papists against the Pu∣ritans, and the Puritans sometimes against the Papists.

Answ. I have heard much talk of the craft of King Iames; but did never before hear, nor do I now believe, that this was any part of it: for what Policy is it, to bring People out of one extreme into another? or what Piety is it, to agree to Articles of Religion, the which all the Clergy must approve, meerly to keep the civil interest even? But I see what the Doctors fetch is in this; what ever King Iames did in the affairs of Religion that his palat relisheth not, must be thought to be done to gratifie the Puritans: may not the Puritans also say, that what ever was done pleasing to the Doctor, was done in com∣pliance with the Papists? and with whom then will the name of King Iames be precious or honourable?

One piece of veracity I must needs commend the Doctor for, viz. his acknowledging that Dr. Reynolds owned the meaning of the sixteenth Article to be ••ound, pag. 98. This I com∣mend, because Mr. Mountague found a forehead, in his Appeal, to aver that it was by him and the other Ministers challenged for unsound. I wish I had the like occasion to commend him for veracity to the end of his Book? But I have not; for pag. 103, he tells us, that the opposites to the Calvinians were by the grace and favour of King James in∣vested in the chief preferments of the Church of England, con∣ferred as openly and freely upon them as those who had been bred up in the contrary perswasion. This if it be understood of men that had openly declared their opinions against the Calvinian Doctrine, will be found to be an untruth. If any trust be to be given to our printed Catalogues of Bishops, there were in that Kings Reign these Translations, or Consecrations. Canterbury, Richard Bancroft, 1604. G.

Abbot, 1610. Asaph, Richard Parry, 1604. Iohn Hanmer, 1622. Bangor, Lewis Balie, 1616. Bath and Wells, Iames Mountague, 1608. Ar. Lake, 1616. Bristoll, Iohn Thorn∣borough, 1603. Nicholas Felton, 1617. Iohn Scatchfield, 1619. Robert Wright, 1622. Chicester, Lancelot Andrews, 1605. Samuel Harsnet, 1609. George Carleton, 1619. Coventry, George Abbot, 1609. Richard Neile, 1610. Iohn Overal, 1614. Thomas Morton, 1618. St. Davids, Richard Milborne, 1615. William Laud, 1621. Ely, Lancelot Andrews, 1609. Nicholas Felton, 1618. Exeter, Valentine Cary, 1621. Glocester, Thomas Ravis, 1604. Henry Parry, 1607. Giles Thomson, 1611. Miles Smith, 1612. Hereford, Francis Godwin, 1617. Landaff, George Carleton, 1618. Theo. Field, 1619. Lincoln William Barlow, 1608. Richard Neile, 1613. George Moun∣tayn, 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 Bridge∣man, 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 con∣cerning 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 Cal∣vin's, much more differs from Dr. Heylin's. Yet on the account of Overal's, and some others Episcopal pre∣serments, the Historian groweth so confident, as to averr

that his Conditional-decree-men found King James a gra∣cious Patron, and by means of his gracious Patronage, in the end surmounted all difficulties, and came at last to be al∣together as considerable, both for power and number, as the Cal∣vinists 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 impar∣tial 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,